Does Armstrong sleep well at night?

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
You can see stars from Earth just fine. Why in god's name would they spend billions of dollars to get someone to go to the moon to take pictures of something we can take pictures of on earth?

That's like going to some extremely exotic local and then eating at McDonalds.

And yes, it's next to impossible to fake moon rocks. Unless you can make a rock that appears to have formed over billions of years in an airless and waterless environment, covered with impacts from micro meteors.

There's two thing the very few moon rocks discovered on earth all have in common that make them obvious that they were found here: water erosion and burns from entering the atmosphere.

Hmm, I think you're going to have both sides and everyone on the fence taking issue with this.

Have you never driven out into the countryside to look at the stars? There's your answer.

But let me be more specific. They did not just de-emphasize getting any starfield pics, they didn't get -any-. Again, on one mission they had a UV scope with camera and they've never published any shots of that. This is the function of taking shots in the UV range, incidently.

How do you fake a moon rock?
You just use the standard tricks of stage magic.
Substitute, misdirect, force a card, you name it.

Here's one way. You take a rare type of Earth rock and you put it in a particle accelerator or a special chamber and you bombard it with energetic particles. Then you dry it out using a special furnace. Since you already know how people test for water or erosion you know exactly how to fool the specific tests. Remember we had seen plenty of meteorites. Heck they could start with a meteorite as the initial material.

Then you tell everyone it's from the Moon. Since people had not had samples from the Moon at that time, they're identifying them on the basis of certain assumptions.

So you are controlling the test material, the tests and the test subjects.

So we lend a small powdered sample to a firm for testing. They get the stuff and start to work. If some third grade technician comes to his boss and says 'man, I don't think these are Moon rocks', what do you think is going to happen? They're not going to report that, they're going to fire the tech as a kook.

I can even imagine a funny skit, where the contractors are wheeling off the samples from the Apollo shot. Background is a big official NASA sign looking all imposing and 'in charge'. Suddenly the guy drops the container and it spills the precious cargo, which mixes up with the gravel and sand at the edge of the tarmac. They look at each other nervously. Spotting that the color is roughly the same, they simultaneously leap over and start scooping up gravel and moon rocks both, and dumping them back into the container, like nobody will know the difference.

Just having a big agency like NASA -say- they're Moon rocks has a certain 'cowing' factor.

Of course this is extremely simplified. I'm just saying don't underestimate the skills of an agency with a multi-billion dollar budget (in 1960 dollars).

Here's another way using technical methods:
OK first it helps to have a rock that you are pretty sure has come from the moon.

So you send a team to Antarctica to acquire a 'Moon rock'.
history.msfc.nasa.gov...

Then you see how close you can simulate that exact geology. Even with methods back then I think you could come pretty close. (note that at the height of the Space race VB went to Antarctica personally. He didn't send his #2 guy. He went himself. I find that thought provoking).

In addition they did have unmanned missions.

But let's say that the Russians did bring back actual Moon rocks later. Well, maybe only the first Apollo mission was faked. In the end what they brought back was switched. (I think it's likely that if one was faked the others were also. It depends mostly on finding out just how hazardous the radiation really is.)

One thing I'm trying to get across is that 'The Amazing Randi' a highly respected debunker and ex-stage magician says that in any 'test' they do of things like magic, fakery or mediums that -scientists- are the easiest to fool.

They're not used to things like stage magic so they are perfect subjects. Soviet psychics have been doing this for a long time and had developed some very sophisticated methods for getting around nearly every test they could devise.

So to handle the details the g-ment would just consult their own in-house experts. They already had this in place wrt spying, with elaborate makeup and false identities and so forth from the use in WWII.

In addition, I'm not insisting that any of this occurred. It probably didn't, but it is not impossible.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981

And yes, it's next to impossible to fake moon rocks. Unless you can make a rock that appears to have formed over billions of years in an airless and waterless environment, covered with impacts from micro meteors.

Just to be more concise here, you know we've been collecting meteorites on the Earth for a long time. It's not like we've never seen any rocks from space.

Heck forget NASA, if they were clued in to what kind of testing is done I think a top Hollywood SFX department could create rocks indistinguishable from Moon rocks. Also remember that the size of the specimens they send out for testing are typically very small - vials - not whole rocks.

In addition, note your own comment - 'next to impossible' - well the 'next to impossible' is often imminently possible for a Space Agency with a nearly unlimited budget.

Originally posted by Badge01
Have you never driven out into the countryside to look at the stars? There's your answer.

Yes, and there's your answer, too. They had a lot of stuff to do on the moon and a limited amount of time to do it in. There would be no reason to spend time looking at stars when you can do so in the countryside on earth.

But let me be more specific. They did not just de-emphasize getting any starfield pics, they didn't get -any-. Again, on one mission they had a UV scope with camera and they've never published any shots of that. This is the function of taking shots in the UV range, incidently.

Really?
science.ksc.nasa.gov...
science.ksc.nasa.gov...
science.ksc.nasa.gov...
science.ksc.nasa.gov...
Another (addess too long!)

How do you fake a moon rock?
You just use the standard tricks of stage magic.
Substitute, misdirect, force a card, you name it.

You may be able to fool some scientists, but not all of them. We have sent out samples to be studied by many, many other countries, including ones that don't even really like the US (such as Iran). Not once has a scientist suspected that they came from any place but the moon.

Geology isn't a stab in the dark, it's a pretty advanced study of science and geologists and lunar geologists know what they're doing. I hope you understand if I choose to trust the credibility of every scientist in the world over you.

All you've basically done is make up some magically non-existant process that you think may potentially create a replica of a moon rock, without even explaining how the chemical changes brought about in your wacky process could produce a moon rock.

Can you account for moon rocks never being exposed to water over billions of years? Even if you just 'dry it out', there will still be tell tale signs of water.

Can you account for moon rocks being bombarded by ionizing radiation for billions of years? There's nothing on the planet that can fake that effect.

Can you account for the microscopic craters on the moon rocks formed by micrometeors? There's nothing on the planet that we have that can fake that.

Can you account for the moon rocks outer layer consisting of helium-3, which is an incredibly hard to find and very expensive isotope here on earth?

How can you reproduce the effect of billions of years of exposure to solar wind? We don't have anything that can reproduce this.

All you're doing is posting fantastical 'what if' statements, with absolutely no facts or proof to back them up.

(no intention to sound rude, I'm just typing this pretty quickly )

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

I've been watching Space Week on Discover channel and they have had a lot of moon shows.

When you say that "they said they didn't remember seeing any stars" that is a pretty crazy and damning statement. But, when you put this into context as "they said they didn't remember seeing any stars when they focused their crazy cameras into the solar corona" it becomes a little less crazy and hard to believe. Also, now I understand that those crazy UV cameras Badge keeps bringing up were to be directed at and used to study the solar corona it makes more since.

While I am on the subject of the starfield lets look at that aspect of Badges argument a little closer too. You have to understand that Badge is trying to show that a starfield from the moon is contextual to the moon and so can not be reproduced from the Earth. The big BUT here is though, unmanned robotic trips to the moon could easily have captured that data and it could have easily been passed off as photos from the astros. So, how can that be given as a proof when it can easily be dismissed by someone that does not want to believe it happened? And, we do know that there have been plenty of unmanned trips there right? Or is that in question too?

Van Allen belt radiation. Even Dr. Van Allen said that it would be possible to scoot through that area safely enough given protection and speed. With the metal shell of the spacecraft and the protective suits of the astros, combined with the speed and trajectory of the ship they figured that the astros didn't get anywhere near fatal or dibilitating doses of rads. And apperently they were right.

Moon rocks. There is an estimated 30lbs. of terrestrial recovered moon rocks in exestence (mostly found in Antartica). With collectors (both private and institutional) scrambling for these things and their priceless nature, it is hard to believe that NASA could have come up with 800lbs+ and passed them off as lunar collected. I know, Badges arguement is that we are creating them here ourselves but I think Speakeasy refutes that pretty soundly.

Space station. It was a race remember... We didn't have time for that!

Badge, I really applaude your dropping the "fluff" arguments and going for the hard science arguments, but I think most of your arguments are easily dissproven by hard science fact... And all we are left with is the "fluff" that makes this an acceptable CT for the masses. It's a strange twist because the "fluff" stuff is the easiest to dissprove!

I wrote my professor to ask him a few more questions. He enlightened me a little bit more on his meeting with Aldrin and I found one some things I did not know. Pretty interesting.

- Buzz Aldrin is a Freemason (I think my professor might be as well, but I'm scared to ask him)
- "His journeys in space had certainly altered many of his views on life and his understanding of what is really important and what is not"
- During a public speech he gave, he said that upon returning from space he is more convinced than ever that ET life does exist.
- My prof says that all 12 men are under contract with NASA for life and he believes they are somewhat censored in what they can say in public functions
- Hiring any of the Apollo men for public functions costs $125 k USD payable to NASA, and all arrangements are made with NASA directly.
- Armstrong is extremely shy and almost a recluse.
- Aldrin, and I quote, "has probably never seen a camera or microphone that he could not fall in love with."

Hope that's new to some people. It was definately news to me.

What I find strange though, is despite the two of them being on the moon, there's no proof that its Armstrong and Aldrin. Its just two astronauts with mirrored visors.

We just see footage of them floating in the space shuttle. But never on the moon.

I find this astonishing that the most important event in human history is taking place, and it could be anyone hopping around up there and not who we were told it was. Couldn't NASA have designed face plates that we could see through? Was the logistics so great that it was impossible to leave the moon, so whilst Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins are chilling aboard Columbia, were the astronauts on the moon just agents? Hence the bizarre
look on their faces when they made the press conference?(which amazingly was three weeks after they landed back on earth!!)

I'd also like to hear NASA's explanation of how the astronauts actually fitted in the LEM with their spacesuits on and the door opening inwardly, because it doesn't add up.

The lack of star pictures,
The way sometimes they look like they are on wires,
The uncanny way it looks like they are on earth when the speed gets doubled(no matter what you can say it looks perfect)
The fact that Armstrong is one of the most famous men in history and he could walk down a street unnoticed(I personally find that strange),
The way every astronaut who has been on the moon "retired" shortly after,

No doubt badge could explain all these and more in a lot more convincing and articulate manner.

I think a lot of stout believers of the moon landings haven't seen all the videos that are available, because they would/should have doubts or at least believe that something something doesn't quite sit right with that particular space program.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by thesneakiod]

Originally posted by thesneakiod
The way every astronaut who has been on the moon "retired" shortly after

No doubt badge could explain all these and more in a lot more convincing and articulate manner.

I think a lot of stout believers of the moon landings haven't seen all the videos that are available, because they would/should have doubts or at least believe that something something doesn't quite sit right with that particular space program.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by thesneakiod]

From what I've heard, they were basically "forced" to retire after, which actually ended up screwing them up a bit because it made them feel useless.

I agree that alot of things don't sit right but realistically, you can find something wrong with every major event in the history of humankind.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
The way every astronaut who has been on the moon "retired" shortly after,

It is my understanding that they have all been officially declared 'National Treasures'. And as National Treasures they must be protected and are not allowed to be in danger. It literally took an act of the Oval Office to get permission for John Glenn to fly on the Space Shuttle a few years back.

They are, from what I understand, LIVING NATIONAL TREASURES.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
"Why hasn't anyone else been to the moon",

Because the aliens won't allow it. IMHO
YES .. I believe there is contact and dialog between them and the government.



[edit on 5/11/2007 by FlyersFan]

While I am on the subject of the starfield lets look at that aspect of Badges argument a little closer too. You have to understand that Badge is trying to show that a starfield from the moon is contextual to the moon and so can not be reproduced from the Earth. The big BUT here is though, unmanned robotic trips to the moon could easily have captured that data and it could have easily been passed off as photos from the astros. So, how can that be given as a proof when it can easily be dismissed by someone that does not want to believe it happened? And, we do know that there have been plenty of unmanned trips there right? Or is that in question too?

Whargoul, good post(s).

I think you have some excellent arguments and I really have to give you credit. If they did have unmanned missions and there were facilities to get some long exposure shots of the starfield, then, sure, they could be passed off those as photos from the Astronauts.

But I have to ask, where are these photographs?

In addition, once they set up the initial 'lie', and we saw the Apollo 11 shots, it would be foolish to suddenly see things on the other missions (manned or unmanned) which would contradict those, right?

So while you put a dent in the argument, I'm still very puzzled by the lack of astronomical time-exposure photos from that period of time, from the Moon, manned or unmanned.

Do you get my point that getting some time exposure starfield shots would have been one of the top priorities? I mean it's like having the opportunity to get Hubble-like photos of the stars and the planets 30 years before Hubble was launched?

You know they took 5,771 photos, right?

Actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:
Apollo 11............121
Apollo 12............504
Apollo 14............374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
www.aulis.com...

Again, please remember, I characterize myself as 'on the fence', wrt the Apollo missions.

I'm not sure if they hoaxed all the missions, just Apollo 11, or if they did the missions but had to take new photos on Earth when the film was blurred and ruined due to unexpected radiation or a combination of these.

So I am not someone who refuses to believe or who does not want to believe.

One reason I keep looking and keep posting is that I'm actually trying to disprove my own contentions, partly by developing some 'logic' for the arguments (for or against) as I post.

The best way to have something debunked is to post what you think out in the open.

All I really ask is that people who are interested in and who post on this thread do what they can to watch all the relevant hoax videos. I've found the majority on the 'Net for free at either Google video, or youtube.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
What I find strange though, is despite the two of them being on the moon, there's no proof that its Armstrong and Aldrin. Its just two astronauts with mirrored visors.

We just see footage of them floating in the space shuttle. But never on the moon.

There are a few pictures where you can see their faces on the moon. Check one of the many photo archives available online or do a simple google image search. In addition, no one is going to take your 'debunking' seriously if you claim that the space shuttle had anything to do with the moon missions.

I find this astonishing that the most important event in human history is taking place, and it could be anyone hopping around up there and not who we were told it was. Couldn't NASA have designed face plates that we could see through? Was the logistics so great that it was impossible to leave the moon, so whilst Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins are chilling aboard Columbia, were the astronauts on the moon just agents? Hence the bizarre
look on their faces when they made the press conference?(which amazingly was three weeks after they landed back on earth!!)

Chillin' aboard Columbia, which didn't even exist then? I'd imagine that wouldn't be possible.

Also, it sounds a bit ridiculous what you're proposing. Your saying that we spent all the time and money to get to the moon, but for some reason sent different people onto the surface than the ones who spent years training for this mission? That's not even a conspiracy, that's just a really bizarre idea.

I'd also like to hear NASA's explanation of how the astronauts actually fitted in the LEM with their spacesuits on and the door opening inwardly, because it doesn't add up.

How doesn't it add up? Can you provide proof that they wouldn't be able to make it out of the door? Diagrams and schematics of both the lander and space suits are available online, so it should be quite easy for you to show me how it would impossible for them to get out (especially since we have video of them getting out).

The lack of star pictures

Google 'how exposure settings on cameras work'.

The way sometimes they look like they are on wires,
The uncanny way it looks like they are on earth when the speed gets doubled(no matter what you can say it looks perfect)

No way. Do you know how much those suits weigh on earth? They weigh 180 lbs. Do you think they would be freely bouncing around in earths gravity carrying around 180 lbs of weight? Those are some strong astronauts!

The fact that Armstrong is one of the most famous men in history and he could walk down a street unnoticed(I personally find that strange),

Show that he walks down the street unnoticed. I would certainly notice him and I'll bet many other people would, too.

The way every astronaut who has been on the moon "retired" shortly after,

Already explained...

Originally posted by Badge01
In addition, once they set up the initial 'lie', and we saw the Apollo 11 shots, it would be foolish to suddenly see things on the other missions (manned or unmanned) which would contradict those, right?

So while you put a dent in the argument, I'm still very puzzled by the lack of astronomical time-exposure photos from that period of time, from the Moon, manned or unmanned.

Do you get my point that getting some time exposure starfield shots would have been one of the top priorities? I mean it's like having the opportunity to get Hubble-like photos of the stars and the planets 30 years before Hubble was launched?

I still fail to see how this is proof of a conspiracy. Because they didn't take pictures of something you want them to take pictures of, you think it's fishy? Remember, the purpose of this mission was to get to the moon and study the moon primarily. Sure, they did a few extras if time permitted, but the main focus was the moon, not the stars.

Oh, and just for fun, another picture taken from the UV camera on Apollo 16...

www.astr.ua.edu...

Do you get my point that getting some time exposure starfield shots would have been one of the top priorities? I mean it's like having the opportunity to get Hubble-like photos of the stars and the planets 30 years before Hubble was launched?

Pictures taken from the Hubble take 100+ hours of exposure time to take. If the hubble were on the earth (or the moon), it would not remain in a stable enough position for that length of time to take a clear time exposure picture. The reason it's a satellite is so it can remain steady for a long period of time and continually focus on one area and not be moved by the rotation of the earth (or moon).

In other words, it would be impossible to get Hubble like pictures from the moon or the earth.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981

Do you get my point that getting some time exposure starfield shots would have been one of the top priorities? I mean it's like having the opportunity to get Hubble-like photos of the stars and the planets 30 years before Hubble was launched?

Pictures taken from the Hubble take 100+ hours of exposure time to take. If the hubble were on the earth (or the moon), it would not remain in a stable enough position for that length of time to take a clear time exposure picture. The reason it's a satellite is so it can remain steady for a long period of time and continually focus on one area and not be moved by the rotation of the earth (or moon).

In other words, it would be impossible to get Hubble like pictures from the moon or the earth.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

I think that Badge has a perfectly legitimate point here, erroneous but legitimate none the less. They should have taken photos on the moon of the stars in the sky. That would have been great. They actually explain why they didn't in AFTHOTWTTM: They didn't take the right kind of camera!

You can't see the stars in the pictures of the astros because the shutter speed and aperture were so extreme to deal with the bright conditions (also why these guys are wearing visors all the time). Those cameras were "preset" for their needs in documenting their efforts, so even if they would have pointed up and shot them, it would have been black.

Now that I have seen the show, I have to say it is pretty freaking ridiculous. BUT, they got a nice English lady to read the script so it sounds very authoritative! My big question is if that one real of film from those 3 days time is so damning, why don't they release it and not just include it as a segment in a mocumentary?

The comments about the space shuttle and columbia were meant as a joke speakeasy.

Please provide a link were you see Armstrong and Aldrins face whilst they are ON the moon.

I think it's clear to everyone that by 'Hubble-like' I simply mean much more dramatic and star-dense than we see on Earth. It's simpler to say that than to type out 'much more dramatic and star-dense than we see on the Earth' each time.

I never said that ANYTHING I posted was proof of a conspiracy. It's not up to me to prove there was a conspiracy.

It's up to NASA to have independent verification of their landing just like every other accomplishment, such as being first to the Poles or first to summit Everest.

Perhaps you read my other comment about the star field photos? I find it strange that they didn't take one time-exposure shot of the stars while on the Moon. I never said that proves they didn't go. I did say that this was one thing that would be impossible to fake with 1960s technology, and I'm not the only one who has suggested this.

Thanks for the UV shot of the Earth. What mission was that from?

Originally posted by whargoul

I think that Badge has a perfectly legitimate point here, erroneous but legitimate none the less. They should have taken photos on the moon of the stars in the sky. That would have been great.

Thanks...I think.

They actually explain why they didn't in AFTHOTWTTM: They didn't take the right kind of camera!

Well, gee, why not rectify that on subsequent missions?

Now that I have seen the show, I have to say it is pretty freaking ridiculous. BUT, they got a nice English lady to read the script so it sounds very authoritative! My big question is if that one real of film from those 3 days time is so damning, why don't they release it and not just include it as a segment in a mocumentary?

I'd have to re-watch that one. It's not the best one, if I recall correctly. I think the 'What Happened on the Moon' doco one of the best. It's been a while. I'll try to rewatch them over the weekend and see if I can get some more specifics.

If we stipulate that all the 'fluff' about flag waving and shadow parallels are just mis-evaluation and misunderstanding of photo analysis, did you find -anything- even mildly compelling or doubtful on that video?

Are we really ready to dismiss the dangerous amount of radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Remember, one of them actually shows the recent news broadcast that recounts the VA belts are more dangerous than originally thought.

Again, I really appreciate your input. Actually I'd be thrilled if I could have my doubts assuaged and could jump off the fence onto the side of the scientists. (for one thing I'm a laboratory scientist by trade)

*(Oh, I have to give you props on recognizing the way they used that English-speaking narrator to give the documentary more credibility, LOL. Using an authoritative speakers was quite clever and that didn't escape me either.)

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by thesneakiod
The comments about the space shuttle and columbia were meant as a joke speakeasy.

My apologize. You never can tell on a board like this.

Please provide a link were you see Armstrong and Aldrins face whilst they are ON the moon.

Let me see what I can find real quick...

(hi-res)
Aldrin
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Buzz:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

This site may help a bit more...
whizzospace.com...

Originally posted by Badge01
I think it's clear to everyone that by 'Hubble-like' I simply mean much more dramatic and star-dense than we see on Earth. It's simpler to say that than to type out 'much more dramatic and star-dense than we see on the Earth' each time.

I never said that ANYTHING I posted was proof of a conspiracy. It's not up to me to prove there was a conspiracy.

It's up to NASA to have independent verification of their landing just like every other accomplishment, such as being first to the Poles or first to summit Everest.

Perhaps you read my other comment about the star field photos? I find it strange that they didn't take one time-exposure shot of the stars while on the Moon. I never said that proves they didn't go. I did say that this was one thing that would be impossible to fake with 1960s technology, and I'm not the only one who has suggested this.

Thanks for the UV shot of the Earth. What mission was that from?

It was from Apollo 16, which is the only mission that they brought a UV camera with them.

I just found a better picture of the stars from that mission, but it's super small. Let me see if I can track down the high res version from the Apollo Archive. They didn't give me a reference number for the pic, so it may take a minute.

Speakeasy they are great pictures Its weird though how they can have brilliant detailed pictures of them standing there doing nothing, yet have the most atrocious quality of video of Armstrong first stepping on the moon.

Have you seen "it was only a paper moon" speakeasy? Jim collier goes into
detail of how and why they wouldn't have fitted in the LEM.
I'm not going to sit here and type hundreds of words on it when you could simply watch the video.

You still haven't explained the double speed scenario, you just can't argue that their suits are heavy.

Have you seen the video of one of the astronauts trying to get up off the floor, then seems to be almost flipped on to his FEET by what looks like wires?Excellent moon landing PROOFS

It doesn't look like 1/6 gravity there. Its looks like he was dragged up. If you look closely, you can actually see the glint of a wire above his head and backpack. There is tons of videos where wires are blatantly apparent.

There is also a clip of footage where on two separate missions were they are meant to be miles apart, you can clearly see the SAME terrain.
Do you have an explanation for that?

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981

Please provide a link were you see Armstrong and Aldrins face whilst they are ON the moon.

(hi-res)
Aldrin
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Buzz:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

This site may help a bit more...
whizzospace.com...

Great job on finding their faces...though I'd have to do some recognition work on those to show that's really them, I'm not going to dispute that - they're clear enough that a researcher could prove it.

I'll have to say you've done a reasonable debunking of 'substitute Astronauts', and I'll drop that as a possible scenario.

Glad to have you here in the thread!