[Jeremiah]

A friend of mine challenged me the other day to try to find an explanation for why you can't see stars in any of the lunar photographs. Now I can see why she seemed to be laughing at me because it leads you to articles like this one!

The Skeleton in NASA's Spacesuit

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack White', '.')..Anyone with even elemental math skills and common sense can look at the facts, do the calculations, and come to their own conclusions about the alleged MASSIVE VOLUME of lunar surface photography in such a LIMITED TIME.

Here is my conclusion: IT COULD NOT BE DONE.

It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery, though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three years (and discovered many fakes). Very simply, it amounts to a study known to many businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY. The elementary question is: Was it possible to take the known number of photos (from NASA records) in the amount of time available (from NASA records)? But before you read my study, to understand it you need to know some basic information about the Apollo missions: ...

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jeremiah', 'A') friend of mine challenged me the other day to try to find an explanation for why you can't see stars in any of the lunar photographs.

[Omnitir]

There is plenty of “evidence” the conspiracy theorists use to claim the moon landings were faked. Every single one of these without exception can easily be explained.

In my mind the single most irrefutable evidence proving the moon landings were real is the 600 or so pounds of rock brought back from the lunar surface. These are unlike any rock on Earth, they cannot be faked, and they have been examined by literally tens of thousands of geologists the world over. Not a single one of these scientists have ever claimed that these lunar rocks are anything but the genuine article.

[Jeremiah]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'A')s for the volume of photographs, a number of them were taken by probes with automated methods, many before the Apollo program. You didn't really think they sent people without the slightest idea of what it was going to be like?

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A friend of mine challenged me the other day to try to find an explanation for why you can't see stars in any of the lunar photographs.

[JayBee]

As has been mentioned, the exposure requirements are precise.

I am an astrophotographer and my set-up requires very precise settings. If I photographed an illuminated terrestrial object by night I would be certain of no stars in the background.

Another thing the non-believers point out is the "missing crosshairs".

The astronauts took the old Hasselblad cameras with them, which had crosshairs dotted around the image area and that which showed up on the film. In some photos these are missing. In particular where they are meant to be over an astronaut's white suit. Non-believers say that the crosshairs were painted in afterwards.

Simply, the suit is white and reflects a lot of light thus drowning out the crosshair.

Read this for a full debunk...

[web]http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/[/web]

[Jake_old]

I've got a nice story about the moon landing day.

My parents were at Jodrell Bank in Cheshire (now involved in SETI program).

There were hundreds of people there listening to a radio broadcast, apparently the video images took time to transmit so were not actually live but they did get to see them too.

Very close to the point of landing someone my parents describe as a project manager type person came out of an office, ran down some stairs and in a very excited voice as he ran past said

'The Russians are there, the Russians are there'

My dad thinks it will have been a meteorite which was echoing and distorting the American radio transmission (boring).

My mum thinks it was Aliens (exciting).

They never heard any more about it, but they tell that story all the time, and I believe them.

[holmes]

I look at the photos in Life magazine. There are many anomalies. I look at the moon floor where the landing craft set down. very neat and tidy for such an energy intensive operation. Lack of understanding? shove it up your ass.

[holmes]

The rocket had an engine right? There are no scorch marks. Its fine if they cleaned up the photos. But tell us and do not lie about it. Or on the moon there are no scorch marks as here on earth. does gravity change the rockets heat and energy release. there is not energy released from the rockets on the moon? then how did they get off and on? Tell me that I dont understand the workings of Rockets and the fuel. The moons landscape is fluffy and clean under the rockets. Look at the photos in life magazine. They are big and colorful. I have good vision. maybe its so cold up there that there would be no scorching. Yet there still would be a crater where the released energy blasted it out. No?

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', 'I') look at the photos in Life magazine. There are many anomalies. I look at the moon floor where the landing craft set down. very neat and tidy for such an energy intensive operation. Lack of understanding? shove it up your ass.

[Kingcoal]

The LM engine was shut off while the LM was still descending. On earth, gravity would have accelerated the craft after doing this, but on the moon, with one fifth the gravity, the LM just gently touched down.

I get a big kick out of the reasoning that these people use. Very unscientific.

[malcomatic_51]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', 'I') look at the photos in Life magazine. There are many anomalies. I look at the moon floor where the landing craft set down. very neat and tidy for such an energy intensive operation. Lack of understanding? shove it up your ass.

[PhilBiker]

Neil Armstrong's actual first words when landing on the moon

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayBee', 'A')s has been mentioned, the exposure requirements are precise.

I am an astrophotographer and my set-up requires very precise settings. If I photographed an illuminated terrestrial object by night I would be certain of no stars in the background.

Another thing the non-believers point out is the "missing crosshairs".

The astronauts took the old Hasselblad cameras with them, which had crosshairs dotted around the image area and that which showed up on the film. In some photos these are missing. In particular where they are meant to be over an astronaut's white suit. Non-believers say that the crosshairs were painted in afterwards.

Simply, the suit is white and reflects a lot of light thus drowning out the crosshair.

Read this for a full debunk...

[web]http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/[/web]

[Jenab6]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'T')here is plenty of “evidence” the conspiracy theorists use to claim the moon landings were faked. Every single one of these without exception can easily be explained.

In my mind the single most irrefutable evidence proving the moon landings were real is the 600 or so pounds of rock brought back from the lunar surface. These are unlike any rock on Earth, they cannot be faked, and they have been examined by literally tens of thousands of geologists the world over. Not a single one of these scientists have ever claimed that these lunar rocks are anything but the genuine article.