bazza:
?I have no doubt that the lunar landings were hoaxes. A scientific and logical examination of the facts and data cannot lead to any other conclusion. Scientific process must not be polluted by the emotional stress caused when the results of that process are psychologically traumatic. In this case an untruth on a truly global scale.
To believe that the landings were real would require a suspension of logic and intelligence of breathtaking proportions.?
?here a a few questions on the subject. The list of "excuses" often recited like some sort of mantra whenever these questions are asked is usually deafening. Loud they certainly are but are devoid of serious scientific study.?
Response:
People who circulate these questions are kind of like Creationists; lists of questions (parroted from others) are posted and when an answer is given, its ignored as being false no matter what the fact may be.
The people who believe the landing to be a hoax usually says they want proof of the landing they can see for them selves before accepting it to be a historical fact. At the same time they do not hesitate to believe the ?FACTS? in the kind of listing Bazza provided as proof against the historic event.
But let?s see, I?ll answer the questions that I can answer.
I have a feeling that responding is a waste of time since I suspect any straight forward factual answer or any suggestion that the moon landing actually took place, will not be accepted. But I had some time to kill.
I apologize for the length of this posting.
Bazza, I assume you did not compile this list yourself, but pasted it from some other sites since I recognize quite a few of them almost word for word. You do seem to be one of the persons who believe the landing to be a hoax and I will address the questions as if you asked them yourself.
Bazza
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant".
Response:
This is one of the most idiotic questions. This has nothing to do with what any SKEPTIC says. This is how photography works knucklehead. Get a couple of things straight ? the human eye/retina/brain and a camera/lens/film/development are two very different systems.
To photograph stars you need a LONG exposure time.
To photograph a bright moon landscape you need a short exposure time. Hence ? no stars visible.
No scientific study needed, only photography lessons and or experience. If you don?t believe this you can try it your self: Get out on a dark night when you see a lot of stars. Make sure it at a location that has no lights for miles for best results. Take pictures of the sky. Also put a person or an object in the foreground and illuminate with a flashlight take more pictures. Develop the film and count stars.
Bazza:
?See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface.?
Response:
Where are the pictures ?you? have reproduced? Without seeing these I can only guess that the pictures have been processed to show the stars. It looks better that way you understand ? is that considered a hoax? (those pictures where almost certainly also accompanied with some mentioning of processing on the NASA site). Are you aware of what kind of processing it takes for the Hubble telescope pictures to produce such fantastic results. Is Hubble a hoax?
Bazza:
?And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon??
Response:
Answered above. If they wanted to take pictures of stars, they could, but they would need long time exposures of the sky only. A long time exposure with any landscape visible would over expose the film. A double exposure would accomplish the task. First take the long exposure (may also require a mechanism to track the stars) and then, without forwarding the film take a short exposure of the landscape.
Bazza:
?The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.?
Response:
No, knucklehead. Yes, the answer is simple and already explained above.
The parallax is negligible between the earth and moon to detect star constellation
distortion.
The simple answer is that they did not bother trying to get the right exposure
to take pretty pictures of the stars. They were on a MOON EXPEDITION.
Bazza:
?2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected??
Resoponse:
Hmm, Maybe this is the most idiotic one.
WTF? Why in the world would oxygen melt camera covers?
Why was Michael Jackson not affected by SLEEPING in a tank with pure oxygen to ?.. well, I don?t know why he did that ? health reasons, skin complextion?
Maybe he did not have any melting Hasselblad camera cover in there?
SHOW ME a scientific explanation on why camera covers melts in pure oxygen.
Better yet, you can easily conduct an experiment yourself. Get a Hasselblad camera cover (better make sure it?s a Hasselblad cover, maybe other covers don?t melt in pure oxygen, chuckle) and then put it in a container with pure oxygen. Observe.
Bazza:
?3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away??
Response:
?There should have been a substantial crater blasted out? (My underlining).
TELL ME WHY there should have been.
If a helicopter lands in snow or sand (they can do that you know), there are no foot prints leading from the helicopter when the crew leaves and nobody knows why? bwa ha ha.
Seriously, some dust was probably swept away. The footprints are still there. Some closest to the lander base may, after the take off, be a little fuzzy.
Bazza:
?4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)?
Response:
I have never heard any skeptic claim this. Is this a skeptic who think space flight is a hoax? Fuel used by any rocket engine used in space has components to supply the oxygen needed for the combustion.
Bazza:
?5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.?
Response:
This is a FALSE STATEMENT. No air or liquid needs to be present to allow compression of sand or dust to produce a footprint. If you are going to copy questions and statements, read them first and think about them. This one you can also reproduce yourself in a physics lab using a vacuum chamber and flour for example. Not much scientific research here either.
Bazza:
?6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.?
Response:
Here you show your likeness to the creationist crowd, thinking that magic must be involved. No, this is what we reasonable people would call evolution. In this case it is evolution of broadcast techniques based on earlier experience and new development. Not a lot of science research needed for this one.
Bazza:
?7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background??
Response:
I have not seen this in pictures. Would you present samples?
Bazza:
?8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).?
Response:
I have seen some photos presented with this ?non parallel shadow? issue. To me
It just looks like shadows falling on non flat surfaces creating an illusion of not being ?right?. In some of the pictures it is hard to see that the ground is not flat due to the intense sunshine. In others I have seen shadows created by reflected sun light from the LEM or an astronaut in a white suit. Also, take a photo of railroad tracks. You KNOW they are parallel but does it look like it in the photos? Same thing.
Not a lot of scientific research needed here.
Bazza:
?9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it??
Response:
I?ve seen this question before many times. It?s been explained but as usual the explanations is ignored. Fiber on the lens at copying time. There are other copies made without the ?C? looking fibre.
Again, not a lot of scientific research needed. Just photo lab experience.
Bazza:
?10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry??
Response:
What does the Gemini program have to do with the so called ?moon landing hoax??
Why do you think the whip antenna was made of fiberglass?
Can some types of fiberglass withstand tremendous heat?
Can the whip antenna have been made out of something that looks like fiberglass?
Why don?t you write and ask NASA?
What is a whip antenna anyway?
Bazza:
?11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.?
Response:
Here you go again with your, this or that WOULD happen. Based on what scientific fact? In this case you state that the sunshine would rapidly overheat the capsule.
Maybe if it does not rotate. But it did rotate. What are you basing that statement on. I have to admit that I don?t know the physics on heating/cooling capsules or a space suit. Maybe someone else can fill me in on this.
Bazza:
?12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested??
Response:
What kind of BS is this? Who told you the LEM was never tested? That?s just incredible stupid to believe. It was not tested in moon gravity since we don?t have much of that around on earth. If I recall correctly, the LEM was tested in the desert in normal gravity. I recall seeing some footage in TV of these tests. But other simulations were made as well.
Not much sciensce to research here either. As of matter fact, I?m sure you can find out details on testing from NASA but I guess you?ll assume they are LYING.
Bazza:
?13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.?
Response:
And this proves??. What? Did anyone at Huston control go:
Armstrong, we want you to jump as high as you can. What, that?s all you can do? 19 inches? Nobody will believe we went to the moon if they can?t see you jump 10 feet straigt up. Now COME ON, put some backbone into it.
I recall, yes I?m that old, the concerns about astronauts feeling light and tempted to fool around. They needed to be very careful because they still had the same mass of body weight plus equipment (suit and backpack). Inertia can do funny things to you if you don?t pay attention. Maybe, if you pay attention in physics class, you?ll learn more about this. Not a lot of new ground breaking scientific research needed here.
Bazza:
?14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.?
Response:
See response to #13.
Bazza:
?15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.?
Response:
What is the base for this statement?
If the landing was a hoax, would such and obvious flaw have been overlooked?
I can?t prove it mathematically but I?d say that the statement is incorrect.
They were extremely careful operating the rover to avoid any accident leading to possible injuries or even loss of their own life. Again here you only need to calculate the forces involved, which I admit I?m not able to now. Someone?
Bazza:
?16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already??
Response:
Here is a bunch of crap information. First. Who was the ?astrophysicist who has worked for NASA?. That is just put in there to sound credible.
The old ?Russian scientists?. Do you also believe the discoveries The Weekly World magazine reports when ?Russian scientists? finds aliens in Siberia. WHO WERE the scientists.
If all these discoveries were true, don?t you think there would be a larger outcry about the moon landing than a few oddballs on the internet?
If in fact NASA is planning to start a project to test lunar radiation levels, could it be that they now have better equipment to test with? Should they stop being cautious because astronauts made it back ok 35 years ago? Maybe they want to examine risks for longer expeditions?
Or MAYBE it?s just BS and they are not planning this at all?
If you really wanted to find out about radiation protection, why don?t you contact labs you would trust and just ask them?
Bazza:
?17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.?
Response:
He He. ?There should have been?. This is just too much. You don?t think a zipper can be airtight? They HOAXED the airtight zipper?
Bazza:
?18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.?
Response:
Ha, Ha, Ha. again: ?would have looked??. No base in facts. Just blurted out.
Who told you that fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees were EASILY bent. They were not. These space suits have much in common with commercial diver suits. These are also pressurized. They actually work under MORE EXTREME environment than the astronauts. Are these divers a HOAX? Go see these divers for yourself.
Bazza:
?19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.?
Response:
I don?t know what to say about this one. What?s with the ?official? measurement from NASA? Lets see. The ?Paper Moon? guy measured a replica of the LEM and find it differs from the ?Official measurement?. If the landing was a hoax and the door was too small, did they have a larger LEM during the HOAX filming and left a smaller replica at the The Space Centre in Houston? Or did they make smaller suits using smaller actors and then made larger suits for the museum that does not fit the replica?
That?s just silly Bazza.
Moving on??
Bazza
?20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.?
Response:
?should have?. Why? And why would NASA produce air conditioner backpacks that produces frequent explosive vapor discharges?
How does this support the hoax believers?
Bazza:
?21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.?
Response:
I have seen that footage several times. The flag moves when the pole is handled. Why should it not? Even shortly after, wile the metal pole is still swaying, the flag moves. Why should it not. After left alone, it does not move. You don?t need ANY scientific research to see this.
Bazza:
?22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.?
Response:
What the heck does Gus Grissom joke with the control center have to do with tracking a departing LEM? If you take the time to check all jokes between any astronaut and the control center(there were many), I?m sure you can find some connection to the Kennedy murder as well.
As for tracking a departing LEM. Oh, that seems tricky. I wonder how those model planes flying around are controlled? Hmm, how are those target seeking missiles find their target. I?m sure the engineers at NASA found a simple solution for that. I could do it you know.
Here Bazza reveals that he now what Grissom was thinking:
?This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race?. To me it sounds like most of the jokes between astronauts and the engineers; a lot of poking fun at each other.
Bazza:
?23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission??
Response:
Holy cow, That?s it. A guy (the admin guy) quits JUST days before the mission. I say, it must have been a HOAX.
Ever heard of politics in the office? This was a high prestige and high pressure project. You don?t think people got hired and fired and quit during this project. Get real man. Now, if the entire control crew had walked out just before launch and the mission went OK, then I too would have raised an eyebrow or two.
Bazza:
?24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.?
Response:
What is the source of this information. Surely not only from some web site? Thousands of hobby radio enthusiasts and other countries spy resources could not find the source of the communication came from earth orbit and not from the moon? Are you trying to say they were all in on the hoax. Get a grip.
Radio signal tracking is easy to perform. If the signal comes from orbit, chances are they come from orbit. If the signal comes from the moon, it comes from the moon.
Do you really for one second think that the rest of the worlds radio fanatics and above all the Russians, would not scream BLOODY MURDER if the signals did not originate from where the should. This is a LAME argument for the hoax stupidity.
Bazza:
?25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
Response:
The human eye can simply not see this kind of radiation. Bunch of crap.
What is this sentence saying?
?Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away?. Hundreds of miles away from what? Explain this a bit further please.
Another little fact you may have missed. The space shuttle was not designed to enter the Van Allen Belts. The Apollo vehicles were designed to fly through twice.
Bazza:
?26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!?
Response:
They let Gus?s son in on the accident scene? Gus?s son has forensic evidence of what? That a fire took place? Was it arson? Why has he not stepped forward with it, especially if the government has tried to destroy it. How is it known that he has this ?evidence??
This information is just great. No source (as usual) and the story is just too stupid ?
holding on to the evidence ? WHY.
Bazza:
?27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
Response:
CNN reports are always correct??. Trust them. They always critically examine new scientific reports before reporting.
Let?s say that some scientist claimed to have discovered this phenomenon.
The hoax believers obviously draw the conclusion that this finding was correct and anyone passing through the Belts would get seriously affected and thus, since none of the moon astronauts showed any affect, the landing must be a hoax.
What if the finding was not exactly as stated. This does happen a lot after peer reviewing findings. How often do you see CNN reporting scientific findings that was once news worthy but later found to be not so spectacular.
We can just as easily say that the finding of the ?killer electrons? is a hoax because the moon astronauts showed no affect.
Bazza:
?28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.?
Response:
And the point is?
They had the latest in what computing power was available for this task. They had what it took for the mission. Would they have been better of with better computer technology? They would probably have loved that and felt better about simulations too.
Bazza:
?29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go??
Response:
This has been discussed so many times as anything else in this list of Hoax ?evidence?. It have been established that even the Hobble telescope can not resolve
Artifacts left behind. So, no, you can?t see them. Not yet.
They are still using instruments left behind. Go figure that?.
Bazza:
?30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.?
Response:
Oh COME ON. Who came up with this? When did NASA announce this? If NASA did not, then WHO? And on what grounds was it determined they don?t have the technology?
What they do not have is: FUNDING. Get this straight. FUNDING. You understand?
M-O-N-E-Y. Of course the technology exists. They have more technology now than they had then (in the days of the moon landing).
Do you think it takes LESS technology to send a vehicle to Saturn and successfully send a probe to Titan and get pictures from its surface. NASA is still navigating Cassini around Saturn for continuous findings. Do you think it takes LESS technology to put two rovers on Mars (largely put together from off the shelf components) and drive them for a year (initially planned for 90 days) on a limited budget.
If there is no FUNDING for a moon expedition, there is no reason to use the technology (that the DO have) or even develop new and better technology to put a human on the moon.
Bazza:
?31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".?
Response:
Another piece of information given with absolutely no backup. Who guarantees whatever film evidence was shown is authentic and what it actually depicts?
The training the astronauts went through was pretty detailed. I remember watching
Reports on TV on how they trained. I was very much into the moon landing project at that time and watched TV about it as often I could. They had moonlike sets to practice all experiments they needed to perform. They also practice in the desert for moonlike landscape. Some of these reports (films) could probably be used today to claim that everything was staged.
Bazza:
?32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments??
Response:
Sigh! Who claims any blueprints were destroyed? Why is it believable that they were destroyed? Because it was a hoax and the blueprints was not detailed enough to be real?
If you worry about lost blueprints, don?t fret. Lunar Module 2 (LM-2) built by Grummans (never flown of course) is on display at the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC. It?s the real thing.
LM-9 On display at the Kennedy Space Center (Apollo/Saturn V Center). It?s the real thing.
There are also other partially completed LM?s on display in some other locations.
So if you can?t get the blueprint, you can always look at a real one and reverse engineer it if you have the time.
To conclude, the questions raised by the ?hoax believers? are rather lame I think. All items in this list are easily dismissed. Bazza says the questions are raised but ?are devoid of serious scientific study.? I say most of these questions are not a problem at all for people who graduated school and were awake in physics class.
Now, if the landings had been hoaxed for real. THAT would have been an even greater feat than the missions themselves in my mind. So many people to control and make sure they stick to their story.
HEY, maybe Kennedy was killed because he was planning to reveal that he suggested to fake the whole thing to begin with. I think I?ll start a web site with this ?theory?. I?ll charge for access of course, I?ll be rich.
In a later post from Bazza:
?Another comprehension problem I have is trying to believe that humanity could "forget" technology on this scale and at this level. Supposedly mankinds greatest scientific acheivement and you expect me to believe that we have "forgotten" how it was done? It would be easier to forget how to construct automobiles, ships, aircraft etc!!?
Response:
As I said before. NO, the technology is not forgotten. Just not used now because there is no __________ and therefore no reason to use it and develop upon it.
(Can you guess what goes into the blanks?)
I hope I have helped your comprehension problem a little bit.
Earlier stated by Bazza:
?To believe that the landings were real would require a suspension of logic and intelligence of breathtaking proportions.?
Response:
No Bazza, you only need to pay attention in class and maybe take up photography as a hobby. It seems to me that you are the one who have suspended logic and intelligence. A temporary measure I hope.
