I'm curently doing some investigation regarding to Apollo Hoax conspiracy theory. I was one of the Apollo Hoax believer before, until I find some proofs which awaken my old faith, that we actually have landed on the moon. But, I'm still not fully convinced yet if NASA have landed their men on the moon, so I stay neutral for the mean time. Can someone tell me or give me some links to a good site that explain about the Apollo Hoax theory? And give me some proffs that we actually have landed on the moon. I'm in the middle of big confusion right now, and I hope someone will help me with this.

__________________
The secret of the universe lies within the hand of God

Try my site; linked below.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Nice site

Take a look at this pics:
Pic1
Pic2
Pic3
Pic4
Pic5

NASA claims that these pics are taken from different moon station. But, why they have the same background? Can someone explain about this. And I got these pics from the NASA and Smithsonian websites.

__________________
The secret of the universe lies within the hand of God

Because they were all taken from the same landing site? I'm not sure what your definition of "moon station" is. I believe Jay covers this on Clavius so he can correct me if I'm wrong but you're looking at an optical effect called "parallax" where you have relative background movement based on distance from foreground objects shot from different angles. The less background movement you see the farther away the background object is. You have to remember that the Taurus-Littrow valley is many MILES wide but the lack of atmospheric distortion belies this large distance. So even though you see different AS17 pics with differing foreground angles you may not see the same angle change in background objects.

If you look very, very carefully, the backgrounds are not identical. They're the very distant mountains across a valley that's miles wide. Those mountains are several miles away. As the astronauts move about the valley the mountains change in very subtle ways, but you won't notice it until you try to match the various features -- i.e., light and dark spots -- on the mountains. They don't match, indicating that the mountains really are three-dimensional objects seen from far away.

The technical term for this phenomenon is parallax.

Here are three pictures of the same mountain range near my office, taken from three places about a kilometer apart. Notice how the mountain looks the same at first glance, but if you try to match individual features like canyons or patches of snow, you'll see they're in different places relative to each other.





The conspiracy theorists show you the photos in a way that doesn't let you easily compare the details, and they just assert that the backgrounds are identical. They don't count on you doing your own research.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NASASCAM!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Looking at the photos, I don't see that any of the backgrounds are identical. They look very similar, but I definately would not say that thye are identical. The same can be said of the photos that Jay provided.

You can do a simple experiment yourself. Find an object several miles off in the distance (a water tower, tall building, etc). Then move say a half mile east and then a half west. You'll that it looks similar, but not identical.

I think Jay (I think it was Jay) had a good point once when he suggested that people like he who live around mountains don't think anything is strange about the similar looking but obviously slightly different views of a large mountain in the background, while the foreground can change dramatically.

People who live in relatively flat terrain may not get it right away, but Jay's three pictures with the mountain in the background are an excellent demonstration of parallax.

In fact, those three pictures, along with actually looking at the pictures taken on the moon closely, pretty much destroy the 'same background' theory in my mind.

I wonder what the motivation for any hoax advocate sites to keep things like this as so-called valid arguments that the moon landings were not real? At first I thought that all the hoax advocates were just not doing their homework, but now I suspect some may not even believe it themselves and have some other ulterior motive--something that many here have been saying for a while.

I think I believe it now.

Maybe they simply follow the old rule: Never change a running system.
Why should they change anything when still enough people fell prey to their garbage? Those who see their faults are not the targeted audience.

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Thank you to remind me for that. I'm now closer to pro-Apollo side. But, there are still some evidence that confused me. Here are two movies which are taken from different place. If you watch both movies carfully, you will see that both movies have the same background. I hope someone can explain this one.

Movie 1
Movie 2

Both movie are in .rm format. So, you will need real media to view it.

I still have some intriguing evidence from various Apollo Hoax website. Since I'm the former member of the Apollo Hoax community, I want to solve things that confused me for months. After those movies, I still have a few evidence from the Apollo Hoax website which need to be solved, but I will keep it for later. Let's solve these movies first.

__________________
The secret of the universe lies within the hand of God

I refuse to install RealPlayer, but maybe you talk about this?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...l#backgrounds2

Have you read all the stuff under this link?

And even then: When in stills the background can look the same, as explained above, why not in a movie?

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Sorry, I'm still at highschool and I don't have much time to see articles this week. Lot's of school stuffs. So, everything has been explained. And I now realize that the Apollo Hoax conspiracy theory is bull****. They spread lies to affect the young genertion for not to belive that we actually have landed on the moon. Thanks everyone, you have lead me to the right way. From now on, I will attack those Apollo Hoax communities. I'm now in big interest to see the NASA space programs. I belive that NASA tells the truth.

__________________
The secret of the universe lies within the hand of God

Yah! Another one brainwashed to TPTB way of thinking, ummmm, I mean has seen the light, yeah.... 8-[

Welcome to the board J-Fire_Man. Never be afraid to ask questions no matter how dumb they may seem, and if you don't understand something, well Jay is our resident expert in the Apollo Missions. I some times wonder if there is anything about them he doesn't know, or can't find out and appear to know. Many of the others here know a heap too.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Thank you everyone. By the way, sorry that I used a bad word at the previous post, I haven't read the forum rules, as I said I'm pretty busy right now. Since I'm not an expert on this, I will need some pro to help me. I wonder how old are the people here? 31? 50? 70? I bet lot's pro here. This is a great forums for me. I will tell my friends about this, so they won't walk in the wrong path. The future of mankind is shining brightly. NASA and it's space programs. ONE GIANT LEAP OF MANKIND

__________________
The secret of the universe lies within the hand of God

If you watch both movies carfully, you will see that both movies have the same background. I hope someone can explain this one.

Yes, this is the infamous Nothing So Hidden gaffe.

Conspiracy theorists almost never use primary sources, such as the photographs and film from the actual NASA archives. Instead they try to save time and money by using secondary sources: photographs in books or from web sites, and films made by other people that include NASA footage. The errors made by those private editors -- in this case AV Films, the producer of a short film about Apollo 16 called Nothing So Hidden -- are then attributed improperly back to NASA. AV Films showed two clips that were actually taken on the same day, but the narrator is describing the activities of two different days. The conspiracists didn't verify this in the primary sources, the original videos.

To be sure, AV Films was working under contract from NASA, and I have all the AV Films productions which I bought from NASA. But the intent of the AV Films contract was to produce short films that highlight each mission, such as for school classrooms and other popular outlets. The half-hour films are not intended to be the official record of each mission.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You know, as much as I love reading Jay's posts, which tend to consistantly border on, or step well beyond, absolutely amazing, most of what he says isn't technobabble or voodoo magic. A lot of HB claims don't require infinite knowledge (which I'm starting to think Jay actually has) to knock down, but just a little common sense. You just have to look at every day, normal things, like hills, or photographs, or shadows, to see most HB claims crumble.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Yeah, it's true. It's very interesting. I will be around in this site for a long time since I'm very interested with space things and NASA space programs.

__________________
The secret of the universe lies within the hand of God

I don't have infinite knowledge, but I do have specific knowledge and experience that apply to these questions. And I've developed helpful research skills for the specific question that require them.

I've argued here more than once that the skill most lacking in conspiracists is observational skills. My anthropology professor many years ago said the key to Jane Goodall's success in studying chimpanzees was not her knowledge of anthropology, but her awesome observational skills. She was a clerical worker originally. One of the people she worked for suggested she go into anthropology, which she did. But she brought that attention to detail with her. It was not learned in her anthropology training.

And that's what's wanted here. Oh, the conspiracists will tell you they have sharp eyes because they're able to see all the "anomalies" in Apollo photographs, and this makes them better at observing than all the millions of people who have been duped over the decades. But what the conspiracists fail to observe is the normal drudgery of life. Those who don't live around mountains often don't "get" the aspects of lunar photography that apply to mountains. But many of the people living near mountains don't "get" it either, because they don't pay attention to the piddling details of their daily lives. They focus on the big picture and let all that detail pass by. But if you're going to talk about what's real and what's not, and you're going to base that determination on details, then you had better have paid attention to those details when they weren't "anomalous" so you have a credible basis from which to argue.

A few nights ago coming home from the theater I was stopped at a stoplight and I noticed a particular play of lights off the street sign for the cross street, pointing at right angles to my direction of travel. I couldn't figure out where the light was coming from. I followed the specular direction, but it just led off into the night sky. It wasn't until my light turned green and I started moving that I realized it was spill from my own headlights being preferentially reflected back to me from the Reflexite coating on the sign -- a zero-phase effect.

Your ability to understanding the world depends more on your ability to look at the world and your willingness to investigate it, than it does on any credential.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Infinite knowledge maybe not, but surely you have infinite patience.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.