Hoax believers try to use many different things as evidince that we never went to the moon. None of these things were designed to be used as proof. I'm sure at the time no one would have imagined that anyone in the future would ever doubt that it had happened.

If we had a mission on the moon going on right now, how could we prove it now, and for the future?

Tom

Take the entire population of earth to the moon.

I sure wish this question wasn't moot!

If we did have such a mission -- say, a permanent Moon base -- you still might find a few diehard conspiracists, or religious zealots, who wouldn't believe a word of it. And if we could go back to the Moon tomorrow, there would be a few who would still deny that Apollo did it first.

I wonder, though... could it be that some of the emotional appeal of the hoax theory is the festering disappointment that we, as a nation and species, have largely backed away from the space adventure? After all, it is a bit shameful to have reached so far and then pulled back. Maybe some find it comforting to think that we didn't "wimp out" after all, because we never got there in the first place.

... or bring the moon back to earth with them. This could create difficulties during reentry, though. And where would they put it once they brought it back? They'd have to build a special display case for it somewhere.

So that's out.

Seriously, they'd have to put some kind of enormous structure on the moon (maybe a big corporate logo or something) that you could see from Earth through a telescope.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Telescope? Why not the naked eye? I can see it now:

"Coca-Cola"

Just to reinforce my memory of the Moon program, I just finished watching 4 videotapes of *MOON RACE: The History of APOLLO.* I did not see anything which might give anybody the idea that it was faked. The shadows were all in the right places. The bouncing of the astronauts in their heavy equipment showed that the gravitational attraction of the Moon was much less than that of the Earth.

There was a place in Apollo 15, where Dave Scott (the Commander) simultaneously dropped a hammer and a feather and voila! Both landed at the same time! Now, perhaps it can be argued that the feather was actually constructed of lead and fashioned to falsely appear as a feather (which otherwise would have floated to the ground on any earthly desert movie set because of the slowing due to air resistance).

In addition, the bouncing of the heavy vehicles (rovers) would not have been possible at a western desert location on Earth. Therefore, those people who believe that the Apollo Program was a sham have missed a lot of wonderful stuff.

The only (sadly) stupid/ignorant things I could think about these videotapes were the cigarettes and the cigars which were omnipresent with the ground crews at Mission Control. NASA ought to clean that up for future generations of viewers. However, it would be difficult to hide, because there were so many smokers involved at Mission Control.

Regardless, I cannot find any reason for a disbelief in the Moon Program. I was part of the fascinated NASA television audience all during the Apollo Program, and I have a number of friends who worked with the Apollo Program (support staff). I cannot imagine that the many, many people involved with the Apollo Program could have been hoodwinked. There were many NASA people involved.

I think that the hoax believers have been hoodwinked. Sad....

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

I love NASA documentaries as well. But I wouldn't edit out the smoking and stuff any more than I'd edit out the swearing, you know? If it's historical record, people should know how it was.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Of all the time spent on the lunar surface, this arguably is the strongest evidence that they were in a vacuum. I agree with ljbrs, this could've easily been faked. What experiments could they have done to show that they were in a vaccuum?

I remember watching one of the J missions with my brother. I expressed my disappointment in that the astronauts were not jumping very high, my brother explained this away by telling me their boots were lined with lead, if they weren't they'd go up 50-60 ft. every time they took a step. Of course this made sense to us at the time, me being eight and my brother, nine. At eight years old I didn't think it a sham, I just wasn't impressed and at that time I was easily impressed.

How were they hoodwinked?

ICU

" Of all the time spent on the lunar surface, this arguably is the strongest evidence that they were in a vacuum."

I would think that the 800lbs of rocks and soil samples would be the strongest evidence, but yes to people who dont have the positions necessary to actually handle moon samples, the strongest evidence is the videos, and them being shot in 1/6th G and vacuum.

"What experiments could they have done to show that they were in a vaccuum?"

No experiments necessary, they walked, hopped, and drove the rover enough times to show us that the soil acts as if in 1/6th G and vacuum.


"my brother explained this away by telling me their boots were lined with lead"

And now do you know a better reason? I do.

No historical event can be conclusively established for someone who did not witness it. One merely makes the inductive leap that the chance of the event not actually having happened, notwithstanding the evidence for it, is so remotely small that it is practically impossible.

Now add to this formula the introduction of completely speculative and farfetched hypotheses to explain the existence of the evidence -- hypotheses which, in a serious and diligent investigatiion, would not be seriously considered in the least. With this penchant for anti-parsimony, there can be no proof of a lunar mission, past or present.

The rules of historical research exist precisely so that we do not always wallow in pedantic proofs. More specifically, if someone believes that a historical conclusion is wrong, he is responsible for proving that it happened some other way, not just showing (or suggesting in this case) that it might not have happened the traditionally-accepted way.

Of all the time spent on the lunar surface, this arguably is the strongest evidence that they were in a vacuum.

I agree it is evidence, but I don't agree that it is the strongest evidence. The strongest evidence is often that which is not intended as evidence. I simply watch the rather mundane portions of the EVA footage in which the astronauts aren't doing anythning in particular. Watch how the dust moves, how wrappers fall, etc.

I agree with ljbrs, this could've easily been faked.

Yes, IMO the hammer and feather experiment is the easiest to fake.

What experiments could they have done to show that they were in a vaccuum?

Maybe repeating the hammer and feather experiment, only first demonstrating on camera that the feather really is a feather and not made of some very dense substance.

You could perform some experiments that have to do with the curious phase characteristics of substances in a vacuum.

But even then the hoax crowd would simply come up with some elaborate story to explain how all the proofs were simply fabricated. You can't win. You can only provide enough evidence that reasonable people are convinced. It's not worth worrying about the opinions of unreasonable people.

There's actually a rather impractical experiment which would work for me and my coworkers. I think I've told this story here before. Our building had a six-story stairwell with about twelve inches between the staircases lining it. I had a running bet with everyone in the office. Anyone who could stand at the top of the stairwell and drop a standard U.S. coin and have it hit the floor at the bottom of the stairwell would get lunch on me. I never bought anyone lunch as a result from losing that bet. You would think a quarter would be heavy enough to fall 72 feet in air without deflecting more than six inches from its true ballistic trajectory. Not so. A quarter has enough aerodynamic effect in free fall to depart quite a bit from the true vertical.

my brother explained this away by telling me their boots were lined with lead

LOL! Kids can be amusing. There's video of astronauts jumping pretty high, but they didn't do it a lot because of how far off balance they were. Neil Armstrong said he nearly fell on his back trying to make high jumps, and it was scary enough for him that he quit trying. Except at the end of the EVA where he leaps up to the top of the LM ladder. Most people miss that in the video.

There's a great shot from, I believe, Apollo 16 where one of the astronauts is trying high bounces near the LRV and he does fall over backwards. It's quite funny.

Astronaut trips, stumbles, slides, and foibles are the best evidence of low gravity.

Consider also walking. Watch how they totter to a stop. That's because they're packing 360 pounds worth of inertia, but only 60 pounds worth of traction.

How were they hoodwinked?

I think there are at least two classes of hoax believers, the hoodwinkers and the hoodwinkees. The hoodwinkees are not necessarily to blame for anything except a smidge more gullibility than is healthy. If someone says, "I'm a professional photographer, and these photos can only have been made in a studio," that's a pretty hard thing for a layman not to believe. But when other professional photographers weigh in on the subject and point out just how and why those photos are likely authentic, you realize that your "professional photographer" arguing in favor of the hoax theory is either incompetent or not telling you the whole story. That makes him a hoodwinker.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-08-25 12:53 ]</font>

I do not have much time at the moment (dinner engagement coming up), but I think that the feather/hammer by itself would prove that at least ONE OF THE MISSIONS TO THE MOON WAS NOT FAKED.

I personally think that this whole subject is revolting.

Oh, yes, I guess they can leave the cigarettes and cigars in the videos. However, I did not remember hearing any swearing. Perhaps my ears were not paying attention to these things.

There has not been an instant that I have doubted the Apollo Mission.

I think there are a lot of people who are missing a lot of the excitement in life. Sad.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Back to the OP discussion, if and when we go back, I say we don't even bother trying to establish proof. As Jay said, you can't win. Some people just will not accept it no matter what you do. In fact, any attempt to establish definite proof would just convince some of these guys that we are trying to hide something.

So we should just do what we did before. Document everything as thorougly as we can and let the evidence stand on it's own. Who cares whether some paranoid clowns think it's a fake? Anyone with intelligence and understanding will know the truth.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I'm not sure giving all HBs the moniker of gullible is fair or even accurate. Wouldn't it be more accurate to label them as skeptics? HBs are the ones questioning what apollo defenders deem the truth about the moon landings. If the label of gullible has to branded on someone, wouldn't it make more sense that the apollo defenders get this distinction? They never seem to question anything about the moon landings' authenticity.

ICU

The difference here, ICU, is that HBs subscribe to a body of "evidence" that is shaky and irrational at best, and utterly disprovable at worst. (this evidence, by the way, has been examined, refuted, condtradicted in detail on this board and at clavius.org.)

There's not much "gullibility" coming into play when a person looks at all the film, testimony, records and, gee, moon rocks and says: Yep, it's just as it appeared--man went to the moon. Actual "questioning" of the Apollo missions, in light of this evidence, will arrive at that conclusion.

_________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-08-25 19:46 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-08-25 19:48 ]</font>

I'm not that easily convinced. But that's my problem.

I'm not trying to insult your sense of decency. But I would like to debate this subject as dispassionately as possible with those here.



One man's excitement is another man's coma-inducing boredom. Don't feel too badly for the ones who don't share your interests. They are some who probably feel sorry for those who get 'weepy' or goose bumps whenever they see the white ghostly blobs of Armstrong and Aldrin on the 'moon'.

ICU

What is this 'body of evidence' that's been refuted? I brought up a couple of points that hasn't been refuted yet, not to my satisfaction any how, but pretty much just waved off. Like the selective reflective properties of the LM ascent stage exterior. The difference in colors of the docking lights. The differences of the crinkling pattern of the descent stage's mylar. Want to take a shot at it?


Let's not kid ourselves, the label "gullible" was used to try and shame those who thought that apollo was a hoax. The term doesn't fit.

The OP suggested that HBs not use the things you just used as evidence. It was designed to document the lunar landings and to prove (even if inadvertantly) that they went to the moon. But if HBs find something in the film/photos that seems suspicious, they can't use it because that's not what it designed for. Convenient double standard.

ICU

No, the HB's find some single thing they can't explain in a photo, so assume it's a hoax. We then find 'Earthly' examples of the same phenomenon, usually a lighting anomoly, that turns out to be something that cameras just do wherever they are.

What the HBs don't do is look at the 99 other things in the photo which cannot occur on Earth, so must be of somewhere else.

ICU,

Well, first of all, I might grant you that saying HBs are gullible is an unacceptable term just because it's kind of mean. But that's it.

Second, you've set up a nice straw man there, sir. No one said the images recorded during the Apollo missions couldn't be used as proof of the missions. In fact, everyone who accepts the missions as real will POINT to those images as being proof. The point in the opening post was that HBs refuse to accept those images (and all the experiments, transcripts, etc.) as proof, and if NASA had anticipated anyone not believing they went there, they might have done something to "prove" they had gone to the moon. Like maybe leave laser reflectors there... oh, whoops! They actually DID do that.

Anyway.

As far as the evidence you've suggested, the only one I actually found was your pictures of the Apollo 10 LEM. I'm not a photographic expert, but I do know that objects appear different under different circumstances. Those photos were taken at different angles with the sun in a different position, so it's not surprising that the LEMs appear different. I see, reading down the thread, that a bunch of other people said the same thing.

And I think the key phrase in your post is "... not to my satisfaction, anyhow...." That demonstrates the problem here. No matter what evidence or arguments are presented to the contrary, you're going to believe the Apollo missions were faked.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

The point in the opening post was that HBs refuse to accept those images (and all the experiments, transcripts, etc.) as proof, and if NASA had anticipated anyone not believing they went there, they might have done something to "prove" they had gone to the moon.

Yes. That's exactly right.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with a person having doubts. Some of the arguments HBs have come up with can be quite convincing, until you look at the explanations for them. It just seems like once someone decides it didn't happen they don't want to listen to reason anymore.

But if HBs find something in the film/photos that seems suspicious, they can't use it because that's not what it designed for. Convenient double standard.

I have no problem with using anything. I'm just wondering what we could have done, or could do to provide proof. If we couldn't even prove it if were happening right now,how can we prove it after the fact using
things that were in no way intended to provide proof .



Tom

<a name="JD2452512.USP"> page JD2452512.USP aka US Prez
On 2002-08-25 17:27, David Hall wrote: To: HUb' HUb'
Anyway the Cost of the production {currently under discussion }
Mostly on > 100 speed computers would be my guess }
was NASA ? {1958-1978} was 25 billion $
-----------------------------------------
its also my aproximation 1 guess that the FBI spends
that mych each week here (one Local TV station {gives them[FBI] 24/24)
on the 2 ? Mi$$ing girls case: With thi$ kind of momey"$ being spent here
?//? I would think that Japan has a CoVert Op going as well? {any words 4.it}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-08-26 04:35 ]</font>