Well now your just being combative, I explained this , but i will add detail.
Now I have been watching with curiosity the Mars Rover expiditions. The Rovers send information once a day as they store there camera footage , and system information in memory comsolidate it then transmit when battery power is up . This stream of information comes in at a particular frequency as coded information only deciphered by the recieving computer. It has a set of program rules beging and end , and a number that says how much information is being sent. This Data can not be changed using another program as the end result would show more data than was recieved. So it would be with a lunar probe . I realy dont understand why any of you are threatened with the possibility of concrete proof . As soon as the photos come in , ...Ill have my hat served with fries .Pass the salt

Define "independent." What would that be to you?

Anyway, you are missing the point. I certainly would like to see the landing sites again. But what would be the difference between that and the vast quantity of evidence and images we already have?

That is the question we are asking you. We aren't making an excuse. We are asking you: Given how suspicious you are now, why should we expect you to react any differently if a probe is sent that sends backs still more images? Are you willing to swear that you would accept them as fact? Do you really think the hoax believers would accept them?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

You know something, Maybe it would have worked . Hell Im not a real Hoaxer after all, Im just a sceptic. Maybe we did land on the moon
But, if the hoax did occur , it was not the scientists that decided to go for it.
It would have been either a military move or political, prehaps even Secret Service. Scientists for the most part are terrible liars.

What about people who died without any surviving family members?

As I keep saying, this would have meant they would have had to have built a complete working Apollo program as well as all the additional technology and hardware needed for a hoax. This would have cost far more, required far more people (thousands more, all of whom were in on the hoax), required far more difficult technology, made the likely event of discovery an additional massive risk, and made the failure of the mission far more likely than just doing it for real. It would have required them to murder the apollo astronauts in the event of the mission failing (which would have been at least as likely as if the program was real considering there weren't humans to correct any problems, such as them picking an impossible primary landing site which they did), so they really had nothing at all to gain from doing a hoax. You say it couldn't have failed, but what percentage of probes that we send out fail on the way? A pretty large percentage, and this is with the far more advanced and reliable probes we have today as opposed to thirty years ago. How many manned missions have failed? Not that many. And if it had failed (which it would have when it tried to land a field full of boulders), then they would have had to murder the astronauts who were supposed to be on it. A failure on a probe with a 2-second response time is basically unrecoverable. But what if it had failed with the people on it? Then either thay would have died (which is no different than if the probe had failed, except it would have been an accident instead of cold-blooded murder), or they would have been able to fix the problem and return safely and no one would have died at all (like happened on Apollo 11). So there is either no difference in the chance of failure, or even a decrease in the chance of failure, if they had done it for real.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

I have always wondered about your Quote at the end of your posts it reminds me of a chapter in DEmon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Have you read this book?
Independent , you know I would trust and American Probe at this juncture. But Another Country would be better. Realy Trust me , your vindication is assured . I promise I am not a pig head .

Let me get this straight:
The contractors aren't in on it, so they build hardware that can actually fly men to the Moon, land them, and bring them home.

We have the capability to keep men in space for the duration of a lunar mission.

We have the capability to fly spacecraft to the Moon and separate into separate orbiter and lander.

We have the capability to put a lander on the Moon.

And we don't send men to the Moon. . . Why?

"Assured Success" is not an answer. Robotic probes (which, in your scenario are crucial to the hoax) are far more prone to failure than manned spacecraft. This is because men have the ability to fix or work around problems. They can take the controls and fly out of danger. This happened, repeatedly! In mechanical terms, robotic probes lower the chance of success.

"Assured Success" is also preposterous because there is no assurance that the hoax will not be blown. If a manned mission fails, it could (but not necessarily) result in a set-back. At worst, astronauts get killed and it is a public tragedy, but we still keep trying. Since you bring up the subject of "death-threats" presumably your Evil Conspirators^TM won't mind a few dead heroes. If the hoax gets blown, the nation is thoroughly disgraced, and Evil Conspirators^TM go to jail.

Under the conditions which you stipulate, it is cheaper, easier, less risky and more logical to actually attempt to land men on the Moon than to fake it.

[Edited to add: I've been ToSeeked, er... Black Catted!]

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

But you still have not answered why you would trust photos from a probe now when you do not trust photos from the missions then. There is as much of a motive now to preserve the hoax as there was then to commit it. Remember, the US government is still somehow supressing all the thousands of witnesses, so obviously they must still want to preserve the hoax.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

Ahh welll I knew it was too good to last
Ok back to your scenario of killing Astronauts because the mission failed. The Astronaughts were there in the launching Rocket , they did every thing the previous apollos did but step on the Moon. If the mission failed they would be killed in it. As for the detail of almost running out of fuel , well thats all drama.
I thought I did answer you straight the last time I posted you . Assured Success.
As for Apollo 13 and 1 maybe the hoax was compromised , maybe **** happens
The Cost for the hoax, I cant see costing more than several million , cheap considering the prestige

Is there a reason you spell is Astronaughts instead of astronauts?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

You haven't explained anything. The contractors had prime responsibility for designing and building the flight components. How do you fool all the engineers who designed them? Do you really think that all the engineers at North American building the CM were fooled? What about the engineers at Grummen who built the LM. These guys designed and built these components to work in space and accomplish the task of landing on the Moon. Your idea that only a small cabal perpetrated the hoax is ludicrous.

If you want to get some real education on how Apollo was accomplished, and not the baseless "what if" scenarios you keep positing, there are some very accessible books on the subject. Tom Kelly's book Moon Lander chronicles the development of the LM. Gene Kranz's book Failure is not an Option chronicles the development of Mission Control. Eldon C. Hall's book Journey to the Moon describes the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer.

How do you fool the people who are pointing the antennae to receive data back on Earth. How do you fool all the systems engineers who are monitoring the spacecraft. They would know if the telemetry was fake. Even if you could fake the data, you would still need to do this for the multi-day nature of the voyage. Who created all of this simulated data? Was there a shadow organization of engineers creating fake data? Oh no, the conspiracy just got a whole lot bigger!

What is your basis for this assertion? What specifically prevented the U.S. from stepping foot on the Moon?

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

i have posted answers to all your questions previously. I assure you I know how Apollo occured. I watched it as a boy , and was forever facinated by it. Watching Armstrong set foot on the moon is one of my strongest childhood memories. When I first arrived to this Site It was controled by someone called Moon Man . I read through as much of his information and never agreed with his evidence of Hoax. For some reason Moon Man disappeared , leaving folks to consider That I am truly Moon Man.

In my first Post in this board, I described myself as a sceptic, i would assume that quality is held in high regard in a Science web site. I always , in everything, ask if the information I recieve can be verified. I read News from other countries sometimes if I want to see differing slants. I distrust polls unless I can see that there is are not leading questions, or done for some politcal or product reason. I am Sceptical, I ask Why does that happen, and how can that be?

I will gladly go back and repost my previous posts, as your questions have been asked already and I have answered them.

I Think the most troubling question that you have asked is if a hoax is even possible given special effects needed. Let us prove that a hoax could not be done. To disprove the Hoax, you must pretend your tring to create it.
What problems are you facing , what obstacles do you need to overcome. Pretend money is not an issue. How would you do it.

Well, the evidence points to a moon landing.

If, if, if, what if, what if, what if.

What if we're all living in a dream dreamed up by an alien named Elvis?

What if UFOs visit us in the night, but wipe our memories of their visit?

What if we're all invisible to every other alien, but don't know that until we meet them?

All questions that are fun to stipulate. But none of them should be given any credence. The Moon Hoax theory is one of those types of questions (and isn't a theory anyways).

Ugh. This is the logical error you make.

Let's suppose it was a move made by politicians, and no scientists were involved in it. Why the HELL weren't the SCIENTISTS confused? If a man studies and knows what he's doing, and then the government tells him that something happened that he knows couldn't have happened, then the scientist wouldn't say, "oh, okay.". He'd give facts, figures, and say, "You're either lying or incorrect". If getting to the moon was undoable, scientists would have pointed it out. If we should have done it by remote, scientists would have known. They COULD NOT BE LIED TO, unless EVERYTHING THEY KNEW was ENTIRELY false.

Now.

According to you, it seems that we had all the capabilities to go to the moon. Yet you say we should've used a remote-controlled probe or something.

So why aren't you trying to tell us that submarines are a hoax too? After all, the first submarine didn't use remotes.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

This is my post to Van Rijn who also corrected me you guys got to look at previus pages once and a while

No?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

This is good, but there *are* extremes to everything.

That's good. Just be sure to look at the answers too.

Someone more knowledgable than me will go into this. However, I will summarize:

The ability to fake the moon landing would have been pretty hard to do. Everything from how the dust acts, to the movement to the astronauts, to the effects of Zero G, would've been difficult to do.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

In addition, if NASA (or Nixon, or whomever you think was calling the shots) was willing to kill their own people to keep this amazing secret, why didn't they take out Kaysing, Sibrel, et cetera when they started to become pests?

Hey, this guy is actually looking at some of the 'records'. Go! And make sure it looks like an accident...