Hey guys, I know you'll eat me alive, but after being a Houston Oiler fan for most of my life I kind of got to like the taste of crow.

I've had an amateur site off and on dedicated to this subject for about 2 years now. Most of the time I can disprove what ever it is I happen to find odd but it is still great to look at all of those lunar pics and remember the good ole days of NASA. My father worked there most of his adult life in building number 9 in Houston where they built wind tunnel protos and what not, a lot of mock up making going on.

Someone ask why would Nixon go along with a Hoax? Well, you have to remember, we were about 1.5 years behind the Soviets in the space race in the mid 60's. They had done everything first. But then the US grabbed the upper hand with one of the boldest decisions ever made in Space travel. Shortly before the launch of Apollo 8 (shortly in pre-plan terms) they re-worked Apollo 8 to orbit the moon. It was originally scheduled to test out the LEM in Earth orbit. The success of Apollo 8 putting the USA around the moon first knocked the Soviets to their knees, it broke their back so to speak. That plus an accident of their own bought us some time.

Nixon or any President would have viewed it as the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb. Landing on the moon saved lives and that type of technological superiority not only put the USA as the primary power broker of the world, but essentially was the beginning of the cold war era. If a few of the early missions were faked, it was simply treated as a military action as a covert action. I think we are all aware that there are secrets in the military that go to the grave with those involved.

What always ran up my skirt on this issue is this. Apollo 11 landed and we got the fuzzy / not so good TV pics back. It was still a miracle of science. But then, we had a burned out TV camera on 12, and 13 didn't land. No live footage from the moon for over 1.5 years after Apollo 11 landed. Coincidence? Maybe and probably, but it makes a good scandal and maybe warrants a little thought.

I think what is the most fascinating to me is, I thought the FOX special was a Hoax to debunk the hoax theory. The non believers had some good points, but they mixed in so much crap with it like "not being able to hear the rocket engine in space". Give me a break. Those guys presenting that case were way to intelligent to pursue something like "no sound in space', come on.

Anyway, to get to my point take a look at the pic I post here. See the triangular imprint. Notice the mashed down smooth surface much like a boot print, only the markings are different. Now notice, the dirt spilled onto this print from the landing gear probe. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well, don't beat me up too bad, you have to understand I love our Space Program, I just think some things are a little ODD and/or that we should treat anyone that questions it like a lunartic.

You can directly view the pic at
http://www.hdfed.com/images/as11-40-5917a.jpg

Great Day Ladies and Gentlemen

Uncle Jim
my quote comes from Festus of Gun Smoke....

"I'd rather be hated than not thought of at all."

Welcome to the board! I have an Uncle Jim, but I don't think you're him.

I'm not one of the Apollo experts who will no doubt tell you more than you could have ever hoped (or wanted) to know about that imprint, but I'm awake and bored so I thought I'd write up a brief preliminary reply.

First, I went over to the ALSJ and found the picture there, then I crossreferenced it with the appropraite passages in the journal itself. I reproduce the relevant passage here:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT FROM ALSJ:

110:47:17 McCandless: Roger. Out.

[After finishing the plus-Y pan, Buzz will take some more pictures of the spacecraft. However, during the 1991 mission review, we thought it was Neil who took those pictures, a conclusion influenced, in part, by Neil's statement at 110:46:36 and others that follow.]
110:47:18 Aldrin: It's very surprising, the very surprising lack of penetration of all four of the foot pads. I'd say if we were to try and determine just how far below the surface they would have penetrated, you'd measure (depths of)two or three inches, wouldn't you say, Neil?
110:47:37 Armstrong: At the most, yes. That Y-strut there is probably even less than that. (Long Pause)

[Buzz comes back to the LM near the plus-Y (north) strut and takes AS11-40- 5917 and 5918, which are both close-ups of the plus-Y footpad. Journal Contributor Ken MacTaggart has noticed that the apparent, triangular-shaped imprint next to the footpad in 5917 can also be seen in Neil's full-frontal portrait of Buzz, AS11-40- 5903. In 5903, the "imprint" looks more like marks left by a cable or strap.]

END TRANSCRIPT FROM ALSJ.

So they don't know what that imprint is, but it's no big deal.

Thus usual, and I think effective, counterargument to your sort of claim goes a little something like this: I have no idea what that imprint is, or why there appears to be a couple grains of first on top of it. But questioning the truth of the Apollo missions based on that evidence, and ignoring the uber-preponderance of evidence that it did actually happen, is a weak argument at best.

As for the broken cameras, etc.: This is one of those HB things that tend to get on people's nerves around here. If everything goes perfectly, the HBs say: "How could things go so perfectly on such a complicated mission? That's very suspicious!" If things break they say: "What doesn't NASA want you to see? This is very suspicious."

Regarding those military secrets that go to the grave with those involved: Of course there is no actual way to test your hypothesis, because we only know about the great many secrets that come out. The thing is, most of the secrets that have come out are still unknown to the general public, who assume that there aren't truckloads of Cold War ex-secrets floating around in the government documents sections of their local libraries. I do a bit of work in this area, so I come across fun Cold War stuff pretty often. Furthermore, if all the people working on Apollo, even just the upper echelon, knew it was a hoax, that is still hundreds of people. Hundreds of people don't keep anything secret. If only two or three people knew it was to be faked, and orchestrated it that way during development, the engineers would have figured it out. When you tell an engineer to build X to be able to do Y, that's what you'll get - you'll get a LM capable of doing all the things that you tell the engineers it has to do, even if you are just trying to create a hoax. And of you give them false guidelines, they will figure it out very quickly.

Aporetic

Here's some info on Building 9 at JSC

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_si...g9/index2.html

One thing i have wondered is if it was faked, where did all of those billions of dollars go? There should be some money trail that could be fololowed if it was faked.

So not only does this hoax include the upper echelon, it also includes accountants, bankers, senate financial committie, etc. Much more than a few people. It would not of gone under wraps and hidden from the public.



Sure there might not of been alot of video from A12 and A13. So what? They still have hundreds, if not thousands of pictures from each (i havent looked hard at the ALSJ, so not sure of the exact numbers) in orbit and for A12 when they went on the surface. IT would be very hard to fake all of these photos in a believeable way to most photographers.


ON earth Rock fractures in unique patters. We see perfect cleavage of rocks into sharp angles and shapes like octahedrons and other typoes of columns. I am not sure of the exact composition of lunar rock bit it might frracture along strait line. But again, i am not sure on this.

Maybe the lander skipped for a few uinches before settling. Could that be what it is?

I studied this quite extensively. The lander slid (or possibly bounced) to the left and then rotated clockwise in the instant the footpads made contact. The flat part you see is the part that has been mashed by the footpad. In this picture the footpad has slid probably 18-24 inches from lower right to upper left. And then it has moved a few inches in the direction from upper right to lower left. This pushed the contact probe aft in the trench it had dug, leading to the building up of regolith on the near side of that trench.

We know the regolith responds cohesively to compaction. Then in this case, compacted regolith is strained in the direction perpendicular to the compaction. This will tend to fracture the compacted layer. I believe the feature in question is a web of cracks in the layer compacted by the previous passage of the footpad over it.

I studied the soil mechanics and final disposition of all three contact probes and the three photographed footpads in order to form this opinion.

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

Geez Jay, when do you sleep?

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Geez Jay, when do you sleep? [/quote]

In meetings, like everyone else. Just in case you all think I'm a stiff-collared engineer, I'll be singing in a bar tonight. No, really. And not karaoke, either -- real songs with a real piano player. (The bassist and drummer crapped out. Jerks.)

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

Welcome to the board UncleJim from a fellow Oilers fan.


When I first looked at the photo I guessed the exactly the same thing as Jay concluded with his analysis. Mind you, it was just a guess, not a thorough analysis. What I wonder about is why people even find this photo to be an anomaly? When I look at the plastic wrap on that pad, the crinkle pattern looks just right to make such an impression. And of course the trench naturally seems to me to be made by the surface probe. Nothing so strange about a little bounce or sideways movement on landing.

You’ve come to the right board, we don't treat posters that have questions rudely. Traveling to the moon and living there is a pretty odd and many thing that went on there appear weird to our earthly experience. Stick around and you can learn a tremendous amount from many of the posters here. Some are experts on the moon landings.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

I would look at it another way: most of that money had to have been spent. All the hardware was built, all the operations people were paid. Those who say that NASA made billions off the fakery are talking nonsense (even more than they are already) - NASA would have needed extra money to do the fake stuff in addition to the (presumably) pseudo-real stuff.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I agree, doesn't seem to be that unusual at all.

So are you both Texans fans now?

Fan of the (!) undefeated AFC South leading Indianapolis Colts. GO BLUE!!!!!

Edited: MNF

__________________
If you can't dazzle 'em with dexterity, baffle 'em with BS.

That's one point I also don't understand from the HBs. If I would have to cover up something, I would have broken the Hasselblads, not the tv. The tv from the early missions was so fuzzy, you could see anything (or nothing) in them. But those super-sharp photos would give you a very hard time to fake.

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

Being somewhat of an amateur crooner myself, I'm curious. How did it go? What songs did you sing? What styles interest you? Boy, am I nosey or what?

(added) I was thinking that this was so off topic that a P.M. might be the best way to go. Then, I reconsidered...I'm sure that others here would be interested in hearing answers to these questions.
OK, maybe not the last one.

Why is this photo a question mark, which lends credence to a hoax? I don't see it. Is it because it may look like a boot print? Is that the argument? It could also look like part of the old PanAm logo, but, it's not. I don't get it....

JayUtah wrote:
Are you quite certain that this image shows a fracture as you describe? Couldn't it be simply a direct impression of the mylar wrapped pad, as it bounced along before coming to a rest?

Why is this photo a question mark, which lends credence to a hoax?

Because conspiracists believe the regolith around the footpad should look just like all the undisturbed regolith around the site, without any hint whatsoever of artificial impression. The feature in question appears too regular to be "natural". Unfortunately this is the typical immense leap to a conclusion that we see in all their writings. Something violates one of their assumptions, so it can "only" have occurred by hoax.

Are you quite certain that this image shows a fracture as you describe?

"Quite certain," no. Reasonably convinced; yes. The feature as seen in AS11-40-5903 looks like it has "broken" at the transverse lines.

Couldn't it be simply a direct impression of the mylar wrapped pad, as it bounced along before coming to a rest?

Yes. And it could also be a combination of impression and fracture features. I'm less inclined to believe that the lander bounced, simply because its shock attenuation system was designed not to allow that. It could conceivably have bounced due to some propulsion condition. The evidence is stronger that it was dragged laterally across the surface in at least two directions: sideways and then briefly backward. Dragging, however, would explain the longitudinal elements of the feature -- the ones generally parallel with the contact probe's trench.

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

I guess I never considered a bounce, Neil said they couldn't even tell when they touched down, ran the engine all the way to the ground. Doesn't appear to be a bounce in the video either, but a guess the mount on the camera caused that too (hehehe)

Come on guys, where did the money go? Good grief.

Ok, lets get this straight, a small slide, possible. A bounce, no way. Problem with the slide theory is, there doesn't appear to be "skid marks." Hence, the word, appear. But, there are WMD in Iraq as well, we just didn't find them, right?

Smile people, I know I can't gain an inch here, but I like the hard nosed objective criticism.

A friend of mine is a Houston Homicide investigator. I'm trying to contact him to have the pic analyzed, an unbiassed opinion. You know, it is important to the NTSB when they investigate a crash to not have a "pre-formed" conclusion and look at things objectively. I think we all know neither JayUtah or I have the ability to do that since we already have pre-formed opinions on the moon landing, at least I can admit that much.

In the meantime, here is the link to a page reflecting some of my fathers work, yes, in building 9. If you love NASA you'll like some of the early shuttle proto types being dropped in Ft. Hood from a chopper.

http://www.hdfed.com/awards.html


Good Day All,

Uncle Jim
(I guess its best to be hated than not thought of at all - Festus after being shot in the back while walking home from the Saloon).

(Jay, don't quit your singing job)

Have a little more time to write today.

First of all, one retired Los Angeles detective has told me that a slide is not likely based on the position of the probe. The length of the probe Vs what is visible indicates the LEM came almost straight down, pushing the majority of it directly into the soil, directly under the module. Had the LEM been drifting enough for a significant slide, the entire length of the probe would be bent outward, all of them in the same direction (note, he has not had time to review all of the pics, I shall be fair). Now, we all know the problems they allegedly ran into trying to draw core samples, so the fact that the probe, visibly, drove straight into the Lunar surface, is not likely, or, the core sample was jinxed (happened to be over a tough root or something or, draw your own conclusion.

Look at how much of the probe that is visible, the entire probe is almost six feet long. Estimate how much you see Vs how much is under the surface.

I "shall" try to show all of the evidence to this guy without leading him, I admit that won't be easy, but I'll try.

OK, the money question......My effort isn't saying we didn't go to the moon, I'm saying that a "possibility" exist the first few landings were staged to meet Kennedy's deadline and push the Soviets into technological submission. The money went to the Space Program, hence, all of the successes NASA has been blessed with. The astronauts are not liars, they are fulfilling their commitment to this country in a matter of National Security.

The broken camera issue. Certainly things go wrong. But you have to listen to your gut instincts. Look at the facts, a miracle come back by the USA, an amazing flawless Lunar mission on 11, then, no live pictures for a year and a half. Circumstantial yes, but evidence nonetheless. A small part of a much larger puzzle maybe. It cannot be disregarded, it shall not be disregarded.

OK, why was it we left working cameras on the moon, but never filmed a LEM lifting off until 15, that footage would have been far too valuable to NASA. Tell me, show me where to go to see otherwise, I'm willing to learn. The more wells you lead me to, the more I can dig, and I live to dig when time permits.

Have a great day gentlemen.....

Uncle Jim

One note, the Houston Homicide Investigator is a high school buddy, I haven't talk to him in 7 years, but I shall. The retired LA officer works in my office now. I look forward to getting opinions from both of them.

That doesn't make any sense at all. They would have had to go to the moon first to get all the information they would have needed to fake the first landing. They also wouldn't have been able to bring back all the moon rocks for the first landing without actually going to the moon. The Russians had a robotic sample return mission, but the total return from that was much smaller than any of the manned missions.

I think you are going farther off the mark than the original HB'er, if that is possible.

A few questions for you UncleJim. Why all this focus on this one picture? What are you really trying to show? Why not just look at all the evidence?

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.