I can't find an online version of that Fox special but I have evidence it aired
http://www.spiceisle.com/talkshop/messages/81228.htm (Google "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?") I thought he linked to it but the link expired.

Oh, Luigi, this was a nationally televised documentary. By your definition it belongs here.

Ok Blue you got your tinfoil hat ready? Gee can I sell you a bridge?

Anonsucker,

I do not beleive this, but it was a film as defined on another board, unless it is said some pigs are just more equal than other pigs.

Naysaying Zobbies can lie about it and imply those that know the TRUTH are insane. (Since many do not understand humor, I'm being sarcastic.)

Blue Berry: ...unless it is said some pigs are just more equal than other pigs.
Luigi Novi: Wow, an obscure reference by Blue Berry that I actually got. Happy Holidays, Blue.

I'm really undecided on this issue. I mean there is a fair amount of evidence that supports both sides. Suffice it to say, if it's true that we didn't go the moon, then I think our government owes us one hell of an explanation as to where all the $$$ went.

We went.

Well when the space tourists begin you can go and see all the hardware we left up there when we went back in the sixties. We went to the moon it was too big and too spread out to hide. Herck the govt culdnt even keep the atomic energy projects, nellis test site or the groom lake facility secret forever.

We went.

ScottN, document please.

Sorry. :-)

Buzz Aldrin "discusses" the moon landing conspiracy.

Angle of Attack -- Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon.

Debunking the moon landing hoax theories.

THe best debunking of this, IMHO, is that there is no picture of Armstrong on the Moon. (He had the camera the whole time.) If it was fake, the fakers would have thought of this earlier

Hey ScottN,

Did you think the alien autopsy was a fake too? C'mon they would air it unless it was real.

Actually, there is footage of Armstrong stepping onto the moon. There was a camera attached to the same leg that the ladder was on, and Armstrong triggered it as he stepped out.

Here is another site that nicely debunks the hoax "theories."

One suggestion is that the photos on the moon were faked because the shadows look wrong. How would anyone know what they should be like. I can understand NASA cleaning up official lunar photos to make them clearer, something which is done by many other bodies.

Shadows on the moon are going to behave the same as shadows on Earth, since they are cast by the same light source: the sun. The point conspiracy theorists make is that several shadows in one shot appear to be going in different directions, from which they infer that there are multiple light sources such as studio lights.
Of course, simple observation of shadows on Earth reveal the same phenomenon, especially on uneven ground (which is what the lunar surface was). The only way all shadows could appear to be going the same direction is if the surface they were falling upon were perfectly flat. And even then, laws of perspective (including how far or near the objects casting the shadows are to the viewer, the angle relative to the viewer, and so on) would cause an apparent change in direction of the shadows.
Anyway, follow the links provided above for more details and examples, plus (if you really need it) all the math behind it.

As far as I know, the lunar photos weren't "cleaned up " or retouched. Some of them were cropped (cut down to center the subject matter, such as the famous one of Buzz Aldrin standing on the lunar surface), and many were not generally seen by the public because they were just bad (off center, blurred, too dark or too light, etc).

Here's my question: Why are intelligent, educated people belive the moon landing was faked (I'm not taliing bout the schizo loonies here) so often marginalized by society? I mean, they may be wrong, but, why give them the societal equivalent of a burning at the stake? That in and of itself makes me question the veracity of the whole thing.

Well, why do "intelligent, educated" people believe the lunar landings were faked? In light of overwhelming evidence that we went there (including soil samples & rocks), they continue to deny we went, almost as if saying "Well, you weren't actually there, so how can you know anyone really went?"
Hey, I've never been to New York City, either, but I know it's there, and lots of other people have been (and are) there. Just because I haven't or can't or won't go there doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.
Maybe part of the reason some people "marginalize" hoax advocates is because it's a little unnerving that supposedly intelligent people cling so quickly and completely to the most tenuous "evidence" of some big conspiracy, but willingly ignore any and all evidence of the truth because it doesn't fit into their conspiracy theories.

Speaking for myself, I'm sick of hoax advocates saying that all the astronauts, ground crew, spacecraft & computer manufacturers and countless others are all liars, and are also somehow able to keep a big secret. How does my being fed up with hoax advocates' attitudes make the moon landings any less real? Or does that make me part of the "big conspiracy," too?

By the way, although Brain's question prompted my last post, and I'm responding mostly to his question & comment, I'm not criticising him personally or assuming he's a hoax advocate or conspiracy theorist. (Actually, I thought it was an interesting point of view, and one that I don't recall hearing before.)

Nice spelling... I meant "Brian's" and not "Brain's" in my last post, of course.
(Narf!)

Well, why do "intelligent, educated" people believe the lunar landings were faked? In light of overwhelming evidence that we went there (including soil samples & rocks), they continue to deny we went, almost as if saying "Well, you weren't actually there, so how can you know anyone really went?"
Hey, I've never been to New York City, either, but I know it's there, and lots of other people have been (and are) there. Just because I haven't or can't or won't go there doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.
Maybe part of the reason some people "marginalize" hoax advocates is because it's a little unnerving that supposedly intelligent people cling so quickly and completely to the most tenuous "evidence" of some big conspiracy, but willingly ignore any and all evidence of the truth because it doesn't fit into their conspiracy theories.

That entire portion of the post kind of proves my point. For starters, some of the hoax theorists I've talked to believe the subsequent landings were real. Others think that the first landing was real, but the others were faked, because we found something there NASA didn't want anyone down here to know about. I've done a lot of reading on this subject, and the fact is, a lot of these willfully ignorant people (you didn't say it, but it is sort of implied) have some pretty solid stuff to go on. Most of them can be convincingly disproven by NASA, but even if they turn out to be false, they're still deserving of some legitamacy. If they really are so wrong, then why not just prove it, instead of trying to portray them as schizo lunatics? Like I said, I believe we went, but I'm not so quick to dismiss people who think otherwise.

Speaking for myself, I'm sick of hoax advocates saying that all the astronauts, ground crew, spacecraft & computer manufacturers and countless others are all liars, and are also somehow able to keep a big secret. How does my being fed up with hoax advocates' attitudes make the moon landings any less real? Or does that make me part of the "big conspiracy," too?

No, and I think that last comment was a little unfair. I beleive we went to the Moon but, as is my nature, I maintain a healthy level of skepticism. I think the beleivers and non-believers both have good points, but you and many others tend to have a knee-jerk reaction when I say such things. Things like your somewhat rude reaction to my feelings about NASA's attitudes towards people who don't agre with them 100% on everything.

By the way, although Brain's question prompted my last post, and I'm responding mostly to his question & comment, I'm not criticising him personally or assuming he's a hoax advocate or conspiracy theorist. (Actually, I thought it was an interesting point of view, and one that I don't recall hearing before.)

Oh, sorry.

If they really are so wrong, then why not just prove it, instead of trying to portray them as schizo lunatics? -Brain Webber

I don't think moon-landing advocates go out of their way to portray anyone as "schizo lunatics," and I'm not going to sarcastically say "the lunatics do a fine enough job on their own!" But many hoax advocates (at least the ones that get all the media attention) don't conduct basic reasearch to verify whether or not their claims hold up under scrutiny.
Furthermore, there is proof we went, and not just from NASA! Thousands of people were involved in the Apollo project, from various walks of life and different corporations, as well as from NASA & other government agencies. The moon landings took place over a series of years, not all at once. All the launches, landings and returns were witnessed, the technology steadily improved, more and more samples were brought back, scientific equipment left on the moon--placed by the astronauts themselves--continued to function (the laser reflector comes immediatley to mind), and so on. As for how we even could have gotten to the moon, the mathematics and physics are all readily available from various sources, and can be checked & verified by anyone taking the time to do so (granted, some of it may be difficult for those of us who are mathematically challenged, but the data is still there, and always has been.) Basic photographic analysis shows us that so-called multiple light sources, weird tricks of perspective and so on are all natural and normal, and most of them occur here on Earth. (And you just can't fake the way soil & dust reacts in a vacuum.) The one perspective thing that doesn't occur on Earth is that on the moon, distant objects appear as clear as near objects, due to the moon's lack of atmosphere.

I think the beleivers and non-believers both have good points, but you and many others tend to have a knee-jerk reaction when I say such things. Things like your somewhat rude reaction to my feelings about NASA's attitudes towards people who don't agre with them 100% on everything. -Brian, again.
First off, I wasn't trying to personally attack you, Brian, but I apologize my comments led you to infer rudeness on my part. I was trying to make my points succinctly, and that does often come off as rude to some people (not just you, believe me!).
On the other hand, to address a point in your comment, I think some NASA people who spent the better part of their careers, their lives, working on the Apollo project get a little miffed about being called liars and about being told everything they worked hard for over so many years was nothing but a big sham. Their "knee-jerk" reactions are part of human nature, especially when they know what they all went through and accomplished, and then get told by people making a sensationalistic tv program that they are wrong.
As for your own research into the debate, I'm sure you have read some points that seem valid, and perhaps have even been backed up in some (or several) ways. I applaud your willingness to investigate! (More on that point to follow below...) But this board is discussing the "facts" presented in one documentary, which was shodilly made and easily disproven. I'm sorry to constantly refer to the links posted above, but they can illustrate what I'm trying to say better than I can. (Although I could just overload this board with a lot of info myself, I suppose. I don't think I nor anyone else here really wants to go that route, though.)
As for the second part about knee-jerk reactions, and how they apply to me personally, I am a skeptic about many things, especially things with holes in them big enough to drive a bus through, so to speak. Things I know from the various books, periodicals & videos I've read and viewed over the years made me know right away that many of the claims made by this documentary were not only in error, but many were downright false. And the proof was readily available in any library or on the internet. Points I couldn't readily address, due to the math and physics involved, I looked up. During my resaerch, and since then, I've found many sites on the internet devoted to both sides of the topic.
I've also found both sides of the debate can be guilty of knee-jerk reactions, by the way. For example (here's the follow up point about investigation that I mentioned above), a radio dj in a nearby city whole-heartedly accepted this documentary as fact, and was managing to convince several listeners and his on-air partner of the same point-of-view... but he did so by repeating what he had seen on the program, and by brininging up even further questions about the moon landings, questions which, at the outset, sounded like legitimate proof of a hoax, but ultimately were questions he could have answered himself (or had he bothered answering the phone, I or several others could have clued him in on).

Finally, I don't want this to become a one-on-one debate with Brian, but I just wanted answer some of his questions and clarify some of the points he & I have brought up in the last few posts.
Of course, if anyone wants me to further clarify my points, I'll try to do so, hopefully without the whole thing becoming a point-by-point debate about word definitions (like some boards)!

No nothing else really springs to mind CR you seem to have a good handle on things.

Brian Webber: If they really are so wrong, then why not just prove it, instead of trying to portray them as schizo lunatics?
Luigi Novi: Because the moon landings have already been proven. If a given idea has been proven to such an extent that its factuality is the prevailing paradigm, then the burden of proof shifts to those who disbelief to disprove it.

Brian Webber: Like I said, I believe we went, but I'm not so quick to dismiss people who think otherwise.
Luigi Novi: I wouldn't be quick to dismiss them either, but the validity of their position should be based on evidence and consistent, well-founded reasoning. Every argument of moon landing deniers has been debunked.

Luigi Novi: Because the moon landings have already been proven. If a given idea has been proven to such an extent that its factuality is the prevailing paradigm, then the burden of proof shifts to those who disbelief to disprove it.

Fair enough I guess. Like I've said, I agree that it happened, but the hoax theorists do have some good points, and I don't like the way we in the U.S. tend to treat them. It's frighteningly reminiscient of the way people like Gailleo were treated.

I wouldn't be quick to dismiss them either, but the validity of their position should be based on evidence and consistent, well-founded reasoning. Every argument of moon landing deniers has been debunked.

As I've said, I've read a lot on this subject, and if as you say they've all ben compeltely debunked, then why are there still questions? And also, don't a few of the methods used to debunk the hoax theory depened not on the solid stuff like the rocks and soil samples, but basically on the 'good word' of the people at NASA? Also, why did NASA encourage it's astronuats to be so quiet around the media? If I'd been in charge I would've taken FULL advantage of these guys, especially since public opinion towards NASA was waning at the time. I'll have more on this later, but I have to dig my books on the subejct out of storage (hey, I have a LOT of books, and not enouhg room in my room for 'em all).

As I've said, I've read a lot on this subject, and if as you say they've all ben compeltely debunked, then why are there still questions? --Brian
I can't speak for all people, but in some cases, it may be because some people may just want the attention/notoriety. Some people just don't want to admit they're wrong. Others can't accept that not everything in the world isn't a big conspiracy. In short, some individuals won't accept anything but their own point of view, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Like I've said, I agree that it happened, but the hoax theorists do have some good points, and I don't like the way we in the U.S. tend to treat them. It's frighteningly reminiscient of the way people like Gailleo were treated. --Brian
As Luigi and I have pointed out, the ones addressed in this documentary (and several others elsewhere) have been debunked. I'd like to see the points you are referring to, when you find them; I'd personally love to see some fresh material. Material that can hold up under scrutiny, or at least challenge one to find out what it's all about.
As for proof... Film footage isn't enough. The eyewitness observations of thousands of people across the world (who, among many other things, watched the spacecraft on their way to Luna through telescopes) isn't enough. Rocks & soil samples aren't enough. This is why some of us, myself included, are so frustrated at the hoax advocates! Rather than discuss things in a logical manner, they deny anything they don't agree with and cling to even the most tenuous of points. I think that the hoax advocates are guilty of treating like Galileo those with whom they disagree... The church ignored Galileo's findings and slapped him with house arrest, even though it's leadership could see with their own eyes the very proof of what he proclaimed! Just like the hoax advocates willfully ignore the proof presented to them.

Also, why did NASA encourage it's astronuats to be so quiet around the media? If I'd been in charge I would've taken FULL advantage of these guys, especially since public opinion towards NASA was waning at the time. --Brian
Actually, I don't think NASA was entirely to blame for lack of PR... for the most part (and you hit it on the head without realizing it), public interest was waning. That's the way Americans are: "Been there, done that." Even to this day, important things fall to the wayside for entertaining things; the Superbowl halftime debacle has dominated headlines even while the rest of the world moves along in its own terrible way.

Geez, I said I didn't want to do a point-by-point "Brian versus Craig" debate, but here I am doing it anyway... Sorry! Just to clarify things again, I'm not arguing with Brian on a personal level, but rather I'm arguing the points being brought up (and not just by him, but so far, he's the only one making any points).


On a completely unrelated (and much lighter) topic, I sympathize with your lack of book storage, Brian. I feel like I could live in a library and not have enough room for all of mine!

Oh, back to this "documentary," here's another site that very nicely discusses the photgraphic "anomalies" cited by the moon hoax advocates. At the bottom of the page is a good list of links, not only to hoax debunkers, but to hoax advocates as well!

By the way, I've noticed that several hoax debunkers provide links to hoax advocates' sites, so that the reader can see firsthand the advocates' arguments, rather than having them "distilled." I think this is commendable, and seems to lessen the severity of perceived persecution.
I really don't think I have much more to add about this whole thing at this point, although I can reccommend several good books about the moon, the moon landings and space travel in general, if anyone cares...

Brian Webber: Fair enough I guess. Like I've said, I agree that it happened, but the hoax theorists do have some good points, and I don't like the way we in the U.S. tend to treat them. It's frighteningly reminiscient of the way people like Gailleo were treated.
Luigi Novi: Galileo Galilei was threatened, imprisoned, and likely tortured. He was imprisoned for the rest of his life following his trial and was denied the right to receive visitors or teach. Many of his manuscripts were burned. Show me a moon landing denier who has been subjected to this. Hell, they got their own TV special on FOX. That’s just a tad better treatment than what Galileo Galilei got, or for that matter, Giordano Bruno.

Brian Webber: As I've said, I've read a lot on this subject, and if as you say they've all ben compeltely debunked, then why are there still questions?
Luigi Novi: Meaning what, people who simply continue to denier the moon landing anyway? They do so because they haven’t researched the subject enough to discover the evidence of the landing, and/or do not understand how the scientific method or critical thinking works.

Brian Webber: And also, don't a few of the methods used to debunk the hoax theory depened not on the solid stuff like the rocks and soil samples, but basically on the 'good word' of the people at NASA?
Luigi Novi: No, it’s based on scientific evidence.

CR: I can't speak for all people, but in some cases, it may be because some people may just want the attention/notoriety. Some people just don't want to admit they're wrong. Others can't accept that not everything in the world isn't a big conspiracy. In short, some individuals won't accept anything but their own point of view, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
Luigi: Meaning what, people who simply continue to denier the moon landing anyway? They do so because they haven’t researched the subject enough to discover the evidence of the landing, and/or do not understand how the scientific method or critical thinking works.

Those two statements kind of prove my point. You act as if all of them are a bunch of kooks who want attention and can't admit when they're wrong. Judging from this I've come to the conlcusion that most people who beleive the moon landing occured (with the obvious exception of me, thouhg I do have some sinister theories as to what we DID on the Moon and why we never went back) are sore winners. like the football player who points and laughs malciously at the quarterback he just sacked.

Luigi: Luigi Novi: No, it’s based on scientific evidence.

Not all of it. You did see that I used the words "a few" right?

Luigi Novi: Galileo Galilei was threatened, imprisoned, and likely tortured. He was imprisoned for the rest of his life following his trial and was denied the right to receive visitors or teach. Many of his manuscripts were burned. Show me a moon landing denier who has been subjected to this. Hell, they got their own TV special on FOX. That’s just a tad better treatment than what Galileo Galilei got, or for that matter, Giordano Bruno.

Remember how I made an assumption about your thoguth process on Bad Santa and you got mad at me? You're doing the same thing here. You of all people should know I wasn't speaking literally. Hell I rarely do. I love using metaphors. You've known me long enough to figure that out. Are Moon Landing Debunkers (some of whom don't live in a basemnet, have PhDs, and even have decent jobs, shocking as it may be o you 'sore winners' (see above) locked up? Do they have things burned? No. But on an intelectual level they're treated like Lepers. I mean, this one astronomer I talked to had a good point. How come you couldn't see stars in the background? Maybe it was just the cmaera they used, but then again, shouldn't we, by way of the video cameras up there, had the most awesome view of the Milky War EVER?!? One fairly reasonable argument I've heard was that the NASA people were smart enough to know that experts on astronomy would be watccing, and a faked star field wouldn't pass inspection. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that a lack of stars would be more conspicuous, but that doesn't make the argument any less valid.

Brian, the issue of why there are no stars in the pictures is addressd here in a link Scott provided earlier in this debate.

From the Link benn just posted: Their arguments get worse from here.

This proves my point! Just becuase they (the HBs) are wrong doesn't give them (the rest of us) an excuse to be rude about it, as anyone who reads everything that proceeds it can see they (the people at that site) clearly were. Being right isn't an excuse to be a jerk. As I've said before, yes we went to the Moon. So why be all pissy about people who think we didn't? Let's look at it this way. Over at PM, I've ben right plenty of times. And sometimes, I, well, get a little full of myself and felel the need to rub people's faces in it. This usually gets me sent to the Dump, and rightly so. So why the double standard? Why is not okay to be rude to Pesti or Berry or Luigi, but being rude to a Hoax Theorist, well that's just fine and dandy?

First - I didn't post the link. ScottN did. I posted a link to a segment of it. There's a difference.

Second - You seem to feel your quote is an example of an ad homenim argument. It isn't. It's not casting aspersions on the Hoax Theorists themselves. It's a value call on the quality of their arguments. There is a difference. I'm sorry to say it (no, I'm not), but there are some lines of logic that are just outright loopy, silly; bad. No two ways about it. The idea that the world is flat is asinine, for instance. Call me narrow-minded if you feel you must, but to give credence to the Flat-Earthers is sheer foolishness. The same holds true for those do not believe we landed on the Moon. And Brian, if saying that makes me a bad, evil, hypocritcal person, the hell with it. I won't say otherwise just to make myself a "better" person.

Oh, and brian, you conveniently ignored this comment from the site: "I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions'', which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one's emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]"

CR: I can't speak for all people, but in some cases, it may be because some people may just want the attention/notoriety. Some people just don't want to admit they're wrong. Others can't accept that not everything in the world isn't a big conspiracy. In short, some individuals won't accept anything but their own point of view, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
Luigi: Meaning what, people who simply continue to denier the moon landing anyway? They do so because they haven’t researched the subject enough to discover the evidence of the landing, and/or do not understand how the scientific method or critical thinking works.

Those two statements kind of prove my point. You act as if all of them are a bunch of kooks who want attention and can't admit when they're wrong. Judging from this I've come to the conlcusion that most people who beleive the moon landing occured (with the obvious exception of me, thouhg I do have some sinister theories as to what we DID on the Moon and why we never went back) are sore winners. like the football player who points and laughs malciously at the quarterback he just sacked.

I'm not going to let this go...
Brian, I never said all of them are kooks (or any other insulting adjective). The very quote from me which you copied even begins "I can't speak for all people..." and stresses throughout "some" people.
You're missing several points I've been making, points that don't "prove what you're saying" about me or anyone else being a jerk toward hoax advocates. Speaking for myself, all I've been trying to do is show that the hoax advocates' arguments are flawed, at best, both with my own statements and by referring to links and posting some of my own. In spite of my own feelings about the subject, I've been fairly charitable toward the hoax advocates, and have even welcomed new points from them and applauded hoax debunkers who at least post links to hoax advocates' sites. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that maybe I did come off as rude; even though that wasn't my intent, I apologized and made sure my subsequent posts conveyed what I was trying to say without being insulting. I have deliberately avoided sarcasm (which I normally use a lot) to avoid confusing the issue, and have re-read and edited my posts before sending them. I stand by what I said, even if how I said it may have been too blunt.
I would ask that you re-read my posts, and if you don't understand what I'm trying to discuss, say so. But--and this is the most important--please stop taking offense at what I've said, on your own behalf and on behalf of the hoax advocates! I've been more than clear about why I'm frustrated about the whole attitude hoax advocates have, and I'm surprised that you seem to be doing the very thing that frustrates me by using selective arguments.
However, I acknowledge that I may be misinterpereting you, or more specifically, your intent. In the interest of keeping this board civil, I'm referring this matter to the Moderator, because I want his judgement as to whether or not I may be in error. If I am, I offer my advanced apologies to you and to the other posters, but I really feel I haven't been out of line. I do not want to see any posts deleted/dumped, nor anyone banned, as I personally don't think the "dump" line has been crossed yet. No, I'm not running to the Moderator to get anyone (especially Brian) in trouble, and I really feel awkward about wasting his time, but I at least want him to judge me and my comments so that I can either rule out or modify any faults of my own. Also, I'm announcing my intent so nobody thinks I'm saying one thing publicly while turning around and saying something else privately. I suspect I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, and may myself be disciplined as a result, but I'm willing to accept responsibility for that possibility.


Back to the moonlanding versus moon hoax topic...

If someone has their own hypotheses about the moon landings, and more specifically why they stopped, that's fine. I won't just slam them or the poster out of hand. But I will look at the ideas critically, as I would any ideas. Skeptism goes both ways, and if something doesn't hold up under analysis, it either needs to be rejected or modified to take existing evidence into account. On the other hand, just so everyone knows where I currently stand on that topic (why the landings stopped), I needn't look any further than a combination of waning public interest ("there are more important things on Earth that need to be dealt with" is still a common killer of space programs) and budget cuts to explain why we stopped going.
And just to pre-empt any question from anyone of why the Russians didn't go to the moon (Remember the radio dj I mentioned? That was one of his "proofs" that we didn't go!), the Russians never went because their attempts at getting a capable rocket failed, explosively; they couldn't justify the risk to their cosmonauts in light of not having a decent booster; they couldn't afford continued expenses in that area and instead focused on space stations and maintaining a lasting presense in orbit; and we beat them to it, so there was no longer a "space race."

Finally, to address the "Why didn't any stars show up?" argument... Anyone with the barest understanding of photography knows why, but for those who don't have such knowledge, they could follow the links already posted. Or better yet, they could prove it to themselves: Go outside on the darkest, clearest night and shine a light on someone wearing a white outfit (it needn't be a spacesuit). Snap several pictures of the person in various poses, from different distances, making sure to include the sky in the shots. Then, just as a control group, turn off the light and take a few pictures of the starry sky; not time exposures, mind you, just snapshots. Based upon the physics of light, exposure time and photographic emulsion, I guarantee you that stars will not show up on any of the photos.

Another thing about why stars didn't show up, elaborating on my example above..
In order for stars to show up in a night photo taken on Earth, a time exposure is needed. Unless your camera is mounted on a tripod with a timed tracking device to compensate for Earth's rotation, the stars that do show up in a time exposure will appear as curved streaks; the longer the exposure, the longer the streaks. Any extraneous light source (streetlight, stationary car headlights, buildings) will overexpose the shot and wash out all but the brightest stars.
Now, imagine taking photos on the moon, where it wasn't nighttime, but daytime. The sunlight was reflecting off of the lunar surface, the astronauts' spacesuits, and so on. (If you doubt that would wash out the stars in a snapshot, let alone a time exposure, go outside on a clear moonlit night, anytime from first quarter to last quarter will do, though full moon is best... the reflected sunlight is bright enough to read by!)
Finally, the astronauts weren't there to photograph stars, they were there to document their activities and the lunar terrain. Their cameras were adjusted for that purpose.

Oh, and current vodeo cameras are terrible for photographing stars from Earth, or even for photographing the moon (much larger and brighter than stars) from Earth. I know, because I've tried it. Others have been quite successful at it, though, because they had properly calibrated equipment and were either tracking the stars they photographed or making a long time exposure away from any extraneous light source. (The results I've seen on various tv programs were utterly spectacular, but hardly achievable with the type of equipment used on the lunar landings. Remember, we didn't send cinematographers to the moon, and the equipment wasn't designed/adjusted for stellar photography!)

vodeo = video

Brian Webber: Those two statements kind of prove my point. You act as if all of them are a bunch of kooks who want attention and can't admit when they're wrong.
Luigi Novi: I never said they were “kooks,” Brian. You asked me “why are there still questions?” which I took to mean (though I could’ve been wrong) “Why do people still ask about why the shadows look this way or that way in the photos and footage?”, and I answered you. The answers to these questions have been provided in material like on that site I linked to, so if you’re asking me why people continue to ask it anyway, all I can do is speculate, and I speculate that people have not read it, and/or do not make it their business to educate themselves with all the available data, particularly on controversial or divisive subjects on which they already have formed a conclusion.

For example, my coworker and I were talking about O.J., who he was convinced was not guilty, and when I asked him why, he mentioned how “supposedly” Simpson’s blood was kept by the police, as if to sprinkle it at the crime scene and his house (never mind that Simpson \admitted\ bleeding around his house from a cut on his finger during his videotaped police interrogation), and that “supposedly” (I don’t know why my coworker kept using this phrase if he had already made up his mind) Mark Fuhrman was racists, and so forth. I told him that if he familiarized himself on the facts of the case, perhaps by reading Vincent Bugliosi’s Outrage or Daniel Petrocelli’s Triumph of Justice, he would see that the defense arguments didn’t amount to anything. He responded that he didn’t have time to do so. I can’t argue with that, since how he uses his time is up to him, but if he wants a seat at the debating table, it is his obligation to avail himself of all the pertinent information on the subject, not abstain from it and then pretend he is qualified to form a coherent conclusion on the subject.

Brian Webber: Judging from this I've come to the conlcusion that most people who beleive the moon landing occured (with the obvious exception of me, thouhg I do have some sinister theories as to what we DID on the Moon and why we never went back) are sore winners. like the football player who points and laughs malciously at the quarterback he just sacked.
Luigi Novi: I’m afraid I don’t see what this position has to do with “winning,” sore or otherwise. If I believe the landing occurred, it is because there is every reason to believe it did.

Brian Webber: Not all of it. You did see that I used the words "a few" right?
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I missed that. But obviously, such an event isn’t proved by “good word” of officials, since that’s just an argument from authority. Can you point to one credible person in this debate who has argued that the truth of the landing can be proven by the word of a NASA official alone?

Brian Webber: Remember how I made an assumption about your thoguth process on Bad Santa and you got mad at me? You're doing the same thing here. You of all people should know I wasn't speaking literally. Hell I rarely do. I love using metaphors. You've known me long enough to figure that out.
Luigi Novi: Brian, that has nothing to do with making assumptions about your thought processes. I responded to what you said. Not what I “assumed” about your thoughts. You said that treatment of landing deniers seemed reminiscent to you of what happened to Galileo Galilei, and I pointed out that that’s a poor analogy. That has nothing to do with assuming I can read your mind.

The problem was not that you used a metaphor, it’s that you used a wild exaggeration, which as a metaphor, was a poor one, one whose correlation just didn’t match up. If anything, I don’t know much about your intent when you use such a hyperbole precisely because I can’t read your mind. I can’t be certain what you mean when you use such a bad comparison, and I don’t know you well enough to discern your intent. If you want to make a point, it is better, IMHO, to do so more clearly, and without comparing mere disagreement to torturing someone.

Brian Webber: Are Moon Landing Debunkers (some of whom don't live in a basemnet, have PhDs, and even have decent jobs, shocking as it may be o you 'sore winners' (see above) locked up? Do they have things burned? No. But on an intelectual level they're treated like Lepers. I mean, this one astronomer I talked to had a good point. How come you couldn't see stars in the background? Maybe it was just the cmaera they used, but then again, shouldn't we, by way of the video cameras up there, had the most awesome view of the Milky War EVER?!? One fairly reasonable argument I've heard was that the NASA people were smart enough to know that experts on astronomy would be watccing, and a faked star field wouldn't pass inspection. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that a lack of stars would be more conspicuous, but that doesn't make the argument any less valid.
Luigi Novi: Again, this has nothing to do with treating anyone like a leper, and this degree of exaggeration is damaging to your argument. The fact that someone responding to this argument of your friend’s merely points out why it’s wrong has NOTHING to do, by any stretch of comparison, to how lepers were treated. You seem to be arguing that merely explaining why someone is wrong is tantamount to treating them like a leper. I spent a good deal of time dissecting Peter and Jwb’s paralogical arguments some time ago. Are you saying that I treated them like lepers? How is pointing out why your friend is wrong tantamount to what happened to lepers or Galileo?

Brian Webber:

From the Link benn just posted: Their arguments get worse from here.

This proves my point! Just becuase they (the HBs) are wrong doesn't give them (the rest of us) an excuse to be rude about it, as anyone who reads everything that proceeds it can see they (the people at that site) clearly were.
Luigi Novi: What does opining on the descending quality of someone’s arguments have to do with rudeness? I’ve read that site, and I see no “rudeness” there. Pointing out that someone’s arguments are poor has nothing to do with rudeness.

Finally, to address the {"Why didn't any stars show up?" argument... Anyone with the barest understanding of photography knows why, but for those who don't have such knowledge, they could follow the links already posted. Or better yet, they could prove it to themselves: Go outside on the darkest, clearest night and shine a light on someone wearing a white outfit (it needn't be a spacesuit). Snap several pictures of the person in various poses, from different distances, making sure to include the sky in the shots. Then, just as a control group, turn off the light and take a few pictures of the starry sky; not time exposures, mind you, just snapshots. Based upon the physics of light, exposure time and photographic emulsion, I guarantee you that stars will not show up on any of the photos. Another thing about why stars didn't show up, elaborating on my example above..
In order for stars to show up in a night photo taken on Earth, a time exposure is needed. Unless your camera is mounted on a tripod with a timed tracking device to compensate for Earth's rotation, the stars that do show up in a time exposure will appear as curved streaks; the longer the exposure, the longer the streaks. Any extraneous light source (streetlight, stationary car headlights, buildings) will overexpose the shot and wash out all but the brightest stars.
Now, imagine taking photos on the moon, where it wasn't nighttime, but daytime. The sunlight was reflecting off of the lunar surface, the astronauts' spacesuits, and so on. (If you doubt that would wash out the stars in a snapshot, let alone a time exposure, go outside on a clear moonlit night, anytime from first quarter to last quarter will do, though full moon is best... the reflected sunlight is bright enough to read by!)
Finally, the astronauts weren't there to photograph stars, they were there to document their activities and the lunar terrain. Their cameras were adjusted for that purpose. Oh, and current vodeo cameras are terrible for photographing stars from Earth, or even for photographing the moon (much larger and brighter than stars) from Earth. I know, because I've tried it. Others have been quite successful at it, though, because they had properly calibrated equipment and were either tracking the stars they photographed or making a long time exposure away from any extraneous light source. (The results I've seen on various tv programs were utterly spectacular, but hardly achievable with the type of equipment used on the lunar landings. Remember, we didn't send cinematographers to the moon, and the equipment wasn't designed/adjusted for stellar photography!)

The reason many skeptics get irritated is that it only takes a short ridiculous query to propose something outrageous, and it takes many, many paragraphs to point out why it is not so, which are generally disregarded by the hoax believer anyway.

Having become more involved in skepticism in the last couple years, I see these claims repeated again and again, and the debunking gets to be tiring after a while.

Yes, it does get tiring, Influx. You've made the point very concisely; I sure got sidetracked. (Thanks!)

No, not sidetracked. I think you addressed the points very well, and I admire people who do that kind of work.

I have previously been involved in
a. A long-drawn out deconstruction of one comment about Lee Harvey Oswald that "proved" he was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
b. A multi-page thread (something like 35 pages on a bbs) with many, many other posters debunking a guy's theory that something "paranormal" was involved in the 9/11 event, based on one frame of grainy film.

Note: this is not to lump the questioners on this board with those guys. I'm all about education, and I appreciate that Brian is asking the questions to something he is curious about.

...and I appreciate that Brian is asking the questions to something he is curious about. --Influx

I, too had mentioned something to that effect several posts ago, but I believe it got lost or forgotten. Anyway, I didn't want to imply that I felt Brian was trolling or anything, and when I contacted Jake the Moderator, I made a very specific point that it was my behavior I wanted his judgement on. (For the record, he informed me that he feels everyone here has excercised restraint so far.)
Having had some more time to think things over, I really have found this whole board interesting, and hope it can continue in a constructive fashion. It certainly has maintained a long life so far, and to be honest, I don't even know if it was started seriously!
Thanks, everyone, for bearing with me.

Ah, and I didn't mean to seem ungrateful for the supportive comments from R and Influx; thanks!

The Russians had plans to go to the Moon but the programme was knocked back by their space programme leader dying suddenly, Yuri Gagarian being killed in a plane crash whilst training to go back into space, & many other set backs. One plan was to launch a lunar module in one rocket, the cosmonauts in another & the 2 would dock in lunar orbit. Their was a very good documentry about this programme in the early 1990s.

The Soviet Zond 7 spacecraft had the option of being manned. Delays on Zond allowed the US to launch Apollo 8, which kind of killed the idea of the manned Zond 7.

Apollo 8 was originally going to be an earth orbital flight, between 4000 and 8000mi high. The pressure from Zond and to do something for morale after the Apollo fire caused the change of mission plan.

Another delay to the Soviet programme was the death of a Cosmonaut who's capsule came down too fast.

The problem with Komarov's Soyuz had been long solved.

I just find it incredible that someone would make a "documentary" questioning whether we landed on the moon. I guess it would appeal to those who believe "Alien Autopsy" is true. Maybe readers of Weekly World News might be convinced by such "evidence".
I do remember a couple of years ago (or more) one of the Apollo astronauts punched a guy when he questioned whether the astronaut had really been to the moon. I suppose the questioner must have seen this film and was dying to confront the 'fraudster' astronaut.

NGen: I do remember a couple of years ago (or more) one of the Apollo astronauts punched a guy when he questioned whether the astronaut had really been to the moon.

It was Buzz Aldrin. See the link in my post "By ScottN on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 10:50 pm"

I'm convinced there is a cover-up.
The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The government is willing to deceive us.
NASA covered up evidence of the Alien face on Mars. Just why have so many of our Mars probes failed? Aliens probably destroyed most of them so we wouldn't detect their bases.

Please re-read (or read in the first place) all of the posts above about how and why we did go to the moon, and follow the links provided to sites that supply the detailed mathematics & other technical support.
The "face on Mars" thing should be a separate topic! (But I will say here that there was no cover-up because there was nothing to cover up.)

If so, Treklon, then they have REALLY crappy aim, since we have two there right now.

CR: Huh? Nothing to cover up? Reality check: The face on Mars was seen by a lot of people when one of our earlier Mars probes went right over it, and the pictures were broadcast live, with no time for NASA to doctor them out. Unlike Treklon I don't think there are any aliens on Mars; now. I, like many RESPECTABLE scientists, beleive it's not impossible that there was life there once. Canals don't build themselves.

Actually I don't think that anyone thinks they were ever canals, that's just what they looked like to early Earth telescopes. What I've heard is that many believe that ancent Mars was once habitable with water on it and the like, but not for long enough to develop intelligent life who build things.

Reality check counterpoints:
The "canals" on Mars were optical illusions resulting from a combination of the quality of the telescopes used, the atmospheres of both Earth & Mars, the optics of human eyesight & how the brain tries to impose order to chaos, and the desire of observers to find something pointing to life on another planet. This has been known for decades, and can be found in various books and websites about astronomy, telescopes, Mars and so on, and in astronomy courses at both the high school and college levels.
I was alive and keenly interested in astronomy when the Viking probes arrived at Mars in 1976. (I'm still alive & keenly interested in astronomy.) "Live" broadcast is relative: there's a time-lag for the signal to get from Mars to Earth. Also, the broadcasts went to the networks through NASA, just as they do now. Heck, now I can watch them live (or as "live" as the aforementioned time lag allows) on NASA TV via my satellite dish or on a live weblink on the internet, since most major tv networks don't consider space exploration a real ratings-grabber.
The "face" on Mars photo, when originally broadcast, contained numerous "holes" in the transmission, showing up as tiny black dots over the entire picture, not just the hill that resembles--under proper lighting conditions--a human face. In the decades since that first photo, "face" advocates tend to focus on just the hill and its immediate surroundings. I have also seen cleaned up copies of the larger photo, but with the hole for the "nostril" still in place.
The staunchest "face" advocate is one Richard Hoagland, a former NASA engineer who claims that there are numerous other signs of evidence on Mars that a highly technically advanced civilization once flourished there; his website, Enterprise Mission, provides numerous examples, using JPEG compression to reveal the geometric details hidden to the naked eye. Think about that... anyone who's tried to enlarge a JPEG photo on their monitor can tell you that the photo will appear blocky or geometric, especially the more you zoom in and/or the more JPEG compression you apply. It's an artifact of the compression, not of any ancient civilization. And it will occur on any photo, even one, say, of my Aunt Julie. ("Hey, look what this JPEG of Aunt Julie shows when you zoom in! Geometric lines & blocks... they resemble roads, or... or circuits! Aunt Julie's really a Borg! Adjust your phaser modulation! Red alert!" )
Another thing on Hoagland's site is an enormous "glass worm," something that appears to be the clear fossil of a large (hundredes of meters long) worm-like creature. (Never heard of anything fossilizing clear. Also, looking at the entire photo, one can actually see that this is nothing more than a valley, with an optical illusion making the valley appear to stick out rather than go down. It's the same optical illusion that makes craters sometimes appear to be domes, or a line drawing of a cube appear to be either coming off the paper or receding into it.)
Hoagland's site also uses pictures from an old 1950's ViewMaster reel set of Tom Corbett, Space Cadet to show parallels to reality... That "reality" is that aliens really did exist, and that there are markers of their civilization throughout the solar system (not just Mars) just waiting for us to discover... but wait, we have been discovering them all along, and hiding the evidence! Remember the probe that went past several asteroids a few years ago, eventually (crash) landing on one? According to Enterprise Mission, that was no random assortment of asteroids, and there's an alien marker on one, just like the Tom Corbet ViewMaster shows!
Warning: Hoagland's site is often sardonic in nature, and sometimes downright vitriolic... One page compares current NASA scientists to Hitler & Goebbels, for crying out loud! The rules of good conduct we observe here at NitCentral most definitely do not apply there.
On the other hand, Hoagland does believe we landed on the moon. He also believes we hid tons of evidence of alien pyramids and the like that are there. His site shows more grainy JPEGs and photos with wildly over- or under-exposed settings to show "hidden" details. (Details that just happen to be very dark, even though the rest of the moonscape is in broad daylight.)


This is a general statement for everyone who hasn't fallen asleep reading this lenghty post (the others can read it when they wake up.): I know the US government--heck, any government--is not honest about a lot of things. But before jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, ask yourself a few questions, and use history as your guide when doing so. If the government was so bent upon hiding something, why even let the public know that probes are being sent out in the first place? It would be far easier and cheaper to just keep it all under wraps, rather than try to distract the public with "doctored" photos. Do we live in Stalin's Soviet Union, where opponents were routinely "disappeared" and written out of the history books (right down to airbrushing them out of photos)? No. If the government really was trying to hide the "truth," and was willing to kill whistle-blowers, would conspiracy theorists really be allowed to say as much as they have already, and would they still be allowed to live? Would you be allowed to live?

Hey, Brian, didn't realize you were up; you posted about the canals again before I finished writing my novel-length post!
There is the distinct possibility that Mars may have harbored life in the past; that's why NASA is so interested in finding evidence of water and other indicators that point to an environment condusive to life. They might not find fossils of plants or microbes, but they are looking for some of the signs that would support the idea of life having existed there. But the consensus in the scientific community is that life wouldn't have been advanced enough to make a technical civilization (as you pointed out). Who knows? Maybe there are still microbial forms of life alive there; we've discovered here on Earth that even the harshest climates--Antarctica, deep sea volcanic vents, etc--can harbor microbes and other organisms.
I just don't believe there was an advanced civilization that built one huge face (or anything else) on Mars. And I do believe we went to the moon. (There, now we're back on topic!)

OK, I guess I'm the one fell asleep there... I didn't realize it was Brian F who made the second post, as opposed to Brian W, until after I sent my post. Sorry about the error!

In 1996, wasn't it announced that a meteorite (found in the Artic) determined to be from Mars had what appeared to be fossils of microorganisms?

I don't recall about the meteorite being from Mars. Just being from outer space would be interesting enough.

As far as I have heard, after the initial media attention, the scientific community is debating back and forth whether the oranisms and proteins in the rock where there originally or later contamination.

The jury's still out as to whether the fossils were indeed of/caused by microorganisms, and if so, whether or not they were terrestrial in origin. You said the key words yourself: "appeared to be" fossils. The scientific community is avoiding saying conclusively that they are indeed extraterrestrial fossils until (if) conclusive evidence can prove that they are; better to err on the side of caution than to say "Look, proof of life!" only to find out later that it's something else.
Better still would be to find embedded fossils embedded on Mars itself, since they would have been formed there.

The current rover's close up examination of the exposed bedrock and surrounding area reveals sedimentary rocks that would have needed water to form. Mars definately had surface water in the past. I also read some interesting theories that Mars once had a more Earth like atmosphere lost from reaction of such high levels of iron on the planet. With such an abundance of organic molecules in the universe, if conditions allowed the odds are that some type of chemical reactions would occur in that earlier Martian atmosphere.
Not to suggest that rubbish such as "Mission to Mars" is plausible, but at least some type of microorganism must have come about within the period of millions of years. That's what would make the theories behind the '96 meteorite so interesting.

Yes, we did land on the Moon.

And to say otherwise is an insult to the 400,000 people who worked hard to make sure we did so.

And the biggest argument of them all...

It was the height of the Cold War. Had the moon landings been faked, there is no question that the Soviets would have called foul, simply for the propaganda coup.

Instead the Soviets congratulated NASA and the US for a job well done.

•••• straight.

However, the Soviets did indeed fake their own moon mission by using a lunar satellite as a relay to broadcast supposed transmissions from moon orbit back to Earth...it got the Western agencies in a tizzy for a short while.

To date, the U.S. remains the only country to land living humans on the Moon. And even that was over 50 years ago now.