Apollo 11 - The Moon Shot

my friend it is simple in the sixties we were fufilling a dead president's dream. back then we were in a race for the soviets. back then there was massive public support for the space progeam. back then nasa had a nearly unlimited budget. today they don't have the same conditions.

You have a computor several thousand times more powerful than the one they had, yet you can barely string a sentence together, what does that tell you?
The reason they didnt go back is that there nothing there but grey dust and it's several billion for each trip, thats an easy equation.

...Can't string a sentence together buddy you wish you could string a sentence like me.
As for Technology and cost would have gone down with time.

Okay, tell me why this is a fake.

I cant unravel this fraud composed by the american government. I just know what i believe. There is a documentary about all the things that doesnt add up with the evidence of us being on the moon. Watch it.

I am sure that when the Chinese or India gets to the moon you will believe it even though they will encounter exactly what apollo did

you have to mess up the only good productive thing in america . WITHOUT ANY PRODUCTIVE ARGUMENTS . YOU CANT PROVE WE WERN'T THERE. I CAN PROVE THAT WE WERE. F**kING IDIOT.

.

Hi Ken. I’m back. I see you’re still proselytizing to the masses.
No matter. I’m here to help you.

Today’s topic is the tragedy of chronic memory loss: it’s symptoms, causes, and treatment.
Memory loss is a terrible condition that afflicts the vast majority of moon hoax nuts.

Remember how you were convinced the rover packaging pictures were slam dunk proof of a hoax? And how you were beating your chest about it all, to the tune of something like this?

“Check this out too folks while you’re at it, this is good, I wonder what absurd argument dopernicuss will come up with to explain this one away, another official NASA photo by the way folks”
bp3.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R583O7k7fgI/AAAAAAAAARc/kk7mh0f0fpg/s1600-h/moonrover_packed_with_tracks.jpg

And remember how it turned out you were just confusing a tool storage container with the rover stowage location? No? You don’t remember? You never talked about it much afterwards so you must not remember.

Remember how I explained to you in great detail that you have to prove a hoax actually took place, instead of embarrassing yourself with amateurish photo sleuthing pushed by con men? Have you noticed the way you haven’t been doing that at all, and instead just continued with that Sibrel/Percy silliness? So you must not remember any of that at all.

Remember how I showed you that your only credible source, Carl Sagan, actually acknowledged we landed on the moon? (I tried being gentle when I presented you with that unpleasant fact). And how I suggested you listen to other such smart reputable people with integrity if you want to learn about the moon? Yet you’ve only continued passing on hoax loony pics.

Other examples are superfluous at this point. Your diagnosis is becoming clear. However, a few observations are in order:

Memory loss often leads to paranoia, where the patient believes that his imagined enemies conspire with Apollo 11 video presenters to delete his comments in order to censor him – despite their comments having been deleted too. You don’t exhibit any memory of that either.

I notice that despite your advanced stage of memory loss you’re still obsessed with rover tracks, even after I explained things to you. So here’s what I’m going to do. I’ll give you the whole set of panorama pictures with all kinds of tracks for you to investigate. You can go treasure hunting for tracks to your little heart’s content. This is part of your treatment, free of charge. Because I care.
(3 w’s) lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?88

You also seem to be incessantly repeating Mike Collins’ comment about not seeing stars, where he was referring to solar corona photography. Moreover, you seem unaware that it was his job to align the navigation platform using star sightings. So you misrepresented him, much like you did Carl Sagan. Does that trigger any memory of the Sagan episode? Nothing at all?

So. What to make of all this, Ken? My research suggests you suffer from one or both of the following conditions:

Selective memory loss.
Commonly known as psychogenic amnesia, a condition often triggered by traumatic or unpleasant experiences, where the brain subconsciously suppresses painful memories. Research is still ongoing for a cure.

Orwellian memory loss.
Or what has been dubbed, in the political arena, the Memory Hole. It is a common condition where individuals involved in creating, consuming, or propagating propaganda (you belong to the latter two) cover up past events to maintain a falsehood. This affliction tends to be more difficult to treat, as the act is usually perpetrated intentionally. However, the perpetrator may also carry out his actions in part due to selective memory loss, described previously.

Treatment generally varies depending on which of these conditions the patient suffers from. My diagnosis places you at about 60% selective and 40% Orwellian. Until a cure is found, I’m prescribing the following treatment, to be taken during regular repeated visits to Dr. Copernicus12.

media.photobucket.com/image/slap animated/brooklynbadboy75/Animated/th7026528.gif?o=2

Hi Mr XXX aka copernicus12!

How are ya kiddo?

I see you conveniently ignored my latest links in your reply - hypocrite that you are.

Still deluding yourself into believing in the moon landings and taking 2 months to compose an answer that you think will slam dunk me into your own dazed and confused delusional world of men in linen suits vs. 250 degree heat playing golf on the moon while claiming to be unable to see any stars?

You're a sad idiot who has to be pitied more than anything else.

I sympathise with the masses who believe all they read and see in the mass media - but it's the delusional fanatics like you who I feel sorry for.

None are so blind as those who just will not see (the stars?)

You are beneath contempt.

There's no heat in space Ken. No atmosphere to heat up on the moon. Basic thermodynamics stuff.

I just got back from a trip. Things are going pretty good, except I have to go back to work tomorrow. You know, participate in government coverups and such. How are you doing?

...too I see.

Where were you on your 'trip' ? - The moon? lol!

There is no internet up there so maybe you were - hence your months away from any pc or laptop, or maybe just Outer Mongolia if not outer space, me thinks you are lying again Dopernicus, pretty obvious that you are actually.

Anyway...I digress ;)

No wonder you believe in this utter UTTER nonsense, you just don't have the mental capacity to question ANYTHING about this monumental hoax.

According to any basic science text, as we all know, the only reason the Earth is not roasting from the Sun's heat is our atmosphere.

The official NASA line is that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of.

This being the case, the surface temperature of the moon must be extremely hot, and in fact, reference works varyingly place the daytime surface temperature between 206 and 265 degrees F.

There is no way - absolutely NO way - the astronauts and the Lunar Module could have survived in such heat.

NASA claims the suits were air-conditioned and also used a water-cooling system, both of which are impossible and could not function in a vacuum at 265 degrees of heat.

Objects which are heated cannot be cooled off by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Oh, sure, objects which are in the shade of another object will eventually cool off, but not because space is "cold".

Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the near-absolute vacuum of space. Since the vacuum of space is the ultimate insulator - (think of a vacuum flask that insulate hot or cold beverages from the ambient temperature) - objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat.

The upshot of all this is that 265 degrees of heat in a vacuum is even worse than 265 degrees of heat on Earth, because once heat is generated there is no way to cool down in any meaningful amount of time.

The water-cooled spacesuits could not have possibly worked. And oh yeah Dopernicus, did you know water weighs a little over 62 lbs per cubic foot?

Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft...look it up.

Have yet another nice delusional day.

;)

Ken, I am very impressed. You’ve actually done some homework and come up with some real numbers. Unfortunately your analysis and conclusions are still terribly shoddy, but it’s a start. I realize you’re not going to take my response seriously despite my being an engineer, so I again suggest you bring a copy of your text to a university or science institution and ask for feedback. Still, I’ll jot down my comments. But for starters, I’m confused as to why you think I’d lie about being on a trip. I don’t see how lying about it would help me in any way or another. You seemed hurt that I don’t spend more time with you but I have a day job with travel, and I take the occasional vacation. I don’t wake up every morning checking the net for posts from my favorite hoax buddy. You don't do that, do you?

A 265 deg F surface is really not that hot for a metal spacecraft to rest on. It was also covered with reflective foil for radiated heat protection, whose flimsy appearance you ridiculed earlier. As for the Apollo space suit, you should study its design to better understand its functions. You made some faulty assumptions about it. The water cooling garment didn’t operate in a vacuum, it operated inside the suit atmosphere (like earth orbit suits). It carried heat to a sublimator in the backpack that provided cooling. See Section 2.5.4 and Figures 2-39 & 2-40 here,
history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf
The cooling requirements were similar to earth orbit suits except the moon surface provided more reflected radiative heat.

As a sidenote, the moon having no atmosphere is not the official NASA line, it’s been scientifically observed for decades. NASA doesn’t own all the information on astrophysics phenomena.

Radiative cooling in vacuum can be very effective, as best exemplified by the space shuttle cargo bay radiators. Heat transfer happens through conduction, convection, and radiation. Vacuum only removes the convection method. When you add various cooling systems such as flash evaporators, ammonia boilers, and – as in the Apollo EMU – sublimators, cooling in vacuum becomes very feasible.

The lifting capability of the Saturn V was tremendous. In fact, it’s the most powerful rocket to date. Water was carried on the spacecraft in plentiful amounts. First as H2 and O2 in the CSM for generating power, drinking water, and cooling of electronics; and as H2O in the LEM for the latter two purposes. In fact, a water leak in the Apollo 15 LEM was a major cause for concern. So I’m not sure where you got your information to the contrary, you should reference your sources.

Part of my reason for still chatting with you is I think you’re a true hoax theory believer, which is a dead-end path. You’re not making money or aggrandizing a lowly existence like Bart and his pals, so I’m hoping to show you a better way. Scientists will never waste any time on this junk, and the hoax theory will remain relegated to the gullible. I really think you’re smarter than that, you just have to control your irrational side a bit more. We all have it, I’m not being judgmental.


You are clueless about thermodynamics...
...too I see. Where were you on your 'trip' ? - The moon? lol! There is no internet up there so maybe you were - hence your months away from any pc or laptop, or maybe just Outer Mongolia if not outer space, me thinks you are lying again Dopernicus, pretty obvious that you are actually. Anyway...I digress ;) No wonder you believe in this utter UTTER nonsense, you just don't have the mental capacity to question ANYTHING about this monumental hoax. According to any basic science text, as we all know, the only reason the Earth is not roasting from the Sun's heat is our atmosphere. The official NASA line is that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of. This being the case, the surface temperature of the moon must be extremely hot, and in fact, reference works varyingly place the daytime surface temperature between 206 and 265 degrees F. There is no way - absolutely NO way - the astronauts and the Lunar Module could have survived in such heat. NASA claims the suits were air-conditioned and also used a water-cooling system, both of which are impossible and could not function in a vacuum at 265 degrees of heat. Objects which are heated cannot be cooled off by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Oh, sure, objects which are in the shade of another object will eventually cool off, but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the near-absolute vacuum of space. Since the vacuum of space is the ultimate insulator - (think of a vacuum flask that insulate hot or cold beverages from the ambient temperature) - objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat. The upshot of all this is that 265 degrees of heat in a vacuum is even worse than 265 degrees of heat on Earth, because once heat is generated there is no way to cool down in any meaningful amount of time. The water-cooled spacesuits could not have possibly worked. And oh yeah Dopernicus, did you know water weighs a little over 62 lbs per cubic foot? Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft...look it up. Have yet another nice delusional day. ;)

Ed Fendell and Al Pennington

Haha Ken, you're on the internet again. Check it out.

gocomics.com/doonesbury

Make sure you go to today's strip, dated Sunday Sep 6 2009.

It looks like American gullibility isn't restricted to America. You silly staged moonlandingist.

You've been reading those Bangladesh newspapers again, haven't you?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8237558.stm

My favorite parts:
Despite having spent thousands of hours training for the historic mission under the guidance of the world's top scientists, technicians, and pilots, Armstrong said he knew the conspiracy theories were true after learning that website author Coleman was "quite the engineering buff."

"This is all just common sense, people," he added. "It's the moon. You can't land on the moon."

theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil?utm_source=a-section

theonion.com/content/node/97685

Remember Ken, everyone's laughing at you, not with you.

You really just don't get it do you Dopernicuss?

Trying and failing to sound tough and sinister with your affected machismo to compensate for your complete and utter absence of intrinsic integrity, you go on then to use ad hominem attacks because you can't explain the OFFICIAL NASA photos away.

No doubt you have scoured every source to try and explain them away and failing miserably just come up with some superficial nonsense about 'packaging' and then with clinging-by-your-finger nails last resort desperation try to infer the photos are doctored.

Yes they are - but by NASA! lol!

No one else took those photos no matter how much you try to twist it around to fit into your own brain washed mindset, they are as I stated earlier, official NASA photos taken from the NASA's own website.

It's sad when I come across moon landing zombies like yourself, otherwise intelligent people who just can't let the facts get in the way of the fantasy, government/media suckers who blindly believe all they read and hear, when it's an established fact that the hand in glove government and media lie all the time to keep the little people like yourself happy.

By the way - did you ask Micheal Collins what the view was like out the window on the dark side of the moon?

Did he remember seeing any stars?

Or were you afraid he might lie to you?

;)


PS.

Why don't you do the decent thing and post the original comments/replies I posted to you personally while I was barred from replying here?

What are you so afraid of?

The Truth???

Ok Ken, for the first time you've got me stumped. You were barred from Metacafe? I don't know anything about that. What did you do to piss them off? As far as I know you can't send personal messages, at least I don't know how. All I ever got from you was the stuff that went public. I just noticed a lot of our posts got deleted after we racked up some good rants. I don’t have any of that stuff, otherwise I’d be happy to put it back up for you.

Is that why you reposted your previous reply? I already addressed your pics, it's at the bottom of this whole thing. Just scroll all the way down.

That's the Eagle LM (landing module). The "garbage can" at 4:58 is the actual lander. If you look closely, you can see the LM.

creative licence.

Why would they put something fake ..loses credibility. We watched it Live on TV...awesome...even without the Rover!

Unfortunately, this is how history gets mixed up in the new world of internet info. There are now 5,000 viewers with the wrong info.

This is intended as entertainment, it's up to you to educate yourself..

but, to title and date the video as Apollo 11's moon shot, then add something that didn't happen on that trip is a bit disingeuous. If you are going to add "creative license" then you must be prepared to be called to the floor for it. It's not pathetic to comment that a lot of people now have the wrong info. It's a great video... just ....wish ...you...didn't... add.... the....moon.. .rover.

It was just great footage and I did'nt want to leave it out.

A lot of young people born after the 1970's don't know anything about this fantastic achievement. I recommend the HBO series "From The Earth to the Moon" produced by Tom Hanks. The most accurate account of the Apollo program and what goes on behind it, especially the episodes on Apollo 8, 9, 11, and 15. We simply can't let these events fade into memory, no more than World War I and II.

...and the technology still isn't available for us today to undertake such a monumental task, never mind nearly 40 years ago.

If you believe man landed on the moon then you might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

No man has ever set foot on the moon,

...and the technology still isn't available for us today to undertake such a monumental task, never mind nearly 40 years ago.

If you believe man landed on the moon then you might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

watch the video again and watch carefully between the 5:00 - 5:15! Do you really think that Garbage Can lifted off from the moon. The Garbage Can they used to lift off from the moon can barely fit one person Can you tell me where all the fuel needed to blast off that Garbage can is stored. Guess all you need is some chinese charry bombs and fire crackers for fuel and you can ride any rusted Garbage Can to the moon and Back.

the fuel tanks are stored outside, you can see a round sphere on the left side of it, that's a fuel tank. I'm not sure what fuel they used but it was probably hydrogen and oxygen, these gases are compressed and cooled down into their liquid state, this makes the fuel many times denser, and makes it have a much smaller volume, so it's easy to store the amount of fuel you need in a small space. secondly the moon's gravity is about 1/6 than that of earth's so the lander only weighs 1/6 of what it did on earth, there's no friction because there's no atmosphere, and the lander itself was very light to begin with, so you need much less energy to lift off than on earth,
I don't see why any of this doesn't make sense to you.

first of all the garbage can looks like it's floating upwards like someone is pulling it with strings because there is no flame coming from the bottom to constantly propell the garbage can up. It can only go up so far before it comes back down without propultion. Second if that thing on the left is the fuel tank then that Garbage can traveled 385,000+ Km on less fuel then me using on my car to travel about

< than 500km before refuling. also the Garbage can would have been on fire and the crew baked alive from solar radiation/flares while traveling through space with the plastic shielding they had at that time.

I assume from your obvious expertise that you are in fact a rocket scientist?

Just common sense, if it looks crap and talks crap and smells like crap then brother i am willing to bet anything that it's crap

No man has ever set foot on the moon, and the technology still isn't available for us today to undertake such a monumental task, never mind nearly 40 years ago.

If you believe man landed on the moon then you might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

Hey Shakespeare, I just took a look at some of the websites you’ve been pulling your material from. Jack White?? That’s your source of quality photography analysis? I read up on him, the guy’s about as bright as a moon rock on the dark side, a self described photography expert and a loon. I’ve been browsing his online pics and comments, they’re about as intellectual and technically sophisticated as George Bush’s grasp of geopolitics. No wonder you don’t know the difference between a MESA and an LRV. What a sad joke, and a pathetic follow-up for you to the truly accomplished Dr. Carl Sagan.

You don’t even realize how bad it makes you look peddling this cheap crap. Especially funny is the way you beat your chest, seriously thinking you’ve got some profound insights on the topic. I can’t believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I actually tried reasoning with you and pointing you in the right direction. You deserve whatever ridicule you get at this point. You’d never survive in the real world of professional science & engineering.

I’ll wrap this one up with an excerpt from a critique of Mr. White’s genius that does him more justice that I ever could.

“White lives in a walled garden, carefully insulated from opposition and surrounded by fawning fans.”

…in case you missed it, that’s you. The fawning fan from Dublin.

I've seen conclusive photographic proof from brave truth-seeker Jack White

"Brave" and "Jack White" do not belong in the same sentence. As many of you know, White hides out in an online forum called JFK Research, guarded by his faithful colleagues who boot out anyone who seriously questions his findings. He has gone to great lengths to keep his Apollo arguments from reaching the hands of Apollo experts well equipped to dispute them, and to equally great lengths to ignore comments sent to him.

Bravery in the intellectual world is the willingness to stand up to one's harshest critics and defend one's views against that opposition. Bravery is not to avoid criticism at all costs.

And as I'm sure will be apparent to anyone who desires (and is able) to examine his argument, "truth-seeker" and White are also mutually antithetical. The amount of evidence White must ignore in order to keep his argument on track is simply colossal.

that the LRV was actually stowed in quadrant IV, not in quadrant I

I'll let people pick through ApolloHoax.com where I and many others have written on this issue in great depth. I'll summarize here.

White simply can't distinguish the MESA from the LRV. To compound this error, he misinterprets or wrongly infers the orientation of the LM in several photographs. To those of us who have followed White's efforts for a year or more, this is just a continuation of White's well-established inability to look the LM and tell which way it's facing. This is a mistake he's made countless times, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge.

... as is claimed in NASA misinformation documents.

How would White know? He admits never having seen them. He categorically refuses to examine the tens of thousands of pages of documents that describe the design of the LM and the LRV. "They could have been faked," he says. Can he prove they were faked? Of course not. Nor is it particularly important to him that the photographs and the documents together tell a very straightforward, consistent story against which White can only point to a small handful of misinterpreted photographs.

In short, White likes to call himself an expert photographic interpreter. But it's clear after seeing him in action that his perceptual skills are less honed even than the average person, let alone exercised at the "expert" level. Even children can be taught to recognize, for example, the orientation of the LM from photographs.

Does it matter to White that schoolchildren know what the MESA is and where it's found on the LM? Of course not. White lives in a walled garden, carefully insulated from opposition and surrounded by fawning fans. In his universe he's the king, an indisputable expert at the art of interpreting photographs. He has a very inflated opinion of his own skills, and of the reasons why people oppose his views.

...inane replies are dopiernicuss.

I actually rub/bed my hands in anticipation as I wait/ed for the reply field to load such is the weakness of your attempts to engege me in debate, you couldn't debate yourself out of a brown paper bag.

Totally unable to discredit the official NASA photos that I have REPEATEDLY called on you to address and explain away, you instead - in your wild eyed desperation because you CAN'T explain them away - choose to attack the messenger.

This is typical pathological denial behaviour, and you in your starry eyed denial can't see this and probably never will.

Just as Michael Collins who allegedly went around the far side of the moon dozens of times claimed he didn't recall seeing any stars out the lunar module window.


Get a grip on reality man and stop embarrassing yourself.

I assumed you're a young punk but you sound like an old geezer.

I bet you were wringing your hands and rolling around on the floor making a fool of yourself as I explained your “rover packaging” wasn’t rover packaging at all (I love it when hoax nuts try to get technical). Guess you forgot about that though. The brain forgets traumatic memories, I understand that. Guess you also forgot I figured out your hoax buddies degraded the rover pic showing tracks, and I provided you with the original. I love the irony of it all, hoax retards doctoring moon pics just like they accuse NASA of doing. I realize you didn’t understand the aerospace structures lesson I gave you, that was probably over your head, so that’s 3 out of 3. Straight down the memory hole, huh? But at least now I know where you get the pics you keep threatening me with.

I actually met and chatted with Mike Collins at the Smithsonian a couple of weeks ago. A very accomplished gentleman who received more respect from more people that day than you will know if your silly lifetime. At his age he was also in much better psychological shape than you. So I think I’ll throw my lot in with people like him if I ever worry about my own respectability.

It’s over, Dublin boy. LRO pics are in and they’re only going to get better. Time to pick up your Jack White pics and go home. Lay low for a while, wait til these posts get deleted eventually and hope no one notices them.

You’re a real piece of work.

...levels at this stage.

You really just don't get it do you?

Trying and failing to sound tough and sinister with your affected machismo to compensate for your complete and utter absence of intrinsic integrity, you go on then to use ad hominem attacks because you can't explain the OFFICIAL NASA photos away.

No doubt you have scoured every source to try and explain them away and failing miserably just come up with some superficial nonsense about 'packaging' and then with clinging-by-your-finger nails last resort desperation try to infer the photos are doctored.

Yes they are - but by NASA! lol!

No one else took those photos no matter how much you try to twist it around to fit into your own brain washed mindset, they are as I stated earlier, official NASA photos taken from the NASA's own website.

It's sad when I come across moon landing zombies like yourself, otherwise intelligent people who just can't let the facts get in the way of the fantasy, government/media suckers who blindly believe all they read and hear, when it's an established fact that the hand in glove government and media lie all the time to keep the little people like yourself happy.

By the way - did you ask Micheal Collins what the view was like out the window on the dark side of the moon?

Did he remember seeing any stars?

Or were you afraid he might lie to you?

;)

Ken, you don’t realize how bad those pictures make you look. I’ve addressed them twice, and I’ll do it a third time now so maybe you’ll stop asking. Maybe you didn’t get one of my posts since it looks like this place did some file cleanup, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. That’s why I don’t have the original links you sent but I’ll at least speak to your pics.

The caption in the picture of the rover tracks with the lander in the background compared a white bulge on the starboard side of the lander to those from other missions, suggested the rover hadn’t been unstowed, and questioned how there could be rover tracks with the rover still in the “packaging.” The “rover packaging” on the starboard side was in fact the Modular Equipment Storage Assembly. The MESA was located in Quad IV of the descent stage and contained tools and equipment for exploring the moon, not the rover. The rover was stowed on the opposite side of the ladder, in Quad I. Quad I was clear in the picture because the rover had obviously been deployed by the time the pic was taken with the rover tracks. Anyone with a technical interest in the Apollo program understands this. You could have avoided this easily refutable mistake had you bothered to learn about the LEM before making the accusation. Or forwarding someone else’s accusation in this case. I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. This is obviously a very poor piece of evidence that incriminates the accuser more than the accused. If you continue to insist on this as evidence of a hoax, you’ll make a very perplexing case for the functions of the human mind. I return your sentiment that you seem otherwise reasonably smart, but your use of this picture doesn’t do justice to whatever intelligence you have.

Another picture was of the parked rover. I spent a little bit of time on this one because it didn’t seem like you spent any time at all. One of the first things I noticed was that although the picture dimensions were very large on the website, the resolution and quality were very poor, especially considering the impressive clarity and detail of most Apollo pics. So I looked up other sources with the picture ID number and found the original high quality picture, and I was surprised to find tracks. Surprised not because they’re essential to refute a hoax, but because I had assumed you – if not Mr. White or other “analyst” – would have found it too. I can tell guys like Jack White are conmen but you seem to believe in these hoax arguments, so it’s hard to understand why you don’t verify these claims yourself. The chevron pattern behind the left rear tire is distinct, and darker more faded tracks can be seen behind both wheels. But they’re just faint enough in this picture that you can make them disappear if you played with the brightness and contrast and degraded the resolution. The real question isn’t where are the tracks, but why would someone posing as a photographic analysis expert intentionally degrade an otherwise high quality picture before presenting it as evidence. Here again is the high quality picture that you should have found on your own. It only took me a minute.

spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-88-11901.jpg

The picture above was part of a panorama series, and you can see even more tracks farther behind the rover, in the link below. The rest of the panorama pics also show plenty of tracks.

(3 w’s) lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11903

The strangest accusation I was tasked to address was a picture looking up at the lander, showing the ruffled thin skin panels. I was also put off by the uneducated sarcasm of the caption, but that goes with the territory of debating moon hoax arguments. The skin panels were not structural members. The LEM’s flight profile only involved flying in vacuum, which made it unique among manned spacecraft. The thin skin panels were a direct result of that, and of a strict weight reduction program throughout LEM development.

“It had to be very light, because every pound that was taken to the surface and returned to lunar orbit required three pounds of rocket propellant. But because the LM only operated in space, and didn't have to withstand the high gravity loads and intense heating of re-entry through the Earth's atmosphere, it could be designed primarily for the light loads encountered in free space and during lunar landing and liftoff.”
cradleofaviation.org/history/events/moon.html

Unlike the shuttle, it wasn’t required to withstand the aerodynamic and thermal stresses of launch and reentry, and it was left behind at the moon. That’s why your shuttle comparison wasn’t appropriate with respect to a moon mission and also why the command module has a very different, more robust appearance than the LEM – or the shuttle. A little bit of technical background helps understand this one, but I think you get the idea. Here are a couple of pics of the lunar module that you might find more dignified, and some of the brilliant people that created it.

images1.cdn.fotonauts.com/kali-qgJieaIEufs-image.jpg
img243.imageshack.us/img243/4484/1541artpg26jw2.jpg
semissourian.com/story/1555769/photo/1248025.html
static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens3306152module21027632photo_1237154284AS09-21-3183.jpg

About Mike Collins, the last thing I was worried about was him lying to me. There is no pattern of dishonest behavior in his life, he’s a very impressive guy. I would imagine his view of the stars was similar to the view in this picture.

archives.gov/press/press-kits/picturing-the-century-photos/images/space-shuttle-challenger.jpg

Do you understand now why hoax proponents are shunned by people even remotely involved in science and engineering? Also notice the crosshairs washout against the bright background – white clouds in this case – another Apollo hoax accusation. You would have a hard time convincing people the shuttle is a hoax too.

Although I disagree with you, you’ve motivated me to research some of this material, which is always rewarding. One of the beneficial outcomes of the moon hoax phenomenon is that it has educated many people about this amazing endeavor in a way they wouldn’t otherwise have been.

Now I’m asking you to stop saying I haven’t responded to your pics. And don’t send me more of the same, I wouldn’t have the time to critique them even if I wanted to. I think I’ve seen most of them anyway.

... those photos make YOU look! lol!

Claiming (lying!) that you have addressed these photos twice - no, all you have done is claim they were doctored when you couldn‘t explain them away - when in actual fact they were NOT doctored but were lifted untouched straight from NASA’s own website.

Then hilariously in your defence you post the actual high resolution official NASA photo of the lunar rover which only serves to further PROVE that there are absolutely NO tracks visible either side of the wheels and yet you claim that if you adjust the contrast you can see them!

Check it out folks - can you see any tracks here?

spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-88-11901.jpg

NO? - I thought so

This guy is in DEEP pathological denial!

- Maybe in your own delusional mind there are tracks visible there Dopernicus but not in the mind of any rational person studying that photo, there is actually a boot print behind the rear wheel where there should have been a wheel track!

What planet are you on?

And again you make a fool of yourself by ludicrously inferring again that the photos have been doctored, real clutching at straws stuff that, shame on you.

Now as for your space ship analysis and lame attempt to explain away that scotch taped pile of junk as being covered in ‘thin skin panels‘ - your own phraseology no doubt as NASA won‘t have a term to describe them - well you just make it up as you go along don’t you? - and conveniently ignore anything that you can’t explain away, like in this case the scotch tape that looks like it was bunged on by five year old kids.

bp1.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R59cCbk7fjI/AAAAAAAAAR0/af9jWrASe14/s1600-h/11flymetothemoon.jpg

Then you post a photo of the shuttle in space and in your hubristic arrogance try to speak on behalf of Michael Collins, telling us that this is ‘probably’ what he saw out the window if the alleged lunar orbiter on the dark side of the moon.

Well I’ve news for you, Michael Collins himself declared that ‘he didn’t recall seeing any stars’ during his entire alleged trip to the moon.

That has to be the most blatant LIE by any of those astronoughts.

This man is alleged to have experienced the darkest night that any man in history would have experienced and yet he expects us to believe he saw NO stars out that window in the shadow of the dark side of the moon?

Now are you going to deny that he said that?

They couldn’t allow stars in the photos because that would have effectively time stamped them, and any amateur astronomer would have quickly found out that certain star alignments were impossible at the time that a particular photo was alleged to have been taken.

It was too big a technical headache for NASA so they just blacked out everything above the ersatz horizon and told the astronots to keep their mouths shut or else.

That is why they had to constantly lie about not being able to see any stars.

Yet, now get this folks, they hilariously claimed to have been able to see the small and large Magellanic clouds while playing golf on the moon.

These are much smaller satellite galaxies of our own galaxy and would be far fainter than any stars or indeed the many star clusters which are WITHIN our own galaxy such as the two comparatively brilliant globular clusters in the constellation of Perseus, or even the one in Hercules.

You remind me Dopernicus of Mr Xxx in that other great piece of science fiction ‘The Martian Chronicles’ by Ray Bradbury, check Mr Xxx out in that chapter of the book and have a good long look in the mirror at yourself.

Far from settling the issue you merely raise more questions about your own credibility as an impartial observer.

You demonstrate the extremes a human being will go to divorce oneself from reality.

In the meantime here are some more photos that you are probably not aware of - or just don’t want to know about;

Maybe you can adjust the contrast on these photos Dopernicus and tell us there are tracks visible here too, and if you can’t see any tracks, tell us why you think there aren’t any visible;

apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-137-20979HR.jpg

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Lunar_Rover_Apollo_17.jpg/600px-Lunar_Rover_Apollo_17.jpg

I look forward to your latest delusional self denial brain washed rant of a reply.

Wake up to the REAL world Dopernicus!

No men ever went anywhere near the Moon, or Mars or Io for that matter, though no doubt you’d believe NASA if they told you they’d landed men on Pluto too.

;)

That's pretty funny Ken, that wikipedia pic shows tracks too.

Hey I don't have time to play with you too much right now, I may get back to you later. I see you can post comments on metacafe now, despite my "conspiracy" to have you censored, haha.

I the meantime, try to stay calm. You seem progressively ...angry.