Moon landing hoax

uprising2

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

what film stock did they use? did the lens have special anti radiation filters? I doubt the camera body was exposed to the moon environment, it was probably incased in something else which protected the film inside.

The camera was left on the moon so we'll never know, they erased the tapes for re-use, the original tapes of the live feed, yea really...
Try find what it was encased in, and radiation filters? you tell me,
I believe you frequent the photography forum, do you think it was possible?, do you believe the photo is genuine and the film could have retained such detail in highlight and shadow.

Here's a pic I just came across:


Anyone notice a few strange things about this?
Right here we go, firstly I don't know if it is an official nasa pic or a simple fake.

Moving my laptop monitor, like open and close, the earth seems to be in a box when I hit a certain angle of viewing, a line runs up from the lunar surface out of the shot, straight up just to the right side of the earth, space is darker on the left, slightly different on the right, there seems to be some disturbance or "light" just over the horizon on the lunar surface just straight down from the left side of earth.

Now the big one that caught my attention, the lunar lander clearly shows where the sun is by the direction of shadow, the sun is clearly coming from the right side of the pic, so why is the sun hitting the earth from a different angle, it light's the top of the earth, but not the top of the asstronaut's backpack, the light sources are clearly different.
Again another different light source lighting the lander in the top right hand corner of the pic, where is that light coming from????

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/06/28/nasa-announces-apollo-11-anniversary-events/

blinding

Would'nt the Americans have put up a big flashing Neon sign if the had been on the moon. Something along the lines of

"God Bless America"

If they had been on the moon they would never let us hear the end of it.

Its like one of those lies Ye/I told as a kid and instead of saying "Yeah" ye caught me bang to rights Ye/I just kept digging and now there is no way out.

America grow up, admit it. Sure we will have a laugh but we will think all the more of youse when you make a clean breast of it.:p

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

The camera was left on the moon so we'll never know, they erased the tapes for re-use, the original tapes of the live feed, yea really...
Try find what it was encased in, and radiation filters? you tell me,
I believe you frequent the photography forum, do you think it was possible?, do you believe the photo is genuine and the film could have retained such detail in highlight and shadow.

Here's a pic I just came across:


Anyone notice a few strange things about this?
Right here we go, firstly I don't know if it is an official nasa pic or a simple fake.

Moving my laptop monitor, like open and close, the earth seems to be in a box when I hit a certain angle of viewing, a line runs up from the lunar surface out of the shot, straight up just to the right side of the earth, space is darker on the left, slightly different on the right, there seems to be some disturbance or "light" just over the horizon on the lunar surface just straight down from the left side of earth.

Now the big one that caught my attention, the lunar lander clearly shows where the sun is by the direction of shadow, the sun is clearly coming from the right side of the pic, so why is the sun hitting the earth from a different angle, it light's the top of the earth, but not the top of the asstronaut's backpack, the light sources are clearly different.
Again another different light source lighting the lander in the top right hand corner of the pic, where is that light coming from????

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/06/28/nasa-announces-apollo-11-anniversary-events/

That is clearly a composite image of 2, possibly more, seperate images. I suggest if you are going to analyse this image then at least use the original NASA one and not a composite which obviously is not all one image. Here it is:



source

Mahatma coat

which brings us neatly round to the shdows on the door hatches

now thats a bit ODD, the direction of the shadows n all

Mahatma coat

And of course by your own admission they have doctored the images with composites, so back to the million dollar Question WHY????????????????????

SkepticOne

bytey wrote: »

NASA might tell you they 'bounce lasers of the apollo mirrors ' therefore apollo is real, but the fact is you can bounce lasers of the moon without mirrors - so that closes that little arguement

oh, and I studied physics in college for many years, then graduated ;-)

With the same signature that bouncing off a small reflector would have? That is the difference. You can bounce a laser off a general surface like the moon but the reflection will be different to bouncing off effectively a point source.

Would they be able to say that the moon is receding at 3.8 cm every year if all they had was the diffuse bounce off the lunar terrain?

You think it is just NASA saying that they have bounced lasers off these mirrors. How do you account for the fact that independent observatories have made these measurements? Were they also "in on it"?

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito, if you're going to post here, please don't post in such a fashion. Parts of your post are rather insulting to those who believe in such theories, and as such, they won't be tolerated.

Jammy, I don't envy your role of having to mod this forum but the whole point of conspiracies and discussion of same is the frank exchange of ideas. I have not insulted the poster merely the post.

If I express my entertainment value at those who believe in such theories that is a personal opinion and I can't see how it is insulting. They are entitled to be equally incredulous at my position and as long as we are not personally attacking each other I cannot see how the charter even being bent never mind broken.

Lastly, I believe it is standard practice to put posts like the above in a PM. I have replied in the forum because you have chosen to do so. Rather than derail the thread if you disagree with the tone or my perspective on the matter I'd be happy to discuss this further in the appropriate manner.

squod

Wiki says that 89% of the American public believe the moon landings were genuine. Staggering statistic IMO. You're not alone Mr Incognito.

The Gallup Organization found that 89% of the U.S. public believed the landings were genuine, while 6% did not, and 5% were undecided.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

SkepticOne

namloc1980 wrote: »

That is clearly a composite image of 2, possibly more, seperate images. I suggest if you are going to analyse this image then at least use the original NASA one and not a composite which obviously is not all one image.

Well spotted. Here's an enhanced version:



You can clearly see where the bits have been put together.

Mr. Incognito

Not really squod. People believe what they want to believe and other people objectively examine the evidence.

Which is more likely:

The American's out twelve men on the moon, employing hundreds of thousands of people, watched extremely closely by the Russians, spending millions of dollars, bringing back photograpic evidence, physical samples and leaving equipment that can be seen today and has been used for over 40 years for scientific experiments.

Or

The whole thing is a conspiracy based on flimsy amateur evidence that has been debunked at every turn, involving literally thousands of people that have to keep this secret, foreign governments have turned a blind eye to and whose supporters refuse to accept even the most concrete scientific evidence.

I actually had an interest in this as a teenager and watched one of those moon landings are fake documentries but one quick afternoon on google pretty much identified all the mistakes, bad science and downright loopy claims the conspiracy side were making and I'll stick with the 89% please.

SkepticOne

One argument which I think undermines the conspiracy theorists' credibility is the "lack of stars" theory. The argument goes as follows: because you can't see stars in the pictures of the lunar surface the pictures must have been taken in a studio on Earth.

Anyone who makes this argument shows a complete lack of understanding of how photography works and the dynamic range of film. A very basic knowledge of the subject would tell you that you can't take a picture of a very bright sunlit subject like objects on the surface of the moon and at the same time capture very dim objects such as stars.

No photo from space (not just the moon) shows both sunlit objects and at the same time stars. Yet this comes up again and again.

squod

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'll stick with the 89% please.

I'll put you down as a person who believes what they want to believe so.

bytey

SkepticOne wrote: »

One argument which I think undermines the conspiracy theorists' credibility is the "lack of stars" theory. The argument goes as follows: because you can't see stars in the pictures of the lunar surface the pictures must have been taken in a studio on Earth.

Anyone who makes this argument shows a complete lack of understanding of how photography works and the dynamic range of film. A very basic knowledge of the subject would tell you that you can't take a picture of a very bright sunlit subject like objects on the surface of the moon and at the same time capture very dim objects such as stars.

No photo from space (not just the moon) shows both sunlit objects and at the same time stars. Yet this comes up again and again.

wrong ,

they could easliy have snapped shots towards the sky , taking in some element of the lander if they wished ( a dark section - like an antenna or somesuch ) - yet not one picture exists of the sky on its own from the moon - I wonder why ????

given that they were such 'well trained photograpic composition experts ' , it would have been easy to fire off a few shots like this - YET NOT ONE EXISTS .

bytey

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not really squod. People believe what they want to believe and other people objectively examine the evidence.

Which is more likely:

The American's out twelve men on the moon, employing hundreds of thousands of people, watched extremely closely by the Russians, spending millions of dollars, bringing back photograpic evidence, physical samples and leaving equipment that can be seen today and has been used for over 40 years for scientific experiments.

Or

The whole thing is a conspiracy based on flimsy amateur evidence that has been debunked at every turn, involving literally thousands of people that have to keep this secret, foreign governments have turned a blind eye to and whose supporters refuse to accept even the most concrete scientific evidence.

I actually had an interest in this as a teenager and watched one of those moon landings are fake documentries but one quick afternoon on google pretty much identified all the mistakes, bad science and downright loopy claims the conspiracy side were making and I'll stick with the 89% please.

the evidence is good enough to stand up in court if you took some time to look at the links i posted -

i can tell you i was one of the 89% - HUGE space fan , until I saw the photo evidence - and now im just disgusted that they did this.

I do not belive what I want , I look at the evidence - and the evidence in the photos is rock solid.

NASA have manipulated all the photos.

they have lied to you and the world .

but feel free to put your hands over your eyes and ears and block it out if it makes you feel better in yourself.

Wibbs

bytey wrote: »

some other serious anomalies :

http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm

Well the pics of the flag look similar simply because the flag is stiffened by the rod along the top. Without an atmosphere the fabric will stay in the position it relaxes on as there is nothing acting upon it(Armstrong has commented that the flag raising worried him more than most of everything else as he was convinced it would fall over as he couldnt get the pole to drive too far in as the soil unlike on earth is sharp so compacts very quickly. It blew over on lift off).

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_8.html

Whats the focal length of the lens used? How far is the surveyer itself? Secondly focus on the moon is different to on earth for one simple reason. No atmosphere. The astronauts themselves have said that judging distance was a bitch. No frames of reference obviously but the other factor was little or no drop off of focus when you looked at objects near and far. A few times the guys would go off to look at a small rock close by only to discover it was big rock far off.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_21.html

Again distnace and focus on a body with no atmosphere. Plus lets say you land a spacecraft smack bang in the middle of Dublin. Somewhere flattish. Say the Phoenix park. Then take pictures. In helluva lot of those pictures you will get a shot of the same Dublin mountains. Anytime you point the camera south in fact. If you had no buildings of trees you would only ever have the dublin mountains or howth head as a backdrop.

and a little doozy

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html

Not really. OK the image was cleaned up and or reticles were added. Dont see it as a doozy though.

and the killer

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_23.html

Again nope. The rover didnt deploy from a sealed package like that. Space was at such a premium it was naked in the bay. When the guys pulled the hatch the rover automatically deployed using a system of springs. The front wheels popped out while the hatch was partially open. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover#Deployment



*note what side its on too.

Though the biggest issue of all with this theory is that what you're looking at is not a packaged rover at all, but the bay on the other side of the lander. Not the LRV bay which is on the right in that picture. Whats left when the rover has been deployed is no packaging at all. Just a door. If you look at this pic

you will note the black strap in the exact same position as in the photo in your link.

They went to the moon. They brought back samples unlike rocks here on earth. The majority of moon walkers have suffered cataracts far higher than average, due to solar radiation. A few have had serious heart trouble because of the stresses of working in that environment(microgravity screws with the body's potassium levels). One died a few years later and it has been traced to his exertions on the moon(noted at the time). They left stuff up there that we can see and indeed lately because of the probe in orbit with much better clarity than before.

As for why we cant do it today? Well as has been pointed out ten years ago you could fly to the US chugging champagne at mach 2 and get there in 3 hours. People often assume technology progresses in a linear fashion over all. It doesnt always.

We could do it again. Indeed they did it then in less than 7 years. We should be able to do it in 5. The Chinese are having a go, but orbits a doddle, deep space is a whole different nut to crack. They had a lot of luck on their side back then. Along with serious brainpower and will. If they continued to Apollo 20 or 21, I suspect they would have lost a crew.

Plus now we simply dont have the political will and nasa gets feck all of a budget today. The military stuff gets far more. I reckon they've got near earth orbit stuff already flying. Project Aurora for one.

PirateShampoo

bytey wrote: »

wrong ,

they could easliy have snapped shots towards the sky , taking in some element of the lander if they wished ( a dark section - like an antenna or somesuch ) - yet not one picture exists of the sky on its own from the moon - I wonder why ????

given that they were such 'well trained photograpic composition experts ' , it would have been easy to fire off a few shots like this - YET NOT ONE EXISTS .

Ok, try this tonight. Go out and take photos of stars with a regular camera and post ur results here.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Well the pics of the flag look similar simply because the flag is stiffened by the rod along the top. Without an atmosphere the fabric will stay in the position it relaxes on as there is nothing acting upon it(Armstrong has commented that the flag raising worried him more than most of everything else as he was convinced it would fall over as he couldnt get the pole to drive too far in as the soil unlike on earth is sharp so compacts very quickly. It blew over on lift off).

Whats the focal length of the lens used? How far is the surveyer itself? Secondly focus on the moon is different to on earth for one simple reason. No atmosphere. The astronauts themselves have said that judging distance was a bitch. No frames of reference obviously but the other factor was little or no drop off of focus when you looked at objects near and far. A few times the guys would go off to look at a small rock close by only to discover it was big rock far off.
Again distnace and focus on a body with no atmosphere. Plus lets say you land a spacecraft smack bang in the middle of Dublin. Somewhere flattish. Say the Phoenix park. Then take pictures. In helluva lot of those pictures you will get a shot of the same Dublin mountains. Anytime you point the camera south in fact. If you had no buildings of trees you would only ever have the dublin mountains or howth head as a backdrop.

Not really. OK the image was cleaned up and or reticles were added. Dont see it as a doozy though.



Again nope. The rover didnt deploy from a sealed package like that. Space was at such a premium it was naked in the bay. When the guys pulled the hatch the rover automatically deployed using a system of springs. The front wheels popped out while the hatch was partially open. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_rover#Deployment



*note what side its on too.

Though the biggest issue of all with this theory is that what you're looking at is not a packaged rover at all, but the bay on the other side of the lander. Not the LRV bay which is on the right in that picture. Whats left when the rover has been deployed is no packaging at all. Just a door. If you look at this pic

you will note the black strap in the exact same position as in the photo in your link.

They went to the moon. (1)They brought back samples unlike rocks here on earth The majority of moon walkers have suffered cataracts far higher than average, due to solar radiation. (2) A few have had serious heart trouble because of the stresses of working in that environment(microgravity screws with the body's potassium levels). One died a few years later and it has been traced to his exertions on the moon(noted at the time). They left stuff up there that we can see and indeed (3)lately because of the probe in orbit with much better clarity than before.

(4)As for why we cant do it today? Well as has been pointed out ten years ago you could fly to the US chugging champagne at mach 2 and get there in 3 hours. People often assume technology progresses in a linear fashion over all. It doesnt always.

We could do it again. Indeed they did it then in less than 7 years. We should be able to do it in 5. The Chinese are having a go, but orbits a doddle, deep space is a whole different nut to crack. They had a lot of luck on their side back then. Along with serious brainpower and will. If they continued to Apollo 20 or 21, I suspect they would have lost a crew.

Plus now we simply dont have the political will and (5)nasa gets feck all of a budget today. The military stuff gets far more. I reckon they've got near earth orbit stuff already flying. Project Aurora for one.

Should I waste my time going through all these points for you? Most of what you've said has been proved to be wrong. You do know that don't you?

Wibbs

Please do. Hopefully some new angles not the usual stuff.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Please do. Hopefully some new angles not the usual stuff.

The first four have already been dealt with on this thread. Number five then.

15.818 billion dollars per year over its fifty year history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

They're not exactly stuck for a few bob then, are they? I expect it wouldn't be too difficult to part fund a journey to the moon using private investors either. Billionaires are queing up to get a flight with Branson's space craft. A trip to the moon would be even easier to sell. Hardly a reason not to go then is it?

Wibbs

Dealt with is a stretch in fairness. But OK, lets look at the budget.

The Apollo moon shot is estimated in todays terms as 136 billion quid. Their budget in 66 was 5.5% of the overall federal budget. Now its less than half a percent. Big difference. Yes they could easily do it by diverting funds from the "war on terror", but thats not gonna happen anytime soon.

Plus why go back? H3? Yep a good reason, but not as strong a reason as they had back then. Cold war etc.

Plus they have more irons in the fire as an agency. More probes, hubble, the shuttle etc. In the 60's Apollo was pretty much the entire focus.

If you needed to drive to Cork and were given 20,000 quid to build a car, you could probably do it, if that's the only cost you had to deal with. Try building a car with 2000 quid while paying for rent heat and food and with no real reason to drive to Cork.

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

And of course by your own admission they have doctored the images with composites, so back to the million dollar Question WHY????????????????????

Good God almighty.....you hoaxers really will twist everything. uprising2 posted a pic which is clearly a composite of at least 2 seperate images. For all you or I know it was put together by some hoaxer as 'proof' of doctoring......seriously :rolleyes:

If we are going to examine images at least use the original NASA records and not a composite which could have easily been put together by a hoax advocate. :rolleyes:

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

The Apollo moon shot is estimated in todays terms as 136 billion quid.

Can't find any estimated budget online, where is this figure from can I ask?

bytey

well done WIBBS you have just again indicated the blindness of the people who swallow the offical line and record .

the flag picture indicates the bulge is on BOTH SIDES , THE SAME BULGE .

if you cant even see that then you are probably bettor off in the warm comfortable pool of denial .




and a little doozy

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html
Not really. OK the image was cleaned up and or reticles were added. Dont see it as a doozy though.

so you admit NASA have altered the picture - these pictures freely downloadable from NASA ???


and the last one - the rover is sitting there , but no bay is open - so where did the rover come from?
the bay on the left - you say is not the rover bay as the rover wasnot packaged
and your link say the rover was in the bay to the RIGHT OF THE LADDER
in your pic this bay is not even open ...

*note what side its on too. << im noting , and im noting that its not open in your pic on the moon !!!



do some research before you flash back with irrelevent counterargument

case
closed.

namloc1980

bytey wrote: »

and a little doozy

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html

Look I will assume that you don't know how the Hasselblad was made, because if you think that is 'a little doozy', then you don't know how the Hasselblad worked.

Between the lens of the camera and the film magazine there was a clear plate of glass called a reseau plate with the small black crosshairs etched into it. They are the crosshairs that are visible in every Apollo image. Now in your 'little doozy' we can see that the crosshairs on the reseau plate in the region of the image that is pointed at the sun have literally cast a shadow onto the film behind the plate. Look closely at the image and you will see the shadows radiate away from the Sun. Now for the tiny crosshairs to cast a shadow onto the film would take a serious light source like the Sun. If anything this image proves that it was taken under the Sun.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

Can't find any estimated budget online, where is this figure from can I ask?

Eh you might actually try reading your own wiki link on the budget. Lets make it easier. This paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Cost_of_project_Apollo Easier again; "the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars)"

bytey wrote: »

well done WIBBS you have just again indicated the blindness of the people who swallow the offical line and record .

the flag picture indicates the bulge is on BOTH SIDES , THE SAME BULGE

Ok chillax there ted. It's explainable simply as the same bulge, from different sides. Shadows can make an object look like its receding or intruding. There are enough optical illusions that use this principle. http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/hollow_face/ Indeed in one photo they said one of the photos is "the flag from the right photo mirrored/flipped for comparative purposes".

and a little doozy

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html
Not really. OK the image was cleaned up and or reticles were added. Dont see it as a doozy though.

so you admit NASA have altered the picture - these pictures freely downloadable from NASA ???

Yep. Why not? It ould have been altered for cropping reasons, publication reasons. The list is long. One swallow does not a summer make. Also teh cameras had a reseau plate(that contains the reticles) fitted very close to the film plane. Not touching it though. So it's entirely plausible that the stock wasnt making perfect contact in that plate due to the autowind not taking up the slack. Its as valid an explanation as fakery

and the last one - the rover is sitting there , but no bay is open - so where did the rover come from?
the bay on the left - you say is not the rover bay as the rover wasnot packaged
and your link say the rover was in the bay to the RIGHT OF THE LADDER
in your pic this bay is not even open ...

*note what side its on too. << im noting , and im noting that its not open in your pic on the moon !!!

The whole bay was spring loaded. Look at the various vids of the LRV being deployed. It snaps back after deployment. OK lets say I'm wrong and its faked etc. The plain fact is whether it was on the moon or on a soundstage, the rover was stowed on the right hand side of the descent ladder. Not I repeat, not in the bay on the left hand side, so your "doozy" regardless of fake or not is quite simply wrong.

do some research before you flash back with irrelevent counterargument something I cant explain so easily

case mind
closed.

FYP.

Look Im well open to looking at this with as much an open mind as one can muster. Indeed I too have some issues with some of the exposures on the moon. Particularly apollo 11. Among the apollo 11 ones there are many of the best shots ever taken. Some of the exposure ranges look way to big for the stock used. You would expect the better shots to come from later missions. The later ones look more "real". More screwups too.

As for the camera itself. There were quite a few modifications to the camera body and lens. Heat would be less an issue as heat in a near vacuum is not like heat in atmosphere. It doesnt transmit so well. If you were exposed to the vacuum of space you wouldnt burn or indeed freeze for quite a while. The comparison of the moon to an oven is therefore a bit skewed. You would get pretty tepid food from an oven in a vacuum. Then you have radiation. The amount of x rays on the moon for the time they were there was not at the levels of an airport x ray scanner. Even then Ive had film go through one of them(in error) a couple of times and never saw evidence of fogging. A gold coating, like on the astronauts visors would reduce that even further.

Mr. Incognito

You know what, I'm going to come back to this. It's getting interesting.

I suggest the following. Could some of the hoax supporters kindly post 5 of your strongest assertions that support your theory's that it is a hoax.

I find the posting of links and language like case closed to be, well, pointless. Case closed? Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

Lets take 5 points, unlinked and we'll see if they really are conclusive proof of a hoax. We can line up both sides of evidence and take a poll on each of them under, bogus, confirmed or inconclusive.

I'd be shocked if we can even get anything in the inconclusive box.

FlameoftheWest

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I suggest the following. Could some of the hoax supporters kindly post 5 of your strongest assertions that support your theory's that it is a hoax.

Well I am not sure it is a hoax or not. But to play devil's advocate, if there are 5 reasons it could of been faked I would suggest:

1. Moon Rocks are easy enough to find in the Antartic
2. All Lunar Mission took place during the Nixon corrupt administration - working with lunatics such as Jack Parson and several high ranking former NAZIs. Hardly a recipe for honesty and ethics.
3. No manned space mission since has gone that deep into space
4. The faked WMD photos in Iraq suggest the recent Apollo Landing site images can't automatically be trusted
5. I never even knew there even was an Apollo hoax until a PhD in Cosmology whom I was saying to one night. "Be fantastic if they had of built a full time moon base" came back with. "Be fantastic it they sent a manned mission to the moon to begin with!" - he then gave me all kind of reasons based on physics which I did not understand which he said cast grave doubts that a Apollo was ever real. He said like the Global Warming hoax (recently exposed as a lie and scam by an army of sleazy "scientists") - any acedemic who said this publically would have their career ended.

I am not saying I beleive it was hoaxed. But I do beleive they could of hoaxed if they wanted to and got away with it a lot easier than is comfortable to come to terms with. It could of been done. More to the point with the way things were going for the USA at the time there was good reason to do it.

The USA is not a paragon of virture by any means. I say this as the son of US service man who worked closely with the CIA and ended up leaving the USA and moving to France as his patriotism was shattered by some of the things he witnessed done by the US/CIA in Turkey during the cold war.

Hollywood can also ride in after the fact and create a false history.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh you might actually try reading your own wiki link on the budget. Lets make it easier. This paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Cost_of_project_Apollo Easier again; "the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars)"

So then even guestimation of the figure seems about correct to you? Ariane missions run at about €700 million, Jaxa spent €450m on selene. One website suggests LCROSS came in at $79m.

The cost of LCROSS is about $79 million—cheap in the spaceflight world—and its planners delivered it on budget

You reckon the US need to spend $136 billion going to the moon. Can't see this being a realistic estimate. I suggest costs and technology for this project have moved on since the sixties.

thecommander

If it was a hoax then where did the rocket and lander etc go to? Surely they'd have been tracked by other countries that were in the race.

uprising2

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You know what, I'm going to come back to this. It's getting interesting.

I suggest the following. Could some of the hoax supporters kindly post 5 of your strongest assertions that support your theory's that it is a hoax.

I find the posting of links and language like case closed to be, well, pointless. Case closed? Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

Lets take 5 points, unlinked and we'll see if they really are conclusive proof of a hoax. We can line up both sides of evidence and take a poll on each of them under, bogus, confirmed or inconclusive.

I'd be shocked if we can even get anything in the inconclusive box.

Ok great idea, off you go, you give your 5 points and get the ball rolling.
What are your 5 point's that prove it wasn't a hoax, let's hear them.