Surely many of you have seen this short video.   Look, folks, the Moon Landings were a giant hoax.  I don't know who or what Stanley represents, but his comments I find bewildering.

If the loss of technology has been discussed many times, I failed to get in on it, even on CI. That NASA officials themselves admit that we have never gotten above lower space orbit; that we have no yet solved the radiation problem, etc.  I simply take them at their word.  The Apollo program was one giant lie for mankind.

OK. When people say the technology was lost, it was lost due to funding cuts under the Nixon administration. Manufacturing places that made tools and parts for Apollo switched to make other things. The ability to make more disappeared. Additionally, people who did the work, either at NASA or at various engineering contractors, switch to work on other things.

These were people with practical, operational knowledge (aka tacit knowledge) built up during tests in the 1960s, including details of subsystems. "Try SCE to AUX' was such specific knowledge that probably nobody else even in mission control at the time knew what why the recommendation from that one engineer might fix a particular problem that risked aborting Apollo 12. Also, like any design that isn't mass-produced, the actual build is a little different from the blueprints, and some people knew those differences. Thus, once people moved to new tasks, it was not a simple task of building another one from the blueprints and using it. Furthermore, technology does change, and so available alloys and other materials change properties. Even when for the better, they still involve redesign. So, in time, the whole craft needs to be redesigned to accommodate different materials.

On to a couple main points in the video.

Someone in the video says radiation needed to be solved for Orion, even though it had been solved for Apollo. Well, the astronauts WERE quarantined after each flight, and were tested for radiation, etc. They were almost all test pilots - willing to risk death. They were also willing to risk some cancer, though it turned out the engineers had done a good job. Furthermore, Orion is intended to be a crew capsule not just for a brief lunar mission, but for longer term missions including to Mars. Thus it has different requirements, and radiation issues had to be solved for Orion.

The narrator also claims that the temperatures in the thermosphere would melt the spacecraft. We have spacecraft in orbit now. Some of them (eg, the ISS) can be seen at night. Clearly these spacecraft survived. They handled the temperature because temperature is not the key value, but heat transfer. If you put your hand in 212 degree boiling water, you get scalded immediately, but you can put your hands in the air in a 400 degree oven for a while. The outer atmosphere may have a high temperature (meaning particles have high velocity), but it's practically a vacuum (meaning few particles). Vacuums are very good insulators - that's what a thermos has.

You can throw videos out here all day. What that shows is a lack of ability to do you own in depth research and a lack of ability to argue on your own behalf. I know you hoped to shut us up by posting a longish video thinking that no one would watch it and would give up and let you win because obviously your argument is bulletproof because you did enough research to find a youtube video about it. Get real.

 

 

No, Apollo 11 was the first attempt to land on the moon, transmit live 2-way video to/from the landing site, and re-launch the men back to earth. Complete success on the 1st try. Nothing went wrong!

Apollo 11 had several things go wrong, actually. A few of them (I think the first two are reasonably well-known):
- Armstrong nearly ran out of fuel trying to land in a safe spot. When they landed, they had about 25 seconds of fuel left to decide to abort landing. [That had a little more fuel than 25 seconds, but protocol said it was unsafe to abort landing once it got to that point, so they would have been committed to landing or crashing]

- in maneuvering to get out of the LM, the astronauts broke the switch to arm the launch engine. They used a pen to start it

- the LM overshot the planned landing location on the moon and was coming up on a place that wasn't safe to land (which is why they nearly ran out of fuel getting to a safer place)

- there was an ice blockage in one of the LM fuel lines, which built up pressure and could have exploded. It went away and NASA thinks waste heat from the landing engines melted it.

- the astronauts had trouble opening the door to get out of the LM. They partly disassembled the door. Had they broken the pressure seal, they would have been forced to stay in their pressure suits the rest of the mission.

- before reentry, the service module (which didn't have a heat shield) was separated from the command module (which did) and was supposed to go far away from the CM. It didn't. The SM was close to the CM on reentry, breaking into pieces that could have hit the CM.

The latter problem also occurred with Apollo 12. And I've already alluded to another problem on the launch of Apollo 12, which was hit by lightning causing all sorts of lights and alarms to go off. The engineer in charge of power systems suggested "try SEC to AUX", which stopped the alarms, and then mission control figured out what else was wrong. If this had not worked, they would probably have stopped that mission in earth orbit.

And Apollo 13 had an oxygen tank explosion. That was a rather big problem.

How difficult would it be to launch a military satellite into lunar orbit to unequivocally photograph ... the lunar surface specifically of all the alleged or real landing sights?

The NASA lunar reconnaissance orbiter has done something like this. In 2011, NASA changed the LRO orbit so the low point of its orbit was only about 13 miles from the surface, and got images of some of the Apollo sites from that altitude. That's about double the altitude of a commercial flight on earth. Here are some links:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/379
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/videos

Here's a 90 second video from that first link:
I think the images with sliders are also interesting.

The second link says that at that altitude, one pixel in the narrow angle camera represents about 0.5 meters (1.5 feet) and images can be resampled (a kind of image enhancement) to 0.25 meters.

They can tell that all but one of the flags are still casting shadows. One was knocked over by the LM ascent. The shadows change direction as the moon orbits over a monthly cycle, which makes them easier to identify:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795

A probe from India in 2009 took pictures of the lunar rover tracks for Apollo 15. It didn't have the resolution of the LRO and the tracks are not as well resolved.
https://gizmodo.com/indian-probe-takes-clear-photo-of-apollo-15-hopefully-5352410

I'm legitimately curious as to why you think we shouldn't believe in the moon landings. At least in your next post take a moment to answer that question for me.  

 
I am focused more on why I don’t believe the moon landing than why others shouldn’t. Let others believe as they will.
As for a number of reasons, basically off the top of my head, why I believe the moon landings never occurred, they are listed below, in no particular order.

 
>Video footage seems clearly to show that the US flag is waving in the breeze. No amount of explanation for this from NASA has ever satisfied me.

>We see a supposed moon landscape, rugged moutains and hills in the background, a lunar landing module in the foreground. That exact same landscape is superimposed, feature for feature, on another photo. But in this photo there is no vehicle. We know that they couldn’t move the vehicle. So how did this happen?

> No sign of a blast crater from the alleged descent of a LEM on the moon’s surface does not encourage belief, especially in light of the reported fact that the surface is covered with thick powdery dust, and we are told that the LEM engine produced at least 10,000 lbs of thrust. There should be a crater, not to mention a layer of dust over at least the bottom portion of the LEM, including the landing pads. But we see nothing

>In that regard, the supposed footprints of astronauts on a surface bereft of the tiniest amount of moisture. How do clear footprints survive? Try creating a clear visible footprint on a dry sandy beach.

>How does an astronaut snap clearly framed pictures in a bulky space suit with a Hasselblad camara mounted on his chest? Even the inventor of that camera was scratching his head over that one.

>Back to the LEM: Neil Armstrong almost got killed testing one in California a year before Apollo 11. Raw footage of that event is readily available, showing the craft crashing and bursting into flame. Yet we are to believe a year later that all the problems were ironed out, and that 6 successful landings occurred on the moon’s surface thereafter.

>There is only one light source on the moon’s surface, viz. The sun. Yet many alleged photos on the moon show multiple light sources, whose shadows to off at various angles from the objects casting them. Impossible.

>How can an astronaut descending to the moon’s surface from a LEM be so perfectly lit up and photographed when the his surroundings are plunged in the shadows of the very LEM he is exiting?

> How do astronauts survive the 250 degree heat during moon-day, and minus 250 degree cold during moon-night, in relatively flimsy suits with inadequate cooling and equally inadequate warming features?

> What is more, how do astronauts survive on a surface being constantly bombarded by micro meteorites. The earth is protected from this bombardment, because we have an atmosphere in which they burn up before reaching the earth’s surface. No so on the moon.

>How do astronauts survive passing through the Van Allen belt unscathed by dense, lethal radiation in that region? Not just once but a collective total of 12 time. Not one of them suffered from any kind of radiation sickness, much less cancer thereafter. This in light of the fact that numbers of scientists and astrophysicists have expressed grave doubt that such a positive outcome might occur. Even current NASA astonauts like Terry Virsts admit that we do not have the ability presently to pass above earth’s orbit. The Orion project, he says, will do it one day in the future, but not now.

>Why is the moon’s alleged horizon so black. It should be blanketed with myriads of stars and galaxies, not to mention to clear views of planets in our solar system.

> How could astronauts have communicated so clearly and noiselessly with ground control, when the noise level of the propulsion engine, a few feet away, directly below them, was reported to have been totally deafening?

 
>Gus Grissom complained that they couldn’t even communicate between bldgs. on the ground of the space center. How, he wondered, could they ever do it successfully from deep space?
Grissom was highly critical of the whole Apollo, program. He hung a lemon on the front of his test module just to illustrate his misgivings. He met an untimely death, as we know. Was it just an accident? His widow and family didn’t think so.

>At least 10 astronauts have died in their early sixties from causes ranging from heart attacks to cancer. I thought these guys were the most fit men among us. Strange

>Commander James Irwin had a sudden heart attack just after he had decided, (apparently), to come clean with his own story. He contacted moon landing denier, Bill Kaysing, in 1961, and asked the former to call him at his home, because, he felt his phone line might be bugged. Kaysing did contact him and arranged for a meeting. Irwin, alas, died suddenly a few days later before ever meeting Kaysing. He was 61.

>A NASA inspector named Tom Baron compiled a 500 page report on the Apollo Project. It was highly critical of the way the project was being run. He detailed facts about employee incompetence, drunkenness, poor workmanship, carelessness, lack of proper safety, etc. Baron was called to testify before a Congressional Committee in 1966(?). A week later he was dead, along with his wife and step-daughter. They were hit in their car by a train, it is reported. No autopsy was conducted. The bodies were immediately cremated in violation of Florida law. The 500 page report went missing and has never been recovered.

>An commercial airline pilot calls Bill Kaysing just about the time one of the returning landing modules set down in the ocean in 1970(?) He reports seeing a C5 cargo plane dropping what looked like an Apollo space capsule into the ocean. This was during a routine flight to Japan. The pilot did not identify himself, because he feared the loss of his job.

 
I could go on, but that should be enough for the time being. We really just scratched the surface.I repeat, the supposed moon landings were fake,IMO The entities who want to keep the facts from coming out are sinister liars. But they occupy very high places in our government, and maybe others. This ruthless power elite doesn’t hesitate to get people out of the way who threaten to expose their lies. They don’t want the Americans to know that 30 to 40 billion of taxpayer dollars was spent wastefully and fraudulently just to prove that the US could go ahead of the Soviets in the space race of the sixties and 70s.


 

5MO7, there is a worse argument than those.  The idea that the astronauts acted suspiciously, that they wouldn’t swear they were telling the truth, that they were “deer in the headlights”, etc.  Those arguments are so pitiful and even sinful (calumny, detraction) that Catholics should be ashamed to even mention them.

I agree with you 100%

It seems that some CathInfo members posted replies while I was composing this.  I confess that I haven't been able keep up with some members' unusually prolific posting rates in this topic this evening.

▷ How can an astronaut descending to the moon’s surface from a LEM be so perfectly lit up and photographed when the his surroundings are plunged in the shadows of the very LEM he is exiting?

Huh?  When?  In the famous Apollo-11 black&white video from the Moon, as broadcast by the major U.S. t.v. networks as relayed from Earth stations, Armstrong was in the shadow of the L.E.M. as he descended its ladder and stepped/jumped down to the surface.  Frustratingly so, because I was photographing it directly from a t.v. screen as it was broadcast; I'd expected clearer video.

▷ How does an astronaut snap clearly framed pictures in a bulky space suit with a Hasselblad camara mounted on his chest?

Easy: The Hasselblad 500-series are single-lens reflexes that form a 2¼×2¼-in. (6×6-cm.) square image, but like the 2¼×2¼ twin-lens reflexes (e.g., Rolleiflex) over which they were considered a major technical advancement, have look-down viewfinders.  On the Hasselblad 500-series, the ground-glass viewfinder is just in front of the film magazine in the rear.  So for active photography, it was positioned as close to an astronaut's helmet face-plate as higher equipment-priorities allowed.  I think that focusing with potentially clumsy gloves was facilitated by a stalk on its focusing ring.  It's not all that different from the issues that divers overcome in underwater photography, but these details are all from fallible human memory.  In fact, NASA had astronauts practice various skills underwater.

As photojournalists have learned since long before Project Apollo, an index finger pointing at the subject, on a path parallel to the axis of the lens, can produce surprisingly well-framed photos.  Seems to me the framing issue on Moon missions was eased by mounting a moderate wide-angle lens (i.e., not so short a focal length as to disable the reflex mirror), perhaps 50 mm.   When not framed exactly as NASA wanted, but including all the intended subject, then they could quite honestly rotate & crop in postprocessing.  Chemical photography is an analog technology, so no one should sweat rotation by some number of degrees that's not a multiple of 90°.

Even the inventor of that camera was scratching his head over that one.

I simply do not believe that claim.  Please cite a verifiable printed source or on-line equivalent.  The inventor and engineers of Hasselblad would've been very familiar with everything I've written in this reply.

▷ Why is the moon’s alleged horizon so black[?]  It should be blanketed with myriads of stars and galaxies, not to mention to clear views of planets in our solar system.

Sigh. This point of attempted debunking reveals rather deep ignorance about photography, especially exposure.  The Moon's daytime surface is more-or-less as bright as beach sand on a sunny day.  To accurately reproduce its ash-gray color, plus provide detail in the white space-suits, the exposure had to be set way too low to reproduce the relatively feeble light from distant stellar objects, including planets other than Earth.

Especially if the color film used on the Moon was transparency (a.k.a. "slide") film, which has perhaps 1/2 the exposure-latitude of negative (a.k.a. "print") film (at least nowadays).  I suspect that they followed the lead of the prestigious National Geographic in routinely using a Kodak transparency film, thus either Kodachrome^TM or Ektachrome^TM, whose A.S.A. film speeds in their commercial product lines back then were no higher than 64.

So how's 'bout you going out some night and trying to photograph a sky full of the planets and big-name stars (from Earth); when you get an image that shows "myriads" brightly enough to meet your expectations, be sure to return to CathInfo and present that image, with the exposure and other technical details (beware that claiming that it was set to "automatic" will be a summary disqualification).

▷ There is only one light source on the moon’s surface, viz. The sun.  Yet many alleged photos on the moon show multiple light sources, whose shadows [go] off at various angles from the objects casting them.  Impossible.

Fascinating.  I've read that claim before, but I've never seen any such photos.  Keep in mind that the L.E.M. was partially covered with a material that reflected light as well as aluminum foil.  Feel free to provide URLs, but I'll warn potential respondents now: I refuse to download & watch any videos just so I can view any still images.

Back to Terry Virts, in an attempt to cut through all the crap, I'll submit a short bio of the man:

...

In it Virts, in clear, unmistakable language, states that “we” do not have space travel technology capable of launching “us” beyond earth’s lower orbit. I assume that he speaks on behalf of the entire space industry. If not, please enlighten me further.

He said "right now we can only fly in earth orbit" - the US today doesn't have the operational technology to go to the moon. He did not say the US never did.

A moon trip requires a human-rated heavy-lift launch system with enough delta V to get to the moon. The only US operational, human-rated heavy-lift launch system was Saturn V. They were used. So were all the N1 (the Russian counterpart to the Saturn V). I don't think Energia had the delta V for the moon, but the two built were also used up. Even if they weren't, Energia was discontinued 30 years ago.

The closest operational thing today is the Falcon Heavy, which (at least with boosters, not sure alone) has a delta V to get beyond LEO. However, it is not human rated, and Elon Musk has shown no interest in getting it human rated. (It also has somewhat less payload capacity than Saturn V.)