.
Perhaps the character of astronauts, if carefully protected by the media and by NASA, has something to do with it?
.
COULD one of the not-so-widely-publicized criteria for what constitutes "The Right Stuff" be the ability to keep a big fat secret?
..

I have no idea now if it was an actual requirement of the screening of the astronauts as depicted in the movie The Right Stuff, but I can remember when I saw the movie so many years ago, I was left with the impression that it may very well have been.  In retrospect I would not be surprised if it was, but even if it wasn't I don't have much of a doubt that the astronauts to a man would have submitted to such a requirement.

Due to the nature of the requirement and due to my knowledge of what constituted a sɛҳuąƖ mortal sin I never completely forgot that part of the movie.  The requirement that I refer to was the requirement of providing a sample of your semen and the way the astronauts being given a test tube in the movie were supposed to acquire it was by going to the bathroom and committing an act of self abuse and then returning to the lab in the same building.  They did it.  I was very shocked at the time and as I said I never forgot it.  Query -- were any of the early astronauts Catholic?

Are you sure they were not 8 x 10? That's a much more common format compared to 9 x 12.

  Neil, You're such a nit-picker! The humour makes up for it, however!  :D

Is it more plausible that everyone closely involved in the space program (hundreds of thousands, at least) are "in" on a conspiracy, or that the few people who started the hoax story are deluded or lying or worse?

The Apollo missions left reflectors on the moon. With the right equipment, anyone can bounce lasers off them, which proves they are there (and provides a distance).

.
I don't have personal experience using the retro-reflectors left on the moon, but I have spoken to amateur astronomers who claim they have been involved in using them. It's pretty straightforward, they say, but it's far from simple. They tell me you have to aim your laser very carefully and use a particularly sophisticated focusing device to assure the intensity center of the beam hits one reflector more strongly than others, because there are several reflectors on the moon, all of which will send back a signal from your device. The best systems use a coded message, like a series of dots and dashes (Morse code) similar to the ephemerides of satellites. The response the apparatus receives back from the moon includes "noise" from the other reflectors which must be filtered out so you can rely on an accurate reading from one reflector only. The moon is in motion (obviously) so the highly accurate distance measurement will be constantly changing, so you have to keep track of the UTC time when each of your observations are made. So it's not a "point and shoot" kind of thing like a Polaroid camera or a digital camera. Automated systems use computer programs to take several sequential readings with their respective times, to double-check for accuracy and reliability. This is BTW something your handheld cell phone with GPS does because it has a GPS receiver built in. The artificial satellites (it takes four of them) do not compute your location nor do they receive or process any data from your receiver. Your own receiver does all the computing from the 4 different ephemerides from the 4 different satellites all at the same time.
.
Flat-earthers reject the entire topic (both retro-reflectors on the moon and ephemerides from artificial satellites) on the grounds that it's too full of convoluted and deliberately obfuscating Modernist "science" jargon. IOW they don't want to learn facts when it can only lead to them having to recognize the ridiculousness of their pet fantasy. 

You're right.  I'm hopeless at both. :-[

I don't have personal experience using the retro-reflectors left on the moon, but I have spoken to amateur astronomers who claim they have been involved in using them. It's pretty straightforward, they say, but it's far from simple. They tell me you have to aim your laser very carefully and use a particularly sophisticated focusing device to assure the intensity center of the beam hits one reflector more strongly than others

Yes, it takes the right equipment as you indicate. That includes an appropriate strength pulse laser, and some very good light receptors/filters for recognizing the faint return signal because a lot of the light is lost. And an automated tracking setup. I haven't kept up with equipment costs, but I'm fairly sure all this equipment would still cost more than US$10,000, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than US$50,000. 
 
But I don't think retroreflectors should be considered convoluted science jargon. Retroreflectors are used on road signs.
 

I read or heard ( somewhere), I can't remember, that we DID go to the moon, but that the filming was staged anyway ( probably by Stanley Kubrick). Whatever was on the moon was not for public consumption.
That would solve the obviously staged "live transmission" and the reflectors actually being placed on the moon's surface.
Just a theory.

Well, I'm aware some people think the moon has the ruins of an alien civilisation. (Or that the aliens are still there - there's at least one film based on this premise.) But that's probably not the direction most traditional Catholics would go.
 
 

.
Here is an interactive site that replays two channels of communication for the Apollo 11 lunar landing, Houston and live lander com.
.
Keep an eye peeled on the Lunar Module Pitch Angle bottom center - it rotates extremely slowly. 
Neil Armstrong's heart rate is shown in the top right corner in the heart icon in the LMPA panel. Goes from 110 to 119.
.
http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/
.
Several phases of "Go NoGo" and "Stay NoStay" decisions were made at the control room in Houston, TX.
.

.
STIGZ  1 week ago
I love the sarcasms at the end. Spot on!

macc240038  3 months ago  
We older earthlings watched all of the Gemini, surveyor, Apollo missions along with many others not mentioned. Do you think for one minute the governments of Russia, China, the u k, France etc. And their populations weren't sitting in front of their t.v.s watching too? Their scientists were tracking the Apollo spacecrafts. The Russians would have loved to call the Americans liars in that they did not land on the moon. They were our chief competitors. Funny thing, they didn't. They congratulated us for a job well done.
But yet we have present day Americans who are busying themselves with this nonsense that there weren't any moon landings. So in ten, fifteen years, some country will land on Mars. And they will see it. And when they get old they will read on you tube how young people, who did not witness the first Mars landing, are calling it a hoax. And the  joke will be on them. Brave men risked their lives to take us to the moon and advance space exploration and these deniers sit on their comfortable couch and give no credit to them. Ship of Fools.

.
TV cameras Apollo left on the moon ............
.

.
.
Comments:

Joshua Kerger
3 months ago
You could almost say it’s unbelievable.



BTPPaintBallTeam
BTPPaintBallTeam
3 months ago
Kelly Dardeen odd. The original data was handwritten. Can't just erase that data on a computer........... you ever see the pics of the people standing beside their stacks of calculations as tall as them - it's nuts.



Science isAce
Science isAce
3 months ago
Joshua Kerger you could say it's unbelievable someone could win the Euromillions when the odds are 75 million to one, but someone does.


Joshua Kerger
Joshua Kerger
3 months ago (edited)
Science isAce I’m not sure it’s quite the same comparing a possibility of something happening with a possibility of us having done something. 

Literally nothing is impossible, this I believe to be true. But the probability of some things are so unlikely that I haven’t the time nor comment space to fit the zeros in write the odds. And ‘to the power of’s’ a bit hazy to me. At such greater numbers anyways. (Next on list) 

How far it goes exactly, I don’t know. But there is something wrong with NASA’s.......... 
People sense this and then imagination runs wild and theories become more extreme. But you can’t blame them as once trust is broken, doubts are casted on everything that has ever been claimed to be true n was never scrutinised openly to assure that it is what they indeed claim. 

Same with a lot of popular cօռspιʀαcιҽs. Not saying they’re true but 9/11 was not what we have been told it was. JFK was not shot by a single gunman acting alone. War on drugs was/is a load of shit. Chemtrails etc

I’m leaning towards maybe we were shown faked footage as to not give any technologies etc away or something. 

But how could they “tape over” all the original footage? And what’s this business about not having the technology to pass through the Van Allen belt anymore? That’s a bit weird. There are obvious flaws in some NASA photos also. Including very.... very similar backgrounds in different positioned shots, a lemming on mars and a rotating helmet during a space walk. 

I am always happy to be proven wrong :). Really, but I prefer to ask questions rather than make solid assumptions. And I’m never 100% on anything...... Pretty sure the Earth isn’t flat though.