Apollo Moon "Hoax" - Photographic "Evidence" Questions

[astrostu]

This might seem like an odd title, but let me explain: I'm giving a seminar presentation next week with the aim of proving that we did not not go to the Moon (not proving we did, but showing how hoax claims are incorrect, hence the "not not").

The bulk of the "evidence" for a hoax that most conspiracists point to is photographic in nature, so I thought that I would ask this question of all you photo folks:

What is/are the main photography-based reasons that you've heard/seen that "prove" we did not go to the moon? Or if you're a hoax believer, then what photographic evidence do you have to support your claim?

I'm not looking for the actual explanations, I can figure those out on my own. I already have a hefty presentation lined up, but I wanted to get some feedback from you guys to make sure that I address the most common claims.

P.S. Please don't have this thread digress into a shouting match among believers and non-believers. Just list the claims and that's all.

 

[Tiberius]

I would merely plagiarize off this site - it debunks in detail every Apollo Conspiracy Theory ever.

 

[astrostu]

Yes, I know of that site (I have his book), but that's not what I asked. I want to know what YOU have heard, not what other sites say.

 

[Mr Avid]

No Im not a hoax beleiver.....the evidence I have always seen is the pictures of the flag and the conspiracy theorist pointing to the shadow being cast in the wrong direction.

My question about the photo is how do I know THAT photo hasn't be altered to support the conspiracy.

As with all conspiracy's....your told not to believe what "you;ve been told" and don't question "what your being told" at the same time.

Not related to photo's but on this particular conspiracy.....you have to remember we were in a Space Race with the then USSR.....had we not really gone to the moon....do you think they'd let the US enjoy the PR they received by being the first to the moon???
Heck NO! They would have been the first to call BS. And you can be sure they weren't taking our word on the progress of the mission(S). They were tracking them themselves.

 

[aparis99]

My question about the photo is how do I know THAT photo hasn't be altered to support the conspiracy.

I'm not disagreeing but the same photos are the ones on the NASA database, all the photos are available from there, i've done a few papers on it myself... just a thought

 

[DSG]

Im glad you posted this...I have known for years that noone went to the Moon...It was impossible then and its impossible now...at least using current rocket technology.
As for most of the evidence against Apollo being genuine being photographic, thats partly true but you should also know that there can be NO photographic evidence from the Moon!
The main reason they could'nt go, or get photographic evidence to prove it, was Solar radiation.
Facts:
The magnetic fields in the Van-Allen belts trap much of the harmfull Earthbound Solar radiation and just like a giant microwave oven the flux levels build up enormously...The average level is about 2000 Rem.
...Radiation fluxes in the Van-Allen belts always reach hundreds of times lethal doses.
The lowest Van allen Belt is about 350 miles above the Earth but the Van-Allen belts extend so far out into space that at "Earth escape velocity", about 27000mph, it would still have taken the Apollo Astronauts about 2 hours to travel through the Van-Allen belts...Long enough to kill any Astronauts foolish enough to attempt it in an unsheilded Apollo space capsule!
Below the Van-Allen belts and above the Earths atmosphere is the comparative safety zone of LEO (Low Earth Orbit).
The Earths atmospere shields us from the constant rain of lethal and highly penetrating Gamma rays and X-Rays from the Sun.
The shielding effect of the Earths atmospere is equivalent to about 23 feet of compacted earth or about the same as a 6 foot thick sheet of solid Aluminium....You would need the combined power of dozens of Saturn 5's to lift that sort of weight into space!
Even with this effective gaseus shield above us we all manage to receive an average dose of about 140 Rem over the period of a year, but sudden exposure to a dose of 140 Rem would cause almost immediate nausia, vomiting and diarrhea...Not nice inside the confines of an unsheilded Apollo space capsule!
Radiation "fogs" film...The cameras chosen for use on the Apollo missions were basically box standard Hasselblads with no special radiation sheilding. On the Moons surface the film inside would have been exposed to a constant stream of Gamma rays and X-Rays from the Solar wind completely ruining the film...Hence why it would be impossible to get photographic evidence back from the Moon.
Like their space capsule, the space suits used by the Astronauts would have been transparent to Gamma rays and X-rays...Strange how none have died of radiation sickness, even after all these years!
The rest is vidographic and photographic (thats a much longer story) but it all ends up leading to one conclusion...Man has still not yet been to the Moon.

DSG

 

[astrostu]

Thanks, DSG, but that doesn't answer my question. I'm looking for photographic reasons, not environmental.

And by the way, "rem" is a unit of absorbed radiation in human tissue. Saying that the average level of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is "2000 rem" is meaningless; it's like saying that the density of water is 20 kilograms.

 

[Remi M.]

astrostu: What I remember as one of the points of the conspiracy theorists is that the flag appears to be fluttering in the wind. even though there is no wind on the moon. (in reality the flag has a horizontal support sewn into the fabric to hold it up and flutters only when moved by the astronaut).

It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people actually believe that the moon landing is a hoax. Despite irrefutable evidence. The hundreds of pounds of moon rock brought back.

 

[astrostu]

astrostu: What I remember as one of the points of the conspiracy theorists is that the flag appears to be fluttering in the wind. even though there is no wind on the moon.

My favorite part about this is that they see a flag fluttering in a still picture. Amazing that. It's also something that we will be addressing in our presentation.

 

[toastydeath]

astrostu: What I remember as one of the points of the conspiracy theorists is that the flag appears to be fluttering in the wind. even though there is no wind on the moon. (in reality the flag has a horizontal support sewn into the fabric to hold it up and flutters only when moved by the astronaut).

It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people actually believe that the moon landing is a hoax. Despite irrefutable evidence. The hundreds of pounds of moon rock brought back.

What do you do when you can't get a real degree in science or engineering?

Read wikipedia, and make stuff up on the internet.

 

[astrostu]

What do you do when you can't get a real degree in science or engineering?

Read wikipedia, and make stuff up on the internet.

Well, when debunking hoax claims, I try to avoid personal attacks on the people who make them ... unless they claim something personal that is not correct, like if someone claims he's a physicist, that carries the assumption of a doctorate, but often in these cases "physicist" means self-taught (and not very well).

 

[Znarled]

The one I've heard of is the crosshairs thing, where it appears that the astronauts are blocking part of the crosshair that is supposed to be inside the camera, therefore NASA manipulated/faked the shots but botched the job.


-debunked by exposure effects

 

[DSG]

It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people actually believe that the moon landing is a hoax. Despite irrefutable evidence. The hundreds of pounds of moon rock brought back.

But you dont need to go to the Moon to get Moon rock!...There is plenty Lunar material lying around right down here on Earth, if you know where to look....The Arctic and Antartic for instance.
Nor do you need to send a man there to pick up rocks and bring them back, unmanned probes could do that job and without risking human lives.
There has even been a sizeable amount of Martian rocks found right here on Earth, in the Polar regions, and noone had to go there to get it! (remember the Martian meteorite that they found fossilised signs of life inside?)
...So I'm afraid the "Rock argument" simply does'nt hold water.

DSG

 

[Puscas]

what I remember of the landing/not landing discussion is that there are no stars in the sky on all the pictures. Or something like that. (because of your question, I'm not looking this one up).







pascal

 

[astrostu]

The one I've heard of is the crosshairs thing, where it appears that the astronauts are blocking part of the crosshair that is supposed to be inside the camera, therefore NASA manipulated/faked the shots but botched the job.


-debunked by exposure effects

Yep. Thanks. It's also refuted by the fact that it's much easier just to take the shots the way NASA says they were than to add cross-hairs in after the shots were taken.