Thanks for the post, I am not particularly a follower of Apollo conspiracies and stuff, but it's always interesting to read honest opinion grounded in scientific data. Certainly something to chew over.

Its quite obvious and easily verifyable that NASA landed on the move, so what are you proposing? I'm going to believe NASA's numbers over some random internet person, especially when they are based on a momentary glimpse of some clouds.

For starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

this ride in all likeliness lacked the thrust required to reach escape velocity.

"in all likeliness" is laughable... you have zero hard evidence for this.

And lasers diffuse to several kilometers of diameter until they get to the moon.

This simply isn't true. You can get a reading by bouncing a laser off the moon surface, but when compared to the LLRE the signal strength is orders of magnitude larger.

Plus, the soviets installed reflectors as well -- with unmanned probes. So, no proof.

So you're ready to believe that soviets had the technology to place things on the moon, but somehow NASA doing the same thing with people is somehow unimaginable? You're using shotgun logic to try and throw enough crazy ideas that eventually one will stick. There are many photos of the lunar landing sites. As the Chinese head for the moon I'm sure we will see more photos from them as well. But nothing will ever convince you obviously.

Can you refute it?

If it were a genuine scientific paper it would have been submitted to one of the many journals and been peer-reviewed. Because there is ton of stuff that would need to be verified, the math checked, etc.

The moon landings have nothing, zero, squat to do with 9/11.

The reason that you're wasting your time because you're denying things that you yourself could go out and verify. The equipment to bounce a laser off one of those reflectors is within the budget and skills of your average high school student, and plenty of people have done it.

What does 9/11 have to do with it?

"They must both be fake because they have so much in common!"

"What do they have in common?" "Well, they're both fakes."

Anyway, instead of claiming there was a connection, I was claiming there was no way to know there wasn't.

There must be a connection between the Kennedy assassination and 9/11! I mean, there's no way to know that there isn't.

No, I summarized your poorly-thought-out position.

I actually studied mathematical logic at a graduate level...

Oh how far technology has come that we now have cameras which have photographed the landing sites of the previous Apollo missions to such a resolution that we can begin to see the evidence of the landing sites (as if the huge amount of footage, pictures, rocks, and other evidence isn't enough to begin with).

This is my favorite one of the bunch:

With resolution that proves nothing more than robot missions. No proof whatsoever was offered to support manned missions to the moon.

I could be wrong, but I don't think we had the technology in he 1960s for the kind of remote controlled robots which would be necessary to deploy on he moon and control from the Earth. Sounds like a real stretch.

How did Russia do it then?

Did Russia land on the moon in the 60s with remote controlled robots?

Are you honestly asking this question? I'll let you investigate Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 before we go any further.

You do realize that 90% of the rocks are now missing or proven fake such as the petrified wood given to the Dutch.

All of the original footage - and I do mean ALL, including all blueprints etc - over 700 boxes - which represent the pinnacle of man's achievement was misplaced and lost by NASA in its entirety with no backups/copies ever made?

Can you imagine the size of their gonads to destroy the evidence and then say "they lost it"?

Truth is way stranger than fiction!

I haven't heard of the 90% figure (but, admittedly haven't seen the inside of your ass). The loss of the original footage is unfortunate but understandable given the storage technology at the time and the cost combined with general government incompotence.

unfortunate but understandable ?

A national treasure. A human heritage milestone?

unfortunate but understandable?

I would think the smithsonian would disagree

But hey if you think Werner Von Braun went to Antarctica on vacation during the crunch time of Apollo to relax, well, you are entitled to you opinion. Oh lookie here! Moon rocks in Antarctica. What a coincidence! I'll just leave them here so we don't mix them with the tons if rocks the astronauts are going to pick up in between their raking 5000 pictures and changing film with pressurized gloves.

I'm sure that is what happened.

It's all kinds of fun when arguments such as "they could have never brought back that much moon rock unless man was there (United States man). This, along with the key records (example - the original video of the first moon walk) simply disappearing. The millions upon millions spent, and all that engineering down the drain. Blueprints for nearly everything...gone. By far, the most important artifacts of the supposed greatest achievements lost forever. Yet the story is still believeable? Bullshit.

It was as fake as cavemen performing 9/11. A lie to bilk the taxpayer out of more funds than we even have.

So you are saying that NASA went to the moon 7 times in 4 years with no injuries or fatalities, only during the administration of Nixon, and then completely stopped and has never been farther from earth then 200 miles ever since? Does this make sense to you??!!

A NASA official just stated on the record that they currently do not have the technology to land a man on the moon. They can't protect from the radiation, they can't handle all of the dust, and they don't have materials for spacesuits that can handle extreme shifts in temperature.

NASA is admitting they lied to your face and you STILL believe them?

NASA said it would take 20 years to get back to the moon after Bush gave them a goal. Why? It only took 8 years the first time. (6 if you don't count the first 2 years when they didn't even start working on it)

What precisely are your requirements of proof? The way you are stating it is impossible. 9-11 was planned by bogeymen in caves 1/2 way around the world. JFK was hit with a magic bullet.

Must be nice to have that much faith in government? Why are you over here in r/conspiracy? Just working' the troll?

"verifyable"

You're going to believe NASA's numbers?? Ok, why did the latest unmanned mission to the moon take 4 months instead of 1 1/2 days one way. How did astronauts take >5000 photographs in the 6 missions with no viewfinder and get no out of focus shots? Why did they abandon the Saturn V rocket when it had a 100% success rate which no other program before or since had replicated? How did they have enough fuel to go 400,000 miles, which is 399,600 miles further than they went any other time? Where did they go to the bathroom? Where is all of the oxygen? In the lunar module?

Please tell me you don't believe this.

I'm sorry but most of your questions are elementary in nature and just speak towards your ignorance rather than the ridiculously-easy-to-verify fact that the moon landings happened. For example:

How did they have enough fuel to go 400,000 miles, which is 399,600 miles further than they went any other time?

Most of the travel time to the moon the rockets do not need to fire. Anyone know plays Kerbal Space Program knows these things. Where is all the oxygen? They used chemical generators like are used on submarines.

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

Anyone around the world can aim a laser at this device and get a reading. People do this from countries around the globe. Did this magically appear? We have photos of the landing sites: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/101-Apollo-11-Second-look.html

And the Saturn V rocket was 'abandoned' because they had no payload nearly large enough to warrant the expense of building them. And it doesn't have a 100% rate either... Apollo 6 was classified as a partial failure. And with 13 launches a 100% rate isn't entirely significant.

Where is all the oxygen? They used chemical generators like are used on submarines.

Submarines are surrounded by an oxygen rich environment from which oxygen can be synthesized. In space, the combined mass of equipment and source material, plus fuel, would be much greater than pure stored oxygen.

What you are suggesting here is silly.

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

This is dumb. Oxygen is an element with a fixed mass. Any compound involving oxygen has other elements involved, increasing the mass. Better to have only oxygen.

To suggest these things were on a space mission one must be ignorant of basic chemistry.

Are you of the opinion that the oxygen you breathe in is destroyed by your body?

Well, this doesn't happen. You exhale it as carbon dioxide - CO2 - and this CO2 can be broken down to get the oxygen out in a variety of ways.

You have to have something to generate the oxygen FROM such as water or chemicals. It can't be made from space void. Carrying the chemicals or water would take more space than just taking all the oxygen at once.

Either that or they could use the same roll of duct tape they used on Apollo 13 to make it all the way back to earth.

You got to hand it to them - they went all out with the ridiculous lies and everyone just believed them.

Do you believe Apollo 11 was followed by aliens? Buzz Aldrin said it was and that means its true, right? NASA wouldn't lie, would they?

Do you even know what cognitive dissonance is?

You have to have something to generate the oxygen FROM such as water or chemicals.

Wrong. From wikipedia: "The oxygen source is usually an inorganic superoxide, chlorate, or perchlorate; ozonide are a promising group of oxygen sources. "

Carrying the chemicals or water would take more space than just taking all the oxygen at once.

REALLY wrong. Oxygen is stored as a gas or liquid. Chemical oxygen generators store solid superoxides which release enormous amounts of O2.

So not only are you a dick, you're a stupid dick.

Oxygen is an element. You can have a compound made of 2 oxygen atoms and one hydrogen (water) for instance, but no matter what you do to it you will only ever break it down into those very same two atoms of oxygen and one atom of hydrogen. You can never get more than that.

DOH!

You really are completely stupid. But people are paying attention to you so no problem.

Show me your stupid stored superoxides. Show me the stupid generator. Better yet, go stick your head back in the sand. Good god you are dumb. Do you work for the TSA?

Why on earth would they use generators when the source material plus generator equipment would equal more mass than pure stored oxygen?!?

Complete horseshit.

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

Did you even look at the landing site photos? The Eagle Descent Stage has a different shadow than everything else there and to me it even looks like it is going east and all the other shadows are going west. If there are other lights up there I don't see them but I guess that would explain why there were all of those different shadows up there for Apollo. Or maybe the wind the made the flag flap in the breeze caused it.

How about providing one amateur picture of a satellite taken from earth that is orbiting earth. Not the ISS or the shuttle. There are 5000+ satellites per NASA. Look on Google Images and try to find one. Weird is all I can say.

Anyone around the world can aim a laser at this device and get a reading. People do this from countries around the globe. Did this magically appear? We have photos of the landing sites: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/101-Apollo-11-Second-look.html

Yes, and they could do it 7 years before Apollo 11 too. Lasers bounce off the moon just fine with or without some stupid mirror. How do you think sunlight gets from the sun to the moon and then BOUNCES and hits earth? Is there anything NASA can tell you and have you not believe?

Buzz Aldrin stated that all the power for the air-conditioning, computers, rovers, cameras etc all came from "batteries"! Where did they put those?

Do you honestly believe that they went 6 times to the moon and took 5000+ pictures and never bothered to look up and take a picture of the stars or earth?

By the way, can you explain how they managed to get radio waves to travel faster than the speed of light? They communicated with Houston with no delay - listen for yourself. It should have taken over 2 secs round trip.

I would believe NASA went to the moon if there are circumstances we aren't aware of (see concave earth theory, aliens, etc) and didn't tell us the truth. But please get serious. The equipment like the ridiculous lander made out of Reynolds wrap and cardboard but was airtite, to the magic rocket engine on the lander that was never tested due to the corrosive fuel which ruined it after 1 use, but could ease the lander onto the moon's surface without even having a throttle and without leaving a crater or even getting dust on its feet!

How can a 180 pound main with a 180 pound airconitioner on his back in 1/6 gravity meaning he is 60 pounds earth weight only manage to jump 8" and move in slow motion?

Then you have the identical backdrops, reflections of studio lights, cameras that pan up without anyone running it. You have the lander accelerate to 4000 miles per hour and dock flawlessly with the command module despite not even really having windows.

You can look on Google Earth and see the exact location of the identical craters that were made in the Nevada desert for the set. They even went to the trouble of making a filmstrip visible from above as an inside joke to the whole event.

This isn't even a tiny fraction of all of the mind-blowing in your face evidence that screams fake.

They even shaved up there in space! Lol

Please don't give the landing site photos - those are so fake I thought they were joking.

If that stuff is there then take a picture of it with the Hubble Telescope or land a probe there and make it undeniable.

Obviously they won't do that because they can't.

You probably think the Apollo missions didn't use fuel to travel that last 199,000 miles because its space. You probably think there is zero-G in space because they float around. There is 100% or more gravity all the way to the moon - how do you think the moon stays put and doesn't fly off if the earth wasn't pulling it? The moon has gravity enough to cause tides on earth. But that doesn't matter, you don't really need fuel.

Where did they put the parachute for the module again? Oh yes, right in front of where it docked with the command module. No problem there I guess. How wide was that hatch? How wide is an astronaut with a space suit on?

Seriously how can you believe this?

Lasers bounce off the moon just fine with or without some stupid mirror.

NO, they do NOT. And if you tried the experiment - which you could do easily - you'd see that you get no signal until you hit the mirror.

I do try it every time I look up at the night sky and see the sun's reflected light bouncing off the moons surface.

Give it a break - a laser reflector toy doesn't prove anything and if you think man can point a laser and shoot it 200,000 miles at a moving target and hit it, then you probably would believe anything.

I do try it every time I look up at the night sky and see the sun's reflected light bouncing off the moons surface.

The sun generates vastly, hugely more energy. Your laser's power is measured in milliwatts - the sun's total power output is about 4x10²⁶ watts. Only about a billionth of that power hits the moon - that's still over a million million million times as much as your laser pointer.

You could actually try this experiment yourself, you know - or you could talk to the numerous people who have done this including a friend of mine - or you could read the details of how such an experiment was done and use actual numbers and science to investigate whether it was true.

I have looked into it and you CANNOT see a laser beam bouncing back for the moon. You get some computer graph showing how it bounced back.

Do you want to read about Halton Arp or other astronomers that said anything at odds with orthodox beliefs? Cut off from access to observatories. Career Suicide.

I wonder who provided the software to "interpret" their lasers?

Laser toys is such a silly straw man for Apollo.

Why did NASA just take 4 months to get to the moon in their unmanned probe? Why did the camera not work? Why didnt they just use the old cameras? They worked awesome!

To believe this you have to go through extensive twists. Food, water, oxygen, fuel, dust, radiation, bathrooms in your spacesuit,

For Pete's sake - the boot prints don't even remotely match the boot tread in the suit they had displayed. Buzz Alden's suit changes color during the mission. You can SEE the studio lights and the wires. They told you where they did it, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.

After all that you think some laser trick proves something? Even if their is some reflector on the moon it doesn't prove man was there.

Is every other country in the world too stupid to make a rocket ship for the past 44 years?

Do you actually believe this?

Yes, I actually believe this. 400,000 Americans worked on this. These missions were tracked by both the United States' enemies (the USSR and China) and by hobbyists. I watched the footage live from the moon as a child. Today there are cameras that can actually take photos of the spots we landed from Earth.

Now, I understand it's your belief that it's a huge conspiracy - that Russia and China and all these independent observers and some fraction of those 400,000 Americans and, today, the various groups who can now photograph the moon - all of them were conspiring to fool the rest of the world, and are continuing to do so 40 years later.

But that's just impossible for a rational person to believe. You're getting pretty close to "the whole world is united against me to lie to me".

Why exactly would the USSR conspire with China and the US - to spread the story of the US beating them in the space program? "Let's conspire - to show what losers we are!"

How would you keep the conspiracy going so perfectly that 40 years later you're still faking photographic evidence?

Do you want to read about Halton Arp or other astronomers that said anything at odds with orthodox beliefs? Cut off from access to observatories. Career Suicide.

An astronomer who doesn't believe that man landed on the moon has mental health issues.

I wonder who provided the software to "interpret" their lasers?

It's open source. Or you can write your own if you doubt it!

Why did NASA just take 4 months to get to the moon in their unmanned probe?

It was one month. But the reason that unmanned flights take a lot less time is dead simple - if you don't have to keep people alive, it's a lot cheaper to send your probes on the slow route.

Why did the camera not work? Why didnt they just use the old cameras? They worked awesome!

The old cameras didn't even have the resolution of the cheapest cell phone today. Why didn't it work (I didn't hear about this but assuming you're right)? Because this is difficult shit. Because blasting off in a rocket and then working in vacuum is very stressful on equipment. There have been numerous failures throughout the space program, including failures that killed people.

To believe this you have to go through extensive twists. Food, water, oxygen, fuel, dust, radiation, bathrooms in your spacesuit,

But we KNOW that people can do these things - because we have the international space station! Thousands of people have photographed it when it went over them - I personally have seen it twinkle as it went over me.

For Pete's sake - the boot prints don't even remotely match the boot tread in the suit they had displayed.

That seems to be a product of your imagination - I can't find anything talking about this. But let's get this straight, shall we? We have this brilliant conspiracy capable of fooling all the nations in the world for 40 years - and yet they don't even just pick a standard boot and use it?

Buzz Alden's suit changes color during the mission.

Ditto. Why would they do that? And the pictures I've seen of these "changes" are tiny. My hair changes color more than that from picture to picture!

You can SEE the studio lights and the wires.

No, you can see the studio lights and wires - I can't. Again, you have this conspiracy where people alternate being fiendishly clever one moment and unbelievably stupid a moment later.

Do you actually believe this?

Yes.

Sir, I most certainly respect your right to believe this, but tell me that you realize that this was NOT necessarily a live broadcast. The TV camera pointed at a monitor running the footage. What was that footage? Well, it came from Apollo or Stanley Kubrick.

One the one hand you have no delay in the sound even though it would take 2+ seconds to send a signal. Then you realize that those 400,000 people were taken out of the equation when Houston with only a few people present, including the other Apollo astronauts, were in charge of communication. There could have been a signal bounced off the moon, which is what Russia etc would have monitored.

You have Neil Armstrong's boots

http://imgur.com/eshDvDk

And the bootprint

http://imgur.com/si8XF2m

Do those even remotely match?

Then you have the 5000+ photos perfectly focused, sequentially numbered, with no duds. You have a picture of the lander

http://i.imgur.com/XTusB8J.jpg

with Scotch tape holding the decal on. This is the actual lander from Apollo 11.

Are you serious that you can't see the studio lights here?

http://i.imgur.com/dm9l6VL.jpg

Aldrin's glove are not just a photo effect.

http://i.imgur.com/s4x80sv.jpg

You can't see that his suit changes dramatically?

These shots weren't anticipating the internet, so they probably didn't dream we would get to analyze them. It was the 1960's

Have you seen Apollo 17 take off from the moon with the camera smoothly panning up despite no humans on the moon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908

This looks like a B movie at best. What do you think? And there goes that pesky dialogue with no delay again. Does that look like a liftoff to you? They had remote control cameras back then that worked flawlessly in the heat?

I'm not even going to the flapping flag, the lack of stars, etc.

Why is it going to take 20+ years to develop the technology to go to the moon now? Doesn't that seem odd since the actual equipment is down in the Smithsonian, right?

As for Halton Arp, that had nothing to do with Apollo, but with his research into other causes of redshifts.

Now if you want to tell me you think that NASA went to the moon by some other non-publicized means that we know nothing about I might entertain that, but the evidence they have is phony and embarrassing.

No response from you with all of the evidence laid out. Typical.

I have looked into the ISS. There are not thousands of people who have photographed it but a handful and they all have aerospace connections or are adept at Photoshop. And what about the 5000 other man made satellites? No one can photograph one?

I'm sure that the fact that GPS, cell phones and the internet all going mainstream the same year (1993) is just another coincidence? I'm sure that the fact that you can triangulate positions without "satellites" is also a coincidence. I'm sure there are fancy satellites in geosynchronous orbits that millions of people simultaneously beam signals 70,000 miles round trip to these to navigate their cars is so much easier than using cell towers which work better and faster. (And that are stationary).

The fact is, NASA actually does all of this, but fakes the photos to hide their brilliance, right?

Why doesn't the ISS have a camera that can take a picture facing towards space? Do they have Apollo-itis too?

Where is all the oxygen?

Must have been said around the time of your birth which explains your low intelligent quotient. Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

By the way, I like your approach to the whole emotional Apollo issue. Completely objective and calculated and not the same subjective arguments! Thanks

Oh how far technology has come that we now have cameras which have photographed the landing sites of the previous Apollo missions to such a resolution that we can begin to see the evidence of the landing sites (as if the huge amount of footage, pictures, rocks, and other evidence isn't enough to begin with).

This is my favorite one of the bunch:

For starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

this ride in all likeliness lacked the thrust required to reach escape velocity.

"in all likeliness" is laughable... you have zero hard evidence for this.