Photos from Apollo 11 film footage

[sts60]

If the height of the camera and its angle are considered, which they must be, you guys are right on.
Even though I do not believe Apollo landed on the moon, these pictures appear to be technically correct.

What would convince you otherwise?

That's really the key question.  If there's nothing that can be reasonably (i.e., not flying you personally to the Moon) provided that would convince you otherwise, there's really no point in debating it here.

You might consider that generations of scientists and engineers have validated Apollo's reality through actually using the techniques, technology, and scientific results from that program.   So, any hoax you propose would have to count on not only fooling the scientists and engineers of the time, but also of generations yet to come - and would have to anticipate discoveries and technical advances of the future.  What kind of hoax do you think could do that, given that it's now been almost half a century since the first manned lunar landing?

[JayUtah]

If the height of the camera and its angle are considered, which they must be, you guys are right on.
Even though I do not believe Apollo landed on the moon, these pictures appear to be technically correct.

What do you base your disbelief on?  You're obviously in over your head when it comes to the science behind the evidence.  Is your denial a conclusion you arrived at rationally, or something you just up and decided to believe in and are now trying to find a pseudo-intellectual justification for?

[Jason Thompson]

Are we to take this as a concession that the film does not show the Sun moving anomalously as you originally suggested, profmunkin?

[ka9q]

What would convince you otherwise?

If your answer is "nothing would", then we can end the thread now because you've made your claim non-falsifiable, and such claims are inherently unscientific.

[Echnaton]

What would convince you otherwise?

If your answer is "nothing would", then we can end the thread now because you've made your claim non-falsifiable, and such claims are inherently unscientific.

While we are a science orientated group, an acknowledged unscientific reason for believing the landings were faked doesn't necessarily end the thread.  It just changes the nature of the discussion.  In fact it would be a refreshingly honest admission from a hoax believer.

[profmunkin]

The photo evidence for Apollo 11 technically supports moon scenes. I do not know about the other Apollo mission photos.

Photo attached - Buzz strolling towards the Sun. Was the Sun visor only necessary for photo ops?
Armstrong photo evidence is that he did not use Sun visor during his 2.5 hours of activity time.
For the most part Buzz did not use sun visor for the majority of his activity time.

How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
Any signs of burned faces when they returned?
In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.
 

[profmunkin]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

[gwiz]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

I'd like to see a convincing explanation of how it could have been done, because I can't see any way to do it.  Just for starters, how do you provide all the scientific data that not only passed scrutiny at the time, but also every advance in techniques over the past 40 years?

[cjameshuff]

Photo attached - Buzz strolling towards the Sun. Was the Sun visor only necessary for photo ops?
Armstrong photo evidence is that he did not use Sun visor during his 2.5 hours of activity time.
For the most part Buzz did not use sun visor for the majority of his activity time.

So what?

How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?
Any signs of burned faces when they returned?
In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.

The sky was largely a 2.7 K background, the suit was temperature controlled, and they landed in the local morning so the surface was just starting to warm.

And really? Nobody can tolerate noontime sun in Cancun?
What's it like looking out the window of an air-conditioned building? What's it like standing next to a fire on a cool night or radiant heater in a cool room? Is that intolerable too?

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?

Actual evidence of a hoax, and explanations for the vast piles of evidence that we actually went.

[Chew]

How long would it take to heat a face, inside a bubble, with a 200-250 degree radiant heat source?

You are laboring under some common misconceptions about light: Light does not have a temperature; it has energy. The elementary school lessons they taught you about the "temperature" of space neglected to tell you those temperatures are the temperatures the surface of an object would rise to if left exposed in direct sunlight for a very long time and if the object absorbed all of the Sun's energy and they didn't tell you only a fraction of the object was exposed to sunlight so the fraction that wasn't exposed would be conducting that heat and radiating it away, lowing the average temperature of the object.

In Cancun, at noon, in direct sun, laying down, face up, even with eyes closed, heat and light can be intolerable.

The Earth's atmosphere only blocks 30% of the Sun's light. The reason objects don't heat up on Earth like they do in a vacuum is because the air convects a lot of the heat away.

[Mr Gorsky]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

I don't see the circumstances under which NASA would be forced to fake it. NASA was filled with scientists and Engineers, so if transporting men safely to the moon and back was not possible, I genuinely believe they would have called a halt to it and announced that. After all, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on scientists and once NASA discovered it was impossible it wouldn't be long before someone else discovered the problem and asked NASA to explain how they overcame an apparently insurmountable problem.

If it was simply a matter of wanting to fake it to make sure they beat the Soviets, that doesn't fit either. In order to keep the conspiracy under wraps, NASA would need to keep it as close to their chest as possible, so the likes of Grumman (who built the LM) and the other contractors would not be aware of the fake, and would build hardware capable of travelling to the moon.

If you have hardware capable of doing the job, why would you fake it?

The reality is that none of the hoax theories have any actual evidence to back them up, most "anomalies" being the result of a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or of the aline environment of the moon itself.

If someone was to produce some actual evidence pointing to a hoax, I certainly would consider it, but it would need to be pretty substantial and entirely bullet-proof to outweigh the volume of evidence that Apollo happened exactly as advertised.

[Glom]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?

You're evading.  You were asked a question like this first.  Answer it.  You seem to have started from a position of choosing to the believe in the Conspiracy Theory of the Apollohoax and are now thrashing out desperately to try to find evidence to support your chosen position.  What would it take for you to accept that your chosen position is wrong?

[Echnaton]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?

A common thought among hoax believers is that there only needs to be one smoking gun to blow the whole coverup apart.   More widely experienced investigators understand that idea to be bogus.  What would cause me to change my mind would be a compelling theory that accounted for all the knowledge about Apollo and the associated sciences and engineering.  One that not only made a case for a hoax, but described an alternative set of actions that are more consistent with the evidence and showed why all experts in the relevant fields have been fooled all this time.   It is a tall order, to be sure, but it is the proper requirement for a situation that has been exceptionally well documented and examined in depth over a period of years.
   

Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

I am not sure what your question really means, but if such a theory as I've outlined were offered, examined and found to be valid, what choice would I have but to change my mind?  I am not at all concerned that I will have to change my mind. How about you?  What is your level of doubt about your position?

[gillianren]

Frankly, I think all of us have the same answer to the question.  Evidence.  A coherent explanation of both why and how it was faked which doesn't violate the laws of physics, human nature, and the politics of the era would be a good start, and I've never seen one of those.  However, I've never seen an HB give a straight answer to the question which wasn't based on impossible standards (sending them to the Moon themselves, for example) or immediately taken back when the required level of evidence was provided.

[Tedward]

On the other hand what would convince you that the landings were faked?
Would you even admit that if NASA was forced to fake the moon landings they could have done so?

Verifiable evidence.

You go first.