I don't know if man went to the moon in the sixties or not, but the record of the Apollo missions seems to be completely false
As has been said, a few of us are engineers and this is our profession.
1. The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space.
That's why most of that equipment was stored outside the habitable volume in modules specially designed for those tasks.
The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe...
What's so unsafe about it? The Russians have been using an identical design safely for decades. We just imitated their design for Apollo. And SpaceX is imitating the same design for the next generation. We use it because it works very well and has proven to be enormously safe. It was this design, for example, that allowed Apollo 13 to be a survivable event rather than an instantly-fatal event.
I can talk for hours on the subject of decoupling in design engineering. Want me to?
2. Back in the Apollo days we (the public) were told that the Moon was an Extremely Hot, Dry, and geologically dead place with no atmosphere. Now according to the NASA Lunar Science Institute the moon is an extremely Cold, Wet geologically active place with an atmosphere that extends all the way to earth. Just the opposite of what we were told.
No, this is a gross oversimplification of the available information, as well as a pretty silly argument in favor of a hoax.
First, NASA has never been the only source of information about the Moon. In fact, as our nearest neighbor, it's the most accessible for private interests. NASA, in existence only since the late 1950s, was at the time a relative newcomer to planetary study. That's why Apollo had to bring in academics from outside institutions to train their Apollo people, who at the time were long on engineering expertise and short on astronomy and planetary science.
Second, why would NASA make up a whole different story that, to you, sounds suspicious if they were intent on faking Moon missions? Wouldn't it make more sense to adopt a low profile and confirm what everyone else already knew? That's like casing a bank for a robbery while wearing a clown suit; the aim of crime is to get away with it, not draw attention to yourself.
3. The trajectory of the Apollo missions is nothing like spacecraft go to the moon today. Today spacecraft going to the moon make several increasingly large earth orbits not a crazy “8” trajectory.
There is more than one way to get to the Moon. The low-energy orbits take weeks or months to get to the Moon. This is obviously unacceptable in terms of crew expendables. The lunar transfer orbits used by Apollo and all the other missions are widely published and well understood. It's not as if the industry has suspicions about Apollo orbits.
4. Regardless of popular belief computer and communication technology were not sufficient in the sixties (slide rules were the norm in the sixties)
Nonsense, digital computers were well established in the 1960s. The notion that technology of the 1960s was insufficient to implement Apollo is, on the contrary, the popular belief. It is incorrect; the well-informed
professional believe among aerospace engineers is that there is absolutely no reason Apollo could not have succeeded as described. There is a wealth of design information available, and several people have succeeded in rebuilding the computers (or emulators for them) today.
5. Several of the Apollo mission especially AP17 supposedly went to the moon when the moon was nearly full. If the moon puts out enough light that I can easily see the settings on my telescope and camera in Florida, over 200 thousand miles away don't you think that the light would blind the astronauts if they were actually on the moon.
Subjective human-eye impressions are a poor measure of luminous intensity. The Moon does not emit light; it reflects it just as does the Earth. The solar influx is a well-known value. The Moon's geometric albedo is measurable from Earth, as is the same value for various places on Earth. The Moon's albedo varies from 4-12 percent on the maria to 20-25 percent in the highlands. This is generally dimmer than Earth's albedo variance, so your argument holds to the effect that we should be more blinded on Earth that if we were on the Moon.
Yes, there are places on Earth such as in the Sahara desert (where I've been) and flying above the Earth's cloud cover (which accounts for the lion's share of Earth's albedo) where the reflected sunlight is uncomfortably bright. In both those places I wear sunglasses, just as the astronauts did. We have pictures of the Earth-Moon system taken from departing planetary spacecraft that show the Earth as the "bright blue marble" in space while the Moon (in this case taken with the same camera exposure setting) is a dull brown blob. We see the Moon as "bright" only because it's in the context of the nighttime sky. A candle in a dark room is pretty darn (subjectively) bright, but it's only "one" candela.
6. Several people note that the lighting wasn't right in the lunar pictures and that they did not bring any lights with them...
Those people are right when they say no lights were taken. Other than that, they don't know what they're talking about. Regardless of their handwaving, they aren't "photographic analysts" or "investigative journalists." Real photo experts have no problem with the Apollo photos.
It would take at least 3 additional cameramen to take all the lunar footage not Ed Fendell from Houston with a remote control
You seem to have confused two different conspiracy-theory claims. Ed Fendell operated the remote-control
television camera from Mission Control, but on the J-missions only. The "too many photographs" argument is aimed at the 70mm
still photography, which was taken by the astronauts themselves.
7. Since the spacesuits were supposedly cooled by water the astronaut's would have instantly frozen on Eva's and on the surface of the moon in the shade
I'm an engineer. Show me the heat-transfer computations that prove this.
8. The Lem was made of Tin foil...
Nope. The structural elements were made of aerospace-grade aluminum, just like the airliners we fly in every day.
Mylar...
The outer covering was aluminized films, yes. It's the stuff we still use for covering spacecraft for thermal protection. It's wonderful material. I also use it on the ground for thermal protection.
...and tape
Show me a better technique for laying up polyamide blankets. Seriously, I'm an engineer and this is what I do. Show me a better way and prove to me that it's better.
...the abort procedure was to bail out in space
Nonsense. The LM abort procedure during landing and ascent was to ride the spacecraft to orbit and dock as usual, possibly with the CSM having to perform one of several contingency rendezvous maneuvers. The contingency docking-failure procedure was to transfer in space in suits. I'm not sure why this would be a problem in your book.
9. Any glass in the command module would melt upon reentry killing anyone inside.
The glass was the same as used in Corning cookware, which is good to several hundred degrees. The windows on the CM were on the lee side of the re-entry vectors, meaning they didn't get directly heated by the re-entry dynamics. All subsequent spacecraft use these same techniques and manage to survive re-entry just fine. Why is Apollo different?
10. There is no way the record of the Apollo missions is accurate.
Tautology.
