We Never Went to the Moon

[Duane Daman]

Getting our Hoax's Straight!

When people first hear of the idea that the Apollo program was a hoax, most automatically dismiss the idea out of hand, because it not only sounds crazy to them, but dares to question a sacred icon of American history! People can't be blamed for getting peeved by ideas that shake the foundations of cherished and widely held beliefs. On the other hand, the world of men is driven by what people believe to be "true", not what's actually true. Truth is often stranger than fiction; so it essentially boils down to whether we wish to really know the truth about things or not? While most people think conventional wisdom is obvious and indisputable, others are not afraid to have their concept of things completely upset, seeking the truth wherever it leads them, and letting the chips fall where they may. This book is obviously written for the latter type of person. The author makes a convincing case against Apollo by covering various facts from his employment with one of the leading Apollo contractors, and gleaned from his familiarity with the workings of the space program at that time.

At the end of the day however, the most powerful evidence that Apollo was a hoax is the fact that today, NASA is technically unable to send men to the moon! This amazing fact is not from lack of money or public interest, but from plain old ignorance! They just don't know how to do this! This is equivalent to Boeing suddenly being unable to build a jet aircraft, after successfully building and flying them for several years! Science just doesn't go backwards like this, nor does it completely abandon successful systems, without producing innovations based upon them! How is it that the usual evolutionary progression of knowledge and skill present in every known scientific breakthrough is somehow absent in our post Apollo space program? If the expertise garnered in the Apollo program over thirty years ago was genuine, why are we not now leveraging it into more sophisticated trans-lunar vehicles and flights? Why after Apollo has our space program suffered such a catastrophic loss of expertise? How do you justify a timeline that takes us from the cutting edge lunar flights of Apollo to Shuttle missions, limited to techniques first perfected during the Gemini program? Certainly the Shuttle is an advance in re-usable space transport, but technologically it's inferior to Apollo in one significant respect: it's incapable of operating outside of relatively low earth orbit! Why the technological regression in manned space flight?

No scientific organization has ever voluntarily dumbed itself down like NASA has, since Apollo! Successful lunar missions confirm the solution of monumental scientific and engineering problems! Preserving such invaluable expertise is fundamental to all scientific organizations! There's absolutely no valid reason for NASA's current incompetence, except that perhaps the spectacular achievements and breakthroughs of Apollo never really took place! If they had, it's safe to say, that manned moon missions would be easier to pull-off today, and still part of the NASA repertoire. They're not, and are still questionable for the forseeable future! The profound disconnect between Apollo and current NASA activities, is the most convincing indication that what was done during Apollo, was not genuine.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1WT138804PWZR

[Evan Burton]

I have some problems with that review.

The author makes a convincing case against Apollo by covering various facts from his employment with one of the leading Apollo contractors, and gleaned from his familiarity with the workings of the space program at that time.

Mr Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne, who produced the F-1 engine for the Saturn V first stage. That is the same F-1 engine which was considered for the current Orion project. The same Saturn V that millions of people saw launch 9 lunar orbital / lunar landing missions. Rocketdyne did not produce the spacecraft, electronics, life support equipment, etc, for Apollo. Mr Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, very early in the Apollo project, and so has no intimate knowledge of the Apollo project.

At the end of the day however, the most powerful evidence that Apollo was a hoax is the fact that today, NASA is technically unable to send men to the moon! This amazing fact is not from lack of money or public interest, but from plain old ignorance! They just don't know how to do this!

This is mostly incorrect, and misleading in other parts. NASA is NOT technically unable to send people to the Moon today. If we planned similar to Apollo missions (short duration), were prepared to take the same risks, and had similar funding, they could probably land another mission on the Moon in less than 5 years (it takes time to build the equipment needed). Money is a major factor here.

The statement is misleading with regard to technical expertise; the people who build the various Apollo sub-systems have either died or are generally no longer active in the aerospace field. That makes re-building Apollo a challenge, because you have to re-learn lost skills. A classic example with which I am very familar with is the disbanding of the Australian Navy's Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing element. The RAN used to operate two aircraft carriers, reducing to one from the late 1960s. HMAS MELBOURNE was a Majestic-class carrier that operated until 1982. At that time she had operated A-4G Skyhawks and S-2G Tracker fixed-wing aircraft. These were later sold off, and the FAA retained only the rotary wing elements. Twelve months after the final fixed-wing flying, it was estimated that it would take a further 5 years to regain the necessary skills for carrier operations. Today, with highly advanced helicopters and leading-edge technology, it would take at least 10 years to restore the FAA to the fixed-wing carrier operations skill level of 1982.

This is equivalent to Boeing suddenly being unable to build a jet aircraft, after successfully building and flying them for several years!

Boeing cannot build a B-17, not a B-29, nor a PT-17, nor a B&W Bluebill... yet they produced these aircraft for years.

Science just doesn't go backwards like this, nor does it completely abandon successful systems, without producing innovations based upon them!

Consider the Space Shuttle...

How is it that the usual evolutionary progression of knowledge and skill present in every known scientific breakthrough is somehow absent in our post Apollo space program? If the expertise garnered in the Apollo program over thirty years ago was genuine, why are we not now leveraging it into more sophisticated trans-lunar vehicles and flights? Why after Apollo has our space program suffered such a catastrophic loss of expertise?

The Apollo astronauts asked the same questions in 1972 - why stop now, just when we were getting good at it? Public demand - money. Just how strong a call has there been for a return to the Moon over the period 1975-2000? How many times has it been an election issue? How many times have 'return to space' initiatives been cancelled due to lack of support?

How do you justify a timeline that takes us from the cutting edge lunar flights of Apollo to Shuttle missions, limited to techniques first perfected during the Gemini program? Certainly the Shuttle is an advance in re-usable space transport, but technologically it's inferior to Apollo in one significant respect: it's incapable of operating outside of relatively low earth orbit! Why the technological regression in manned space flight?

What was the purpose of the Shuttle? A lunar exploration vehicle? A prototype for travel to the stars? NO - it was to place and service satellites in low-Earth orbit, as well as service a (then) planned space station; replacing single-use launch vehicles. Even then, it was bastardised because of budgetry constraints.

No scientific organization has ever voluntarily dumbed itself down like NASA has, since Apollo!

The author of the review has obviously not kept up with technical papers released by NASA. They still continue to advance in space technology.

Successful lunar missions confirm the solution of monumental scientific and engineering problems!

Which they did.

Preserving such invaluable expertise is fundamental to all scientific organizations!

How many people are there experienced in forming wooden spars for biplanes? How many people are there who are experts in the design and building of radial engines? How many people are there who are experience in the design and building of valves for electronics?

Quite contrary to what the reviewer states, they argue from a preconceived position and ignore that which does not suit them - or they have not researched the subject enough to have their opinion considered valid.

[Evan Burton]

Since you have started a new thread, I'd like to ask a few questions - in order to establish a baseline.

Duane,

1. Do you believe the Mercury missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

2. Do you believe that the Gemini missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

3. Do you believe that the Apollo Earth-orbital missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

4. Do you believe that the Apollo Moon landings never happened, or that the images were faked for some reason (while not denying that men could have landed on the Moon)?

Thank you.

Edited December 7, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Kevin M. West]

You bring up the issue of losing science knowledge, but the problem is science knowledge wasn't lost. ENGINEERING knowledge was lost. There's a huge difference, and engineering knowledge loss is a regular occurance (in fact several examples have been posted in this thread already).

[Ron Ecker]

I would add this question: If we didn't go to the moon, where did NASA's 4.5-billion-year-old rocks come from? They certainly didn't come from Earth, whose oldest rock segment still existing is less than 4 billion years old.

[Dave Greer]

I would add this question: If we didn't go to the moon, where did NASA's 4.5-billion-year-old rocks come from? They certainly didn't come from Earth, whose oldest rock segment still existing is less than 4 billion years old.

The standard reply a few years ago would have been "baked in NASAs radiation ovens"...

Most of the HB movement seems to be going with "found in Antarctica by Von Braun" these days. Despite the fact that:-

Lunites retrieved from Antarctica have been heated while entering the Earth's atmosphere, which changes their characteristics.

The first lunite was discovered in 1979 - wasn't identified as such until 1982 after comparison with Apollo and Soviet samples.

NASA retrieved approx 382kg of moon rocks - only approximately 40 (paired) lunites have ever been found. Core samples retrieved from the moon were well over a metre in length.

More information

here

There is also a school of thought that all the Apollo samples were brought back by robotic missions, since that is how the Russians retrieved their samples. Evidence against this:-

The Russians only brought back a few grammes of material, compared with the 382 kilos of rocks, soil and core samples brought back by Apollo.

Luna 16

brought back 101grammes,

Luna 20

brought back 55 grammes, Luna 24 brought back 170 grammes - averaging approximately 110 grammes permission. I'll let someone else do the maths to work out how many missions would be required to bring back 382 kilos of material at this rate!

Many of Apollo's rock samples were photographed in situ on the moon. There are a total of 2196 documented Apollo moon samples.

There is another HB school of thought that NASA is simply lying about how many samples they have and they keep on circulating the same ones.

It's quite clear that all the proposed explanations for the moon rocks are pure conjecture on behalf of HBers. Desparate to find a "smoking gun" that will hole Apollo under the waterline, this is really the "reverse smoking gun" in favour of Apollo. You can argue all you like about whether photos look real, and whether a reflection is a fan, or a light, or a scratch, or a smear (I enjoy doing that as much as the next man) - but it starts to get very difficult to explain away 382kg of lunar rocks. That's when the conjecture comes in and scenarios get invented (with no supporting evidence to back them up) that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Personally, I don't see how this evidence can be rationally explained away, other than retrieved by astronauts on the moon.

[Duane Daman]

Since you have started a new thread, I'd like to ask a few questions - in order to establish a baseline.

Duane,

1. Do you believe the Mercury missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

2. Do you believe that the Gemini missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

3. Do you believe that the Apollo Earth-orbital missions happened as recorded? If not please detail your variance with such.

4. Do you believe that the Apollo Moon landings never happened, or that the images were faked for some reason (while not denying that men could have landed on the Moon)?

Thank you.

1) Yes .

2) Yes.

3) Yes.

4) Yes .

[Duane Daman]

I would add this question: If we didn't go to the moon, where did NASA's 4.5-billion-year-old rocks come from? They certainly didn't come from Earth, whose oldest rock segment still existing is less than 4 billion years old.

Moon rocks have been obtained by Russian unmanned missions .... And we only have nasa's word for how many rocks were really collected on the moon and how .... These rocks are under lock and key by nasa's orders ... and have only been viewed by nasa employees ... Except of course for the few under glass and untouchable at some nasa museums ... And of course the few slivers and sand that are allowed to be released to the scientists who wish to study them .

Moon rocks were recovered in the Antarctic prior to the Apollo 11 launch .... and I have recently read on some geology sites that they are still being recovered today ... and according to one article , these rocks have been found to be an exact match for the Apollo rocks .

[Dave Greer]

Moon rocks have been obtained by Russian unmanned missions .... And we only have nasa's word for how many rocks were really collected on the moon

"We only have NASAs word" is hardly a robust argument or evidence in favour of the HB position. The moon rocks have been studied by many geologists from many different countries. Highly trained people with expertise in their field don't doubt that they are moon rocks, so why should I? I wouldn't know what a moon rock was if it landed on my head, but why should I doubt the people who do know?

and how .... These rocks are under lock and key by nasa's orders ... and have only been viewed by nasa employees ... Except of course for the few under glass and untouchable at some nasa museums ... And of course the few slivers and sand that are allowed to be released to the scientists who wish to study them .

OK, who are you going to let have them first? Tom, Dick or Harry?

Moon rocks were recovered in the Antarctic prior to the Apollo 11 launch ....

Not unless Apollo 11 launched in 1982! Granted, a Japanese team did find a lunite in 1979 - but it was only verified as such after comparison with genuine moon rocks recovered during the Apollo programme.

Duane - you keep stating that "we only have NASA's word" - time to put up or shut up I'm afraid! Can you provide credible sources (i.e. non-conspiracy sites) that state ANY moon rocks were discovered prior to 1969? I can provide sources for the 1979 date (1982 in the case of American scientists). Otherwise, we have your word against the word of NASA and all the geologists who have studied Apollo rocks and lunites. No offence intended, but I think NASA and the geologists have more credibility!

So, please either provide evidence or withdraw the claim. You have a bee in your bonnet about what you perceive to be "misinformation" - what you have stated isn't just misinformation, it's plain wrong. It is mis-information that is being perpetuated by the HB fraternity - and by repeating it here, you are particpating in that misinformation.

Unless you have credible sources of course.

and I have recently read on some geology sites that they are still being recovered today

I don't doubt they are. Mainly in Oman if I remember rightly.

... and according to one article , these rocks have been found to be an exact match for the Apollo rocks .

All the articles I've read state that lunites are different to moon rocks in one very important respect - they have been heated while entering the earth's atmosphere.

[Evan Burton]

Duane,

Could I please get a clarification on your reply to the last question I asked (No4):

Do you believe:

a) We never went to the Moon; or

We may have gone to the Moon, but the images were faked for some reason.

Thanks.

[Evan Burton]

I would add this question: If we didn't go to the moon, where did NASA's 4.5-billion-year-old rocks come from? They certainly didn't come from Earth, whose oldest rock segment still existing is less than 4 billion years old.

Moon rocks have been obtained by Russian unmanned missions .... And we only have nasa's word for how many rocks were really collected on the moon and how .... These rocks are under lock and key by nasa's orders ... and have only been viewed by nasa employees ... Except of course for the few under glass and untouchable at some nasa museums ... And of course the few slivers and sand that are allowed to be released to the scientists who wish to study them .

Moon rocks were recovered in the Antarctic prior to the Apollo 11 launch .... and I have recently read on some geology sites that they are still being recovered today ... and according to one article , these rocks have been found to be an exact match for the Apollo rocks .

Perhaps this site from the Washington University in St Louis might help:

Many people have approached us over the years wanting to know if a rock they possess is a Moon rock. One type of story we hear is that the rock was given to a relative in the 1970’s by an astronaut, a military person, or a NASA security guard. We have tested five such samples and none has been a lunar rock. Other people suspect that they have found a lunar meteorite. None of the many samples that we have been sent has been a lunar meteorite, except those from meteorite dealers or persons who bought lunar meteorites from a dealer.

No lunar meteorite has yet been found in North America, South America, or Europe. They undoubtedly exist, but the probability of finding a lunar meteorite in a temperate environment is incredibly low. Many experienced meteorite collectors have been looking and none have yet succeeded. Realistically, the probability that an amateur will find a lunar meteorite is so low that we cannot raise much enthusiasm to examine the many rocks that we have been asked to examine. If I wanted to find a lunar meteorite, I would not scour the Mojave Desert, I’d look through rock collections at colleges and universities. Its not unreasonable that a lunar meteorite exists in an old drawer somewhere because a sharp-eyed student or professor found a funny-looking rock years ago in a place it didn’t belong. It would also not surprise me to learn that some ‘expert’ proclaimed it not to be a meteorite because it didn’t resemble a chondritic meteorite and wasn’t magnetic. Lunar meteorites look like terrestrial (Earth) rocks more than ‘normal’ meteorites do, so they’d be easy to overlook. A weathered lunar meteorite would look remarkably unremarkable.

Here we discuss some aspects of lunar geology, mineralogy, and chemistry that guide us in our attempts to identify lunar material.

...

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]

http://www.epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/...owdoweknow.html

Once again, I invite you to rebut this expert statement with another from someone who is equally qualified.

As far as the samples, amounts, etc, may I refer you to this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6331

If you'd like to address specific points in that thread, I'd be happy to respond.

[Evan Burton]

This Wiki entry may also be of some help:

Moon rock describes rock that formed on the Moon (Earth's moon). The term is also loosely applied to other lunar materials collected during the course of human exploration of the Moon.

There are currently three sources of Moon rocks on Earth: 1) those collected by US Apollo missions; 2) samples returned by the Soviet Union Luna missions; and 3) rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites. During the six Apollo surface excursions, 2,415 samples weighing 382 kg (842 lb) were collected, the majority by Apollo 15, 16, and 17. The three Luna spacecraft returned with an additional 326 g (that's grams, not kilograms - EB) (0.66 lb) of samples. Over 90 lunar meteorites have been found on Earth as of late 2006, comprising over 30 kg of material.

The Apollo moon rocks were collected using a variety of tools, including hammers, rakes, scoops, tongs, and core tubes. Most were photographed prior to collection to record the condition in which they were found. They were placed inside sample bags and then a Special Environmental Sample Container for return to the Earth to protect them from contamination.

In general, the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples drived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands. Based on the age dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago, but we do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old.

In some regards, the rocks possess characteristics very similar to rocks on Earth, particularly in their composition of oxygen isotopes. Nevertheless, in contrast to the Earth, large portions of the lunar crust appear to be composed of rocks with high concentrations of the mineral anorthite, the mare basalts have relatively high iron concentrations, some of the mare basalts have very high concentrations of titanium (in the form of ilmenite), and all rocks are depleted in volatile elements (such as potassium or sodium) and are completely lacking in water. Furthermore, a geochemical component called KREEP, which has high abundances of incompatible elements, has no equivalent on Earth. Among the new minerals found on the Moon was armalcolite, which is named for the three astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins.

The main repository for the Apollo Moon rocks is the Lunar Sample Building at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. For safe keeping, there is also a smaller collection stored at Brooks Air Force Base at San Antonio, Texas. Most of the rocks are stored in nitrogen to keep them free of moisture. They are only handled indirectly using special tools.

Moon rocks collected during the course of lunar exploration are currently considered priceless. In 1993, three small fragments weighing 0.2 g from Luna 16 were sold for US$442,500. In 2002 a safe was stolen from the Lunar Sample Building containing minute samples of lunar and martian material. The samples were recovered and, in 2003, NASA estimated the value of these samples for the court case at about $1 million for 285 g (10 oz.) of material. Moon rocks in the form of lunar meteorites, although expensive, are widely sold and traded among private collectors.

A couple of hundred small samples were mounted and presented to national governments and U.S. governors. At least one of these was later stolen, sold and recovered. Other samples went to select museums, including the National Air and Space Museum, the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center, and to the visitor center at Kennedy Space Center where it is possible to "touch a piece of the moon", which is in fact a small moon rock concreted into a pillar in the center of a bank vault that visitors tour. NASA says that almost 295 kg (650 lb) of the original 382 kg (842 lb) of samples are still in pristine condition in the vault at Johnson Space Center. Some moon dust was collected by a Hasselblad employee when cleaning out one of the cameras after the mission.

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

Here is a list of lunar samples on display (does not include samples for scientific research).

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/displays/displays.cfm

And if you'd like to borrow a lunar sample:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/visitor/loan/lunar.html

Edited December 9, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

Duane,

Could I please get a clarification on your reply to the last question I asked (No4):

Do you believe:

a) We never went to the Moon; or

We may have gone to the Moon, but the images were faked for some reason.

Thanks.

Sorry for taking so long to answer your question but I haven't had much time to post lately ...

I'm not sure why it's so important for you to know what I believe about all of this but to answer your question again , it would be ... a) We never went to the moon .

I don't have any time at the moment to elaborate on why I so strongly believe this to be the case , but will go into more detail with my next post ... I have some information about the moon rocks which I will post then too, since we have been discussing that subject on this thread also .

[Steven Hewitt]

Duane, I for one cannot wait to hear why you so strongly believe that we didn't land on the moon. I look forward to destroying your arguements and your logic. I've been busy destroying Cosmic Dave on his own site, now I have my sights set on this board!

I'd like to first start off by saying how ridiculous it is to think that the US government has the smarts to pull of such a hoax. Bush couldn't even plant a few nukes in Iraq to justify his cause for war, but NASA can make up any evidence they need to keep the hoax alive? And then you think that NASA has hired "paid dis-informationists" to populate these forums to keep people like you at bay? Sure, NASA and the US governements best weapon in keeping the secret is hiring internet trolls! What ever happend to the good old days when they just sent hired goons.

It's also interesting to note that every conspiracy or scandel that the governemnt is known to have been involved in has always been with some agency or politician doing something that they DIDN'T want people to know about (ie spending sprees, inappropriate sexual relations, wire tapping). Never is it the case that the government has claimed to have done something incredible, that was eventually proven otherwise. Does anyone here see the difference?

[Steve Ulman]

<snip>

It's also interesting to note that every conspiracy or scandel that the governemnt is known to have been involved in has always been with some agency or politician doing something that they DIDN'T want people to know about (ie spending sprees, inappropriate sexual relations, wire tapping). Never is it the case that the government has claimed to have done something incredible, that was eventually proven otherwise. Does anyone here see the difference?

I do.

Not that it helps you much.