Did the US really land on the Moon?

[busybody..]

I know we "saw the landing" in 69.

I am listening to a program that makes a compelling case that is was a Hollywood hoax!

Hmmmm

 

[Problem Child]

It's true.

Hurry up and huff some more glue before it comes back on.

 

[Weevil]

I know we "saw the landing" in 69.

I am listening to a program that makes a compelling case that is was a Hollywood hoax!

Hmmmm

And you're completely insane!!!!

 

[phrodeau]

Hello? Anybody left in here?

<dying echoes, distant owl hoot>

 

[busybody..]

http://208.15.19.12:4324/ramgen/cinemav/moon/moon.rm

 

[Whizz Kid]

I know we "saw the landing" in 69.

I am listening to a program that makes a compelling case that is was a Hollywood hoax!

Hmmmm

Having played the back nine at Lunar Country Club, I can confirm the landing. I hit a lob wedge from 7,000 yards out and came up pin high on Old Glory, which is on the 18th green. However, I 35 putted from 15 feet and ended up carding a 319 for 9 holes.

Took me two hours to get to the club house, where I learned the true meaning of a shot and beer chaser.

 

[RudeNastyAssBitch]

No.

They Did Not Step Foot On The Moon!

Flitting Flag On The Moon? Where Did The Wind Come From?

Look Under The Freaking Shuttle! Ya Think It Might Be Black From The Rocket? Yaha!

They Were Bloody Geniuses I Tell You! LOL LOL

 

[busybody..]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.

This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such a absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.

Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, and David Percy, co-author of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers. These men, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017 percent (1 in 6000). The source of this information is a mystery; however, it would not surprise me if some engineer, in the early days of the program, came up with these numbers. Unfortunately for that poor engineer, saying something doesn't make it true. Consider that in 1901 Orville Wright was quoted as saying "man will not fly for 50 years". Two years later he would make the first successful airplane flight at Kitty Hawk, NC. Surely, had NASA believed the odds of success were so slim, they never would have proposed a moon landing in the first place.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. I have no clue as to the source of Mr. Rene's information; however, his assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.

The Apollo 11 television camera was a black-and-white, slow-scan TV with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 60 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

Any normal film would indeed melt if exposed to a temperature of 250o F; however, the film used was not ordinary film, and it was never exposed to this kind of temperature. Apollo astronauts used a special transparency film designed specifically, under a NASA contract, for hostile environments like the Moon. According to Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200o F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500o F. The cameras were also protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.

The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid; however, they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.

Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight (see note below). Also, the Earth is a significant light source. If we factor in size and reflectivity, the Earth casts about 70 times as much light on the Moon as the Moon does on the Earth, and we are all familiar with how bright the Moon can be. These additional light sources provide the observed illumination.

NOTE: The luminosity of the Sun is 3.827x1026 watts. At the Sun-Moon distance of 93 million miles, each square foot of surface area receives 126 watts of solar radiation; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead, its rays will strike the surface obliquely. If we assume the Sun is 30 degrees above the horizon, the radiation per square foot is reduced by 1/2. The Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives; therefore, each square foot of surface reflects approximately 6 watts of solar energy, of which about 40% is visible light. Since the typical efficiency of an incandescent light bulb is about 10%, each square foot of surface reflects approximately the same amount of visible light as is generated by a 25 watt light bulb.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source; thus, the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world; hence, parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example [see photo] of Heiligenschein.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean [see photo], taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.

The referenced photograph is the most reproduced image in the entire Apollo archive [see photo]. The claim of the hoax advocates assumes that Aldrin and Armstrong were standing on level ground; however, if Armstrong were standing on higher ground, the apparent elevation of the horizon would rise accordingly. If we look at Armstrong's reflection in the visor, we see the horizon is located at his chest [see enlargement]. This shows Armstrong was indeed standing on higher ground with his chest located in approximately the same horizontal plane as Aldrin's eyes. Given this camera position, we see the horizon across Aldrin's eyes as expected.

The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward; thus, exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.

There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.

The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes [see photo]. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud; however, they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph.

Other comments I've heard about this particular photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue I will deal with later. As for the lighting issue, it seems obvious to me that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the right, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.

Not one still photograph matches the video footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

This statement, made by David Percy, is entirely untrue. For evidence I submit the above-mentioned photograph of astronaut John Young [see photo]. There is some excellent corroborating video of the event captured in this still photo. In the video, the TV camera is positioned behind Young and to his right. The video shows a leaping John Young, the flag (which is not fluttering) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. There are other examples as well.

Mr. Percey claims that the triangular shaped piece of fabric located on the top of John Young's backpack, and seen in the still photo, does not appear in the video. This is not true - the tip of the fabric can be seen when one closely examines the video. Percey's claim fails to take into consideration the relative camera angles, the fact that Young in leaning forward, and the fact the fabric is attached at the front edge of the backpack.

If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface?

The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk.

Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.

Clearly the photos were taken from different camera positions [see photos]. In one the LM is in the view, while in the other the LM is to the left of the camera. Due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth; thus, the background mountains are more distant than they appear to be. As such, the change in camera position has, at first observation, a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, if one examines the background with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified (look closely at the hill on the right of each photo). It is obvious the backgrounds are not identical despite what the hoax advocates want us to believe. Every example of so-called "identical backgrounds" I have ever examined show clear evidence to the contrary.

Two video clips, claimed by NASA to have been taken at different locations many kilometers apart, show an identical hill.

There's an easy explanation for this: human error. The video clips to which the hoax advocates refer are from a documentary (not made by NASA) that accidentally used a wrong clip. This was a simple mistake, but not one made by NASA. According to NASA, the photos were actually taken about three minutes apart on the same hill.

Apollo 16 photographs show a rock with a clearly defined "C" marking on it. This "C" is probably a studio prop identification marking.

I do not deny that the rock certainly appears to have a "C" on it [see photo]; however, to suggest this is some sort of studio prop marking seems a bit far-fetched. Fortunately, someone else has already solved this mystery for us. An investigation by the Lunar Anomalies Web page has uncovered that the "C" is, in fact, no more than a hair or fiber that was likely on the paper when the print was made. This print was then scanned to produce the digital image seen on this, and other, Web pages. The original negatives have been found to be "clean" with no evidence of the infamous "C".

Crosshairs, etched into the cameras, are visible in the Apollo photos; however, in some images there are objects that appear to be in front of the crosshairs; an indication that the photos have been faked.

In all the examples I've seen, the crosshairs disappeared when crossing a brightly lit white object [see photo]. What's happening here is the intense light reflecting off the white surface is bleeding in around the crosshair and saturating the film, thus obliterating the crosshair. This phenomenon is commonplace and is in no way evidence of fraud.

Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?

This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.

I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags where attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

When astronaut Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right, yet a slice is caused by uneven airflow over the ball.

This comment by Ralph Rene is another example of inadequate research, as well as evidence of a poor sense of humor. Near the end of Apollo 14's second and final EVA, Al Shepard pulls a PR stunt by hitting a pair of golf balls. He drops the first ball and takes a one-arm swing, topping the ball and burying it. He takes a second swing and pushes the ball about 2 or 3 feet, mostly along the line toward the TV camera. In Houston CAPCOM Fred Haise jokes "That looked like a slice to me, Al". Shepard's third swing finally connects and sends the ball off-camera to the right. He drops a second ball and connects again. Shepard says "Miles and miles and miles", Haise replies "Very good, Al".

To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.

This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about 2 rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator; therefore, Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.

For more information, please see The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission.

Intense radiation from solar flares would have killed the Apollo astronauts in route to the Moon and back.

Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but typical radiation doses received by the Apollo astronauts due to exposure to solar flares amounted to only a few rem. The radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated.

For more information, please see Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission

In addition to exposure to deadly radiation, the Apollo astronauts would have been pierced by thousands of micrometeoroids.

Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface.

How could the astronauts survive in the heat of the Moon's day? Objects that are heated cannot be cooled by space.

This is true, to a point; however, spacesuits can radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate heat; therefore, some of the heat energy received from the Sun is radiated back into space as infrared rays. Also, much of the Sun's radiant energy can be reflected away. The astronaut's spacesuits were white because this color reflects the most radiation, thereby minimizing the amount absorbed. Finally, the spacesuits where equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away access heat. Water sprayed into a vacuum experiences a very rapid drop in pressure and, consequently, temperature. Hence, when a small amount of water was sprayed onto a cooling element on the rear of the spacesuit, its temperature dropped so much that it would immediately freeze onto the element. The cooling water of the spacesuit was then pumped through this element. The heat of the cooling water melted the ice, which then rapidly boiled off and carry into space the unwanted heat.

The Apollo guidance computer had the equivalent computing power of today's kitchen appliances, far less than that required to go to the Moon.

Unlike general-purpose computers, the Apollo guidance computer had to perform only one task - guidance. Most of the number crunching was performed at Mission Control on several mainframe computers. The results were then transmitted to the onboard computer, which acted upon them. The Apollo guidance computer was capable of computing only a small number of navigation problems itself. Since the guidance computer had to run only one program, that program could be put in ROM; thus, only a small amount of RAM was required to hold the temporary results of guidance calculations.

The hoax advocates tend to overrate the tasks performed by the onboard guidance computers of the 1960's. In fact, the Mercury spacecraft, 1961-63, flew into space without any onboard computer whatsoever, yet the trajectories were precisely controlled and the capsule was capable of fully automated control.

The computer technology did not exist in the 1960's to build the Apollo guidance computer.

Computer companies of the 1960's had to produce general-purpose computers at a cost that would attract consumers. NASA, on the other hand, required a computer capable of performing only a single task - guidance - and could easily afford a custom designed and built system using cutting edge components and techniques. Although modern microprocessors did not yet exist, microchips performing simple tasks were available in the early 1960's, and these could be built-up into computer processors. By the mid-1960's several companies were producing commercially available integrated circuits.

The hoax advocates often become trapped into a single way of thinking. Just because one technology is used to solve a particular problem today does not mean that problem was unsolvable before the technology was available. Man is much more creative than the hoax advocates are willing to acknowledge.

The astronauts' movement inside the Lunar Module would change the center of mass, throwing the LM off balance, and making it impossible to control.

This is the claim of hoax advocate and Ralph Rene who, apparently, has a poor understanding of physics and the Lunar Module's control systems. The LM had an automatic computer guidance and inertial control system. This system was designed to measure the attitude of the LM several times per second using a system of gyroscopes. If it found that the LM was out of proper attitude it would make adjustments by gimballing the main descent engine and/or throttling it back, and firing control thrusters as needed to stabilize the spacecraft. Despite claims to the contrary, the control thrusters exerted sufficient force to nudge the spacecraft around as necessary to keep it stable.

How could the untested Lunar Module land flawlessly six times on the Moon when its prototype crashed on Earth during training.

The "prototype" to which the hoax advocates refer was not a prototype at all, but a training vehicle known as the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV). The LLTV included a jet engine to support five-sixths of its airborne weight, a pair of rocket engines that simulated the LM's descent engine, and small jets that mimicked the LM's attitude control thrusters. The Apollo astronauts trained in the LLTV to learn the skills necessary to maneuver the actual LM. During one test flight, Neil Armstrong was forced to eject when the LLTV ran out of attitude control fuel and became unstable.

The LLTV was very different from the LM and the "untested" LM was far from untested. Every component of the LM was tested over and over again during its development. The LM flew flawlessly to the moon because of the hard work of thousands of workers over many years during the design, development and construction of the spacecraft.

The sound of the Lunar Module descent engine should be heard in the Apollo audio, but there is no such sound.

On Earth, a rocket engine is an extremely noisy device; this comes from the shearing action between the high velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere. The LM operated in a vacuum so the only sound would be that produced by vibrations transmitted through the spacecraft structure itself. Also, the microphones used by the astronauts were located inside their spacesuits; thus, insulated from the cabin environment. Finally, the microphones were designed to pick up only the sound in their immediate vicinity, that is, the astronauts' voices.

The powerful engine of the Lunar Module should have produced a blast crater, yet there is no evidence of a blast crater in any of the Apollo photographs.

Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases disperse rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle.

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph [see photo] one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed.

A large amount of dust was generated during the landings, yet no dust can be seen on the Lunar Module footpads.

This thinking draws on our common experience from Earth but, as we all know, the Moon is not the Earth. If wind picks up dust on Earth we get billowing clouds that tend to settle all over everything. This occurs because the Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere so any dust that was blown by engine exhaust would follow a simple ballistic trajectory and fall immediately back to the surface. The dust would be blown outward away from the LM; thus, the lack of dust on the footpads is exactly what we would expect to see.

The astronauts make deep footprints around the landing site, yet the Lunar Module exhaust should have blown the area clean of dust.

The downward traveling exhaust stream would impact the ground and rebound mostly upward and away from the surface. Since there is no atmosphere to interact with, the gas molecules would simply fly off and disperse (see note below). The only dust particles that would be displaced would be those directly impacted by the exhaust gas. Since the exhaust stream was concentrated mostly in the area directly beneath the Lunar Module, this zone would experience the greatest disturbance. The area adjacent to the LM would be largely unaffected by the exhaust stream.

NOTE: On Earth, the exhaust gas would impact and displace air molecules that would, in turn, displace other air molecules and so on. This phenomenon would create and large area of disturbance. Since the Moon has no atmosphere this type of widespread disturbance would be nonexistent.

The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.

Moisture must be present in soil for it to form footprints, yet the Moon is a totally dry world.

The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. When a meteoroid impacts the Moon, much of the energy goes into fracturing the surrounding structure causing breaks in the molecular bonds. On Earth, these "exposed" bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut's boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds are created. The new bonds enable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form despite the absence of water.

The astronauts could not pass through the tunnel connecting the Command Module and the Lunar Module with their spacesuits and backpacks on.

Finally the hoax advocates are correct about something. Fortunately, the astronauts did not have to! Their EVA suits and backpacks were stowed in the Lunar Module the whole time. The only time the astronauts donned their suits and packs were when they actually egressed the LM for surface activities on the Moon.

The astronauts could not have egressed the Lunar Module because they could not fit through the hatch and there was insufficient room to open the hatch in the LM.

The hoax advocate who came up with this claim is badly misinformed. The astronauts were positioned on either side of the cockpit panel with the main EVA hatch between them. The hatch, hinged on the right side, swung inward to open, effectively trapping the Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) momentarily on his side of the LM. (There was plenty of room to open the hatch.) Once the Commander egressed, the LMP was able to close the hatch, move over to the left side, and exit himself.

As to the issue of whether the astronauts could fit through the hatch, clearly they could. There are many photos and video, both on the Moon and while in training, showing fully suited astronauts crawling through the hatch. The source of the hoax advocate's claim may stem from early problems with a round hatch. While still in development, the LM's original round hatch was changed to a rectangular hatch.

The Lunar Rover was too large to fit in the Lunar Module.

If one takes the measurements of the Lunar Rover when it was fully deployed and assembled, then yes, it would not fit in the Lunar Module; however, the Rover folded for stowage in the descent stage of the LM in a quadrant to the right of the ladder. The chassis was hinged in three places and the four wheels were pivoted nearly flat against the folded chassis occupying only 30 ft3. When the astronauts deployed the Lunar Rover, all they had to do was pull on two cords and the Rover popped right out of its berth and down to the lunar surface. As it did so, the wheels deployed outward and were then locked into position.

The pressure inside a spacesuit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

While on the surface of the Moon, the Apollo astronauts wore a spacesuit known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The EMU was a closed-circuit pressure vessel that enveloped the astronaut. The environment inside the suit consisted of 100% oxygen at 3.7 psi (about 1/3 that of a football). The complete article included a liquid cooling garment, pressure garment assembly, and integrated thermal micrometeoroid garment. The pressure garment was an airtight bladder with accordion joints at the knees and elbows, and swivel joints at the shoulders to allow mobility. When pressurized, the suit was allowed to expand slightly, but was kept from ballooning outward too far by a restraint layer of nonstretch netting. The fabric of the EMU's outer garment covered the pressure garment assembly. To suggest the EMU should puff out like the "Michelin Man" is a clear case of the hoax advocates making claims that are based on woefully inadequate research.

Video footage of the Lunar Module's ascent from the Moon should show an exhaust plume from the engine, yet there is no visible plume.

The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is a result of our observation of rocket launches on Earth. Rocket engines typically use a fuel-rich propellant mixture, which results in unoxidized fuel in the exhaust gas. This fuel reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce flame and smoke in the exhaust stream. In the vacuum of space this secondary reaction is nonexistent. The Lunar Module used a propellant mixture of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide, which, in the absence of atmospheric oxygen to react with, produces exhaust gases that are nearly invisible.

The FOX program points out NASA illustrations showing an exhaust plume coming from the LM's ascent engine. This is a simple case of NASA taking artistic license. The illustrations are a dramatization of a LM launch and are not meant to be scientifically accurate.

When Apollo 17's Lunar Module lifted-off the Moon the video camera followed the ascent, yet no one was left on the surface to operate the camera.

This is one of the hoax advocates more foolish statements. Apparently they have never heard of a remotely operated camera. The video camera that shot the LM launch footage was mounted on the Lunar Rover and was controlled remotely from Mission Control in Houston.

The Apollo video is strikingly similar to scenes in the movie Capricorn One. NASA, with a much larger budget, could have produced the Apollo video in a studio.

Capricorn One (released 1978) is a movie about how NASA faked a manned mission to Mars. The scenes look similar to the Apollo video because the movie was filmed to look like the real thing; however, the similarities are only superficial. A close examination of the Apollo video reveals numerous examples of phenomenon that simply cannot exist on Earth. No matter how big their budget, NASA cannot change the laws of physics. The comparison to Capricorn One is nothing but an attempt by the FOX producers to sensationalize their program.

There are many pictures of spacesuited astronauts inside buildings with artificial moonscapes, presumably the studio where the moon landings were faked.

The hoax advocates often cite such photographs as evidence for the hoax. These photos are common and were obtained during crew training for the actual moon landings. NASA has made no attempt to hide the photos, nor have they ever claimed them to be taken on the Moon. The Lunar Module, Rover, experiments, etc. seen in the training photos are generally training replicas or flight spares, rarely actual flight hardware.

If the video footage of the Apollo astronauts is played at double normal speed, their motion appears quite normal; thus, the images were faked by playing normal motion at half speed.

There's an easy explanation for this phenomenon. An object in free flight will follow a ballistic trajectory in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The only force acting on the object is gravity, which, on Earth, has an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s2. On the Moon gravity is much less, 5.33 ft/s2. If the ballistic flight of an object on the Moon is sped up by a factor of 2.457 it will mimic exactly ballistic motion on Earth, and vice versa. The 2X speed the hoax advocates claim is very close to this 2.457 ratio; hence, the motion looks "normal" because it is what our eyes and brains are accustomed to seeing.

The Apollo video is exactly what it appears to be, that is, man on the Moon. The convincing evidence is in the dust, which is particularly apparent in the video of the Lunar Rover. If this video were shot on Earth there would be clouds of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Rover's wheels; however, there is no evidence of this. The dust falls immediately back to the surface as it would in an airless environment.

Earth based telescopes should be able to see the Apollo hardware on the Moon, yet none is visible.

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012"; however, the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth.

The only sure way to prove the moon landings really happened is to return to the Moon and see if the Apollo hardware is there.

Direct visual verification would certainly put an end to the issue; however, there are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that is not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch. To explain the existence of these reflectors the hoax advocates have no choice but to claim they were placed on the Moon by robotic landers; a huge undertaking for which there is no supporting evidence (more on this later). The simple answer: the Apollo astronauts placed them there.

The moon rocks allegedly collected and returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts were actually manufactured by NASA in a laboratory on Earth.

It has been suggested that researchers could not to tell the difference between fake and authentic rocks since no one had ever examined a moon rock before. This claim is utter nonsense. In addition to the rocks returned by Apollo, we have samples of lunar rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. (Lunar meteorites are very rare with only 25 known samples.) Tests have shown the Apollo moon rocks and the meteorites are of identical origin; however, the Apollo samples lack other features that would distinguish them as meteorites. Also, the moon rocks have characteristics that are not found in terrestrial or artificial rocks, such as evidence of meteoroid bombardment and exposure to cosmic rays. Likewise, terrestrial rocks have unique characteristics not found in the moon rocks, such as weathering and exposure to water. Finally, the moon rocks returned by Apollo have been determined to be between 3.1 and 4.4 billion years old. The Apollo samples are without doubt of authentic lunar origin.

NOTE: The Apollo missions returned rock and soil samples totaling 842 pounds, comprising 2,196 individual specimens. These specimens have been processed into greater than 97,000 individually cataloged samples. More than 60 laboratories worldwide actively pursue sample studies; some 1,100 samples are sent out to researchers annually.

NASA was able to perpetrate and maintain the hoax because the conspiracy required a relatively small number of people within the NASA "inner circle".

The hoax advocates make this claim yet, if all their assertions were true, the conspiracy they describe would be one of stupendous proportion involving literally thousands of individuals. I could cite numerous examples to illustrate this point, but let me mention just two: (1) Had the laser reflectors, left on the Moon by Apollo astronauts, actually been placed by robotic landers, then a program of huge scope would have been necessary. The design, manufacture, testing and launch of these landers would have involved numerous subcontractors and suppliers, as well as many NASA and civilian workers. Since there is no supporting evidence for such a program, then the thousands of people involved in the project would have to be willing participants in the cover-up. (2) I strenuously maintain the world's geologists could not possibly be deceived by fake moon rocks; thus, the rocks are either authentic, or the geologists are lying. If they are lying, then the hoax must be a worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of people in the civilian scientific community.

The anomalies seen in the Apollo photographs were placed there by "whistle blowers", who secretly passed on hoax evidence in order to expose NASA.

David Percy is the main proponent of the "whistle blower" theory. It is astonishing there could be these do-gooders inside NASA, yet after 30+ years not one of the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on Apollo has come forward to openly admit they were part of a conspiracy. Not a single deathbed confession. Personally, I think Percy is flattering himself by believing he has decoded these subtle messages left behind by ethical individuals who could not stand by and watch NASA perpetrate this dastardly deed. The truth is, there are no whistle blowers because the supposed photographic anomalies are the result of misunderstood phenomenon and mistaken conclusions, not hidden messages.

The fire that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts was a deliberate act by NASA in order to silence Gus Grissom, who was about to expose the hoax.

There's not much I can say here other than the accusation is a complete fabrication with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. Some hoax advocates claim there have been many "suspicious" deaths among those associated with the Apollo program, alleging that NASA murdered these people. These accusations are both ludicrous and libelous. Bill Kaysing particularly has made many slanderous allegations against NASA yet, when former astronaut Jim Lovell called him "wacky", Kaysing had the gall to file suit against Lovell. Wisely, the suit was dismissed.

By the way, one of Mr. Kaysing accusations is that Christa McAuliffe, the school teacher who was to fly aboard Challenger in 1986, would not go along with NASA's lie that stars cannot be seen in space. When she refused, NASA murdered the unfortunate Ms. McAuliffe, along with six others, by destroying Challenger in one of the most spectacular, expensive, and embarrassing failures in U.S. history. What proof does Mr. Kaysing give in support of this claim - none of course.

NASA faked the moon landings as a diversion to distract Americans from the Vietnam War.

The hoax advocates like to point out that the timing of the Apollo missions almost exactly corresponded with the war in Vietnam. Let us take a closer look at this argument. It is important that we not look at when the Apollo missions actually occurred, but rather, when the planning for those missions took place. The genesis of the Apollo program was John F. Kennedy's speech to congress in May 1961, while the first U.S. ground combat forces did not enter Vietnam until March 1965. Apollo 18, the last Apollo mission to be scrapped, was cancelled during the summer of 1970, while the last U.S. ground forces did not leave Vietnam until March 1973. That's 1961-70 for Apollo and 1965-73 for Vietnam. It is obvious that NASA plans were made years in advance of events in Vietnam. Planners could not have possibly anticipated the timing of future events, yet the hoax advocates would have us believe so.

NASA faked the moon landings in order to beat the Soviets and to assure that America achieved John Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the Moon before the end of the decade.

To me, the idea of a hoax makes absolutely no sense. It is true the Americans we were in competition with the USSR, but the risks involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax would be tremendous. The devastating effect the exposure of a hoax would have on the reputation of the United States would be many times more severe than simply failing to reach the moon. I find it inconceivable that NASA would be willing to take that risk. Also, why six landings? After Apollo 11 the goal had been met, so why fake five more landings? In fact, NASA continued to send men to the Moon long after the public had lost interest. Continuing to perpetrate a hoax would only increase the possibility of making a mistake and being exposed. Almost any hoax is doomed to eventual failure, especially one this elaborate.

The Soviet Union never attempted a moon landing because they knew it was impossible.

The failure of the Soviet Union to land a man on the moon was due to the failure of their N1 moon rocket, which was the USSR equivalent of the USA Saturn V. The Soviets attempted two test launches of the N1 in 1969, the first on 21-February and the second on 3-July. The July test, which occurred just two weeks before the launch of Apollo 11, was a catastrophic failure as the rocket exploded on the launch pad and destroyed much of the launch complex. After the failure of the first two N1 rockets, and the success of Apollo 11, Russian engineering efforts were diverted into crash development of the Salyut space station in order to beat the American Skylab. Cosmonauts, however, continued to train for lunar landing missions until October 1973, when the last training group was dissolved. By that time, manned flight of the original single-launch spacecraft to the moon had been abandoned. Instead work was underway on a twin launch scenario that would put a lander on the surface in 1978 for extended operations, and eventually, a lunar base. This in turn was cancelled with the entire N1 program in 1974.

Clearly the Soviets believed a moon landing was a technological possibility as they continued with their plans until well after the last Apollo mission. They failed to beat the Americans to the Moon because they could not make their N1 rocket work before time ran out on them.

The Soviet Union did not contest NASA's claim about the Moon landings because the USSR was faking their own space program and would have likely exposed themselves.

Surely the Soviets possessed the knowledge and experience necessary to debunk NASA's claim of a moon landing. Since they declined to do so, they, according to the hoax advocates, must have had something to hide as well. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever of fraud on the part of the USSR but, if they were faking it, why didn't they just hoax a landing before the USA did? It was awfully generous of the Soviets to allow the Americans to fake it first. There appears to be no accusation the hoax advocates are unwilling to make, despite the lack of evidence, if it supports the hoax storyline.

Another idea that's been proposed by the hoax advocates is that NASA paid-off the Soviets to keep them quiet, which, like most hoax claims, is pure speculation. This accusation is just another desperate attempt by the hoax advocates to squelch one of the many obstacles confronting them.

If NASA was able to land men on the Moon with such great success, why are there no plans to return and why haven't the Russians sent anyone?

Despite the apparent ease with which NASA landed six crews on the lunar surface between 1969 and 1972, traveling to the Moon was difficult, dangerous and very expensive. The advanced planning and preparation of the spacecraft and astronauts resulted in spectacularly successful missions that succeeded despite the inherent difficulties and dangers. The United States landed men on the Moon while the Soviet Union failed in its attempt to do the same. Once the U.S. succeeded, the Soviets' reason for going to the Moon was eliminated. To fly to the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago. Until there is sufficient motivation to do so, it is unlikely man will return to the moon any time in the near future.

Closing comments.

Many hoax believers are well meaning people who have been duped into believing the hoax theories by what they perceive to be compelling evidence. Although I may not agree with their views, I mean these people no malice. There are other hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research or scientific ignorance. I find these people to be very dangerous because they possess the power to sway people into accepting their assertions as fact. A third possibility is that there are those who may believe the moon landings were real, but intentionally try to persuade people otherwise for some sort of attention, fame or profit. These people I believe are especially loathsome.

The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

The problem the hoax advocates face is that there is a mountain of evidence supporting the authenticity of the moon landings. In order to substantiate their story, this evidence must be refuted. In some cases, the hoax advocates propose arguments that, on the surface, appear to have some merit, but as they try to dismiss other evidence it becomes more difficult. Usually their claims become more and more outlandish, often times foolish. In many cases they resort to making assertions that are seriously flawed in both science and logic. On the other hand, the claims of the moon landing supporters are always based on scientific fact (it's easy when you have truth on your side).

If one looks at the hoax "theory" in total, it becomes apparent it is little more than a fairy tale based on a handful of mistaken observations and assumptions. You may see a hundred examples of so-called hoax evidence, but it is mostly just repeated samples of the same misinterpreted phenomena. For those who have convinced themselves Apollo was nothing more than a hoax, it becomes necessary to create a story that fits the remaining evidence and is consistent with the hoax plot. For example, one must explain the existence of the Moon rocks, so the hoax advocates claim the rocks are fakes even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They make this claim only because it is crucial to the storyline. Another example is the claim the Soviet Union was faking its space program. Again, the hoax advocates have no proof; however, they must invent an explanation for the Soviets' failure to challenge the moon landings. If you look critically at the hoax story you will see it is no more than an illusion.

I have often been accused of "providing no more proof than the hoax advocates", which is correct - I have not proven anything, nor do I assert otherwise. The purpose of this Web page is to point out the myriad flaws and omissions in the claims of the hoax advocates, and to show that there is a sound and scientifically based defense to their repeated attacks. Only the men who walked on the Moon can know with absolute certainty what the truth is. The rest of us must decide whether the evidence is strong enough to accept the historical account as fact. This is true of all history. For example, few of us were alive during the First World War, yet we accept as fact that the war happened because the accounts of the war and the evidence are so strong that all doubt is removed. I am confident the same is true of Apollo but, due to a general lack of understanding, the truthfulness of the moon missions has been called into questioned by a small but vocal minority. I ask that you not be persuaded by incomplete or inaccurate information. Study all the facts and use your sound judgment. I'm sure you will, like me, come to the conclusion that


Yes, We Landed On The Moon!
My Qualifications.

 

[Problem Child]

That a was a nice waste of bandwidth.

 

[Whizz Kid]

Holy fuck! Do you ever have an original thought busybody? You're a fucking walking zerox! Get a life and hurry, there aren't many left.

 

[busybody..]

Adam and Eve: Did They Really Exist?


Opening Statement by Rev. Rankin
BILL HOLDRIDGE:

As we get started I'd like to have a word of prayer and ask the Lord to be glorified through the things that are said this evening.


Lord, we thank you so much for being able to dialogue concerning things that matter most. And we do pray that, as your word says, your counsel would stand and you would fulfill all of your pleasure. Do that in this place as the issues are raised. We pray that you would be glorified through all that is said and all that is done. We ask it in the name of Jesus. Amen.


The format for tonight will be opening statements by each participant. And then following those opening statements, counter responses to each of those statements. And then kind of a free-flowing bantering back and forth like we had last time. And then there will be a love offering received with a short intermission. And then we'll go right into questions and answers from the floor. So that's what we have to look forward to this evening.


And so without any further ado I'd like to introduce the first speaker this evening, John Rankin, the president of the Theological Education Institute located in Hartford, Connecticut. Many of you know him. If you were here at the last forum you remember his presentation concerning the subject that was discussed that evening. Would you please welcome John Rankin. [applause]


JOHN RANKIN:

Good evening. When I talked with Bill about doing this forum and then called Father Hansen, the interest was actually brought up by Father Hansen in his opening comments in our last forum, when he said that, when we look at the issue of homosexuality, the deeper issue is how do we regard the Bible and its inspiration and its authority. And so I called Carl and said, would you like to do this on the inspiration of Scripture. And what happened was, I don't want to steal your thunder yet, but I know that Carl is going to argue not that the Bible's not inspired, but he's going to argue I believe a different perspective of its inspiration. And so it wasn't like is it inspired yes or no. Because Father Hansen didn't want to say no. When we were talking I mentioned in passing my belief that Adam and Eve really existed. And when Father Hansen felt otherwise, I knew we had a forum.


So the question is, did Adam and Eve really exist? Perhaps a secondary question is, why does it matter if they really existed? Well let me go through a number of observations. First of all, regardless of our perspective, if we're conservative and evangelical or if we are liberal in our theology, if we're going to look at the Bible we must respect it on its own terms. And to respect it on its own terms is to understand that the Bible interprets itself, the entire canon of Scripture on the assumptions of what is introduced in Genesis chapters 1 through 3. In those chapters we have the doctrines of creation, sin and redemption, namely, that God created the world according to a certain moral order. He gave us freedom to accept or reject that. In rejecting it we sinned and reversed the order of creation. And his redeeming agenda that begins in Genesis, and is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, is to reverse the reversal. Now what this means is that we cannot grasp Jesus as the redeemer without knowing what sin is, and we don't know what sin is without knowing the sin of Adam and Eve back in the garden of Eden. So we can't get away from Genesis 1 through 3 on its own terms, in terms of understanding the rest of the Bible. Because if we get rid of it we get rid of the entire Bible itself.


Not only that but we have a certain moral order in Genesis. And I describe this often as the subjects of God, life, choice, and sex. The first subject in Genesis chapter 1 is God. The whole trajectory, the crown of God's creation is human life in his image. The height of what it is to be a human is moral and aesthetic choice. And the most important choice we ever make is whom we marry. Because in the covenant of one man, one woman, one lifetime -- the goal of marriage in the order of creation -- we have the power to pass on the gifts of life, choice, and sex to our offspring.


I argued last time that those who would allow for homosexuality, or those who don't start with the Bible on its own terms, reverse it and have sex, choice, life, God. That becomes the basis for sexual promiscuity and to me the brokenness of human relationships ultimately. So the way we understand Genesis chapters 1 through 3 is crucial if we're going to respect the Bible on its own terms. Now having said that, someone can agree with that and still not share my assumption about the full inspiration of Scripture, that every word is inspired by God the way we have it for his instructive purposes. But I will move through and make the argument that if we do take it on its own terms, we need to understand the historicity, the reality of Adam and Eve.


In Genesis chapters 1 and 2, there are ten positive ethical dimensions set forth that are not to be found in any pagan origin text, any source apart from the Bible. And I'll go through them very quickly and focus on two in particular.


Only Genesis has a positive view of God's nature. He gives and doesn't destroy.


Number two. Only Genesis has a positive view of communication that's meant to serve openness in relationships and not domination.

Number three. Only Genesis has a positive view of human nature. We are the image of God and not a cosmic byproduct of chance evolution, or the destructive agenda of petty gods and goddesses.


Number four. Only Genesis has a positive view of human freedom. Only Genesis gives moral freedom. All the pagan texts put us into slavery when it comes to making choices. The consequences also come with that freedom.


Number five. Only Genesis has a positive view of human sexuality and women. All the pagan origin texts treat women as dirt, demons, second class.


Number six. Only Genesis has a ... that was number six. Number five is only Genesis has a positive view of hard questions. The embrace of tough questions. I reversed the order there slightly.


Number seven. Only Genesis has a positive view of verifiable history. I'm going to focus on this in a minute.


Number eight. Only Genesis has a positive view of science and the scientific method. I'll also focus on this in a minute.


Number nine. Only Genesis has a positive view of covenantal law, where those in government are meant to serve and not to dominate.


Number ten. Only Genesis has a positive view of the First Amendment and the basis for religious liberty.


Now, on the positives of verifiable history and science, I make the observation that every religious origin text in all of human history, begins with mythology apart from Genesis. You go back to Romulus and the foundation of Rome, you get back into quasi-mythology and then back into mythology, whether you look at the history of the Mayan people or the Hindu people or the Babylonian people or the Egyptian people, you name it. Apart from the history of the Jews and those that came before the Jews from Adam on forward, you have mythology in every context, and Genesis stands very powerfully against that. It has a view of history. For example, you have in the Garden of Eden, let's just take a look at Genesis 2 verses 10 and following.


"A river watering the garden flowed from Eden." This is just after the creation of Adam. "From there it separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there. The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of the Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."


Now Moses is writing the final text that we have here in the Pentateuch, the book of Genesis. And so you have people circa 1446 B.C. that are reading this. And Moses in writing this text is identifying for those people the exact location of the Garden of Eden. Two rivers we know and two rivers we don't know from antiquity from our perspective. But the point being, that when this was written, all the people, some 8000 years as best I can figure it after the creation of Adam, people knew the exact, historical time and place. So you see the assumption from the word go was not mythology, but a real place, a real time, a real man, and a real woman that were created.


Also, in terms of science we have the understanding that only Genesis has a view of the scientific inquiry and of checking reality and testing it all the way through. Every religious origin text apart from Genesis, starts with the assumption that the sun, the moon and the stars are deities, gods and goddesses that fatalistically control our lives. There are variations on that theme, but you go back to Babylon, you go back to Egypt, you go back to their origin texts and they view the celestial objects as what: gods and goddesses. That's not the basis for science. That's not the basis for astronomy. That's the basis for astrology. Genesis is unique. It treats the sun, the moon and the stars as inanimate, celestial objects, exactly what they are, that give heat and light. And so you go from there to the scientific method, based on the principle of falsification to determine reality. If you want to test a hypothesis, you test it under the same circumstance repeatedly, and it must have the same results. And if it's different one time out of a thousand, your hypothesis is proved false. Only the Bible is willing to submit its prophets to a 1000 batting average, a hundred percent accuracy. If a prophet is wrong one out of a hundred times he's a false prophet. And Jesus said if you prove me false once you've proved me false. And so the very ethics as well as the assumptions, of how you look at the sun, the moon and the stars, give the evidence that Genesis on its own terms from the beginning, has the only basis for reality among all the religious origin texts. The only basis for history, the only basis for science.


Now, another very powerful element here is genealogies. Adam is named. His sons are named. His daughters are mentioned. Their descendants are traced all the way to Noah, from Noah all the way to Abraham, from Abraham all the way to David, and from David all the way to Jesus. Every name all the way through down. And you can come up with an understanding of a genealogy that started somewhere around nine and a half thousand B.C. No pagan origin text even has a concept of that. The Bible views itself as real. Not only that, but when you get to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, they work backwards. And they come back to Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Jesus himself in Matthew chapter 19, when he was asked about the question of divorce, he says it's not to be so, and he appeals back to the order of creation and roots himself in the reality of a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. And he roots himself in the order of creation.

Then you look at the understanding of Paul in Romans 5. In fact, let's turn to Romans 5 and look at this language. We'll look at Romans 5, 12 through 14:


"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned, for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."


You follow the rest of the text. Jesus Christ is the second Adam, specifically the second man. He is real. He comes to die for the sins that a real historical figure, Adam, and his wife Eve committed. But notice the historical assumption. "...from the time of Adam to the time of Moses..." And many people who dispute the historicity of Adam and Eve -- in fact, I don't know anyone who would not say that Abraham is historical. That Abraham lived circa 1800 B.C. And yet right here you see that history from the biblical perspective doesn't start with Abraham, it doesn't start with Moses, it starts with Adam. Moses is just as historical as Adam is, and Jesus is just as historical as Adam is. And therefore, what we have all the way through is that the Bible on its own terms assumes the historicity of Adam and Eve. Now, there are many questions why people may dispute those and I will let Father Hansen bring up some of those questions, or perhaps some of you as well.


But let me take this very simple structure and bring to a concluding observation. The Bible on its own terms starts with a real man and a real woman made by divine fiat. Now the exact timetable is not certain, but I'll guess about nine and a half thousand B.C. It traces all the people who descended from Adam and Eve all the way up to the present. And it doesn't miss a beat in its own understanding of tracing that lineage. No other religious origin text does.


Therefore, if we say in any capacity that we believe in God, or we believe in Jesus Christ as the redeemer, and yet we do not accept Adam and Eve, we have undercut the very basis upon which Jesus assumed when he addressed the Jewish people. In other words, if Adam and Eve are not historical, then Jesus did not die for real sin. Because it says that real people, Adam and Eve, sinned against God and against one another. And as it says in 1 Corinthians 15, in a slightly different context but a related one, if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then we are still in our sins. We are in futility. We are the most of all people to be pitied. And the resurrection is historically linked into why Jesus rose from the dead, to pay the price for the sin of Adam and Eve. And therefore, if we don't believe that there was sin that our physical forebearers did, and we all have inherited that propensity, then we have the most futile and pitiable faith of all.

And so the final question that I have for Father Hansen and for the rest of us, is, if we do not take the Bible on its own terms, or if we try to say Adam and Eve are mythological and impose upon the Bible a mythos it doesn't view of itself, then what we're doing is we are appealing to a higher or different source than the Bible. We then need to identify what that higher or different source is and why it can select certain portions of the Bible and get rid of other portions. Not only that, if we don't believe the Bible is inspired fully on its own terms in terms of the historicity of its assumptions for Adam and Eve, then why even call ourselves Christian or Jewish. Why not just call ourselves some other religion, or invent a religion, and on that basis say how we can use the Bible for the sake of that religion.


My argument is, to be biblical and to respect it on its own terms, we know that Adam and Eve were directly made by God, and we are all their descendants. Thank you. [applause]

 

[Whizz Kid]

Please check the greyhound schedule for your town.

 

[phrodeau]

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

I dunno, PC. Looks pretty succinct to me.

 

[Kuntmode]

n/a

I remember Capricorn One.

I also remember Friday the 13th Part 1, 2, 3, 4 and 98.

Conclusion:

Moon landing fake. Other missions made in the same studio first one was.

Objective:

Beats Russians, take focus off Vietnam, make Kennedy a hero and his speech about putting a man on the moon valid.

Epilogue:

Why the fuck do you think they shot Kennedy? They realised he fucking lied.

It's not what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country?

Well someone did something for their country. They blew that cunts head off for being another US President full of shit.

 

[Problem Child]

I dunno, PC. Looks pretty succinct to me.

I don't have him on ignore. Too much comedy value would be missed.

 

[Problem Child]

I see Kuntmode graduated from the Michael Jackson Baby Dangling School of critical thinking.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Busybody, I hate to ruin it for you, but Fox issued a retraction on that show. Also, if you go to any of the skeptical website, or badastronomy.com, there are links to point-by-point refutations of the conspiracy theories.

 

[Kuntmode]

n/a

I see Problem Child has a habit of whining about busybody's threads but seems to hang around them.

I'm thankful Michael Jackson is American.

No other country could breed such a fucking monster and have millions adore him like you Yanks do.

We're the fireman from New York down below waiting to catch his cloned alien?

 

[crystalhunting]

Perhaps you should consider joining "The Flat Earth Society"










CH

 

[Spinaroonie]

FUN FACT:

The day of the first moon landing and the creation of the internet were only six weeks apart.

 

[Problem Child]

FUN FACT:

The day of the first moon landing and the creation of the internet were only six weeks apart.

Thanks buddy.

 

[busybody..]

 

[Spinaroonie]

Fun Fact:
Busybody is a colossal fag
(no offense to homosexuals, offense++ to Busybody)