I would just like to know definitively one way or the other. With this approach, you're simply comparing two data sets from multiple unassailable sources. NASA has their multiple images of Earth from multiple times stamped with their own time stamps, compared with data from NOAA and other similar sources from around the world. They match or they don't. The missions are an historical fact or they're not.

The way I look at it, the moon landing is an important one to clear up because it is kind of the grand-daddy of the other ones you mentioned. I know that chronologically, JFK came first, but for me, the moon landing is the one that would have a bigger impact if determined to be fake. Everyone would say, "Well hell, if they pulled that one off, what else did they do?!" And then all of the other ones would find a huge uptick in number of adherents. It would be very destabilizing if most Americans quickly began to see our government as corrupt. Also, if the moon was a snow job, then that surely would have emboldened the people who orchestrated it to make the other ones happen. It's a big row of dominoes.

The scenario that I find plausible is that the data that the controllers were receiving during the missions and the tracking data that was being picked up by people around the world could have been transmitted from a satellite without anyone being the wiser. And the "live" transmissions could have just been prerecorded scenes played on the TV feed. Just add a live overdubbed voice track and you're done. Nobody who planned or developed the mission nor anyone who was tracking the mission or working in the control room would have to know. The whole thing could have been run by a small group of people. And you would have all the artifacts and transcripts of the communications that your dad collected.

Right, one star photo on any of the missions from any point to or from the moon. I understand that they probably couldn't see stars while on the moon because of the bright reflection of the sun off the moon surface, but where are the stars in the images when they're halfway to the moon in the darkness of space? Does anyone actually believe that cameras wouldn't pick up stars in the darkness of space? And for the astronauts to say they didn't remember seeing any stars makes me very suspicious. You go camping out in the wilderness here on planet earth and you see a beautiful display of the deepness and richness of the galaxy. It's breathtaking. And the journey to the moon would have the astronauts surrounded by that. But for some reason, they just didn't notice, didn't remember afterwards, didn't comment on it as they saw it, didn't record it with any camera or video, nothing, not a single image.

I guess this view just slipped their minds. Neil said that the sky is a deep black when viewed from the space between the earth and the moon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiGeqsGjhoY&sns=em

Consider this discrepancy: Michael Collins (Gemini 10) "My God the stars are everywhere; above me on all sides even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. This is the best view of the Universe that a human has ever had. Venus appears so bright that I have to convince myself that it really is Venus, not by its appearance, but by its position in the sky at the spot where Venus should be." Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11) “The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might ...er ...be visible." Armstrong speaking to Patrick Moore on the BBC astronomy program The Sky at Night in 1970.

I was considering Armstrong's strange statements about space being completely black between the earth and the moon and decided to see how much time he had spent in space prior to being commander of Apollo 11. His only other space time had been on Gemini 8. Scheduled for 75 hours, the mission experienced problems and had to be aborted after 6.5 hours. This was the entirety of Armstrong's space flight time. And even though the module came in at an un-planned-for location, the module was recovered from the ocean with no loss of life. And this mission was not tracked on the ground for some reason. About a year and a half later, the Gemini astronauts were assembled and told that they would be the Apollo crew. According to Eugene Cernan, Armstrong made no reaction when informed of this. Despite only practicing landing the LM once on earth, a test that ended in a crashed LM, Armstrong effectively landed the LM on the moon. 6.5 hours total space time, on an untracked mission, recovered by crews with equipment that showed up despite not planning to go to that location. That was Armstrong's experience prior to Apollo. Hmmm.

A quick look at Gemini 8 photos on the NASA website shows the astronauts and support crew on the morning before the mission. They're not going over the technical parts of a mission to dock with another spacecraft which had never been done before. They're having "a hearty breakfast of steak and eggs". Complete with orange juice and water. This sounds like a logical thing to do just before being sealed in a suit and a capsule for 75 hours with no toilet. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/gemini/gemini8/html/s66-24439.html

Clearly, just adjust the shutter speed as they must have done many times while actually on the surface of the moon to get the shots taken from shadow to light in close succession on the same roll. All done with no actual view of the camera because of being mounted to the front of the suit.

Ok, sure. I don't really have anything else to say to that. I guess I lose. Your comment didn't actually make sense to me. Maybe we just have different views of reality. I don't know.

Also, how couldn't the effort be worth the result? The effort is "learn the correct f-stop" the result is "you get verifiable data to dispel any questions to authenticity". Especially since it had to have been done in quick succession on the moon's surface...is that not weird to you or are you making a weird false fallacy that I don't understand?

Ok. I'll leave it at that. I honestly don't think that you're being genuine. But if you do, you're free to do it. I won't respond further.

Just a quick look on the Internet gave me an image of earth on July 18, 1969 from Apollo 11 halfway to the moon and an archive of weather information from NOAA archives. I'm not able to download it on my iPad, but it doesn't seem too difficult to get the data for this.

I thought about that, but if there are multiple sources, they may not have changed them all. Always a chance of finding a real one. And I would think this information would be in all kinds of books and charts and things that meteorologists and scientists use that would be very difficult to fake.

I just found this link that addresses a lot of my questions and has a lot of articles for further discussion. Looks like the people who created the site have looked into this deeply. I would invite anyone who is not skeptical of the authenticity of the Apollo missions to take a look. http://www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htm

I thought this was a good analysis. Parallax. Objects in the distance over 3km away will not move in subsequent images taken from two slightly different locations. If objects in the distance do move when the two images are compared, then the objects are close to the camera. Many images have been analyzed from several of the Apollo missions that show distant objects moving between two sequential camera shots. With som pretty simple formulas and a comparison of the images with the topographic locations of the objects in the shot (namely rovers, astronauts and "distant" named mountains) it is clear that background objects (mountains) are much closer than they should be and completely consistent with projected images. This isn't speculation but quantifiable data. There's more... http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Take a look at this. The position of the land masses (primarily Australia) is in the same position When orbiting the earth as it is when they landed on the moon. Not really possible. And when you consider the crop regions around the image of the earth when taken from the moon surface, then you get the idea... http://www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htm

Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face. Bart asked him and quite a few other Apollo astronauts to swear on the bible that they went to the moon. I think one of them actually did it but then said afterward that he didn't believe in the bible. None of the rest of them did. If I believed in divine retribution and someone asked me to either destroy myself and my country and government by revealing that Apollo was fake or condemn my soul to eternal torment, I think I would get pretty angry, too. If everything was on the up and up, however, I think I would be glad to swear on the bible and then answer all of Bart's questions. Buzz didn't do that. He avoided the questions, didn't swear, ran away, then when pushed in a corner he lashed out with violence. Can't say that I blame him really. Also can't say I really believe him. But this is all in the speculation realm. My initial post suggested getting away from speculation and comparing verifiable data.

You may be right. I would certainly like to get off of this line of thought and focus on other things but I can't until I figure it out for myself. It would be nice if I could look at the world with a brighter disposition, but if even half of these issues are as they appear to be, then the world, and especially America is a very dark and twisted place. The problem is that there are so many very interesting questions that simply aren't addressed by debunkers, ever. If they would actually answer the questions, I would be actually very happy to change my views. But they almost never answer honestly. You'll get some condescending pompous response that ignores the question and is highly improbably on its face, then they'll say "see, debunked, thoroughly!" And it's bs. I think the next thing I'll do is get the DVDs of all the missions and just watch the whole thing. The thing is, with the information that exists, the missions should be verifiable. We should be able to get this out of the realm of speculation. And I think the effort would be helpful to get people to move on or uncover it thoroughly. Because if the polls are right, something like a third of Americans are skeptical about the authenticity of the moon landings. Something like 100 million people in America alone.

The analyses should be supported by both sides of the argument since both sides are convinced of their positions. And there are probably more ways, such as indicated by the comment about moon phases above. Though I think some of that has already been done. I seem to remember one person discovering that one of the missions would have been in shadow when photos from the moon's surface showed them in light. Since everyone claims to want to actually know the truth, these analyses should pretty much close the book on it. And the data sets would be fairly easy to obtain from multiple sites around the world. I'm betting that many countries have archived data of weather patterns, etc.

If you know that there is a reflector there, you also know that you can get a reflection of a laser back without hitting a reflector. MIT and the soviets both began doing this in 1962, seven years before Apollo.