Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
5,684
Reaction score
9,836
Points
284
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Europa turns out to be one of the most hospitable locations in the Solar System. This moon holds an ocean of water greater than that found on Earth, and enough carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen to support a large population.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120524.html?

One thing that is scarce on this world is sunlight; but ample energy could be obtained from fusion power plants, or from the strong magnetic field of Jupiter (The flux tube of Io is one of the most significant sources of energy in the Solar System). Europa is inside the magnetic field itself, and the surface is exposed to the charged particles buried in that field- but by constructing habitats beneath a few metres of ice, the radioactivity would be reduced to nominal levels.

If we did find life there, then the population would probably consist mostly of astrobiologists and support staff- but if no life were found, then the moon could be colonised in earnest, and could support a reasonably large population (comparable to the population of the UK, if not more).
Not as hospitable as Titan though. The atmospheric pressure is a mere 1.4 atm. With a oxygen mask and some very well insulated clothing, you could conceivably survive without a space suit and almost imagine you were in Siberia (where anomalously high air pressure and anomalously low temperatures have been recorded).
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,972
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Not as hospitable as Titan though. The atmospheric pressure is a mere 1.4 atm. With a oxygen mask and some very well insulated clothing, you could conceivably survive without a space suit and almost imagine you were in Siberia (where anomalously high air pressure and anomalously low temperatures have been recorded).
Except that there might be high winds on the surface.
 

skinny

TIT
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
8,195
Reaction score
8,483
Points
294
Location
Lydon Park
It's been made/cleaned up by the same team who produced this, The Last Steps, to give you a hint as to the high quality we can expect ..

That was fkn awesome, Swifty.

What a ride! What a ride!
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,810
Reaction score
31,197
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
So if the US moon landing was fake, how come the USSR bought into it? If there were any irregularities the Soviets would have detected them immediately and mocked the USA unmercifully at the UN for months. ...
Yep ... This has been pointed out repeatedly, but no one seems to take it into consideration.

The Soviets had the technologies and assets (from their own military and space programs) to monitor the Apollo missions and track all flights leaving earth orbit and going to the moon.

The Soviets had lasers they could bounce off the reflector array left by the Apollo 11 guys at Tranquility Base to verify their presence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Vincent Karter

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
1
So if the US moon landing was fake, how come the USSR bought into it? If there were any irregularities the Soviets would have detected them immediately and mocked the USA unmercifully at the UN for months. The alternative being that if it were that easy to fake, the Soviets would have been all over it themselves, yet we have no Soviet moon landing and no Soviet claims that the USA cheated. The Soviets lost a lot of credibility by scrapping their moon program, so they gained nothing, and they never claimed the USA cheated. There is only one sensible answer. The Soviets knew that the USA actually landed people on the moon because they were monitoring the whole exercise closely.

Well Nailed Sir/Madam
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
4,756
Points
159
The general idea seems to be "The USA bought their silence".
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,073
Points
154
Moon landings, real or fake ?
HI,
I have begun to question moon landings.
I would like to hear other peoples veiws and comments, and share reaserch.
This will help me make up my own conclusion about the Moon landings.
Any info. or comments will be gladly accepted ! :D :) :)
If you have the funds it is easy enough to perform the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
This has been made possible by retroreflectors placed on the lunar surface placed there by the many successful missions to the moon.
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
One tends to forget that, with the exception of the Moon landing, the Russians were ahead of the West in every aspect of space exploration.

And the West still has to rely upon them for a lift up to the ISS.

INT21
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,810
Reaction score
31,197
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... The Soviets lost a lot of credibility by scrapping their moon program, so they gained nothing, and they never claimed the USA cheated. ...
Here's some peripheral background supporting the notion the Soviets would have been motivated to expose any American trickery ...

There are two histories of the Soviet manned moon mission program:

- the largely presumptive belief the Soviets were, and always had been, racing for a moon landing from the time JFK established his 'within this decade' vision; and

- the actual story that wasn't fully disclosed until the USSR disintegrated 3 decades later.

The former version - a consensual drag race to see who got footprints on the moon first - is still the most popular version of what was happening then.

The latter version, however, would reveal several things that call the popular version into question, such as:

- The Soviets didn't commit to pursuing a manned moon landing until circa 1965 - i.e., circa 4 years after the USA effort got underway.

- They scrambled to develop concepts, prototypes, and fly-able hardware, of which the most critical component was a heavy-lift rocket system capable of supporting a moon mission.

- The N1 heavy lift rocket system (the USSR's analogue to the American Saturn V) was plagued with problems and never achieved a successful launch (4 attempts; 4 catastrophic explosions; in one instance destroying the launch complex itself).

- The Soviets didn't abandon their moon program in 1969 - they continued with their own version of a manned moon landing program into the 1970's, when it was finally / formally terminated. Meanwhile, the Soviets returned their attentions to the orbital space station and planetary exploration foci which had languished during the time of the moon race mania.

- The Soviets achieved one additional 'first' in lunar (and general space) exploration after the Americans had landed multiple astronauts on the moon - the successful landings of the two Lunokhod rovers in 1970 and 1973. These were the first remotely controlled exploratory rovers (and hence the clear ancestors to, e.g., the Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars).
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,972
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
The Soviets achieved one additional 'first' in lunar (and general space) exploration after the Americans had landed multiple astronauts on the moon - the successful landings of the two Lunokhod rovers in 1970 and 1973. These were the first remotely controlled exploratory rovers (and hence the clear ancestors to, e.g., the Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars).
Also - Venera.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,972
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Some interesting anomalies in space walk footage ..

At the start of that video, the narrator talks about wires holding the astronauts up (showing light glinting off a wire).
What that 'wire' was in the footage was a thin antenna made of wire, used by the astronauts for suit-to-suit communications. Example here:
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
30,567
Reaction score
45,604
Points
284
At the start of that video, the narrator talks about wires holding the astronauts up (showing light glinting off a wire).
What that 'wire' was in the footage was a thin antenna made of wire, used by the astronauts for suit-to-suit communications. Example here:
Cheers Mytho, NASA have also addressed the flag in a vacuum query before stating that the top of the fabric had a supporting rod inside it so the full stars and stripes would be visible.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,972
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Cheers Mytho, NASA have also addressed the flag in a vacuum query before stating that the top of the fabric had a supporting rod inside it so the full stars and stripes would be visible.
I remember watching it live at the time. Pundits in the studio (including Patrick Moore) gave this explanation for the flag.
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
How do they account for the picture where part of the image appears to be between the lens graticule and the film ?

INT21
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,972
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
How do they account for the picture where part of the image appears to be between the lens graticule and the film ?

INT21
That is still a mystery, yes.
It's true that much is still fishy about NASA's footage and imagery.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,810
Reaction score
31,197
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
How do they account for the picture where part of the image appears to be between the lens graticule and the film ? ...
(1) Conspiracy theorists claiming this are typically using low-resolution copies that make it appear the reticle / fiducial / crosshair disappears, whereas higher resolution versions illustrate that it is merely 'washed out' (lightened; less visible against a lighter background), and ...

(2) The 'washing out' is a known effect of strongly exposed portions of the film's emulsion 'bleeding' to immediately adjacent areas in the film.

There can't be anything exposed (from the lens; from the outside) between the reticle and the film, because the grid or reseau plate is locked in position pressing directly against the film at the time of exposure.

See (e.g.): http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
(2) The 'washing out' is a known effect of strongly exposed portions of the film's emulsion 'bleeding' to immediately adjacent areas in the film.

The rest of the frame is in high resolution and with a pretty similar illumination. Also the cut off of the graticule is very sharp.

There is also the matter of the clearly illuminated American flag on the lander when the rest of that area is in shadow.

Maybe they just 'cleaned up' the flag area to show it. But if they did they should say so.

There are a lot of thing that don't look right.

INT21
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
Just been looking at the shadows in the picture above.

Is it me or do the shadows cast by the rocks have a different angle to the one cast by the astronaut ? Shouldn't it be more to the front of him ?

INT21
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
1,843
Points
184
Location
Indiana
It simply amazes me that people actually believe it was a hoax......certainly the flight itself was closely followed by telescopes and instrumentations so if we never went there where did the ship and capsule go to and there is also the matter of the reflectors left on the moon for future beaming. Perhaps an alien took them there for us?
;)
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
Dr wu,

I think it isn't so much that people don't believe we went there, but that some aspects of the information fed back to us just doesn't add up. And when you get one or two 'anomalies' one starts to wonder how much was accurate.

I suppose it didn't help when the film Capricorn One came out.

I am quite happy to believe they went. Always did believe it.

have you read 'Carrying the Fire' By Michael Collins ?

He was the 'third astronaut. And who remembers him these days.

INT21
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Just been looking at the shadows in the picture above.

Is it me or do the shadows cast by the rocks have a different angle to the one cast by the astronaut ? Shouldn't it be more to the front of him ?

INT21
Do you mean this photo?
The astronaut's shadow is displaced upwards by rising ground on the right-hand side of the image.
All the so-called 'anomalies' in the shadows on the Lunar surface are caused by the lumpiness of the ground level. In fact that is a good reason to expect that these images were taken on the surface of the Moon, rather than on a sound stage - the Moon in these pictures is very lumpy.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
There is also the matter of the clearly illuminated American flag on the lander when the rest of that area is in shadow.

Maybe they just 'cleaned up' the flag area to show it. But if they did they should say so.
Do you mean this one?

The whole side of the Lunar Module which is facing away from the Sun is illuminated by reflected Moonlight, making the flag readily visible. In this picture the flag is surrounded by black fabric after the gold foil has been stripped away.

I don't think they 'cleaned up' any of the images. There are a few which have been manipulated later, by other parties; but the original images are still available, and they haven't been messed about with.

There are a lot of thing that don't look right.
INT21
We tend to forget that the Moon is an alien environment, one which we are not equipped to interpret easily. Nowhere on Earth can we ever see a fully-sunlit rocky surface beneath a pitch-black sky.
 

Ermintruder

Delineated by a professional cryptozoologist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,912
Reaction score
8,947
Points
284
I have always insisted that the visual records from the lunar missions, and the moon landings themselves, have to be treated seperately.

This is always an incredibly-contentious area for discussion, and one that seems to raise emotions very fast.

Whilst your statement is undoubtedly-correct
We tend to forget that the Moon is an alien environment, one which we are not equipped to interpret easily.
I feel this position creates an immediately anti-analytical shield of irreducable complexity and the requirement to adopt almost a faith-based inarguable acceptance, when it comes to all Apollo imagery.

It worries me that so many highly technical and scientific people see absolutely no contradictions/paradoxes in the entire catalogue of Apollo mission photographs and film footage.

This is not a straightforward binary propositional context.

Identification of genuinely-puzzling aspects within Apollo lunar imagery does not automatically make the person so doing a conspiracy believer or an idiot, but this automatic articulation has become something of a new orthodoxy.

If there is anywhere on the internet (and within society) where people could and should question reality, it is within the infinitely-agnostic halls of Fortean studies, with this valuable and venerable little forum.

I'd ask (perhaps even beg) that members of this forum genuinely and objectively take a proper look at what could be considered to be puzzling aspects of some of these pictures.

Take as an example the astronaut image in the post two above. Let's not attempt to reconcile a ray-traced relationship between him, and his shadow. Ignore the apparent absence of a back-pack in the silhouette, and other possible anomalies in that ground profile shape.

Look just at that single footprint in the lunar dust. Behind his left foot. Not over-trodden. Not accompanied by any others, leading into that position. His suit is clearly covered in dust, and there are lots of other Apollo mission pictures where there are smudged/multiple footprints in the moon's surface. But not here- at all.

I'm not some kind of evangelist for Moon Hoax Theories, but I am inescapably caught in a trap. I can find lots and lots of inarguably-odd aspects within Apollo imagery, with almost zero effort (by this, I mean specifics). This is also underpinned by my overall gut feeling regarding the style/composition/context of much of the mission imagery, and it does not feel right.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I feel we must treat discussion and arguments about the Apollo missions as being entirely-seperate from their purported documentation. Please.

Speaking as someone who watched the landings as broadcast on live TV, a true Apollo-era kid, I find the reactions of young adults that are introduced to Apollo mission pictures for the first time to be very informative. They are clearly impressed by them, at first impression. The overall effect is one of awe and respect.

And then, if you ask some of the more enquiring and questioning children for their deeper impressions (these digital natives that will inherit this world after we are long gone) regarding many of these pictures- younger ones will tend to begin saying that "they look a bit like models" or "they look quite realistic" or "why does that look a bit weird?". Because they're substantially-correct in their concerns (in my opinion).

Without any applying any interventional defences of it being a unique setting, or an unprecidented context, a significant proportion of lunar mission imagery really does look very unrealistic. And that's even before applying any level of technical analysis.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,073
Points
154
Look just at that single footprint in the lunar dust. Behind his left foot. Not over-trodden. Not accompanied by any others, leading into that position. His suit is clearly covered in dust, and there are lots of other Apollo mission pictures where there are smudged/multiple footprints in the moon's surface. But not here- at all.
Considering that the low gravity means that the astronauts can and did get about by jumping, perhaps that's how the lack of footprints occurred? The previous footprints are 15' away off camera to the left or something. Obviously I cannot say with any certainty that this is how it happened, and your concern with the image is reasonable. Jumping around in low gravity and then falling over might account for all the dust on the suit though.
 

Ringo

Musky Sly Old Foxy Stoat
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
4,810
Points
184
Location
Stockholm
Look just at that single footprint in the lunar dust. Behind his left foot. Not over-trodden. Not accompanied by any others, leading into that position. His suit is clearly covered in dust, and there are lots of other Apollo mission pictures where there are smudged/multiple footprints in the moon's surface. But not here- at all.
I can see two other footprints in the image you mention. One is horizontal to the camera, slightly in front of his right foot. The other is to the right of his left knee, to the other side of the white stick.

However, I agree with you completely. I have seen images that suggest NASA have retouched and repurposed images from astronaut trainging and tried to pass them off as genuine mission photos. I don't see what's so far fetched about them staging key photos.

Here's my rationale: I do the fake photo thing all the time. I often get promotional photographs of myself done, standing on stages with make-up and stage outfits on. I pretend the audience is there and the photographer captures exactly what I need. We can adjust the lighting and composition all day long to get exactly the right images.

Then, a few months later, I do the actual show. And I can use these images in the physical promotional material and online. The show is genuine and defienitely did happen but trying to capture the right image in a live show is hard. So better to be safe than sorry and do some controlled photos first.
 
Top