Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

[Mythopoeika]

Morning, my colleague, who I mentioned on my post in July, liked the replies but to him it still didn't really answer his query of why there was no dust in the landing pads on the Lunar Module. As an ex- rocket engineer, he said there should've been dust on there as there was dust for the footprints to be seen of both astronauts. So, any thoughts? Many thanks for reading and looking forward to any answers.

Dust on the Moon doesn't drift very far. It tends to fall vertically in the absence of air.
There was still dust surrounding the LEM because there is such a thick layer of it all over the Moon. Not much (relatively) got blown away during the landing because there is a certain amount of 'stiction' between the particles, preventing them from moving about much.

 

[Scoobydoo]

Capricorn One

Movie reference, although I believe ideas about a fake moon landing were circulating before it was made.
Are there any telescopes that are powerful enough to see equipment left behind by the missions?

It might clear things up for the hoax proponents.

There is telescopes powerful enough to see for left over debris but they are in Government Hands no Private body can get proper funding to build a Telescope to see if the moon landing was legitimate, so they focus on Radio waves in outer space

 

[Scoobydoo]

Er, Laura

We've already covered that one under the 'Conspiracy' heading.

You can rest easy - take it from me, man landed on the moon in 1969. There is no real evidence to the contrary and besides, Buzz told me and I believe him!

Regards

The Boggart

Hi I would like to ask buzz oldran what they used to prevent the sun's heat from backing them alive in there suits because solar radiation is one but the space station uses ammonia and they still get very HOT

 

[skinny]

Link I posted a few years back. Still one of the best old websites still trucking.
dk Panorama fullscreens rotating of the mission 11-17. My eldest is presenting as Armstrong in first person tomorrow in costume and all. Showed her this website to get her spirits up and she loved it.

Enjoy.

www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-11-the-first-man-on-moon.html

 

[eburacum]

There is telescopes powerful enough to see for left over debris but they are in Government Hands

No, there are no telescopes on Earth or in Earth orbit powerful enough to see the Lunar landers. The Hubble space telescope has a resolving power of 92 metres at that distance, inadequate to resolve any details at the landing site. Even the Extremely Large Telescope, which is not yet finished, will only have the power to resolve an object 5.75 metres across at that distance- not quite enough to resolve the lander itself, but possibly enough to see its shadow.

 

[eburacum]

Hi I would like to ask Buzz Aldrin what they used to prevent the sun's heat from baking them alive in their suits because solar radiation is one but the space station uses ammonia and they still get very HOT

The Apollo suits were cooled by water and ice; a water-cooled body garment fed to an ice sublimator, which continually formed a thin sheet of ice inside the back-pack, exposed to the vacuum of space- this ice sublimated into the vacuum continually, carrying away heat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_cooling_and_ventilation_garment#Space_applications

As an example, during the Apollo 12 commander's first EVA (of 3 hrs, 44 minutes), 4.75 lb (2.15 kg) of feedwater were sublimated, and this dissipated 894.4 Btu/h (262.1 W).

 

[Mythopoeika]

Hi I would like to ask buzz oldran what they used to prevent the sun's heat from backing them alive in there suits because solar radiation is one but the space station uses ammonia and they still get very HOT

The suits had their own cooling and heating systems and were heavily insulated.
They also went out for a limited time.
The space station is a larger area, with a lot of airspace inside. That makes it more difficult to get the temperature right. Within a suit, the temperature can be adjusted much more quickly.

 

[eburacum]

As a contrast, the ammonia cooling system on the ISS is a closed system, so does not have the advantage of sublimating volatile ice.

 

[Scoobydoo]

The suits had their own cooling and heating systems and were heavily insulated.
They also went out for a limited time.
The space station is a larger area, with a lot of airspace inside. That makes it more difficult to get the temperature right. Within a suit, the temperature can be adjusted much more quickly.

Hi you share the suits had there own heating and cooling, this would be ideal if they was in the Sahara desert, but the moon on the sun side, let's say this when volcanologists go to study close to the volcano crater they wear this very bulky silver heat resistant suits but can't get too close to the crater because of the heat, on the moon they wore white cooled suits but the heat of the sun is worse than a volcano, but they supposed to of drove around on the moon for periods of time, I doubt this also. For one the rockets used wouldn't of had the power to land such weight on the moon. Thnx for your response

 

[Mythopoeika]

Hi you share the suits had there own heating and cooling, this would be ideal if they was in the Sahara desert, but the moon on the sun side, let's say this when volcanologists go to study close to the volcano crater they wear this very bulky silver heat resistant suits but can't get too close to the crater because of the heat, on the moon they wore white cooled suits but the heat of the sun is worse than a volcano, but they supposed to of drove around on the moon for periods of time, I doubt this also. For one the rockets used wouldn't of had the power to land such weight on the moon. Thnx for your response

Daytime temperatures on the Moon reach 100 degrees C. So, not as bad as a volcano.
Also, vacuum is a poor transmitter of heat. It's more of an insulator.
Their suits were a brilliant white and reflected 90% of the light (and consequently, the heat).
They wore huge insulated Moon boots with a thick rubber tread, so their feet were insulated from any heat coming from the surface.
As for the rockets and their power... the Moon has only 1/6th of Earth's gravity. No need for a stonking great launch vehicle like the Saturn V.

You can find all of this info online if you go looking for it.

 

[GNC]

The trouble is, too many people don't want to look for the explanations for their questions, they like the questions without answers too much.

 

[Mythopoeika]

The trouble is, too many people don't want to look for the explanations for their questions, they like the questions without answers too much.

I don't understand that. If I have questions, I go looking for the information so I can learn the truth. But then, I'm an autodidact.

 

[Analogue Boy]

If I have a question, I ignore all previous received knowledge, don’t read a thread and just come up up with some spontaneous shit off the top of my head. Because that’s a trendy thing to do.
But there again, I’ve already read, analysed, considered and contributed shitloads to these threads in the first place.
Hence my flippant attitude.

I’m getting to the point where I can’t be bothered to point people to that place signposted by ‘Reason’ anymore.

 

[INT21]

So you're getting bored ?

 

[Analogue Boy]

So you're getting bored ?

No. I’m being real.

 

[INT21]

Fair enough.

I mention boredom because I have found, on a ufo site I frequent, that these days it is all 'same old same old'.

Mostly stuff from before the sixties. And I've seen it all so many times.

So when some newbie (and we were all newbies at one time) asks about a case that has been covered in a dozen previous threads, I can't be bothered with it.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Fortean interest and the relevant subjects are cyclical.

There’s lows and then suddenly a peak where you temporarily have to re-evaluate for a fair opinion and then realise some arguments never change.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

There is telescopes powerful enough to see for left over debris but they are in Government Hands no Private body can get proper funding to build a Telescope to see if the moon landing was legitimate, so they focus on Radio waves in outer space

Nah on Mythbusters they went to an observatory and looked at some of the stuff left over from the landings on the moon.

Here's an, (out of date), guide on how to see the landings:

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

 

[Scoobydoo]

No, there are no telescopes on Earth or in Earth orbit powerful enough to see the Lunar landers. The Hubble space telescope has a resolving power of 92 metres at that distance, inadequate to resolve any details at the landing site. Even the Extremely Large Telescope, which is not yet finished, will only have the power to resolve an object 5.75 metres across at that distance- not quite enough to resolve the lander itself, but possibly enough to see its shadow.

Hi I've researched this more about telescopes powerful enough to see the lunar landing on the moon and this is what I've found, you need a 6 inch. Telescope with 50-80 power that can resolve about 2km of the lunar surface, to see a football field on one pixel, you'll need one operated by the AIR FORCE in Maui that has 2000 power. So by that there is a telescope powerful enough that can see the lunar landing, thank you for your reply

 

[gordonrutter]

Hi I've researched this more about telescopes powerful enough to see the lunar landing on the moon and this is what I've found, you need a 6 inch. Telescope with 50-80 power that can resolve about 2km of the lunar surface, to see a football field on one pixel, you'll need one operated by the AIR FORCE in Maui that has 2000 power. So by that there is a telescope powerful enough that can see the lunar landing, thank you for your reply

Not sure where you get your calculations from but you would need an optical telescope with a diameter lens of 200m http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner

 

[eburacum]

The Extremely Large Telescope will only have a principal diameter of 39.3 metres, but by combining data from several secondary telescopes it will have a much larger effective diameter. Still not big enough to see the landers clearly, although it might be able to see their shadow at certain angles.

The Air Force Optical and Supercomputing observatory is not sensitive enough to see the landers or their shadows, unfortunately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Maui_Optical_and_Supercomputing_observatory

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I've already read, analysed, considered and contributed shitloads to these threads in the first place.
Hence my flippant attitude

I’m getting to the point where I can’t be bothered to point people to that place signposted by ‘Reason’ anymore.

Amen to that... (sic!)

If it really bothers you, give me a shout and you're welcome to come for tea.

Hope you like exotic food. My local takeaway swears it comes from all four corners of the world - hence it's so expensive.

Can also offer some ridiculously priced Green Cheese. This is the real deal, nothing to do with those hoaxed moon landings.

Comes from a guy I know who knows a guy whose mate knows someone who worked at Area 51. Comes directly from the alien's moon base.

Anyway, have to go, that's the fishmonger's van arrived and said he would keep aside some Mermaid's tails - although they look identical to skate fish wings, they can't be, certainly not at that price!!!


No... I'm not trying to be a smartarse... just lamenting what ever happened to simple, common sense.

OK... Look, I'm so guilty as anyone...

It is, *genuinely* true, that returning home from shopping yesterday, discovered that the top had come off my Saxa salt cellar and spilled some of the contents.

Obviously, I *did* immediately throw a pinch of salt over my left shoulder, ensuring that....

..........

....anything interesting on TV tonight...?

 

[Analogue Boy]

A film expert makes a very good point.

https://qz.com/1668201/was-the-moon-landing-faked-absolutely-not-says-a-film-expert/

Some people may contend that when you look at people moving in slow motion, they appear to be in a low gravity environment. Slowing down film requires more frames than usual, so you start with a camera capable of capturing more frames in a second than a normal one—this is called overcranking. When this is played back at the normal frame rate, this footage plays back for longer. If you can’t overcrank your camera, but you record at a normal frame rate, you can instead artificially slow down the footage, but you need a way to store the frames and generate new extra frames to slow it down.

At the time of the broadcast, magnetic disk recorders capable of storing slow motion footage could only capture 30 seconds in total, for a playback of 90 seconds of slow motion video. To capture 143 minutes in slow motion, you’d need to record and store 47 minutes of live action, which simply wasn’t possible.

 

[Scoobydoo]

Yes it's annoying to see this subject rise again. But
I've Done some looking into the Moonlanding, I believe the photographes issued of the astronauts leaving the capsule was faked, not because of lighting etc but for me the simplistic is the images of the earth in the photos, these images was taken from within the earth's magnetic field keeping the picture taker from the harmful rays etc emitted from the sun, the earth was shrunk and added to the picture, to make it look like it was taken from the moon, but what was missing is what protects this planet the magnetic field, yes its invisible to the naked eye, but the solar storms that rage in the universe aren't, if the images was true the aurora borealis would be seen in those images as brighter than we see and the solar storm that pummels this earth would also be seen. Yes the earth is along way from the moon but so the view would be more tremendous, than that depicted. Any views would be welcome

 

[eburacum]

The aurora borealis and australis are too dim to be seen from the Moon. You can't see them in daylight, and they would be invisible when seen in the same frame as the sunlit side of the Earth. You can see the aurora from the ISS, but only when the daylit side of the Earth is not visible.

This is the night side of the Earth as seen from the ISS. Note that this is much brighter than you would see with the naked eye.

 

[Trevp666]

IMO NASA were worried 'what would happen if, for some reason, the images captured during the actual moon landings were damaged or irrecoverable, or irretrievably lost, and/or 'live' broadcasts were not able to be transmitted?'.
I think NASA had to have at least some, lets say, 'publicity pictures', so with the possibility that they might end up with no proof of doing the landings, and to support the missions, they did actually fake a handful of pictures (both stills and some faked footage, possibly only a few seconds worth) which might have made their way into the public domain at some point.
I'm not saying that faked pics and footage exists though, just that it's a reasonable assumption to make.
NASA was costing a lot of money. If they didn't have 'proof' of their missions to show to their paymasters then the funding would've decreased, so it's probable that they would have invested in an arse-covering back up plan.

 

[eburacum]

I've looked at a very wide range of Moon Landing images, and none are faked.

A very small number of publicity photos used by astronauts in their own publications are 'faked', but those images are not the responsibility of NASA. rather they are the product of various bookseller's publicity departments and TV companies. These fakes are usually mildly tweaked real photos, and the original, unretouched photos are still available if you know where to look for them.

 

[kamalktk]

A film expert makes a very good point.

https://qz.com/1668201/was-the-moon-landing-faked-absolutely-not-says-a-film-expert/
"At the time of the broadcast, magnetic disk recorders capable of storing slow motion footage could only capture 30 seconds in total, for a playback of 90 seconds of slow motion video. To capture 143 minutes in slow motion, you’d need to record and store 47 minutes of live action, which simply wasn’t possible. "

"You see, that's where the alien technology from Roswell comes in..."

/ because we know that's stop the "faked" people.

 

[Austin Popper]

IMO NASA were worried 'what would happen if, for some reason, the images captured during the actual moon landings were damaged or irrecoverable, or irretrievably lost, and/or 'live' broadcasts were not able to be transmitted?'.
I think NASA had to have at least some, lets say, 'publicity pictures', so with the possibility that they might end up with no proof of doing the landings, and to support the missions, they did actually fake a handful of pictures (both stills and some faked footage, possibly only a few seconds worth) which might have made their way into the public domain at some point.
I'm not saying that faked pics and footage exists though, just that it's a reasonable assumption to make.
NASA was costing a lot of money. If they didn't have 'proof' of their missions to show to their paymasters then the funding would've decreased, so it's probable that they would have invested in an arse-covering back up plan.

That's a very good point. NASA, like any corporate entity with a huge budget, was very conscious of the need for good PR. They have admitted, over the years, to a lot of photo manipulation. What they admit to is retouching to make things look better, that sort of thing, but of course they had a PR department, virtual or otherwise. I read back when the controversy over colorized movies was raging that the technology to do that originated with the Apollo program. I have no idea how true that is, but it makes sense. Anyway, manipulated photos are not proof the whole program was faked. We know the military manipulates images (really any sort of information it can), and has been doing it since long before it gave birth to NASA.

 

[MrRING]

https://moondisaster.org/

https://www.space.com/apollo-11-disaster-deepfake-video-tech.html