Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

[Anonymous]

it's easier to be funny than to point out this 'ample evidence' that we did.

You're right, it is. Excuse my flippancy. About the sofa bit anyway, although it seems as valid as looking inside one's soul. My three points were meant as a joke-free summary of your argumentation, as far as I could make it out. I'm sure I could be wrong due to a misunderstanding, so by all means correct the steps in the logic.

Evidence that we did go to the moon? Well, the film footage and the photos for starters. I realise that you believe these to be faked, but what I and many others are saying is that each of the supposed problems with the footage (for example the lack of stars, or the flag not being limp) has an explanation. Without a glaring error in the film or photos, there isn't any reason to believe that this is evidence for a conspiracy. I believe the onus is on you to review the available data and argumentation and to come up with a convincing flaw in the rebuttal of the conspiracy theory.

In a more general sense, while I am not a master of physics and engineering and astronautics, I have observed many machines in daily use on the ground, from large to small. I have also been on an aeroplane several times. Having experienced technology in action, I don't find that it stretches credulity to believe that a few highly trained people with a team of scientists, engineers and stinking great load of money behind them, could get even higher than a plane, and indeed into space, and not only into space, but to the moon. There are many many websites and books and TV programmes etc. etc. that will go into greatly tedious detail on almost any aspect of this.

To "prove" that it happened any further would presumably involve starting with Newtonian and Keplerian laws of motion and moving on through geopolitics, modern history and economics to show that it was feasible. I really don't think there's, ahem, space (arf!).

More than that, however, is simply the fact that most people believe that we did go to the moon, and that the footage we see is not faked. It seems a reasonable proposition, explainable by the known laws of physics and the politics of the time, in the same way that most people are willing to believe electricity works computers and TVs, not little pink fairies or the unholy power of Satan and consider that the evidence for this is pretty good, without feeling the urge to prove to naysayers that it definitely is electrons flowing. I don't mean to claim that just because lots of people believe it, it must be true, just that I think it's up to you to show where the problem is, not the other way round. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that.

 

[Anonymous]

No, you did make a fair point James! There are other point of evidence, but I actually consider the circumstantial "well, you would, wouldn't you?" to be damn persuasive!

How about one of the first things I wrote concerning the lack of a rocket to escape the moon's gravity to return?

The mass of the moon is 1/81.3 that of the Earth (source). So we assume that it would take approximately 1/81.3 the thrust that it took to escape the earth's gravity, to escape the moon's gravity.

The Saturn V rocket "would consume 700 tons of fuel a minute, the equivalent of 3 million cars running concurrently, enough to reach a speed of 6000 miles per hour within two and a half minutes" (source)

On the official film, we see the lander simply 'hop' away from the moon when it's time to go home. No flames. No significant thrust.

How much thrust does this flimsy object look like it can produce?

Damn that NASA picture *really* looks like a film set.

How's that?

 

[harlequin2005]

would lack of atmospheric drag contribute to a smaller, more single explosive thrust to place the object in low orbit, followed by the use of non-combusting thrusters (basically venting CO2) to manouvre into Orbiter orbit?

8¬)

 

[Anonymous]

lack of atmospheric drag would be a huge factor, no doubt.

BUT the moon really is a hefty chunk of rock. The footage does seem to rely on the idea of a single explosion to lift to lunar orbit, as you say.

Even assuming that the lander could withstand such an explosion structurally, if this had been the case, surely the lander would have zoomed out of shot like a bullet, crushing Mr Armstrong & Co.! As it is, it sailed gracefully out of shot.

I just want to add, in contradiction to the undoubtedness with which I put forward my views, I am a firm believer in 'all that I know is that I know nothing'.

And my humility makes me even more right hehe

 

[Anonymous]

How about one of the first things I wrote concerning the lack of a rocket to escape the moon's gravity to return?

The Saturn V rocket had to not only escape Earth's atmosphere (as you acknowledge), but was also carrying the fuel for the journey to the moon, and the various stages of the rocket, the command module, the service module and the lunar module blah blah blah. The ascent bit of the lunar module was not very large or heavy at all and was leaving from the moon. There was no need for it to carry as much fuel, and was serving an entirely different purpose.

On the official film, we see the lander simply 'hop' away from the moon when it's time to go home. No flames. No significant thrust.

The chemical propellant used in the lunar lander produces a near-invisible flame, which is why you can't see it. I don't quite know what you mean by "no significant thrust" - the thrust of the ascent module was sufficient to let it leave the moon, so it was significant in that sense. You certainly won't see a huge plume of dust expanding behind the ascent module; there is no air for the dust particles to be suspended in and therefore only material directly below the blast of the jet will be moved.

How much thrust does this flimsy object look like it can produce?

Well, the descent engine could produce 10,500 lbs of thrust. The ascent engine needed only 3,500 lbs. I'm not sure estimating the power of a spacecraft by looking at a picture of it is the best way to evaluate its use in landing and taking off from the surface of the moon. Just saying "it looks too flimsy to me" is an argument from incredulity. As it is, the lunar module would indeed have been too flimsy to use on Earth. But it was used on the moon. Because we went.

Damn that NASA picture *really* looks like a film set.

It certainly does. But it could also be down to it being taken on the entirely different conditions of the the moon and not Earth.

Honestly, there are zillions and zillions of websites out there that will fill you in on all this. I strongly urge you to read them. Why not try http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

it has plenty of links to other pages.

 

[Anonymous]

"We have conclusions, which are the products of senility or incompetence or credulity, and then argue from them to premises. We forget this process, and then argue from the premises, thinking we began there." - Charles Hoy Fort (source)

 

[stu neville]

People went to the moon. They happened to be American. Get over it.

Jane.

Ahem, can I just point out that I think they did go, just not when they said? If I may quote myself:

Basically, the US did get to the Moon, but not until Apollo 14.

Go back to page 3 for my justifications.

I suppose I'm to blame for this cos I resurrected the thread!

Stu

 

[rynner2]

I think I'm losing the will to live...

Is there a bar open anywhere at this time?

 

[harlequin2005]

"We have conclusions, which are the products of senility or incompetence or credulity, and then argue from them to premises. We forget this process, and then argue from the premises, thinking we began there." - Charles Hoy Fort (source)

By which you mean?

8¬)

 

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to say in response to a previous post, the moon is actually not all that reflective. And besides, it isn't a plane surface so bouncing lasers off it would be a bit hard.

A new telescope is being build, that I heard should be able to show a human walking around on the moon. So i guess they could use that one to take pictures of moon cars and other stuff they have left behind.

BTW flames would also look differently in low gravity.

 

[harlequin2005]

I believe the albedo of the moon is on average pretty same as a snowfield, so not good for specular reflection but pretty reflective in an amorphous way.

Xan, I'm not disagreeing with you here just clarifying the point i *think* youre addressing

8¬)

 

[mejane]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mejane


People went to the moon. They happened to be American. Get over it.

Jane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ahem, can I just point out that I think they did go, just not when they said? If I may quote myself:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, the US did get to the Moon, but not until Apollo 14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Go back to page 3 for my justifications.

I suppose I'm to blame for this cos I resurrected the thread!

Stu

Sorry, Stu. That comment wasn't aimed at you. At least I don't think it was... I forget now. Erm, gosh is that the time - must dash!

Jane.

 

[Anonymous]

No, I think it is actually quite dark. But I will go check.

 

[stu neville]

let's face it, this topic is beneath contempt for serious Forteans.

The oft-resurrected claim that man never made it to the moon may snare a few green teenagers with each passing generation, but only because it uses the same "common sense" sleight of hand as the Pentagon "Hunt the Boeing" conspiracy currently raging across the web.

It seems a nearly-credible suggestion that the Americans may have faked the moon landings for political reasons.
I realise I am only repeating things that 98% of people on the board know anyway, but for the other 2%........


How do we know they reached the moon? Try the 800 lbs of moon rocks they brought back, that have completely different characteristics from anything found on earth. Ask the nine surviving men who walked on the surface of the moon. Watch the footage and the way the astronauts walk, the way the Eagle lifts off from the moon. What about the hundreds of people involved in designing a module that could land on the moon?


There are a billion other ways to refute these obscene claims, and I'm sure no-one wants to be bored with them here.

And Stu, what possible basis do you have for thinking that it was only once NASA reached Apollo 14 they made it to the surface of the moon? I've followed thread etiquette and read all of the posts but I didn't see any evidence presented.

Now that I've decided not to take of the above personally, and get all uptight about being called a Non-Serious Fortean, likened to a green teenager, and being told I'm in disagreement with 98% of other board members (based on what poll, exactly?) I will recap my argument, in a calm, non-combatative manner, without patronising any other board members.

Political Kudos, basically, get to the moon first, or at least say you did. Earn some breathing space, then get the technology right and get up there.

Apollo 11 could have easily been faked, which is what this discussion is all about (or perhaps the 2% of us green teenaged non-serious Forteans are discussing it). 12 was relayed in sound only, could have been at BBC Pebble Mill for all we know, 13 didn't land anyway, 800 lbs of moon rocks could have come back with 14.

It's a theory, Conners. That's all. Could be wrong, but could equally be right.

Once again, I think they did get there, just not when they said.

 

[harlequin2005]

A few questions

Stu,

Beyond the possibility that humanity didn't get to the moon when some of us think we did, do you have any other reason to believe that Apollo 14 was the first successful mission? Were the others faked or unsucessful, according to your theory? Or was Apollo 13 the first real attempt that nearly went disasterously wrong?

8¬)

 

[_schnor]

Yes, the moon is indeed very dark, and if it were as bright as the earth, it would be roughly five times as bright.

Also, as well as colour, it's very dusty - imagine if it was a massive smooth black sphere, you wouldn't have the entire moon surface illuminated at the same time, but you would have a small reflective spot (imagine holding up a black shiny bowling ball and shining light off it, you'd have a small reflective patch with the rest still black), although I've completely forgotten what aldebo has got to with man landing on the moon...

 

[harlequin2005]

Ground reflection filling in shadows and drowning out the stars

8¬)

 

[stu neville]

Re: A few questions

Stu,

Beyond the possibility that humanity didn't get to the moon when some of us think we did, do you have any other reason to believe that Apollo 14 was the first successful mission? Were the others faked or unsucessful, according to your theory? Or was Apollo 13 the first real attempt that nearly went disasterously wrong?

8¬)

Yep - 13 was meant to be the first, but a little ironically didn't.

That's my theory.

 

[_schnor]

Ground reflection filling in shadows and drowning out the stars

D'oh - how could I forget

Also, I can't remember if it's been mentioned, but how do the anti-moon land people explain footage of lunar rovers (incidentally, they were called "shitty shitty boeing boeings" BTW ) spewing up dust about 20 feet into the air, and which clearly does in no way look normal unless filmed in genuine, honest-to-goodness, 1/6 of a G (unless you double the speed and everything looks silly).

 

[Anonymous]

No, albedo was about wether you could bounce lasers off the moon.

But yeah, this is a fairly crap conspiracy theory. But I was fairly shocked when I found out that a radio program in Denmark discussed it. I thought they'd know better.

 

[harlequin2005]

Ah right

I'll fetch me coat....

 

[Anonymous]

WAHEY! Actually thanks Adam! (scrubs ads) Good point about those stoopid reflectors!

I've seen that footage, of the astronauts positioning them ..... by hand ..... where a billionth of a degree misposition would render them useless....

Good point, Adam

It was a good point, yes. The number of degrees in which the reflectors could be placed are actually very large, nothing near a bllionth of a degree. As I said, its designed so that the lazer gets fired back exactly where it came. As long as its pointing at the earth then it can be used by everyone on earth.

 

[stu neville]

Apology fully accepted, Conners.

One thought does occur: when people say "someone would inform", bear in mind the astronauts on board all missions up to Apollo 14 were military officers, seconded to NASA: they were therefore subject to the US equivalent of the Official Secrets Act. Keep quiet or 75 years in Leavenworth? Hmm, tricky...

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth - it's only a possible explanation re motive for fakery, not necessarily a belief held by me or anyone else.

Stu

 

[Anonymous]

i have some points for you CIA-operatives-in-drag, damnit!

point A) Is this the Fortean Times forum, or the Official Debunkers Recreational Lounge (ODRL)?

point B) Adam! Do you intend to back up your outrageous debunking assertions such as that the reflectors could basically be pointed at Mars & still return lasers? Or just state them like they was gospel?

point C) The Fort quote was intended to say that with the destruction of a virtual rainforest, no-one has changed their opinion in NINE pages! We have conclusions, and are trying to prove them backwards.

point D) NASA could end this thread right now by pointing Hubble at the Sea of Tranquility, but they don't, and might I suggest, won't.

point E) Xanatic! "Flames would look different in low gravity"? The moon has... no... air. This just proves that we are just trying to prove what we already believe. I'm just as guilty.

point F) Conners! "this topic is beneath contempt for serious Forteans"? Did you not know that to be inducted into the Institute of Serious Forteans (ISF), one must lunch with the Mad March Hare on Oxymoronic Stew? (see here).

point G) To paraphrase Krusty the Clown, once in a while we are treated to a televisual experience that changes our lives forever. 1969, man walks on the moon. 1971, man walks on the moon....a-gain. I think you're trying to walk the fence by saying they went in 71 but not 69, Stu. But like you say. That's your theory. It could be right, it could be wrong.

point H) Harlequin! I think your figure-8 smiley is cool.

So, just to recap, the first man on the moon will probably be a woman, because people are JUST THAT PERVERSE.

 

[stu neville]

Stu, I see your point about the miltary connection, but that can't have applied to all of the technical staff involved? After all, as my old man loves to remind me, an enormous number of the key minds were recruited from the UK: would those engineers have been required to sign a US version of the Official Secrets Act if they were working on the rubber on the Eagle's landing tracks? (flippant example). Even if they had been, are you seriously suggesting that not one man has broken cover? No deathbed confessions? Not a whisper? No one mysteriously murdered when the Men in Black thought they were about to fess up? And this out of thousands of people over 40 years of the space programme?

Yeah, they all would have - NASA was a military department 'til the mid seventies (at least the budget was controlled by Defence). Same happens here, too - my dad was an aero engineer for Rolls Royce, and had to sign the OSA. The offical line was it was better for everyone just to be quiet, rather than get into arguments about how much they could say.

Once again I'm not saying my theory is correct vis-a-vis what happened, just proposing a possible motive for a faked landing to have been staged.

This is turning into a great thread!

Stu

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure there's anything left to usefully add to this discussion, but what the hell, it is Friday, after all.

point A) Is this the Fortean Times forum, or the Official Debunkers Recreational Lounge (ODRL)?

A Fortean is not obliged to believe any and all absurdities. Are you suggesting that anyone can post whatever drivel they want to and not be asked for evidence? That's not Fortean, that's simple-minded.

point C) The Fort quote was intended to say that with the destruction of a virtual rainforest, no-one has changed their opinion in NINE pages! We have conclusions, and are trying to prove them backwards.

You may have decided that we didn't go to the moon on that principle. Most people accept man has been to the moon due to the overwhelming evidence in favour of it happening, coupled with the lack of evidence to the contrary. My belief system is not built around a desperate desire that man should have gone to the moon, it would not crumble if I found out the moon landings were a hoax. In fact, I'd be delighted, anyone who has any interest in anything vaguely Fortean would feel the same.

But it's just that I've read the websites that said we didn't go and I've read the websites that said we did, and I found the latter more convincing. This is hardly the most demanding of research projects, especially for people who have shown enough interest to log onto the internet and post on the subject.

point D) NASA could end this thread right now by pointing Hubble at the Sea of Tranquility, but they don't, and might I suggest, won't.

You are quite right. I'm now going to suggest that the moon really is made of cheese. Nasa could prove me wrong by sending some astronauts, but I have a feeling they won't. And it must be because I'm right.

 

[rynner2]

I think you're wasting time on that one, JamesM!
None so blind as those that won't see, etc.

But as for laser reflectors, they work on the same principle as cats' eyes (as used on roads), and radar reflectors for small boats. Basically just a corner of a box, which has the property that any ray of light, radar, etc, that goes into it is reflected at least twice in such a way that the returned beam is parallel to the incoming beam.

Radar reflectors on boats will return an echo to any radar set through 360 deg horizontally, and will also work when the boat is heeled.

An array of reflectors (they can be quite small for laser light) would only need to be laid roughly flat on the lunar surface so as to expose the maximum area towards Earth.

Seethis page for details.

 

[Anonymous]

i have some points for you CIA-operatives-in-drag, damnit!

point A) Is this the Fortean Times forum, or the Official Debunkers Recreational Lounge (ODRL)?

Actually it is not about de-bunking. A new or radical idea must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before it is going to be accepted. In this case, if the conspiracy theory survived all that was flung in its direction, then we would grant it some respect. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be faring well.

point B) Adam! Do you intend to back up your outrageous debunking assertions such as that the reflectors could basically be pointed at Mars & still return lasers? Or just state them like they was gospel?

The reflectors are retro-reflectors. They are a bit like the corner refelectors that you see dangling from the masts of small boats. These are intended to reflect radar pulses back in the direction of what sent them and hence sunstantially increase the radar visibility of a ship.

As an experiment, get 3 flat mirrors, position them so that they look like the inside corner of a box, and shine a light at them. The light should shine straight back. (If you get the mirrors meeting at right angles.)

Its standard technology, and has been known about for a looooonnggg time.

As an aside, I have met some of the guys who do the moon bounce thing, and they seemed to think that the reflector worked just fine.

point D) NASA could end this thread right now by pointing Hubble at the Sea of Tranquility, but they don't, and might I suggest, won't.
/QUOTE]

O.K. Assuming that the Hubble optics are diffraction limited, the Rayleigh criteria would suggest that the best angular resolution of the telescope would be

Ang res = 1.22*lambda/D,

where lambda is the centre wavelength (lets take 500 nm),
and D is the diameter of the aperture (2.4 m for Hubble.)

Thus the best angular resolution for Hubble is 0.25 microradians.

The distance from the earth to the moon is of the order of 384,000 km. Thus the Hubble telescope cannot resolve features any smaller than ~100 m. I seem to recall that none of the equipment left behind approached anything like that size, and hence Hubble does you no good. (Note that the actual quality is likely to be worse than this, though I don't have any figures to hand.)

point E) Xanatic! "Flames would look different in low gravity"? The moon has... no... air. This just proves that we are just trying to prove what we already believe. I'm just as guilty.

I think that the lack of air is a pretty key point. Flames *do* look very different in the absence of an atmosphere.

Basically we *did* go to the moon. How do I know? 'cos a grey took me there to give him a hand with the environmental cleanup operation that they have got going on up there. (They have some nice trash cans, and proper parking spaces for any future lunar rovers.)

 

[rynner2]

They have some nice trash cans, and proper parking spaces for any future lunar rovers

Drat, it'll be traffic wardens next!

 

[stu neville]

Basically we *did* go to the moon. How do I know? 'cos a grey took me there to give him a hand with the environmental cleanup operation that they have got going on up there. (They have some nice trash cans, and proper parking spaces for any future lunar rovers.)

Report from "The Grey Times", 1971:

There was excitement this morning when an Unidentified Flying Object landed in the middle of our premier golf course, Lunadale. The occupants, two fat, white creatures with one big, golden eye centred in their heads disembarked, played an unauthorised round, set up an oversized pin complete with garish flag, stole the components of Orthon's prize rockery and then departed in a cloud of dust.

However, the last laugh was ours as in their haste they left behind a very expensive golf buggy! This is now available for hire from the caddy shack.

Don't forget Mr Presley will be playing this evening at the 3 sided mirror stage. This is his twenty fifth season at Lunadale, and shows no sign of stopping!