Moon Landings

[Liberal]

From Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html)

You don't actually expect evidence to convince people like this, do you? Any piece of evidence that we could present would simply be, to them, a part of the conspiracy. A good conspiracist can incorporate any piece of information into the big conspiracy without even blinking.

I am delighted that David has finally learned this. Whether its miracles or moon landings, some people will never belive.

My mother (God rest her blessed soul) thought the moon landing was a hoax, but not because of shadows or picture anomolies and such. She thought it was a hoax because she didn't trust Richard Nixon. She was wrong, of course, but her reason was as good as the rest of the skeptics.

[dougie_monty]

It sounds like your mother was quite perceptive. According to the book Rumor!, which even Cecil quotes, the moon landing came while this country was still involved in Vietnam and many people were ready to doubt any official announcement.

[jmullaney]

He doesn't adress the one point I've always heard and no one has ever been able to explain to me: Why aren't there any STARS in the pictures from the moon?? I mean, if I can see tens of thousands of stars on a clear night in the outskirts of town, shouldn't you be able to see at least one or two from the moon?

The conspiracy folks point out that such a detail couldn't have been faked, so was simply ignored. What is the straight dope on that?

[SINsApple]

The person that answered that question was too busy poking fun to seriously answer the question. I am not saying that I think the moon landing was faked, but I would like to hear the idea given its due credit, and then debunked. Setting up toy soldiers and then knocking them down doesn't make you look intelligent.

He should have explained the more wide held arguments against the landing, and then explained why they can't be true. Just saying "well we know it happened" and then poking fun at the idea is not an answer.

Okay, I'm done bitching.

------------------
Rather, I was in the position of a spore which, having finally accepted its destiny as a fungus, still wonders if it might produce penicillin.
--Ayi Kwei Armah

[Skott]

I would think that it would be fairly easy to debunk the notion that the moon landing was a hoax. Going from memory, there were artifacts from these expiditions that were left on the moon. I would assume then that given a strong enough telescope, these artifacts could be viewed from earth.

I don't know what size telescope would be needed to view them, but if they were available to purchase, then you could have the doubter purchase the telescope of his/her choice and then have them aim it at the appropriate spot on the moon.

Or is direct observation part of the hoax as well?

Scott

[Karen Too]

Interesting that SDSTAFF David mentions Stanley Kubrick as making the "hoax film" of the moon landing. In fact, Kubrick's actual movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was made and released in 1968, well before any of the real moon landings. I saw an interview of Arthur C. Clarke where he said that when they watched the real moon landings, they were amazed at how realistic their film had been. (Clarke also watched the real Jupiter fly-by footage half-anticipating to see TMA-2!)

------------------
-k-
Karen Lingel, Physicist

[BobT]

Originally posted by jmullaney:
He doesn't adress the one point I've always heard and no one has ever been able to explain to me: Why aren't there any STARS in the pictures from the moon?? I mean, if I can see tens of thousands of stars on a clear night in the outskirts of town, shouldn't you be able to see at least one or two from the moon?

The conspiracy folks point out that such a detail couldn't have been faked, so was simply ignored. What is the straight dope on that?

Wouldn't you have to take a fairly long exposure to allow stars to show up? I assume that most of the photos taken were done with flash equipment.
I assume that the video cameras used probably didn't have enough resolution to pick up stars.

I think people have addressed this topic before.

[Liberal]

Could Hubble see the Tranquility Base aparatus?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by BobT:
Wouldn't you have to take a fairly long exposure to allow stars to show up? I assume that most of the photos taken were done with flash equipment.
I assume that the video cameras used probably didn't have enough resolution to pick up stars.

Exposure would only relate to faintness -- and I presuppose the stars at night are big and bright -- they would have to be.

I almost buy the resolution idea -- the stars would be even more pinpointed than normal because there would be no atmospheric scattering of light. But still, there were photographs taken (of the Earthrise and so on) that still don't show any stars or (other) planets for that matter. Chemical Photography has terribly good resulution. I'd expect some stars somewhere.

[tracer]

From www.badastronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com) , in its astronomy-related review of Star Wars Episode 1:

When NASA broadcasts live scenes from outside the Space Shuttle, you usually see the Earth in vivid blues, browns, greens and dazzling white, but you never see stars at the same time. And if you can see stars, the Earth is tremendously overexposed. The reason for this is contrast. Stars are fairly faint, while the Earth (or the Shuttle, or astronauts floating in space) are very bright. They're sitting in full sunlight!

So the Earth, when lit by the Sun, is many hundreds or thousands of times brighter than the stars behind it. When the astronauts set the camera to take pictures, they need to adjust it for that brightness. To expose the Earth correctly, they need to shut out most of the light hitting the camera, and the faint stars cannot be seen. If they adjust the camera to let in enough light to see stars (or more accurately, use a camera which amplifies the light of the stars), the Earth floods the camera with light, vastly overexposing itself. So even though the sky looks black, there will be no stars in the picture.

I have received a few emails about this part, asking if the human eye would see things differently than a camera. In other words, the human eye is capable of seeing higher contrast than a camera, so is my objection still valid? Yes, it is. Ron Parise is a Shuttle astronaut who happens to work down the hall from me (how cool is my job?), so I asked him if he could see lots of stars out the Shuttle window when the sunlit Earth was below him. He said no; the only stars you can see are the very brightest ones, and only a few of those. As with a camera, the human eye only has a limited range of brightness it can perceive, and the Earth (or Naboo!) is so bright it swamps all the stars.

As a side note, I'll add that some people, remarkably, think that NASA never actually sent men to the Moon; that all the Apollo films were faked. As a piece of key evidence, they cite that all the pictures taken from the Moon have no stars in them! So instead of asking someone who might understand photography, they jump to the conclusion that NASA managed to undertake the largest conspiracy in history. This is Bad reasoning in its absolute highest form.

[jmullaney]

Thanks tracer!

[Keenan]

Artifacts were left on the moon -- including mirrors (or, in NASA-speak, "Laser-Ranging Retroreflectors") so we could measure the distance between the earth and the moon. See this link (http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/AS11/a11sum.htm) to a summary of the Apollo 11 mission.

Bouncing your own laser beam off the reflector should be pretty good proof that we left a mirror up there. Of course, if you're inclined to disbelieve that people landed on the moon, you probably have an explanation as to how this could be faked -- which was David's whole point. It's not necessarily fair to criticize him for knocking down "toy soldiers" instead of the more substantive arguments, because it doesn't appear there are any (once somebody posts an explanation about why there are no stars in the photographs -- I'm sure I've seen the answer before and forgotten it).

I think believing that the moon landings were faked is so demonstrably false that exhaustively rebutting every claim is pointless -- especially since the recourse of the disbelievers is to add another layer to their conspiracy. Frankly, it takes two to fight ignorance, and if the reader doesn't want to play along with Cecil (or David), there's not much one can do.

[Keenan]

And, the relative-brightness thing was the answer I heard before, too. Serves me right for not doing more research before posting.

[tracer]

Libertarian wrote:

Could Hubble see the Tranquility Base aparatus?

Well, let's see. The biggest piece of stuff left behind at Trnaquility Base would've been the Lunar Module's descent stage. This would measure about ... oh, let's say, about 4 meters across. The distance from here to the Moon is around 400,000 km, or 400,000,000 meters. This means the width of the lunar module is 1/100,000,000th of the Earth-Moon distance. This means it would subtend an angle of 1/100,000,000th of a radian, which is 0.57 millionths of a degree, or 0.002 arc-seconds.

2 milli-arc-seconds.

That's pretty darn small.

According to http://www.stsci.edu/hst/ , the faint object camera -- the highest resolution piece of equipment on board the HST -- can resolve details as small as 0.0072 arc-seconds, or 7.2 milliarcseconds. And at that resolution, a 7.2-milliarcsecond diameter object will appear as a single pixel in the image.

So, an Apollo lunar module descent stage would be 3 times smaller than one pixel in the highest-resolution HST image.

[dwtno]

I was going to bring up the contrast bit, but it's been covered quite thoroughly already. I will add this: Let's assume the grand conspiracy as proposed... quite an undertaking, almost on the scale of the lunar landing itself... but what sort of moron would cook up all of this convincing evidence and then forget to paint in the stars?

Another point: the Apollo astronauts did not use flash equipment on the surface of the moon. As previously noted, the difficulty with lunar photography is too much light, not lack of light.

And in an entirely different vein, the original Mailbag article makes mention of Kubrick doing "location shooting" for the moon hoax. Setting aside the accuracy of the claim itself, let's be clear on just what "location shooting" means. "On-location" simply means "away from the studio." It doesn't mean "shooting in the actual place we are attempting to portray." Star Wars is described as being shot "on-location" but that doesn't mean that the crew actually traveled to Tatooine. Tunisia served the purpose quite nicely.

[tracer]

They didn't film Star Wars on Tatooine?! Say it ain't so!

[David B]

Jeez. Who'd a thunk a Mailbag item on something this silly would have attracted so much attention. Ah well.

Let's start with Lib's comments and work our way down:

Lib said:Whether its miracles or moon landings, some people will never belive.Read it again, Lib. I'm talking about a case where there is mounds of evidence, not some guy claiming he saw it on TV or something. Jeez, you managed to hijack your own thread in the OP! That's gotta be a new trick! ;)She was wrong, of course, but her reason was as good as the rest of the skeptics.No, actually, they weren't. They were based on her mistrust of a single person, not on evidence. If you want to mischaracterize skeptics, go back to GD, 'cus comparing it to those who think the moon landing was hoaxed is pretty silly.

SINsApple said:The person that answered that question was too busy poking fun to seriously answer the question.Really? Hmmm, and here I thought the question was answered. Let's see, I quoted several articles, discussed those who were making the claim, showed the poor quality of the evidence, etc. Silly me.I am not saying that I think the moon landing was faked, but I would like to hear the idea given its due credit, and then debunked. Setting up toy soldiers and then knocking them down doesn't make you look intelligent.I'm not trying to "look intelligent." I'm answering a question. I dug up info and showed why it was wrong. There aren't any "toy soldiers" there -- I used the very information that those who claim a hoax were using! Don't blame me because they don't have any evidence for their beliefs!He should have explained the more wide held arguments against the landing, and then explained why they can't be true.Excuse me, but did you actually read my answer? I'm having my doubts.Just saying "well we know it happened" and then poking fun at the idea is not an answer.Which is precisely what I didn't do. Jeez, if you're gonna complain, at least make it a reasonable complaint, fercryingoutloud.

Regarding the Hubble question: I don't think the Hubble can be focused that close to Earth. I'm not 100% certain, but I think it can look far away, but not close in. (Kind of like how you can't use a regular telescope to look at amoebas on a slide.)

[ThufferinThuccotash]

I agree with Keenan, the Laser Ranging Retro Reflectors offer the best means of independent verification of lunar exploration. According to this site (http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html), in addition to the three retro reflectors left on Apollo missions, there are two that were a part of unmanned Russian missions. According to this article, at least four major observatories from around the world have conducted recent ranging experiments and are still getting fresh data from these reflectors, a generation after they were placed on the Moon. This should settle this controversy for any reasonable observer; reasonable being the operative word here.

------------------
TT

"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
--James Thurber

[dtilque]

Originally posted by David B:
Regarding the Hubble question: I don't think the Hubble can be focused that close to Earth. I'm not 100% certain, but I think it can look far away, but not close in. (Kind of like how you can't use a regular telescope to look at amoebas on a slide.)


I'm sure you mean the Moon, not the Earth. At least I hope that's what you mean.

Hubble definitely can't look at the Earth (and there are safeguards in its software to prevent it) and it was long thought by many that it couldn't image the Moon either. It has nothing to do with focusing, but rather that the Earth is too bright and would damage the light detectors (CCDs, etc.).

But it turns out that it can look at the Moon. There have been Hubble images of the Moon published in Sky&Telescope, for example. No images of Apollo landers, though.



------------------
Dan Tilque

[David B]

I'm sure you mean the Moon, not the Earth. At least I hope that's what you mean.Nope, I meant the Earth. As in, the moon is close to the Earth.it was long thought by many that it couldn't image the Moon either. ... But it turns out that it can look at the Moon.Ok. Well, like I said, I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks for the info!

[Pushkin]

If anyone was going to check out NASA's claims it was going to be the Soviets, remember the Space Race?
If they didn't find anything wrong then thats good enough for me.
One of their remote control probes even found a landing site which is proof enough.
Unless they're both in the conspiracy TOGETHER which is probably too dum to be true

[The Bad Astronomer]

About Hubble: it *can* focus on the Moon, and recently took images of the Moon (see http://www.stsci.edu for details). It cannot track the Moon, which moves too quickly in the sky, so it went into ``ambush mode'': sit in one spot and wait for the Moon to pass, then take a very fast exposure. Also, the Earth is not too bright for all the detectors on Hubble; matter of fact, images are taken of the daylit Earth all the time to help calibrate the detectors on one of the cameras (WFPC2, for those keeping track).

Hubble cannot resolve anything on the Moon under about a kilometer across, so it cannot see the Apollo apparatus. It's been suggested by some amateurs, though, that if it took images at sunrise on the Moon, it might see the shadows. That's a pretty clever idea, but unlikely to happen. There is no scientific reason to do this, and Hubble time is precious indeed. Anyway, what's the point? The people that believe that the landings were faked would never believe an electronic image from Hubble. There isn't a single idea I have heard from the hoax-believers that holds any water at all; I plan on writing an extensive page on this very topic. Hopefully I'll have it up by the end of summer.

------------------
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Pushkin:
If anyone was going to check out NASA's claims it was going to be the Soviets, remember the Space Race?
If they didn't find anything wrong then thats good enough for me.
One of their remote control probes even found a landing site which is proof enough.
Unless they're both in the conspiracy TOGETHER which is probably too dum to be true
Yeah, I think this shows the silliness of the whole "moon landing was a hoax" idea. One of the biggest goals in langing on the moon was to show up the Soviets. That goal was accomplished, regardless of whether or not the langing was real. Why would the Soviets have gone along with a conspiracy with almost no purpose other than to destroy the credibilty of Soviet science? It would be a bit like someone throwing a to-the-death fight.

[dtilque]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer:
Also, the Earth is not too bright for all the detectors on Hubble; matter of fact, images are taken of the daylit Earth all the time to help calibrate the detectors on one of the cameras (WFPC2, for those keeping track).

OK. I guess my info about the Earth being too bright for Hubble is out-of-date. I do remember reading that, but now that I think about it, it applied to the first set of instruments. I hadn't realized things had changed with the second set.



------------------
Dan Tilque

[Liberal]

David[b]

I can't tell whether you mistook this for the Pit or for Great Debates. Dissing my mother took me quite by surprise despite your known proclivity for dissing my God, as did your launching an ingratiating argument over her. So, let me toss on my thick skin and return your volley.

It was reasonable for my mother to distrust the Apollo mission based on her distrust of Nixon because, as perhaps you were unaware, [b]he was the president of the United States. As it happens, NASA is administered by the U.S. government. Her mistrust of government reports on the matter were analogous to your mistrust of reports from the Institute for Creation Research. If I were to tell you what Dr. Henry Morris said, or what Dr. David Bliss said, you would likely assume your instant skeptic stance, assuming you knew who they were.

Oh, and incidentally, if you think intend to appropriate the label "skeptic" for atheists who trust only each other, you need to inform Webster, et al.

[Czarcasm]

Lib, as far as I can tell, he didn't diss your mother, he merely said that her logoc was not as good as the rest of the skeptics.
I thing that part of the problem we have is the fact that, though there are usually two(or more) sides to every story, sometimes the opposing story is S*T*U*P*I*D! Come on, now, folks. A conspiracy that large would be impossible to keep up, and so illogical as to defy belief. It would involve most of the people in NASA, a large section of the government, ghod-knows how many civilian companies, the news media, etc. etc. etc.
Once in a while, an equal forum for ideas might not be a good idea. I think this is a prime example.

------------------
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

[Liberal]

slythe

So, factually errant arguments that under-exposed points of starlight indicate a fraud are superior to my mother's argument that Nixon is a crook and therefore capable of fraud?

[Keenan]

Originally posted by Libertarian:
slythe

So, factually errant arguments that under-exposed points of starlight indicate a fraud are superior to my mother's argument that Nixon is a crook and therefore capable of fraud?

Skepticism based on facts can then be tested -- when it turns out your facts are wrong, you can then accept that the moon landing occured. Skepticism based on Nixon's reliability is less useful, because there's no way of coming to understand the truth that the moon landing did occur. There's no link between "Nixon is a crook" and "the moon landing was faked," so it doesn't even matter if we prove or disprove that Nixon was a crook -- your mother's mind is made up. That's not "useful" skepticism. Not that I'm dissing your mother, of course.

Put another way, if Nixon tells me the sun is going to rise tomorrow, it's not skepticism to then automatically disbelieve that the sun will indeed rise the next day -- or, when there turns out to be something that appears to be a sunrise, explain it away by believing that the sunrise is actually being faked.

The fact that Nixon is a liar does not make everything Nixon says a lie, and while skepticism would lead you to check the things he says, that is different than disbelief, which leads you to reject statements of his that may be true.

Or something. I will be extremely disappointed if the next mutation of this thread is the appearance of the Young Republicans to defend the honor of poor maligned Richard Nixon. Bleh. Long after everything on the earth is reduced to dust, his name will be on a plaque on the moon. Isn't that enough for you?

[Karen Too]

If Nixon is going to start talking to you, we skeptics have bigger problems to worry about...




------------------
-k-
Karen Lingel, Physicist

[Hey Hey Paula]

Do people who claim that the moon landings were a hoax think that the entire space program was faked, or just the actual moon landings?



------------------
"The analyst went barking up the wrong tree, of course. I never should have mentioned unicorns to a Freudian." -- Dottie ("Jumpers" by Tom Stoppard)

[Keenan]

Well, only if you believe Nixon is dead. Me, I prefer to think that his death was a hoax, part of an elaborate conspiracy.

But I've said too much already....

[David B]

Lib, most of what you said has already been addressed by Slythe and Keenan. You also said:Oh, and incidentally, if you think intend to appropriate the label "skeptic" for atheists who trust only each other, you need to inform Webster, et al.Oh, give me a break. I use the term "skeptic" to mean "skeptics." And I know exactly how you were using the word -- just as you have in the past when you took your little attempted pot-shots at skeptics who < gasp > ask for evidence even of game show urban legends.

Incidentally, I could note that if you're going to continue to misuse the word "ingratiating," you should inform Webster, but I'm not in a mean mood. ;)

[SINsApple]

David, I am sorry if you took offense to my post. I didn't intend for that, yet you seem to have been offended.

I did read you article. The bulk of what you did was cite people who have argued against the theory, without ever really going over the main beliefs of these theorists. And when you weren't citing someone who agreed with your viewpoint, you were pointing out that the people who believe this idea must be first rate gravy sucking twits.

I don't believe the landing was faked, but I have read some articles by people who do believe just that. And when I read those articles I recall thinking that some of their theories made some sense. I would have liked to hear you answer, point by point, some of the main arguments of this theory is all.

I don't expect you to agree with the claims or even respect them, but you could atleast answer the question seriously. And yes, I re-read your article, and no, I still don't think you did answer it seriously.

------------------
Rather, I was in the position of a spore which, having finally accepted its destiny as a fungus, still wonders if it might produce penicillin.
--Ayi Kwei Armah

[David B]

SINsApple said:I did read you article. The bulk of what you did was cite people who have argued against the theory, without ever really going over the main beliefs of these theorists.I went over the "main beliefs of these theorists" that I was able to find. The main belief, of course, is that the government hoaxed the moon landing. If you have a list of other, or related, beliefs, I'd be happy to see them.And when you weren't citing someone who agreed with your viewpoint, you were pointing out that the people who believe this idea must be first rate gravy sucking twits.Let's see... I cited evidence; I showed how others (who < gasp > agreed with me) debunked claims of evidence for a hoax, etc. What more, precisely, would you have had me do?I have read some articles by people who do believe just that. And when I read those articles I recall thinking that some of their theories made some sense. I would have liked to hear you answer, point by point, some of the main arguments of this theory is all.I hit some of the "main arguments." I'm sorry I didn't happen to hit the ones you knew, but I'm not psychic. I would say that a positive review of a pro-hoax book in a magazine aimed at radio astronomers is a pretty good place to find some "main arguments," and those were debunked. I would say the fact that the Forteans, who generally believe some weird stuff, published and then debunked a pro-hoax article is indicative of some of their "main arguments." Again, I'm terribly sorry that I missed something, but my crystal ball was in the shop and I couldn't foresee that you would be upset by this.I don't expect you to agree with the claims or even respect them, but you could atleast answer the question seriously.I answered it exactly as seriously as it deserved to be answered.And yes, I re-read your article, and no, I still don't think you did answer it seriously.Well, I'm sorry to hear that my research was not good enough for you. I won't put a star on my "SINsApple Approval Chart" for that column.

[RM Mentock]

Originally posted by slythe:
Once in a while, an equal forum for ideas might not be a good idea. I think this is a prime example.

Now there's a good idea, right?

------------------
rocks

[Snow Leopard]

There is a solution that satisfies both the 'common sensers', who realise that to have faked the moon landings would require a conspiracy so huge as to make even the Grand master Illuminatus proud, and the 'skeptics' who say that the photos show so much evidence of fakery that the whole thing had to be faked.

The most often claimed faking is of the photo of Buzz Aldrin climbing out of the Eagle, with one leg in the air.
This is tagged by NASA as taken by Armstrong during Aldrin's first steps onto the moon.

'Skeptics' say this is a fake, the film evidence doesn't show him raising his leg etc.

Well, has anyone considered that the PHOTO is real, but the TAGGING is fake?
Suppose the REAL first time Aldrin stepped out, the photo wasn't good quality (spoiled, or blurred, or overexposed etc.)?
Suppose NASA have another photo (a few hours later) of Aldrin on the ladder, which IS good quality. Even I (a BELIEVER in the landings) find no qualms about NASA pulling a fast one on us and substituting a high quality posed piccie for the low quality reality.

Or am I being too naive and skeptical combined?

[Ursa Major]

I don't know if the Leonov space walk photo was doctored, but I do know he almost got himself killed trying to take a picture of Voskhod 2 from outside the craft. Floating 128 miles above the Earth, Leonov found that he couldn't bend his legs enough to fit back into the airlock. He finally had to resort to the very dangerous option of letting some of the air out of his suit.

To make matters worse he and his fellow cosmonaut overshot their landing site by 2,000 miles and had to spend a night fending off wolves in the middle of the Arctic while the Soviet Air Force tried to figure out where they came down.

[egkelly]

Off the topic, but in a similar vein: I read many years ago, in a book called "SOVIET SPACE HOAX"-it was written by a former Soviet space engineer. In it he relates the story of the first (Soviet)spacealk-the photos release of this show the cosmonaut (Leonov) with his back to the earth, the visor of his helmet reflecting the sun-only there wasn't just one reflection-there were 3-leading to speculation that this was shot in a studio. Does anybody have any more info on this?

[Irishman]

I thought David did a good job responding.

However, we can take up any arguments you feel he overlooked. Ask and we'll do our best to bide time till the Bad Astronomer gets his rebuttal completed.

1) "No stars in background of sky." The moon is very bright - the light reflecting off the surface washes out the starlight.
Apollo 16 shot: not stars http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000319.html
sunrise from shuttle: no stars http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000115.html
Earth, Moon, and Hubble: no stars http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000105.html
Hubble Holiday: no stars http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991224.html

2) "The shadows point wrong (multiple directions)." The shadows follow contours of the uneven lunar surface. There are slopes and rocks and craters that affect the appearance of shadows.

3) "Since there was no atmosphere to scatter light, objects in shadow should by more contrasting in brightness - very bright and very dark." First, the lunar surface itself provides light scattering. Light hitting the lunar soil reflects off and scatters to fill in the shadows. Second, there was a second bright light source in the lunar sky - the Earth. The Earth is visibly 4 times the size of the moon in the Earth's sky. It is also brighter, with a higher albedo (value for how much it reflects light). So there is a secondary light source.

4) "Footprints." Lunar dust is very fine. It can be compacted and hold shapes, like flour or talcum powder.

5) "When the lunar rover rolls, it kicks up dust, which falls back to the surface. Gravity is less, so it should stay up longer than on earth, where dust makes clouds and stays aloft for hours." The Earth has an atmosphere, which causes small dust particles to float and thus not fall. No atmosphere on the moon means the dust particles fall according to Newton's laws. Nice parabolic arcs. In fact, you should be able to time the fall of the dirt and calculate the acceleration of gravity.

6) "The gravity is 1/6th Earth, how come the astronauts just bounce a foot or two off the surface and don't go flying 10 ft high?" First, they are not trying to fly 10 ft high - that is dangerous and could pop the balloon that is their spacesuit, resulting in a very unpleasant condition called death. Second, the space suits weigh about 300 lbs. Even in 1/6th gravity, that is 50 lbs.

7) "Some pictures have extra astronuats visible in reflections, or strange things in reflections of visors." Some of the effects are misconceptions of the viewers. For one thing, the visors are very curved, so they distort the surroundings. Tools and equipment off to the side get reflected strangely. Second, sometimes you can see hints of the astronaut behind the visor and think it is a reflection. Third, some pictures have been doctored. I saw one where the reflected astronaut was superimposed off to the side in the reflection, showing up twice. A) I saw the same photo on another site without that extra reflection. B) The superimposition of that extra reflection made the reflection of the lunar horizon a straight line - on a curved visor. The horizon should curve. In the original, it did curve.

8) "Richard Hoagland has pictures of ancient structures on the moon, like crystal domes and towers." Richard Hoagland is a nincompoop. The crystal domes and towers are exposure tricks and photo manipulations.

9) "The surface looks foreshortened and doesn't look like it really extends very far." It is an optical illusion. We are used to seeing things with atmospheric distortion and references that we can scale, like trees and buildings. There are no scalable references and no atmospheric distortions, and the horizon is nearer than on Earth.

I hit the ones I can recall offhand.

[Irishman]

I forgot on the Hoagland one: how can the same pictures be fakes and proof of actual artifacts on the moon?

[dtilque]

Originally posted by Irishman:

1) "No stars in background of sky." The moon is very bright - the light reflecting off the surface washes out the starlight.

Not quite right. I think Bad Astronomer already covered this. The stars are not washed out. There is no atmosphere on the moon to scatter the light to get a wash out effect.

The stars don't appear because the film wasn't exposed long enough to see them. If it were, the lunar surface would be an overexposed mass of white.



------------------
Dan Tilque

[Irishman]

Yes there is no atmosphere, but the reflecting light off the surface of the moon is bright enough to wash out the stars' light. Did the astronauts see the stars? That wouldn't be a camera problem, but the sensitivity of the eyes is different from the cameras.

My answer was not meant to be substantially different than the Bad Astronomer's.

[KeithT]

Lib, did your mother think Apollo 8 (lunar fly-by mission) was a hoax? That mission occurred around Christmas, 1968 -- a month before Nixon was sworn into office.

------------------
"The best way to do mathematics is to be creatively lazy." -I. M. Isaacs

[UFO_Charlie]

In response to your post about the authenticity of the moon landing:

While simple logic states that the moon landing was authentic, you seem to have ignored some very powerful evidence to the contrary. Among these are:

-It is well known that the moon has no atmosphere, so there would be nothing to block a clear view of the 'billions and billions' of stars trumpeted by Carl Sagan. In spite of this, the photos of the moon returned by NASA show nothing but a flat, black backdrop, completely absent of the flaming gasballs we all know and love.

-Assuming there is every good reason for footprints to have been left on the moon by the astronauts who visited it, why didn't the thrusters from the lunar module blast module-sized craters in the moon's surface?

-In the moon landing video, Armstrong & Co. appear to be lighted from both sides simultaneously. Either the moon is the ultimate in ambient lighting, or something's majorly 'up' here.

-The following quotation from Bill Kaysing, a former tech writer for Rockwell International and major NASA critic: "When I worked at Rocketdyne, they did a feasibility study of...landing on the moon. They found the chance of success was something like .0017%. It's also well-documented that NASA was often badly managed and had poor quality control. But as of '69, we could suddenly perform manned flight upon manned flight? With complete success? It's...against all statistical odds."

-Finally, we all saw the craft take off, but few consider how easy it would have been to change courses, jettison occupants into the nearby ocean, &c. only minutes thereafter.

While these are certainly not airtight pieces of evidence, and probably don't make the greatest overall case for the "Astro-Not Theory," they ARE significant facts, and facts which you seemed to wholly ignore.

Additionally, few odd, random moon-hoax facts:
-There is a group who *claims* to have tapped into NASA's communications with the astronauts on the moon, and claim to have heard Neil Armstrong say something to the effect of "There are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the moon watching us!"

-Proponents of the theory that the moon is itself a hollow orb point to the fact that, when the Apollo 12 fell back to the surface of the moon, seismic instruments detected a distinct reverberation for a good hour and change. Additionally, the moon isn't made of the same elements as the earth, so it's NOT a chunk of earth that broke off. It's also not a glom of space-debris; the moon's having only 16.67% of the earth's gravity more or less bars that much stuff from pulling together into a coherent orb of such a great magnitude. Additionally, Isaac Asimov believed the moon is a celestial body that was constructed by an alien super-civilization and dragged on over into our orbit. Even MORE additionally, many believe that some of Aristotle's texts speak of a 'prelunar time', in which no moon was visible in the earth's sky. The bottom line: the moon's origins are even more shady than the earth in it's shadow.

Yeah, OK, I've proven myself to be a major conspiracy wonk. Big friggin' deal.

P.S. Just to avoid lawsuits, most of this material was learned, referenced, and downright pilfered from Richard Belzer's "UFOs, JFK, and Elvis."

Ta!

"...It's only a paper moon..."

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

--
***UFO_Charlie***

--
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something
about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is
purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."

-Stephen Hawking
--

[Saltire]

UFO_Charlie, as you seem to have ignored the entire discussion before your post, I should assume you're just trying to get a rise out of everyone. But in case you're serious, I have two suggestions:
1) Read this message thread. It will explain most of your quibbles.
2)Don't throw around bizarre statements without backing them up. Isaac Asimov was a diehard skeptic, and I'd like to see you show where he said something so unsupportable.

To my fellows here at SDMB: I apologize for answering this post. I hope my attempt to fight ignorance didn't unnecessarily feed the fire.

------------------
"If you prick me, do I not...leak?" --Lt. Commander Data

[Irishman]

UFO_Charlie, you sound like a troll. Did you even read the thread? It discusses some of your criticisms already.

Originally posted by UFO_Charlie:

-It is well known that the moon has no atmosphere, so there would be nothing to block a clear view of the 'billions and billions' of stars trumpeted by Carl Sagan. In spite of this, the photos of the moon returned by NASA show nothing but a flat, black backdrop, completely absent of the flaming gasballs we all know and love.

Already addressed.

-Assuming there is every good reason for footprints to have been left on the moon by the astronauts who visited it, why didn't the thrusters from the lunar module blast module-sized craters in the moon's surface?

The thrusters weren't all that powerful. They did blow the dust around in the landing area. They were not designed to dig big holes, and in fact a lot less thrust was needed than would be needed on earth.

-In the moon landing video, Armstrong & Co. appear to be lighted from both sides simultaneously. Either the moon is the ultimate in ambient lighting, or something's majorly 'up' here.

Discussed above.

-The following quotation from Bill Kaysing, a former tech writer for Rockwell International and major NASA critic: "When I worked at Rocketdyne, they did a feasibility study of...landing on the moon. They found the chance of success was something like .0017%. It's also well-documented that NASA was often badly managed and had poor quality control. But as of '69, we could suddenly perform manned flight upon manned flight? With complete success? It's...against all statistical odds."

Complete success? What about Apollo 1? What about Apollo 13? I don't know anything about Bill Kaysling or his claims.

-Finally, we all saw the craft take off, but few consider how easy it would have been to change courses, jettison occupants into the nearby ocean, &c. only minutes thereafter.

Not quite like you describe, but it would have been possible to drop the capsule in the ocean, say the Pacific, and nobody know about it. Except the recovery crew. The people who hauled them out of the water, and kept them in isolation until the "trip" was up. And the astronauts themselves. Someone would have said something by now.

While these are certainly not airtight pieces of evidence, and probably don't make the greatest overall case for the "Astro-Not Theory," they ARE significant facts, and facts which you seemed to wholly ignore.

Wrong - they are not ignored, they have been addressed.

Additionally, few odd, random moon-hoax facts:
-There is a group who *claims* to have tapped into NASA's communications with the astronauts on the moon, and claim to have heard Neil Armstrong say something to the effect of "There are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the moon watching us!"

And people claim we have an anti-gravity chamber at JSC too. We don't. People can claim anything.

-Proponents of the theory that the moon is itself a hollow orb point to the fact that, when the Apollo 12 fell back to the surface of the moon, seismic instruments detected a distinct reverberation for a good hour and change.

I have heard that statement.

Additionally, the moon isn't made of the same elements as the earth, so it's NOT a chunk of earth that broke off. It's also not a glom of space-debris; the moon's having only 16.67% of the earth's gravity more or less bars that much stuff from pulling together into a coherent orb of such a great magnitude.

It is very similar in composition to the crust of the earth. It does not have the heavier elements from the core. That discrepancy in makeup would account for the density difference. However, what justification do you have that amount of mass cannot accumulate into a planet?

Additionally, Isaac Asimov believed the moon is a celestial body that was constructed by an alien super-civilization and dragged on over into our orbit.

Cite. When and where did he state this?

Even MORE additionally, many believe that some of Aristotle's texts speak of a 'prelunar time', in which no moon was visible in the earth's sky.

Every month that happens - the moon is overhead during the day, so it isn't visible at night.

[pldennison]

UFO Charlie said:-It is well known that the moon has no atmosphere, so there would be nothing to block a clear view of the 'billions and billions' of stars trumpeted by Carl Sagan. In spite of this, the photos of the moon returned by NASA show nothing but a flat, black backdrop, completely absent of the flaming gasballs we all know and love.

Did you not read any of the discussion prior to your post? This has been so well explained, you'd have had to try extremely hard to have missed it.

[UFO_Charlie]

Originally posted by pldennison:
UFO Charlie said: Did you not read any of the discussion prior to your post? This has been so well explained, you'd have had to try extremely hard to have missed it.

Actually, I DID try pretty hard. ;-)

To be honest, I am fairly new to Straightdope.com, and so I was unaware of the message boards (and the myriad posts therein) until my own post went up. I'm not a complete idiot, though, and now I know better, so please let me keep SOME shred of credibility. ;-)


------------------
--
***UFO_Charlie***

--
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something
about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is
purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."

-Stephen Hawking
--

[David B]

Welcome back, Phil!

Looks like UFO_Charlie was posting in this area at the same time my Mailbag item on trolls was posted. Coincidence?

[UFO_Charlie]

Oh, booooo...


------------------
--
***UFO_Charlie***

--
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something
about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is
purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."

-Stephen Hawking
--

[jab1]

Hey, Charlie, what do you think of those new satellite photos of Area 51?

Do you know Krispy Original?

------------------
Sig Alert!

[LateComer]

Mr. UFO_Charlie, please, please, don't besmirch the good name of the Good Dr. A!

He would be rolling in his grave if he heard such an outrageous statement if he hadn't been cremated. The man was a PhD for God's sake!



------------------
"Shoplifting is a victimless crime. Like punching someone in the dark." -Nelson Muntz.