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
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
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.
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 I guess my info about the Earth being too bright for Hubble is out-of-date.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
David
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, 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.
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 STUPI*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.
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?
If Nixon is going to start talking to you, we skeptics have bigger problems to worry about…
-k-
Karen Lingel, Physicist
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)
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…
Lib, most of what you said has already been addressed by Slythe and Keenan. You also said:
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. 
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
SINsApple said:
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.
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 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 answered it exactly as seriously as it deserved to be answered.
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.
Now there’s a good idea, right?
rocks
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?
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?
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.
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.
-
“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 -
“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.
-
“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.
-
“Footprints.” Lunar dust is very fine. It can be compacted and hold shapes, like flour or talcum powder.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
“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.
I forgot on the Hoagland one: how can the same pictures be fakes and proof of actual artifacts on the moon?