Moon Landings

Cecil and company, and the teeming millions.

Naturally, when I got this email (following), I immediately thought of The Straight Dope, and went searching your archive. It isn’t surprising that someone already asked the question about the moon landings being a hoax, and I’m glad you set them straight.

Having said that, I enclose an email (itself probably a hoax) about the lunar landings, and some of the ‘evidence’ to prove they never happened. Thought your team might get a chuckle out of them. Any comments on the radiation issues (or any other addressed in this message that weren’t addressed in the Straight Dope answer on the topic)? In any event, provided for your amusement and debunking pleasure…

Thanks for providing a website that battles ignorance. Too many web sites I’ve encountered seem to accomplish exactly the opposite.


Believe it or not…

This is an amazing piece of theory that is questioning the credibility and reputation of NASA? Really, really interesting and thought provoking!! A must read.

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick ? asks David Milne. The greater lunar lie In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene. “How can the flag be fluttering,” the 47 year old American kept asking himself, “when there’s no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?” That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake. It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it’s being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway - being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they’re fake. For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film “man’s greatest achievement” from a TV screen in Houston -a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it. By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that’s not all:

  • The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing.

  • There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.

  • They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to end their fingers. Award winning British photographer David passer is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:

  • The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

  • The American flag and the words “United States” are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.

  • Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

  • The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by “whistle blowers”, who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we’ve only NASA’s word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?

The questions don’t stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth’s Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares. John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, “about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil”. How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn’t rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. “They should have been fried,” says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. “The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot,” says Rene. Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin “the second man on the Moon” - was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. “It strikes me he’s suffering from trying to live out a very big lie,” says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo programme, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: “if there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it’s likely to be me.” Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co- pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists couldn’t believe NASA’s carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate. “One wonders if these ‘accidents’ weren’t NASA’s way of correcting mistakes,” says Rene. “Of saying that some of these men didn’t have the sort of ‘right stuff’ they were looking for.” NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape.

It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. “The purpose of this film,” Scheer told the enthralled group, “is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception.” He then invited his audience to “come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon”. A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. “It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn’t left with three astronauts who ought to be dead,” he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn’t what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later. And now NASA is planning another giant step - project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. “Think what they’ll be able to mock up with today’s computer graphics,” says Rene Chillingly. “Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth.”

SPACE ODDITIES

  • Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

  • A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16’s Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

  • One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

  • The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

  • The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn’t America make a signal on the move that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

  • Text from pictures in the article Only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

  • The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn’t match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering? How can the flag be brightly lit when its side on to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

  • The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

  • The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it’s never been fired.


Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it. - Brian W. Kernighan

If anyone wants to see the photos in question and the claims made, they are available here:
http://www.channel1.com/users/cci/fakedmoon.htm

Well, I’m noticing a lot of views, but no comments, so I’m going to throw in mine.

To be fair, I don’t think the mailbag did a good job of debunking these photos, or at least of providing a link to a debunking. The link I gave, while remaining moderately skeptical, does have some good points.

Assuming these photos are actual NASA shots.

The two astronaut shadows are of significantly different length. Simple trig on the photo makes this just a tad suspicious.

The grid hair thing seems to be obvious retouching, if not as part of a hoax, why?

The mysterious blurs n whatnot in the shots doesn’t bug me too much, could just be film flaws. However, the lack of any stars in that background was quite disturbing…
Comments, anyone? My faith in NASA has been shaken! What were radiation levels out there?

To address just a couple of these points, both related to shadows:

The two shadows being of different lengths seems clearly to be due to a rise in the terrain (lunain?). It doesn’t seem strange to me at all.

The fact that the lighting seems to come from different directions and cast multiple shadows is explained by earthlight. On the moon, the Earth is much brighter in the sky than the Moon is for us down here. At times during these missions, there would be two light sources, the Earth and the Sun.

That exact e-mail was addressed somewhat in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=43098

and answered by SDStaffer David here:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html

Regards.

Interesting.
One shadow seems to be about half again as long as the other. Wouldn’t that mean that astronaut would have to be on a rise about half a man’s height? But they are both holding the flag and at about the same level on it…
(this is all roughly, once I get home I will check it in GIMP)

As for the lighting, I’m perfectly willing to accept that explanation.
What about the strange grid line though?
Oh, and why would earthlight pick out the american flag on the lander, but leave the gold foil in darkness?

Not that I’m saying the lighting thing makes much sense. One would wonder why, after going through all the trouble to create a massive hoax, the NASA conspiracists would fail to use sources of light duplicating moon conditions.

Oh, and didn’t we put a laser reflector up there that trip? Or was an unmanned mission later?

I looked at the disputed photos and I have this to say:

The author of the website is probably a flat-Earther. We should take sharp instruments away from him before he hurts himself.

He looks at the famous photo of Aldrin taken by Armstrong and says his space-suit is not dark enough in the shadows and suspects a second, artificial light source. It’s actually because light is reflecting off the moon’s surface onto Aldrin’s suit. IOW, there IS a secondary light source, but it is natural. Simple.

He notes that the landscape behind Aldrin is not in focus, suspecting atmospheric scattering, but there’s no air on the Moon! Trickery! Actually, it’s because the camera was focused on Aldrin and perhaps was a short exposure; IOW, the shutter was open only briefly because of the intense sunlight. A longer exposure would have made the background come in sharply, but Aldrin’s white suit would have over-exposed the film. Simple, if you know photography. Our author obviously does not.

Kyber, you ask why is the flag so visible and not the gold foil around it? (I think you’re referring to the Apollo 15 shot with Irvin, the flag and the LM.) There was no gold foil immediately around the flag. What you are looking at is the compartment where the Lunar Rover was stored. The gold foil was on the outside of the hatch. That hatch (and the foil) is now lying flat on the lunar surface. (Two wheels of the nearby parked Rover is visible in the extreme right edge of the photo.) The interior of the compartment was painted black. Affixed to this black surface was the American flag and the words “United States.” I think it was illuminated not by Earthlight, as Saltire hypothesizes, but by sunlight reflecting off the grey-white lunar surface.

The crosses in the pictures were on the lenses of the cameras. I believe they are reference points used to determine the size and distance to whatever was photographed. (I could be wrong here.)

The author sees the Rover’s tracks and can’t figure out how they could have been made by driving it. He betrays his ignorance of the Rover’s four-wheel steering. Steer left, and all four wheels turn. This enabled the Rover to steer in a much smaller radius that it would with two-wheel steering. (Don’t you wish your car could steer like that? Parallel parking would be a snap!)

I could go on, but I think it ought to be obvious by now that the website’s author doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Precisely why? You ever see any stars in shots of Shuttle missions? Of course not. Once you’re out in space, the combined light from the Sun and the Earth pretty much ensures that, at the exposure levels necessary for clear, sharp photos of foreground objects, stars will be washed out. Even more so on the Moon, with the combined light from the Sun, the Earth, and the lunar surface. Same principle as people in, say, central Montana being able to see more stars at night than people in Manhattan.

I used to have a Honda Prelude with 4ws. that thing was a dream, I loved it. It takes some getting used to though. When the rear wheels steer, it feels like you’re losing control of the vehicle since in a regular car the rear end doesn’t move side to side. Once I got over it though, I had a blast.

Ahh, the joy of another moon hoax thread.

Some links I have to skeptical responses:

Apollo Hoax-Answers
Astronaut UFO Sightings
Jim Scotti’s Apollo Page
Moonhoax: Debunk

Those pages address most if not all of the arguments. I’ll touch briefly on a few below that caught my attention.

The still cameras were on the astronauts. The film cameras were separate cameras. Why should they match?"

This wasn’t as simple a problem as made to seem. In hindsight it is very obvious. Hindsight is great that way. The problem is that the environment for the test setup was extremely different from the actual flight conditions would be. The design was for a 4 psia (I think) pure oxygen environment on the spacecraft. 100% oxy at 4psia isn’t that bad. However, the test required pressurizing the spacecraft to 4psi above ambient pressure to simulate the full pressure it would see, so that’s 4 psig. That’s 18.7 psia. At 18.7 psi pure O2, lots of things that are flame resistant normally are combustible. So the things like fabric in the cabin that were flame resistant at normal conditions or 4psia O2 were instantaneously flash burned at 19 psia O2. The thing is, NOBODY recognized this danger, because it was a stupid test stand. They were worried about fuel leaks and such for other tests, but nobody conceived of this as a possibility - it slipped by everyone’s awareness. Nobody thought the test could be that dangerous. They learned the hard way.

Spectacular for whom? That’s 10 out of how many, over how many years? Also note that these guys were mostly military test pilots, and other pilots. Those guys are known for having a very high self-confidence when it comes to their piloting skills. They are the type to press the limits with their aircraft for fun. Shoot, I know people like that with their cars.

You’ve got to be kidding me, this is an argument against the moon landings? I know this --> | | <-- much about golf. To me, a hook is when the ball gets pulled too much to the golfer’s inside and instead of driving straight forward, it curves to the left (for a righty). A slice is when the ball careens off the head of the club to the outside, or right. I am under the impression it’s hitting with the club oriented off slightly, causing an angled face to impact the ball. I don’t know about uneven air flow and such. However, all of that is irrelevant. A slice is something golfer’s do that makes the ball go the wrong way. The guy was saying “Hey Alan Shepard, you only think you’re a golfer, look how you suck.” Big deal. Maybe the guy had no clue what a slice is, just knew it was something golfer’s don’t want to do.

I’ve got to go. Maybe I’ll tackle another point or two later.

-Irishman

That’s all I can stand, I can’t stands no more!!

  1. Moving a camera like that is called tilting not panning
  2. That shot was on Apollo 17 not 16
  3. The camera had a motorized mount (you ignorant troglodyte)

Thanks for clearing up the mystery of the highlighted flag, and a few that I had figured out on my own.:slight_smile: However, the problem with the reference crosses (which this site also says were on the lens of the camera) is that part of one of the crosses goes behind an object photographed.

You’re overlooking the biggest hoax of all. The moon itself does not exist. It was accidentally destroyed during a nuclear test in 1958, but the government feared this news would cause widespread panic (See Cecil’s current column I’m about to destroy the moon…

Hence, they erected a large paper mache imitation moon, to keep people quiet. The imitation moon is different from the real moon, however, and this difference can be detected by the very observant.

  • Notice that airplanes have windows on the sides, but never on the ceiling. This is because the pseudo-moon is only about 50,000 feet above the surface of the earth, and they don’t want any passengers to notice.

  • Photographs of the moon ONLY SHOW ONE SIDE. They didn’t have budget to construct the other side.

  • Look again at the Macgruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The bullet(s) came from ABOVE. In fact, secret CIA agents were hiding in the fake moon, using long-range rifles. If you look closely at that film, you can see little flecks – the bullets raining down from the moon.

  • Jimmy Hoffa was kidnapped and hidden inside the fake moon. He managed to escape and write his initials in the lower left hand corner, you can just barely make them out with a high resolution photograph.

OK, time for some Excedrin and back to work.

Actually, it was a bright glint of light from an antenna, obscuring that part of the cross. I’ve seen this effect myself in pictures I’ve taken. A bright reflection from a background object will obscure a foreground object.

The camera was mounted to the lunar rover that they left behind on the surface. It had a remote controlled motorized mount.

That’s the photo Armstrong took of Aldrin.

The suits were designed to bend, not like a football. They have metal joints in the wrists and knees under the cloth outer layer, and the gloves have tensioning laces. How do you think the shuttle astronauts can move and work in space now? Same way, same technology. Some improvements in fit and function, but same idea. Also, I’m not sure the pressure inside a football, but automobile tires are typically 25 to 35 psig. The shuttle suits are at 10 psia. Apollo suits were 3.8 psia.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/apollo.engin.html

Not nearly as easily as this quote thinks. The best visual resolution on the surface of the moon with our best telescopes is on the order of 30 to 50 meters. It would have to be one very bright light to show up. It wasn’t considered important, because the Russians could track with radar and intercept the radio transmissions just as well as the U.S.

Why don’t you think he has a camera? The image is too small to tell. The camera fits on the front of the suit, not held up to the eyes. See his arm reaching to his chest?

Don’t know which photo he means, so can’t comment on the shadows and rocks. As for the flag fluttering, first the extension rod on Apollo 11 did not come fully out, leaving the flag slightly crumpled. People decided it looked more artistic, like fluttering in the wind, that way, so they purposely posed the flags that way. If it moved any it would be from vibrations caused by the astronauts walking around. The flag can be lit on the “back side” from the sun because light bounces off the ground around the flag. And as pointed out elsewhere, the stars are not visible because they are too dim to be picked up by the camera at such a quick exposure time, because of the bright light of the sun.

A couple factors here. First, the thrust from the rockets blew the dust away from under the lander. Second, the lander legs are made with big boots to sit on the dust. Third, the lander pressure was a lot less on the Moon than on Earth, so the thrust wasn’t enough to burn gigantic craters in the rock. Fourth, there was some small cratering directly under the rocket, not visible from the side.

Kyberneticist said:

They are, but they aren’t the originals.

The ground under the astronauts is not flat. There is a rise directly behind the second astronaut. The first is layed out flat and the second compressed on the hill. Ergo, different lengths.

The grid hair thing is an artifact of the JPEG image compression. The original does not have that blurring over the line. I believe one of the links I provided has a link to the official NASA source for the images.

The problem is the doubters have a few arguments that on the surface seem plausible, at least confusing enough to be worthy of attention. But it takes effort to find the answers to at least some of the questions. Thus they can pile on any objection they can think of, even mutually exclusive ones, till the overwhelming tide makes you begin to doubt. But there are explanations, if they aren’t all readily available.

If I spent a full WEEK watching and re-watching a short film, I sure would have wanted to say SOMETHING to justify such a profitable use of time. Hell, I wouldn’t watch “Star Wars” for a week at a time, and I wouldn’t bring my preconceptions to the movie either.