Hey Handy, Chronos and tomandebb are right. There won’t be any visible exaust in a vaccuum. Adding to their explanation, I don’t think the flame would be very visible in a vaccuum, because of the fact that the flame interacts with matter once it leaves the exaust bell, on top of that the flame being rather weak astronomically speaking, it would spread out immediatly. Anyone who knows anything about rocketry correct me if I’m wrong.
The “host” of the show pointed out that the ship popped off, instead of lifting off slowly. Of course it would pop off. The LEM is a much lighter ship than the Saturn V, and coupled with the fact that the moon has only 1/6 the Earth’s gravity it’s lighter still, and there is no air resistance, so there is nothing hindering a “pop” off instead of a liftoff. But still what explains the identical hills?
In one of my general physics textbooks, it mentioned a physicist with no connection to NASA who observed the Moon landings on TV. By measuring the period of oscillation of a hammer hanging from an astronaut’s belt (a pendulum), he was able to get an estimate of the acceleration of gravity. Needless to say, it was about 1/6 that on Earth.
A Moon landing conspiracy would have to be wide-ranging beyond belief…
Even though the professor and our “theorist” saw the same thing on TV, I get the feeling that the professer is more educated than that FOX guy.
An experiment that was performed on the moon by an Apollo 17 astronaut, a hammer and a feather were dropped to test the theory that acceleration is equal for any object. They fell at the same speed. It was confirmed as expected. Now you tell me, moon hoaxers, how can feather just fall, instead of float to the ground if it were filmed in Area 51, in an atmosphere, like you say it was?
“So tell me, handy, what does air look like, anyway? I’ve often wondered.”
Come to Los Angeles Chronos, Ill show ya.
I was quoting mostly from the show & If you watched the show, they did make a point of the fact there wasn’t anything visible under the craft when it took off & that it looked more like it was yanked up by a cable & it did too.
Still one would think that the blast under the craft would have created a huge duststorm which would have obliterated the camera lens?
(Humor) First restaurant on the moon, great food, no atmosphere.
Someone put up a website with this mooon landing stuff & all the photos too & its just great!!! You can see the photos & he gives excellent descriptions on how it’s faked.
See, it’s statements like this that demonstrate the dangers of a society that is scientifically illiterate.
It really doesn’t take much thrust to escape from the moon’s surface and reach orbit, its gravity being 1/6th of Earth’s. and all that.
. . . but even if it gravity was the same, a “duststorm” wouldn’t be created anyway. See, in the absence of air, any dust kicked up would fall right back down. Watch the films of the lunar rover–the dust kicked up by the wheels comes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls right back down. No air means no medium present to keep the stuff circulating around like it would on Earth. Up, and right back down. No storm.
Hey, that’s an easy one to explain; for that particular shot, they used a vacuum-sealed room.
What’s a lot harder to explain is how they made the hammer AND the feather fall with acceleration consistent with only .16 gravity.
General comment
What really chaps my ass about this “moon hoax” nonsense isn’t the appalling level of ignorance displayed by the people who promote it, or the fact that the FOX network slandered NASA in an outrageous and despicable manner, or that conspiracy theories in general are BS.
What bugs me is that the Moon landings are, IMHO, the greatest thing human beings have ever done. Oh, sure, we have other inventions and accomplishments that helped a lot of people and have more of an impact on our day-to-day lives, but in terms of reaching an absolute pinnacle of achievement, the Moon landings were it. I mean, people make a big deal about climbing Everest. These guys walked on the frigging MOON. They stood on an alien world.
Think about how dangerous and difficult life is in general. If I put you a hundred miles out in a desert with no means of transport, you’re dead meat. Watch “The Perfect Storm” and think about how unforgiving and deadly the ocean can be. A decent blizzard will kill dozens. We get along very nicely when we have the structure of our civilization to protect us, but in the desert or lost in the woods in the winter or adrift at sea, really subjected to the vagarities of the uncaring universe, our lives are as fragile as porcelain.
But, I mean, these guys went TO THE MOON. They left the planet entirely. 100 miles in the desert? Child’s play; these guys went 250,000 miles to a place where there is no moisture, no air, not even a magnetic field you could use a compass with. There is no rescue possible. If things go wrong, you can’t live off the land. Not even gravity is right. They slapped together the best machines they could, took a risk, and actually made it, and walked on another world. Compared to that, climbing Everest is sort of a bore, isn’t it? Columbus, Cook, Cartier, Cortez - at least the places they explored were on the same planet.
July 20, 1969, was the single greatest day in the history of humanity. We left our own world and explored another. Every schoolchild should have that day committed to heart. People bitch and whine by saying “we can send a man to the moon but we can’t do blah blah blah.” I look at it this way; if we can put a man on the moon, there is hope that we CAN do anything.
Anyone who denies the reality, and thereby the magnificence and enormity, of this achievement is more than just a fool; he is denying the hope and drive and promise of our own species. Well, I won’t do that. I’m looking forward to seeing humans walk on Mars.
RE: The hills, supposedly two different locations, that matched up perfectly.
There was a very simple explanation for this given by NASA - bad editing. They made a mistake when initially labeling the film.
I agree with RickJay - this is a pretty big slander of humanity’s greatest accomplishment. But, there is a positive to shows like this: you know to steer clear of anyone that believes them. Very good “idiot indicators”.
You can make it look like anything you want to by speeding up the film. It doesn’t even prove anything. That argument is just absurd.
There shouldn’t be anything visible under the craft. It doesn’t need much fuel to lift off from the moon, because first of all the craft is very light, second, as you should know by now, the moon has one sixth the gravity of the earth. Not much is needed. This also explains why it popped of. I explained before that there is no reason for it not to pop off. Low gravity, light craft, no air resistance (I don’t know if that is a very big factor though). It didn’t have to lift off, just pop.
That’s a lot easier to swallow. I figured it would be something simple.
handy, are you playing devil’s idiot, or are you really that naive?
I saw the Fox show. It was ludicrous. It was incredibly one-sided, with carefully edited “rebuttals” to make sure no specific claims were responded to directly. It acted as if this is the first time these questions have been asked, not mentioning that these questions have been repeatedly asked and answered since the '70s. Then there are the outright lies.
Anyone who wants a great review of the show, check out the Bad Astronomy site Phobos linked. Also check out the links from that site through the moon hoax page.
Here is another excellent rebuttal of the show. It is in work, so the later comments have yet to be addressed, but judging by Jim Scotti’s work, they will be and will be convincing. Comments on the FOX special on the Hoax
I’ll hit some specific points anyway, because I feel like it.
The first thing to note is the author is not a complete idiot. He manages to debunk a couple of the hoax believer’s claims himself. He catches the explanation for the lack of stars in the background of pictures, and notes the reflectivity of light off the moon’s surface and other objects to break up photos. Also note his explanation of the second photo on page two. This is one that some conspiracy theorists actually claim as proof of the hoax, that the shadows are different lengths and point different directions. See the page Jim Scotti is responding to. Nevertheless, Dophin Ocean still seems credulous and misses a lot.
Astronauts standing in front of blue screens - they often took (and to this day take) publicity photos of the astronauts wearing equipment in front of backdrops. They are typically signed as souvenirs, and are available from NASA Public Relations.
First photo, no crater under LEM. Of course not. The thrust was throttled down as the LEM approached the surface, and five foot extension triggers cut the thruster off and let the LEM fall the last five feet. So the thrust was dispersed. Another thing to think about - do Harrier jets carve craters underneath the planes when they take off and lane on VTOL? No. Yet they do so under full 1 g in atmosphere. No, they don’t use rockets, but they still have considerable thrust requirement.
What about the footprint at F? Look closely, it is not under the LEM nozzle. It is next to the foot pad and the support bracket. Look at the next bracket to the right and you will see how much distance there is between the footpad and base of the LEM - plenty of space for an astronaut to walk up to the support for some reason and leave a footprint.
The “missing camera” cannot be seen from this angle. It is deployed on the far side of Buzz’s foot. I’m looking for a picture or graphic that shows it.
Third picture talking about the bright sun. The sun is bright, but the moon’s surface reflects light. That’s why we see a full moon. Light is reflecting off the soil around the LEM and up onto the flag. The flag has white and is set in a black background, not the gold foil. That is the alcove where the lunar rover was folded and stowed. You can see the wheel of the rover at the corner of the picture. The white pics up reflected light, the black does not. Thus the flag stands out.
Fourth picture, the crosshairs that disappear. This is an effect of overexposure. This is a very common photo effect. Notice that all the pictures that show “missing” crosshair pieces are next to white objects. When white objects in pictures are overexposed, they bleed over onto the dark objects around them, making the edges look a little larger than they are. Ergo, the line is there, but bleed over blocks it. This is an effect at the emulsion layer, so it will override the fact that the image is behind the crosshairs. Now explain why NASA would add fake crosshairs. Wouldn’t it be easier to shoot the hoaxed pictures (if that was their plan) with the crosshair lenses?
Page 2.
First picture, the off-aligned crosshairs. This one is ludicrous. NASA put a fake crosshair template on crooked after the fact, and nobody noticed? HAH! The picture only appears to be oriented correctly because the horizon is horizontal. This is really a badly cropped photo. The horizon is not level. Here is the original pic from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5869.jpg
Notice the horizon is sloped, not level. That is the proper orientation. Somebody cropped the photo to fit with a flat horizon.
Notice he correctly interprets picture 2, much to the chagrin of other moon hoax believers.
Picture 3: again, the sun is not the only light source. The moon’s surface reflects sunlight. No light scattering necessary.
The fading in C has a two part explanation, only one of which have I seen addressed. The common response is that it is caused by the angle of light striking it. The farther away from perpendicular, the more diffused the scattered light is. Try it with a piece of paper and parallel light beams (say a flashlight). I can reproduce the effect with glossy magazine paper - at one angle all you see is a white reflection and cannot read the page. Same effect - at one angle you get more light than others. The second explanation that has not really been mentioned in this context - the background looks a lot darker because the foreground is overexposed. The overexposure allows the stuff in shadows to show up better (thus the front of Buzz is more visible), but the brightly lit parts in the image wash out. Look at Buzz’s legs.
As for the background not being distinct but being fuzzy, this is an optical effect of the camera. Cameras have a range of which they focus, and anything out of that range is blurry. The cameras were set with a pretty wide focus range because they did not have a viewfinder, but even still there is a limit. This is something like focusing a telescope or microscope. If the focus is off, all you see is a blurry image. Cameras also have lenses, and also must be focused, and things not in the focus range are blurry, whether the real object is blurry or not.
Item D is another ridiculous claim. Notice how the author turns to Richard Hoagland for an explanation. Hoagland is one of the biggest loonies out there. What are the weird white objects in the visor? Jim Scotti explains that it is a science package and the American Flag that are in the background. You can verify by looking here. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5886.jpg
Note this picture is from around the other side of the lander, so you don’t get the right perspective, but you can see the flag in the air and the box on the ground. Check out this rectified image of the reflection in Buzz’s faceplate.
The next picture contains light glare that is a common photographic problem. It is a ray of light shining into the lens.
The little picture at the bottom labeled E with the shadow. That is one of the small thrusters on the LEM for attitude control. The shadow is not on the lunar surface, but rather it is the blurry image of the thruster blocking the reflected lunar light. You can see them in all the LEM photos above.
The next picture of Allen Bean’s head. The astronauts have a slight lean forward to counterbalance the weight of the PLSS (backpack). The cameraman is standing on a slight rise, putting the chest high on him camera at a higher level with respect to Bean. Thus you get a “downward” view.
Looking in curved reflectors (visors) for straight lines is a losing venture. Of course the lines aren’t parallel. Notice Bean’s hand is distorted in the reflected image.
Page 3 gets really fun. The first image is a blow up of the last on page 2. Only this one has an extra image reflected in the visor, of a third astronaut. Funny, NASA’s original blowup does not have this extra image. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/as12-49-7278HR.jpg
Now Dolphin claims the second image was taken out. The reverse is also possible - the altered image is the one with the extra astronaut. Which is easier, to remove or add to? This becomes a game of “whom do you want to believe?”
Image 2 has the lunar rover tracks that are well defined. He claims this only happens with moisture. That is not correct. You can also get well defined prints and tracks with a very fine dry powder. Try it with talcum powder, or powdered sugar, or some other very fine dust. No moisture required.
Item Q has another occurrence of the “missing” crosshair. Explained above.
Item R is the curious “C” on the rock. This is claimed to be a bad prop placement, or a gag by the prop man. The “C” does appear in the online photo at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. However, Jim Scotti went and checked another copy of the same photo, and it does NOT have the “C”.
It appears to be an artifact of that particular copy of the picture that was scanned. Curiously enough, I have heard from photographer friends that if a hair gets onto a picture during development, they can easily look like a “C”.
Next comes a string of silly complaints.
Despite the surface of the moon reaching temperatures of 250 deg F, the film would not melt and the astronauts would not be cooked. This is accomplished through the magic of engineering. If you do not understand this, think about your air-conditioner, a thermos bottle, an ice-chest, your coat in winter, new synthetic fiber coats, and dozens of other devices that allow control of environmental factors. If you still do not understand, then 4 to 5 years at a university studying material properties and heat transfer is probably beyond your mental capabilities. Stick to serving fast food.
Same response to the issues about cold temperatures. Why doesn’t temperature variation cause problems? First off, they were only on the day side during the landing. The lunar day lasts 14 earth days, so they didn’t go back and forth to night and cold temps. Also, the spacecraft (and space suits also) were designed and built specifically for the environments they would see. The LEM has an active cooling system. The electronics and equipment generate their own heat, plus any heat from the sunlight. This is removed through a coolant loop system somewhat similar to what is on your car, except for the “radiator” was a sublimater. Liquid water is bubbled onto a plate and allowed to freeze, then sublimate to vapor. This is done in the shade. This removes heat through a process studied in chemistry talking about energy of phase state transformation.
Regarding the Van Allen belt radiation, this guy is completely confused. There are different types of radiation. Comparisons of the above are made to nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors put out neutrons, and do require lots of lead. However, the Van Allen belts are not full of neutrons. They are full of electrons and protons, that have much lower energies. Alpha particles are easily stopped by paper thin layers of aluminum - like the walls of the spacecraft, and the multiple layers of aluminized mylar film in the space suits. Beta particles are stopped by human skin. There was a slightly increased dosage of radiation from passing through the belts. The transit times were kept to minimal levels and the dosages were well below dangerous levels.
The walking and hopping of astronauts. The peculiar hopping gait of the astronauts was caused by the stiffness of the moon suits. Those suits are not just a couple layers of stiff cotton. They are like wearing a giant balloon. There are special features to aid in mobility, like constant volume joints, but overall they are still somewhat stiff. Add to that they are made of multiple layers. Over the underwear is a layer of long-johns that have plastic tubes for circulating cooling water. Over the long johns is a plastic layer that is the air-proof seal. Over that layer is a dozen or so alternating layers of aluminized mylar (plastic film) and kapton. These layers provide radiation protection. They also function as dozens of layers of thermos bottles, vacuum between the layers. This is very good insulation from heat. Outside the plastic insulation is a tough fiberglas like cloth layer. This is very abrasion resistant. Couple that with extra layers of silicone rubber around the feet for extra wear protection, and you have a somewhat stiff and very heavy package, but it is also pretty sturdy. So the astronauts don’t move joints well.
Now add the lowered gravity, and it becomes easier to hop than to walk. Viola. There was limited concern over falling down because the suits were designed to handle it. There are no metal posts or sharp sticks to puncture holes. Even the face shields were tough plexiglas, not glass. As for why they don’t go any higher than you can jump on Earth, consider that they weigh about 300 lbs on Earth. They can’t get very good flexibility to jump really high, and have a lot of extra mass to move.
The video cameras on Apollo 11 were poor because they were a late project. There were difficulties getting the video cameras ready in time for the flight, so they used simpler black and white for Apollo 11. By later flights, they had better color cameras to work with. This wasn’t like today where miniturized camcorders fit in the palm of your hand. They had to work with '60s technology.
Flags flutter when astronauts wiggle the poles. Flags flutter when thrusters fire on launch of the Ascent stage.
Micro-meteoroids are a concern, but their density is not as great as implied. The design of the suits can accommodate a certain size and certain velocity strike. This is a known risk, mitigated as best as can be. The shuttle and station astronauts have similar concerns. It is statistically a low chance of occurrence, especially over the short duration of the Apollo flights versus plans for ISS.
Wow, 2 hours? That must be a record post…Don’t misunderstand me Irishman, often I’m simply quoting parts of the Fox show I saw. If you notice, no where does it say whether I believe whether the moon landing is real or fake.
But I think some of the technical issues of the six missions are kinda questionably iffy.
I asked my old man about the exhaust of the Lunar Ascent engine, which Fox and others claim should have been visible. Dad stridently disagrees. He says that the propellants used, unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) yield primarily N2 and water, with some organics left over (my chem skills have eroded past the point of showing the reaction).
As you can see from this page, the UDMH/N2O4 reaction is one of the fastest and most powerful that you can get. According to my father, the entire reaction is complete before the escaping gas leaves the combusion chamber. So no flame. The temperature of the reaction is 3000+ deg. K, so the water escapes as steam. It stays that way because it is in vacuum. So no smoke. The exhaust is, for all intents and purposes, invisible in vacuum.
The waving flag can be explained in several ways. Obviously even a thin “wind” of exhaust doing 1700 m/s will exert some pressure on the flag. Also, Dad suspects that the vibration of the firing was transferred through the descent stage and shook the ground some.
