This was on the radio this morning:
A standard document of declaration has been found, singed by Armstrong & company. The men had declared that the trip originated on The Moon, the trip was planned by NASA and they brought back moon rocks & dust.
Jab, this is one of those things that I haven’t decided on. Yes, I did see the first moon landing. No, I still haven’t decided. Whether its real or fake would probably be decided in IMHO.
One-way ticket, huh, instead of round-trip? Pretty neat trick, that.
I know that’s not what you meant. It just struck me funny. 
Someone else mentioned this, but nothing came of it. They brought back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, rocks that couldn’t have originated on Earths surface. They were similar to Earths mantle, which supports the big impact theory. There are no wells deep enough on earth to reach those 40-60 miles to earths mantle, plus radiocarbon dating proves they are billions of years old. They really are moon rocks.
One other question from that Dolphin page was about the location of the camera that filmed Armstrong’s first step. That site references a later picture by Armstrong of Aldrin and asks where the camera is, as it isn’t visible in those pictures.
The reason it isn’t visible is that it is further around on the other side of the lander. I found a link that shows a lot of technical information on the LEM. It is a pdf document.
http://www.apollosaturn.com/library.htm
Go down to “LM-5 Structures Handout in pdf format”
http://www.thebest.net/jduncan/pdf/lm5hout.pdf
Go to page 2-1 (Chapter 2). There are a series of sketches and photos of the hardware. Look at the MESA. The camera was mounted on that door that opens and drops down. Unfortunately there is not a clear picture of the camera itself.
The reason this is not visible in the photo that Dolphin shows is that it is around the corner.
As for the 2 hrs, to be fair I’ve been dealing with this for a while, so I’m familiar with some of the claims and have previously located resources.
Some people have responded with evidence that the
moon landings were real. For instance, one states that
the time it took for an object to fall to the
ground was consistent with moon gravity, and another
that the period of a pendulum (in this case a hammer on
an astronauts belt) was also consistent with moon gravity.
(Actually you may need to look at both this and another
thread to see both claims, see the “Mobius thread” comment
by everton above.) If you use the high school physics
formulas
T=2 pi sqrt(L/g)
for the period T of a pendulum of length L, and
0 = d - (1/2)g t^2
for the time t an object with zero initial velocity
takes to fall a length d, then you get
g is proportional to 1/T^2 and 1/t^2 respectively.
Thus slowing down film shot on earth so that the footage
takes sqrt(3) times as long to play would make it appear
like there is moon gravity = 1/6 earth gravity to someone
using these criteria.
Oops make that sqrt(6) times as long.
curiousgeorgeordeadcat: If you’re going to argue the hoax viewpoint, I invite you to join the thread already in progress, where these assertions can get the treatment they deserve. A word of advice: Read that whole thread before you post, because this particular claim (re slowed-down film) has already been raised, examined, and summarily disposed of.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing the hoax viewpoint.
I am convinced of neither the claim that the moon
landing was real nor of the claim that it was faked.
Here is why I did post:
When I read about the hammer acting as a pendulum and the
dropped object and how one could calculate the gravity
was the same as moon gravity, I wondered if THE SAME slowing
down of the footage could fake both. Perhaps, I thought,
one would need to slow the footage down by one rate for the
dropped object, and another rate for the pendulum. I was
simply CURIOUS =) as to whether or not the same slowing down
would create the illusion of moon gravity in both instances.
And I found the same rate of slow down, so that the whole
film takes sqrt(6) times as long as at normal speed to play,
would result in both illusions (if you use the high school physics equations I presented to do the calculation). I was
simply posting to share this neat fact. I guess I didn’t
make that clear in my post, which is my fault.
What would it take to convince you?
I find it somewhat astonishing that even as few people I have run across, vaguely believe the whole Apollo Program- or even parts thereof- was faked.
It’s been discussed at length here, on BA’s site, on a site called “Ground Zero” and others.
Once you boil it down, we find NASA’s $20 Billion budget, the fact the Soviets were watching our every move, the fact we made two manned flybys and SIX landings- again all under the watchful eyes of the Soviets (who had plenty of reason to point out a minor detail like faking the whole thing) the fact that several independent tracking stations in England, Australia and Europe, were involved in monitoring the flights, the fact that several amateur HAM and astronomy buffs listened in and tracked the module’s progress by radio triangulation, the fact of the physical evidence in the form of usable laser reflectors on the moon, 800 lbs. of rock, soil and regolith (which can easily be chemically proven to be non-terrestrial, by the lack of included oxygen, nitrogen or water in the crystal structure- to say nothing of gamma-ray impact trails, pyrophoric glass formation and micrometeoroid impacts craters) the fact of something like six million feet of 16mm film, a greater number in feet of video tape, some 100,000 photographs all told, and the 135,000 NASA personel and sub-contractors as well as the one-BILLION-plus people who watched the landings live on TV…
And compare that to a bad video made by the company that’s already brought us the “Alien Autopsy” video- and who even “publicly debunked” their own tape when it was both waning in marketability and also becoming widely known as an obvious forgery. And considering the video makers simply can’t understand plain, non-conspiracy ideas such as focal length and F-stops, light reflectivity and the wholly non-terran characteristics of lunar dust/soil (regolith) and expect us to also swallow it long enough to buy their videos…
I know who I believe. 
When the astronaut hit the gas on the moon buggy, and the wheel made a rooster tail of lunar dust (described as having the consistency of talcum powder–verified by numerous photos of footprints), the dust did not hang around in a dust cloud as would happen on earth. Since each particle had no atmosphere to suspend it in a cloud, each particle had followed a simple arc trajectory.
enolancooper
The Great Zamboni wrote, in the OP:
[nitpick]
The trust would have gone against the top of the inside of the reaction chamber, not the fuel tank. If combustion had taken place inside one of the fuel tanks, the LEM would have made a lovely explosion.
[/nitpick]
Yeah, I meant the combustion chamber, I couldn’t think of the name.
By the way Doc Nickel, good post! All that evidence definitely relegates the conspriracy theorist’s “theories” to stupidity and crappy science. Of course they only pay attention to “evidence” that proves their side. Why don’t they all just get a real job, and if possible, a life?
I wasn’t alive to see it happen on TV but isn’t Neill Armstrong’s giant leap enough to make up for every second of every minute of dross since then. Hell, its enough to justify the existence of TV in the first place.
I was the one who posted the comment about the hammer acting as a pendulum on an astronaut’s belt. Before posting, I noticed that the same rate of “slow down” would simulate gravity on the moon (both for falling objects and pendula).
(Actually, for a hammer, you want to use the equation for a “physical pendulum”, but the period of swing is still proportional to sqrt (1/g).)
So why didn’t I mention this? Answer: What difference would it make? Even if the rate of “slow down” were different, a hoax-believer would simply reply that they used different film speeds for different “scenes.”
BTW, this point, in and of itself, means very little. I’ve noticed that in many “debates” that scientists have with non-scientists (the classic example is evolution), the non-scientist is convinced that if he can make one valid point, the scientist’s case will collapse like a house of cards. Science does not work like that. It works by gathering more and more data, making and refining hypotheses, and testing these hypotheses. Actually, debates, votes, and polls settle nothing in science.
I have presented one hypothesis for the increased period of the swinging hammer: the astronaut was on the Moon. There is a great deal of independent data to support this hypothesis. All of this independent data must be explained by an alternate hypothesis (such as the Moon landing being faked), not just isolated points that someone finds it convenient to consider.
Quoting robby
>I was the one who posted the comment about the hammer
>acting as a pendulum on an astronaut’s belt. Before
>posting, I noticed that the same rate of “slow down” would
>simulate gravity on the moon (both for falling objects and
>pendula).
>(Actually, for a hammer, you want to use the equation for a
>“physical pendulum”, but the period of
>swing is still proportional to sqrt (1/g).)
Before posting, I noticed the equation for the physical
pendulum in my high school physics text, but decided the
equation I presented would be a close enough approximation.
I have not seen the hammer footage of which you speak,
but considering the last hammer I used, I would consider
the weight of the shaft negligible to that of the main
striking mass, and I would consider the location of the
striking mass far enough from the assumed pivot point on
the handle for the physical pendulum equation to be pretty
well approximated by the equation for the simple pendulum
I presented originally.
>BTW, this point, in and of itself, means very little. I’ve
>noticed that in many “debates” that scientists have with
>non-scientists
Are you saying I am not a scientist?
>(the classic example is evolution), the non-scientist is
>convinced that if he can make one valid point, the
>scientist’s case will collapse like a house of
>cards.
As I said in the post you quoted from me, I am not arguing
the hoax viewpoint. In fact, I said I was not convinced
one way or the other about the moon landings. As I
further elaborated, I posted merely because I thought
this isolated fact was neat.
>Science does not work like that. It works by
>gathering more and more data, making and
>refining hypotheses, and testing these hypotheses.
>Actually, debates, votes, and polls settle nothing in
>science.
I simply posted an observation that may help to consider
a piece of the data. I never claimed I had established
the hoax viewpoint. I believe I need to gather and
evaluate more data before deciding whether or not the moon
landings were real. The footage of astronauts walking
around on the moon I have seen does not constitute enough
evidence for me. Perhaps there is more existing evidence,
such as rocks brought back, independent tracking of the
moon mission, etc. But I have not had the time to evaluate
these possibilities. Until I can, and perhaps even after I
do, I will suspend judgement.
I don’t understand why my sharing of a neat observation
has been met with so much hostiliy.
Actually, it is a neat observation you made. And I, for one, certainly do not mean to convey hostility.
While I did quote you in the beginning of my post, I did not mean to give the impression that I was referring to you throughout the post. I was actually referring to the Fox special (subject of the OP). I believe that the producers of the show were picking various unrelated points to question. I don’t think they gave a very balanced treatment, nor do I think they considered the totality of the evidence.
FOX has never been known for it’s brains. What I was actually trying to do in starting this thread was refute moon hoax arguments in general, not just the “evidence” FOX showed. I wanted to see new things that weren’t on FOX.
Hey guys, what’s the official name of the earth’s moon?
Is it ‘moon’ as has been typed here so much ? nope. It’s 'the Moon"
That’s right, Jupiter has a moon, but we only have the Moon. It’s always gotta be a big M.
thanks for listening. You can read about it in ‘Why do Clocks run Clockwise’ by Feldman.