The site that CurtC links to above contains a point-by-point answer to all of the hoax theories, and includes a special page devoted exclusively to debunking each of the arguments from the Fox special.
Well…I have to point this out:
There seems to be a fair number - and I HATE using this word - but there is a fair number of “newbies” who are moon hoax proponents. Also, if this can be derived from the way they post, they also seem young - maybe teens. And I have also noticed that they are a bit contentious over the idea that the USA had succesful manned lunar mission in 1969.
I feel fairly confident in pointing this out as part of the inherent problem that prevents them from seeing the issue objectively: 1969 seems like the dark ages to someone born in 1982, 1983, etc.
They can’t respect the achievements of the folks back in the 1960’s because it looks like the “old days” to them. C’mon! Pong wasn’t even out yet and we put a man on the moon!? Morrison, Joplin, Hendricks and Elvis were all alive! It’s ancient history, so how could we achieve succesful lunar missions in 1969 from a technical standpoint?
I’ve been around the web reading everything hoaxers have posted that I can find, and it is a disturbing trend to see a lot of young(er) people flat out dismissing the notion that the generation of their PC hopeless parents put men on the moon.
The young hoaxer proponents are disturbing in this regard.
I am 33 years old and I have trouble believing that we split the atom in the 1940’s. I know we did. I know, by looking objectively at the facts, that in the early 1900’s the Wright Brothers were flying and that we split the Atom 20 years before I was born.
Another problem for moon hoaxers: Reading the counterpoints SDMB members take the time to explain. Hoaxers don’t bother - they dismiss them with prejudice, which is behavior that is - ahem - frowned upon.
Now, I know hoax pushers come in all sizes/ages etc - just as those who believe in psychic readings and spoon bending can be PhD’s and be 50 years old - but the moon hoaxers around here smell like young newbies that are thumbing their noses at the notion that we put men on the moon without their help.
Get over it.
Quoth Lonewoulf:
It’s worth noting here that cosmic radiation is worse at the surface of the Earth than in space. Cosmic rays consist primarily of high-energy protons. If you get hit by one, well, you’ve gotten hit by one particle, which can (at worse) change one molecule. When that particle hits the atmosphere, though, it creates a whole slew of short-lived particles. Each one has much lower energy, of course, but we’re still talking about things which are each individually capable of causing damage. Now, instead of getting hit by one particle, and having one molecule change, you’ve got dozens.
Solar radiation (at least, other than light, which isn’t stopped by any known force field) has low enough energies to be (mostly) deflected by the Van Allen belts, but at cosmic ray energies, it’s like trying to deflect a bowling ball with a Kleenex.
Actually, the argument “If we had the technology to land on the moon, why haven’t we landed on Mars” seems pretty strong to me – and almost conclusive. But I’d reverse the logic.
If the moon landing were a hoax, then why HAVEN’T they done the same thing for Mars? The technology to stage a fake Mars landing is undoubtedly around, has been for a long while, without even the need for computer-generated images of canals or li’l green Martians.
So, in fact, the absence of a Mars landing, IMHO, seems to pretty much shoot down the moon-hoax concept, or they would have repeated something similar for Mars. Si?
dahow struck me as a troll - first comment was an unsupported comment wrapped in a mild insult, and the followup failed to respond to the original claim, and dredged up comments that were addressed in a previous thread. But now Rocinante01 has come and politely asked for discussion on the topic, so I’ll join in.
You mention pictures with multiple shadows, not just unaligned ones. I would really like to see these. I have not noticed any like that at all - yet another rebuttal against the standard moon landing doubter claim of multiple light sources. Without seeing the pictures in question, it is hard to be certain, but I can take a stab at it. Besides the sun, of course, and the Earth, there are in fact other light sources. The surface of the moon itself was mentioned, contributing a lot of up-reflected light. This would cause fill in lighting to shadowed areas and such. However, you speak of multiple shadows. Perhaps these are in the region near the lunar lander? Sunlight reflecting off the lander would cause downward light toward objects and cause a shadow on the ground in a different direction than the sun angle.
Also regarding shadow angles, consider the following:
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
It addresses specific claims made by the Fox show, including the astronauts showing up while in shadows and diverging shadow angles.
Second, you mention the “disappearing crosshairs” (not your wording, but a generic label for the effect). There are two things to consider. First, very fine lines next to bright white objects are succeptible to bleed over. You will see all the pictures in question show exactly that - very white objects. The above link did a small not completely successful demo - failing partly due to imprecise set up. The second point to make - some people are now referring to a recent coffee-table photo book that was published circa 1999. This book does in fact have airbrushed photos in it. Here’s the story - the usual photos you see all over the place are not originals. They are 2nd and 3rd generation prints. The original negatives and one set of prints were shot, developed, then placed in storage in a vault. A duplicate set were made off them, and those were the template (i.e. second generation negative) used to make prints sent out to various science organizations and press releases. Further copies were made off those (3rd generation negatives). During this duplication, some of the clarity was lost, and errors crept in - nicks to the film and stuff. For the coffee book in question (That I cannot recall the author or title at the moment), the author made a special deal with NASA to take the originals out of the vault and run a new set of prints digitally. He then cleaned up any stray problems, and, for artistic purposes, removed a few of the reseau marks (cross marks). So some people now do have pictures that were airbrushed to remove the marks. Okay, so what? The airbrushing out of cross marks for artistic merit in a book meant for relaying the dramatic impact and not for scientific study is hardly sinister.
Please tell me how you know this is true. Just because the people on Fox said it? Tell me how you know it would require 9 inches of lead to protect them. What is the source of data you use for that conclusion?
Understand that “radiation” is not all one uniform thing, exactly alike. Is visible light exactly like X-rays? Are radio-waves exactly like ultraviolet, or infrared? All of the above are electromagnetic radiation, but vary in effect to the human body from negligible to deadly. There is a major difference in the type of radiation from a nuclear reactor melt-down and the radiation in the Van Allen Belts. Yes, the Van Allen Belts aren’t healthy to stay in. But the astronauts passed through the belts fairly quickly, getting about an hour’s exposure each way. Here is a site with some info on radiation. Note this is the European Space Agency, not the U.S. Government. http://www.estec.esa.nl/wmwww/wma/rad_env.html
Here is a link to a NASA site discussing the radiation risks for the Apollo missions, and the design of the spacecraft. This includes the instruments used for measuring the doses of radiation the crew members experienced.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
You seem worried about the thin walls of the LEM, the thin aluminum skin walls. However, they also had the Command Module, including the thick plating for reentry. That was much more heavily shielded.
What do you mean most of the former Soviet Union no longer believes we went to the moon? Au contraire, they accept it. Because they were able to track the Apollo missions real time independently. They could follow the vehicles travel from here to there, intercept the radio broadcasts, and monitor the whole thing real time. They know we went. They would have been glad to prove otherwise.
Your list at the end explains why we still have shuttle missions. However, there is a lot to the situation. Yes, “it’s popularity wore out”. Part of the problem is that the Apollo missions were a bit of a stunt - an expensive and long term stunt, but a stunt nonetheless. There was no plan to use the information, no plan to expand on that success, no plan to remain on the moon. Sure it was a big deal, but remember that the Viet Nam war was running on, Civil Rights was big, and there was a lot of people thinking “We went to the moon, what does that do for us?” Or more specifically, “If we can put a man on the moon then why can’t we _______?” The politicians felt the American people wanted to concentrate on problems at home, not spend money on Saturn V launches to the moon to pick up rocks. After that, NASA made some choices for what to do next. First was Skylab. Skylab got sacrificed because of a limited budget and a desire to make faster and cheaper access to space via the Shuttle. The Shuttle didn’t live up to the hype, but has been very useful and successful for what it is. Then along came Station (in various forms and names), a replacement and expansion on Skylab, as a precursor to return to moon and reaching out to Mars. But station dragged on. There are lots of reasons. But it really does boil down to lack of interest and money.
Funny, you seem ready to believe what you’re told by Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, and FOX.
Lonewoulf, the radiation in space is not that great. The Van Allen Belts are a region of concentrated radiation, but outside that it isn’t that great. For short term trips like to the Moon, it was still fairly low dosage. The previous links I supplied should help.
Craters under landers - they did not land straight up and down, but coasted in a lateral path on landing. The thrusters were throttled down to slow and land, not putting out the full 3000 lbs thrust. They had rods on the bottom of the landing legs to trigger a light when contact was made, they were 5 ft long. They pilot was supposed to turn off the engine and drop the last 5 ft not under power. However, Armstrong never heard Aldrin mention the light, and they went under power all the way to the surface. The thrusters did clear the loose dust directly under the nozzle, but the blast would diffuse pretty quickly outside the nozzle and thus not concentrate in one point.
As for why not Mars yet? For one thing, again a lack of political will and money. Second, the technical issues include taking oxygen, water, and food for the length of time required. The moon missions took a week. A trip to Mars with current technology would take 2 years. Very big difference. Also, the trip to the moon has a lot of safety margin for return to Earth. The orbital path never leaves Earth’s gravity well, and the free return path puts the Command module headed back to Earth without a truster burn to stop in lunar orbit. Thus it is much easier to get home in case of emergency. A Mars trip will not have that luxury.
Regarding the flag, it was a commercial flag (i.e. cloth flag from a hardware store) that had a loop along the top. The pole it was mounted to had an extendable rod along the top that was not quite fully extended, which gives it a rippled appearance when set up and left alone. Thus it stands out from the pole. However, the Fox program shows a lot of video of the flags waving around. In every shot they show, one of the astronauts has his hand on the pole and is trying to set it up. Every single one. Of course the flag flaps - the pole is wiggling. That’s not wind, that’s direct motion, the same as if you are folding a sheet.
Please check out
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/homepage.html
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/reference/flag/flag.html
That first link is the most comprehensive rebuttal.
OK, I realize this is shameless self-promotion, but I wrote a sizeable article a few years back about issues surrounding a Mars landing, and it seems apropos.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.29.99/mars-9930.html
Basically, going to Mars is a much bigger challenge than the moon, because of the greater distances involved. When President Bush asked for a plan for a Mars trip a decade ago, the project would have cost more than this year’s entire defense budget. Plus we don’t have the Commies to compete with any more, and the Viking landers found no evidence of life.
I don’t work for this paper anymore, mods, I promise I’m not selling anything!
Three thoughts, one moon “hoax” specific, two general conspiracy theory related.
As to the flag issue, I can understand that the flag “appears” to be waiving, and I agree that the “It just looks like it’s waving” explanation isn’t very satisfying.
But if every layperson that looks at that footage sees the “obvious” flaw, wouldn’t the hoaxers have picked up on that ?! I mean, I can understand if the hoaxers failed to catch a “missing” cross hair or some other little detail, but that flag is pretty obvious. Many people have brought up the number of people that would have to have been involved to pull off this hoax, wouldn’t you think that this had come up? This strikes me as better evidence that the footage is accurate, if strange, then it is that it is fake.
This leads me to point number two. After the fact you can look for anomalies and ask how something could have occurred, and this places the burden of proof on NASA. Assuming that NASA went to the moon, they would be under no obligation to explain what appears to be a second shadow on a photograph, or any other piece of “hoax” proof. They could honestly say, “I don’t know why that looks that way…” Their inability to answer those questions is not proof of a hoax.
There was an interesting show on one cable (A&E, History, Discovery???) about an apparent UFO sighting over Arizona. The sighting involved a series of lights that appeared to hover in the sky for a long time, and then just disappear in sequence. The people who were predisposed to believe that it was proof of extra-terrestrial activity had lots of after the fact opinions. Phrases like “Airplanes don’t act that way…” or “It couldn’t have been flares because…” and similar statements of fact were very common.
Well, finally it turned out that they were military flares used to light an area for training, and that they disappeared when they went behind the nearby mountains. The documentary was able to prove this pretty conclusively with footage of other flares acting similarly, and by super-imposing the horizon onto the nighttime video footage. The point here is that anyone look at footage of an event and make claims about what could or couldn’t possible be happening in the footage. They are usually wrong. Scientists used to say that by our understanding of Physics, bees should be incapable of flight. However, seeing them buzzing around they didn’t claim that it was a hoax.
Last point, hey I post once an eon gimme a break, if you are pre-disposed NOT to believe something, no amount of proof could satisfy you. The example I gave to my wife was that she couldn’t necessarily prove to me she went to work on Monday.
She could provide witnesses – I could say they are lying, and are in on the hoax.
She might have security video from work – I could claim it was tampered with, or from another day.
She could show the security records of her access card entering and leaving the building – I could say she gave her card to someone.
Ultimately you have to make a common sense judgment. In this case, if NASA is so inept at providing faked proof that any Joe-six pack can see right through it, how could they have fooled so many people for so long. The simplest explanation, and therefore the most likely one, is that we did indeed go to the moon. Any apparent aberration of the evidence is just that.
Thanks…
Jack
Well, actually we (by “we” I mean the branch of the Shadow Government for which I work (they have a great 401(k) package)) did start doing this a couple years ago, but Clinton cut our budget (he needed to buy a wholesale shipment of condoms and KY-jelly) and so we just released all the fake footage as a movie called Mission to Mars.
In the Mailbag/Staff Report article that spawned this thread, David B. wrote:
Actually, no. A movie shot “on location” merely means that it was filmed on someplace other than a soundstage – not that it was filmed in the location that the action was supposed to take place in.
Star Wars, for example, had several scenes shot in the desert. These shots were filmed “on location”. However, they did not actually travel to the planet of Tatooine to do the filming.
OK, I’ll refute it. The moon was at about 1st quarter which is a half moon, not a thin crescent.
Find a map of the moon that has the Apollo 11 site marked on it. Note that it is close to the center of the near side. Since the sun was up at the time they landed, the moon could not have been a crescent. In order for it to have been a crescent and have the sun up, they would have had to land near the edge of the near side.
**
**
I would be really, really interested to know where people are getting these figures for the amount of lead required to shield something from the Van Allen radiation. Four inches of lead? Nine inches of lead? Come on, people. Do a Google search under “satellites Van Allen” and you will discover that (a) many of the satellites that are currently orbiting the Earth go right through the Van Allen belts, (b) without being fried, because © we send satellites and probes up there all the time, so (d) we know exactly how much radiation is up there and how to shield satellites, and astronauts, from it. Big telecommunications corporations like Philcomsat don’t spend umpty-gazillion dollars to put their satellites up there without knowing exactly what kind of radiation they might encounter.
Sheesh.
I’m almost afraid to reply to this when everyone is being so serious, but here goes: (by the way, I can’t claim credit for this idea- I saw it in a commercial)
We haven’t been back to the moon because the astronauts who went there discovered something very important. They found out that the popular belief that the moon was made of cheese was completely false. And if the moon was not a giant piece of cheddar floating in the sky, who would want to go there at all?
Sorry to bring up something so old, but I couldn’t resist.