Were the moon landings faked?
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 25, 2009 09:33 AM)
Just for starters, pictures of the Apollo Lunar Module descent stages on the Moon's surface.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites .html
Why do you think they didn't go?
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 09:45 AM)
Actually, the crews of Apollo 11, 12 and 14 did sleep with their spacesuits on while they were on the Moon, although they took off their helmets and gloves. The Apollo 15 LM crew (Dave Scott and James Irwin) were the first to take off their suits to sleep:
"For the first time, no bulky spacesuit would compromise an astronaut's sleep on the Moon. The newly designed suits not only offered more mobility, to aid the work on the surface, but were easier to put on and take off, affording [Irwin] and Scott the luxury of stripping down to their long johns and placing the suits, like stowaways, in the back of the tiny cabin." Page 415-16 of
A Man On The Moon
by Andrew Chaikin.
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 10:02 AM)
Can we get footage of after they left?
Here's a short clip from Apollo 17. The cameraman (Ed Fendell) pans around the lunar surface after the LM lifts off. You need Real Player though.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1880034.rm
If you don't have Real Player, there's a shorter version of this clip at the Apollo Archive site. Click on 'Apollo Multimedia' and scroll down to Apollo 17.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_archive.html
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 02:39 PM)
Also, how did they get in and out of the Apollo?
I assume you mean how did they get into and out of Apollo Lunar Module while they were on the Moon's surface. From Jay Windley's site Clavius:
The forward hatch occupied the middle segment of the front wall of the cabin (Fig. 2), beneath the center instrument panel. The commander normally stood to its left and the lunar module pilot (LMP) stood to the right. After donning their suits and PLSSes, the pressure was bled away into space and the LMP opened the door. It was hinged on his side, so he had to crowd toward his side of the cabin and hold the door open against his legs. The commander would then turn round, get down on his hands and knees, and back out onto the porch. After he had gone down the ladder, the LMP could close the door, move to the commander's side of the cabin, open the door again, and repeat the commander's procedure.
The ingress procedure was the reverse. The LMP entered first on hands and knees, stood up and closed the door so that he could move to his side of the cabin, then held the door open for the commander. After the commander was in and standing, the door could be sealed and the cabin again filled with oxygen.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html
Photographs of Buzz Aldrin crawling out of the LM:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5862
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5863
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
HapHazzard — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 08:27 AM)
The pertified wood is pretty simple to explain, and it's true it doesn't paint NASA in a good light - but Bearing in mind the world climate and attitudes in the 70's, I'm not surprised that they wanted to keep as much of the moon material they could. While I expect the rocks given to more prestigious universities were genuine, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few they handed out were similar fakes. As to the landing site photos you can see tracks in the dust and pretty obvious man-made items sitting ON THE LANDING SITES. While photoshop is good, it's not good enough to fool all the independant scientists pouring over that data right now..and they were just the first photo's from it's highest orbit. The satellite is due to move closer and get higher resolution photos before the mission is over.
At this point, it really does beggar my mind why some people want to hold onto this idiotic belief that the missions never happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case - all the usual arguments (Van Allen belt, photo's touched, flags moving, not going back since) have been shot down with actual scientific explanations as opposed to the conjecture of the arguments themselves, and you are now getting photos of the landing sites themselves. The simple fact is a government put the entire resources of it's engineering community into a massive project to beat the Russians at a time when that had a meaning - but the project ended up being for all mankind, and it succeeded.
It was a great moment in history and all the doubters are, frankly, idiots. If the President of the United States couldn't cover up his knowledge of a break-in that downed a Presidency - if another President couldn't cover up the fact a war he started was effectively illegal - how the hell does anyone believe that a project involving hundreds of thousands of workers, billions of tax payers dollars, set on a stage watched by all that countries enemies for any slip up or sign of irregularity they could use as propoganda could be faked without any genuine evidence or confessions coming to light? In this case, it's ludicrous beyond belief. And more proof against it comes in all the time while nothing substantial supports it. Moronic.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump. -
no_springs — 22 years ago(March 07, 2004 01:23 PM)
I'm going to post a few things from the link I posted a few weeks ago. It tries to debunk the moon landing conspiracy. I'm not a scientist, so I can't debate with anyone on any of it. I'm just posting a few bits of what it says (paraphrasing)
Where are the stars in the photographs?
The stars are too faint to be seen. In the fast exposure, they don't have time to register on the film.
(About a picture of the lander) If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, and there is no air to scatter that light, shouldn't the shadows be utterly black?
The website says that the sunlight is reflected from the moon's surface onto the lander.
Why is there no flame from the rocket when the lander took off?
It says: "The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent."
Wouldn't the radiation in the Van Allen belt have killed the astronauts?
It says: "the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose"
It also explains: Why the shadows don't appear to be parallel, the identical backgrounds, and why the crosshairs seem to be behind the images. And other stuff. -
wamies — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 10:08 AM)
Answer to one of your questions: according to the Kaysing videos, van allen himself said that nothing can get through the van allen belt alive. its a video i haven't seen so i can't verify. I know that Kaysing is a very credible researcher himself.
There is a also another book out there from Ralph Rene, a former consultant to NASA and the Rand corporation, called "NASA mooned America". He is quite an eccentrically brilliant mind and has a pragmatically presented case debunking NASA.
I don't know where I stand with the moon mission, but I am certainly aware of NASA's lack of credibility. Case in point, airbrushed photos (michael collins spacewalk, adding in stars etc.) If they can lie once, how many more lies are they pulling on the unsuspecting public? -
a1265lombardi — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 12:05 PM)
First: To the best of my knowledge, Bill Kaysing has not put out a video, only a book. Second, his research and credentials are just as questionable as Bennett and Percy. Kaysing worked at Rocketdyne in the early 60's, at a job which required no technical knowledge whatsoever. The same goes for Ralph Rene, who claims to be a self-taught engineer; instead he simply proves the worth of a good college education. His claims are just as faulty as anyone else's. As for the Van Allen radiation belts, living things can and did pass through them. Besides the Apollo astronauts, the Soviet Union sent a cargo of turtles around the moon, and returned them unharmed to Earth. Dr. Van Allen's statement about the severity of the belts dates back to the 50's, very recently after the belts were discovered, and he revised his findings as more data became available, and concluded that travel through the belts was entirely possible. The astronauts aboard Apollo 17 each recieved about .6 rad of radiation during the flight, well below the threshold of detectable medical effects. The severity of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is well known, not only due to the Apollo project, but since many satellites operate within the belts for long periods of time, and the radiation intensity is a very important design consideration. If the data was wrong, satellites would not perform as expected. Finally, I don't know what you are referencing when you talk about adding in stars or Collins' EVA, so unless you are more specific, I can't explain what you are thinking of.
-
NukeyShay — 22 years ago(March 21, 2004 04:57 PM)
The biggest strike against this "conspiracy" (not including the thousands of actual people involved) is that the Soviets would have wasted no time in blowing the lid off of such a coverup. The space race at that time was THE most single important PR campaign, and such a story would have fueled the pages of Pravda very well.
As far as the Van Allen belts are concerned, has it occured to you that people also work in nuclear reactors (my sister is one)apparently safe from the lethal doses of radiation there? Just how many civilians have gone into space aboard the space shuttles now? And the shuttle is just a tad more complex than the Saturn V, isn't it?
Ohbut the government just wants an excuse for all the money put into the space program
Ahemthat's just chicken feed compared to what's put into defense.