Why do people believe in conspiracy theories, or why does Tom exist...

[devilock76]

Tom, with all due respect, it's okay to be critical of things and ask questions, but to just blindly believe whatever you want and call everyone elses side "lies" isn't reasonable. Your question was "how could they have taken so many pictures?", the answer was, simply, that they had multiple automatic cameras and two cameramen, and most of those pictures were panorama shots so 1 complete picture was made up of 2 or more smaller pictures (which get counted as individual ones in the archive) etc. The cameras they had available could have easily taken these pictures in a matter of minutes.

This is a reasonable explanation.


It's the same thing for all the people who try to spread the myth that the van allen radiation belt would have fried the astronauts. It doesn't even matter that VAN ALLEN HIMSELF said it would give a human no more radiation than an xray if you were to pass through it, you guys still won't believe it. You would actually trust some poorly assembled website over the guy who discovered it in your analysis of whether or not a human could pass through it.


It's okay to ask questions, but when reasonable answers are given, you can't just claim they're lies based on nothing. The simple fact remains that going to the moon is not that hard, and we had the tech, money, and national will to do it, and we did it. Not actually that hard to believe.

When it comes to such things this mathematical formula applies.

Tom <> Reasonable

Ken

[sgreger1]

Found this site last night. I like his humorous spin on this topic. He goes back and forth between the debunkers and his own theories on this topic.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html

The ‘debunkers’ will also tell you that it is not true that all the Moon landing images were keepers, and that NASA only released the best of the photos. The ‘debunkers,’ however, don’t know what they are talking about. The reality is that NASA has released all of the alleged photos taken during the Apollo missions, including indecipherable ones that are labeled “inadvertent shutter release” (which, I have to admit, is a nice touch). With the exception of what are most likely deliberate mistakes, the clear majority of the shots are pretty well composed, exposed and focused.

For those who don’t find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck. It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure. Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor. Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos. You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real bitch since you won’t be able to see or feel what you are doing. Also, needless to say, you’ll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots.

You should probably use a digital camera, by the way, so that you don’t waste a lot of film, because you’re not going to have a lot of keepers. Of course, part of the fun of this challenge is changing the film with the gloves and helmet on, and you’ll miss out on that by going digital. Anyway, after you fill up your memory card, head back home and download all your newly captured images. While looking through your collection of unimpressive photos, marvel at the incredible awesomeness of our Apollo astronauts, who not only risked life and limb to expand man’s frontiers, but who were also amazingly talented photographers. I’m more than a little surprised that none of them went on to lucrative careers as professional shutterbugs.

Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s.

You guys, please hear me on this. They did not use store-bought cameras to go to the moon. We thought all of that through beforehand, like any idiot would. They had state of the art technology that was designed specifically for this mission. Auto exposure/focus etc, auto-loading film etc. It was all put into a radiation and heat protected casing and made so that all the astronaut had to do was click the trigger and it would take the photo. This is not "lost 60's technology", this went on to be the tech used in your auto focus/auto exposure digital cameras you use today. Please stop misinterpriting the obviouse. I cannot believe the "smoking gun" for some of you is that they took good pictures. This was the 60's, not the stone age, and special equipment designed by the best and brightest for a mission to top all missions is going to have the best equipment.



Light sources: There are multiple light sources on the moon. First of all, the earth is one of those light sources, and the moon itself is relitively well lit. Light/atmospherics does not work the same way on the moon as it does here, it is a completely different enviornment. There are 2 light sources RIGHT OFF THE BAT since both the sun and the earth reflect light. Just like how the moon lights up in our sky, the earth lights up in their sky, and often times the sun and earth are both shining light on the surface, hence multiple light sources.

Really guys, this is all just laymen not understanding how lunar photography works. If this was a hoax they would have thought it through better. They broadcasted it in almost real time for God's sake.



the "c" on that rock that I keep hearing so much about? That was an imperfection on the print and the orriginal film does not have the "c" over the rock, it was an artifact created during the picture developing process.





I completely believe that aliens exist, that NASA hides shit etc, but there is just no evidence that we didn't go to the moon. You guys should check out the discovery radio communications where the astronaut says he has eye's on "the alien aircraft" and says he is "still tracking the alien aircraft". Stuff like that at least can make me think something's up, but saying "Oh the exposure was too good, ergo it must be fake!" does not cut it with me.

[tom502]

Where the heck did the "rover" come from anyway? How did it "pop" out of the LEM? Where is the blast crater? And when the LEM "pops" off and is hurled into space(by a wire), in a non atmosphere, how is there a flame under it?

[sgreger1]

Armstrongs first steps were filmed by a camera on an arm attached to the lander. It was a slowscan camera that if memory serves was mounted to the lander leg.

As for multiple light sources, the entire moon is very bright, all surfaces but a perfect mirror radiate reflected light at all angles, similar to the difference between how surfaces reflect sound as an echo vs reverberation. In short there were no multiple light source pictures except the camera flash when used.

But let's put it this way, if you seriously believe they engineered this major hoax, would all these scientists really add studio lights to a shot knowing the only four light surfaces they would potentially have on the moon would be, in order of magnitude:

1. The Sun
2. The moon's own reflected light from the surface
3. portable camera flash
4. Light reflected from the earth

I mean would they really make a mistake like using obvious studio lighting after everything else to pull of such an elaborate hoax. Take an Occam's Razor approach to this please.

Ken

And this goes back to my original point: It would actually be more of a feat to pull off a hoax like this than to actually just send a guy to the moon. Really, it was a big accomplishment at the time but is not actually that difficult. When we have the willpower, the best scientists, and a nearly unlimited budget, we can do ANYTHING. If we wanted to we could have manned missions on mars right now, it's all about willpower and funding.

[devilock76]

Take a more terrestrial example:

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs48/i/20...hotography.jpg

Now this is an outdoor shot on earth with no flash at even a higher angle of incidence than the "shadow moon shots" people cite. On top of that the earth surface and the surfaces in this shot are less reflective. So why can I see such details in the asphalt with this picture? Is this picture a hoax?

Ken

[sgreger1]

Where the heck did the "rover" come from anyway? How did it "pop" out of the LEM? Where is the blast crater? And when the LEM "pops" off and is hurled into space(by a wire), in a non atmosphere, how is there a flame under it?

*Facepalm*

Tom, just because you do not understand rocket propulsion does not mean it was a hoax.



Why there was no flame:

Short story: a) It used different chemicals that do not require oxygen or create a visible flame b) plumes work differently in a vaccum

Long Story:

The Lunar Module used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[126] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very rapidly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further reducing their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum.


No Blast Crater:

Short Story: No crater should be expected, you don't need a strong push on the moon. The engine was not some powerfull rocket, it only exerted a pressure of 1.5 psi, I could blow 1.5 psi by taking a deep breath. The rigolith (surface directly under the dust) is very hard on the moon, hence no crater would be made.

Long Story:

The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI).[123] Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere.


To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[124] In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.[



Note: In addition, moving footage of astronauts and the lunar rover kicking up lunar dust clearly show the dust particles kicking up quite high due to the low gravity, but settling immediately without air to stop them. Had these landings been faked on the Earth, dust clouds would have formed. (They can be seen as a 'goof' in the movie Apollo 13 when Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) imagines walking on the Moon). This clearly shows the astronauts to be (a) in low gravity and (b) in a vacuum.



As for how the lunar lander operated and where it was stored etc, you can reference: "Lunar Rover Operations Handbook". NASA.








Bottom line why this is not a hoax: The ways particles interact etc on the moon are different than earth. The effects we saw in the videos show that they were photographed in a vaccum and at low gravity. Ergo, it could not have been filmed on earth. So unless you think they opened up a movie set in low orbit, there is no way these films could be fake. End of story, you cannot reproduce low gravity and particles ina vacuum on earth, yet we see it happening in this video. Explain that to me.

[devilock76]

*Facepalm*

Tom, just because you do not understand rocket propulsion does not mean it was a hoax.



Why there was no flame:

Short story: a) It used different chemicals that do not require oxygen or create a visible flame b) plumes work differently in a vaccum

Long Story:

The Lunar Module used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[126] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very rapidly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further reducing their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum.


No Blast Crater:

Short Story: No crater should be expected, you don't need a strong push on the moon. The engine was not some powerfull rocket, it only exerted a pressure of 1.5 psi, I could blow 1.5 psi by taking a deep breath. The rigolith (surface directly under the dust) is very hard on the moon, hence no crater would be made.

Long Story:

The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI).[123] Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere.


To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[124] In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.[



Note: In addition, moving footage of astronauts and the lunar rover kicking up lunar dust clearly show the dust particles kicking up quite high due to the low gravity, but settling immediately without air to stop them. Had these landings been faked on the Earth, dust clouds would have formed. (They can be seen as a 'goof' in the movie Apollo 13 when Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) imagines walking on the Moon). This clearly shows the astronauts to be (a) in low gravity and (b) in a vacuum.



As for how the lunar lander operated and where it was stored etc, you can reference: "Lunar Rover Operations Handbook". NASA.

I mean this is the basic principle difference between rocket and jet engines. Jet engines depend on atmospheric oxygen for combustion, rocket engines cary the oxygen with them. More modern examples use liquid oxygen as can be seen on the space shuttle.

Ken

[tom502]

[jamesstew]

Bottom line why this is not a hoax: The ways particles interact etc on the moon are different than earth. The effects we saw in the videos show that they were photographed in a vaccum and at low gravity. Ergo, it could not have been filmed on earth. So unless you think they opened up a movie set in low orbit, there is no way these films could be fake. End of story, you cannot reproduce low gravity and particles ina vacuum on earth, yet we see it happening in this video. Explain that to me.

Confirmation bias is a hard wall to break down. When someone wants to believe something desperately then they've lost the ability to look at things objectively. A+ for effort though.

[devilock76]

Confirmation bias is a hard wall to break down. When someone wants to believe something desperately then they've lost the ability to look at things objectively. A+ for effort though.

I suppose someone will now suggest that NASA developed CGI graphics in the 60's to further the hoax.

Ken

[tom502]

[truthwolf1]

I cant wait til China achieves this unbelievable feat. We then would at least have some other data/video/images to compare the first missions with.

[sgreger1]

I cant wait til China achieves this unbelievable feat. We then would at least have some other data/video/images to compare the first missions with.

Yah, US will probably not be going back to the moon. In the words of Buzz Aldrin, "We've been there, done that. We need to go to mars".

Obama signed into law (2 days ago) the revised plan for NASA, the two main staples of which are a manned missions to mars by 2030 and a manned mission to an NEO (Near earth object, such as an asteroid) by 2025.


The moon was a cool trick but frankly it's small, boring, and has no prospect for finding cool shit like we could find on mars. Mars has an incredibly rich history, and billions of years ago, before it cooled, it likely harbored some type of life or atleast an earth-like atmosphere complete with liquid water. Plus it had lots of volcanic activity etc. It's the closest thing to an earth-like planet in our solar system.


Mars cooled a few billion years ago, and right as mars died, earth came to life. There was also a lot of activity back then that may have allowed for asteroids from mars to reach earth. There is a definite chance that the first DNA strands or simple organisms were deposited here from mars, where they developed billions of years prior to earth being habitable. Mars is where to go, it is where we can learn the most about our solar systems history, and other planets in general. Additionally it is mineral rich (they think) and could hold prospects for commercial mining operations for resources.

We won't know if life existed there untill we go and dig shit up. Here on earth we only dig up things near the surface, much of our own history is unknown. Additionally, things weather at an alarming rate on earth due to our atmosphere, so if I wrote a book or carved a message in stone 300,000 years ago, it would be lost to time. On mars, the planet died quickly, and has been pretty slow ever since. The wind blows a lot and covers everything with sand quickly, shielding it from further weathering. Also the water cycle stopped and all the water was frozen at the poles. This means that if we dig far enough, we could get a snapshot of whatever was going on that should in theory be pretty well preserved since all the weathering systems essentially stopped in a short amount of time and sealed everything in stone. This is where our money needs to be.

Plus, it could be habitable using technology that is or will soon be available, which opens up a whole new can of worms. We fled Europe to escape life in Britain, there is no new world now except that of other plants. All of them are currently out of reach, except mars.



I can't wait for our kids to be talking about how the mission to mars was a hoax.


The space program is the most essential program the US has, we were the leaders for a long time, and technically we still are, but others have invested far more into their space programs in recent years so we will soon be bumped down to at least 3rd placein the next 3 decades. We need to maintain our dominance in space, we need to get there first and claim any valuables before the chinese/russians/europeans do. It is integral to our survival as a superpower.

The moon was a cool photo-op, but was really nothing but a dick measuring contest with the Russians. It served little tactical or scientific purpose. We already knew what we needed to know about the moon: It's a giant boring rock, sans the nazis.

[devilock76]

I cant wait til China achieves this unbelievable feat. We then would at least have some other data/video/images to compare the first missions with.

And if they did and it all looked the same is the Chinese government that much more trust worthy that the hoax would be put to bed?

Ken

[tom502]

They won't go.