In honor of the anniversary of the moon landing, Space.com has an article listing (and debunking) the
top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories. Below are the top 10 points raised by those who believe the moon landing was a hoax. You'll have to read the article to get the explanation of why these points DON'T prove that the moon landing was a hoax.
#10. Fluttering Flag: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.
#9. Glow-in-the-Dark Astronauts: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.
#8. The Shadow Knows: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.
#7. Fried Film: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.
#6. Liquid Water on the Moon: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?
#5. Death by Meteor: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.
#4. No Crater at Landing Site: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."
#3. Phantom Cameraman: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?
#2. Big Rover: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!
#1. Its Full of Stars!: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?
Comments
:roll:
Problem is it back-fired. Many people do take it for real, instead of it being a hoax.
Not sure if I got this site from here, but it does a good job of poking in holes in the conspiracy theory.
LaMa, where did you find that out at? We watched this movie in school, and I don't think that's what it was. The guy seems serious. http://www.conspiracyworld.com/web/Articles/Funny_Thing_Happened_article.htm
I'm not trying to argue with you, I just want to know your source.
As for the flag waving, it was designed to look like it was waving. That was something that was widely reported at the time. I seem to remember that there was a big stink about it then, something about it not being natural - I think.
As far as the fried film argument, this would require heat retention. Just as fast as the equipment got hot, the heat radiated away. The equipment would not get very hot on the inside.
As for the footprints, if the dust is fine enough and has enough friction to hold in place, footprints would last for a long time since there is almost no erosion.
And space is not filled with super-fast meteorites. The density is something around 1 atom per cubic centimeter or less.
If you read his "Top 15 Reasons" at http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7
(I hope this link works) and then read the rebuttal at the Clavius site linked above you have to wonder what kind of conspiracy-kook blinders this guy wears when he does his "research". Even when it is pointed out to him that his conclusions and "proof" are easily debunked and disproven he continues to spew his ridiculous accusations. Is he really that thick? No, he's just selling videos (at least 4 of them so far). He makes plenty of accusations but if you want to see the evidence you have to buy his videos.
As far as I can tell Bart Sibrel is a liar. He knows he's a liar. He knows that most people who stumble across his crap will conclude that he is a lying, opportunistic, bullshit merchant profiting off a pile of unsubstantiated (but cleverly worded) conspiracy fiction but some small percentage will either buy his shtick completely or at least be curious enough to buy his videos. I think he is a sad little parasite.
It's cobblers, basically.
to be real is the Russians, and what they
didn't do.
At the time, they were *very* capable of sending
a camera to the moon which could have photographed
the sites where the LEM had landed, and sent back
live pictures showing that the place was empty.
Anyone who was alive at that time knows that the
Russians would have done anything to discredit
the US. But they didn't. Therefore, obviously
they knew we *did* land there.
All this particular piece of evidence means is thatthe Russians themselves were sufficiently sure that the landings were real to let it go. A conspiracy theorist would no doubt argue that this was a testament to US Intelligence (ha!)...
you all argued on and on but no one gave any substance. one question. i am sorry to ,and am bound to hurt the feelings of a particular section who argue in blind faith with no proof.
CAN ANYONE I MEAN ANYONE NEGATE THE PROOF GIVEN OF THE MOONLANDING BEING FAKE. I HAD HAPPEN TO SEE IT LIVE ON TV AND ITS 100% TRUE. DARE ME PROVE ME WRONG . NOT WITH EMOTION BUT WITH PROOF SOLID ROCK HARD PROOF! C'MON I'M WAITING!!!!
Pranay
IF ANYBODY CAN PROVE MOONLANDING TO BE TRUE POST IT , BUT DONT FOR HEAVENS SAKE GO ON SINGING EMOTIONAL GLORIES ABOUT THE MOON LANDINGS.
If it was true , then how did the flag wave.now dont say scientists just discovered atmosphere on moon that little green buddies breathe.
where did those stars go? on a vacation to the bahamas?
haw do you account for the double shadows
if you want to prove me wrong do not shout or give emotional gibberish reply to my questions and make sense
i challenge you all !!
Pranay
Since gravity is much lower on the moon, it would be possible to position the flag in a horozontal position for a period of time. With no atmosphere, any movement which occured in the flag, when positioned, would remain until the friction of the cloth stopped the movement. A similar effect can be done using a fan, when an atmosphere is present. The movement of the air past the flag causes lift and minimizes the effect of gravity.
With telescopes which can track and see a star light years away, you would think that a modern telescope could lock onto the moon and see some evedence that would provide proof.
Lets not forget that gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of earth and in order to take off the moon we would need 1/6 the trust of the rocket that flew from earth...that little LEM just wouldn't cut it.
I understand that as Americans we don't want to be embarrassed for lying to world but truth need to be faced and we should come clean.
Russians also had an interest to keep the hoax going. Their philosophy is that man can triumph over nature (the communist Atheist Motto).
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
Um, is anyone going to post who actually has a grasp of basic physics? It's like a convention of Cliff Clavin impersonators in here.
I won't quote the questions as this is a long enough post as it is. I apologise in advance for any errors, I'm not an astrophysicist, astronomer, astronaut, or guy who works for NASA. I'm just someone who managed to retain some knowledge I gained in high school.
1) Any bright light tends to wash out lesser lights. Even today, with my camera that's 35 years more advanced, if I take a picture of the night sky with a bright light in the frame it washes the stars out. Additionally, the star formations would look exactly the same as on Earth because the distortion cause by parallax was too miniscule to even measure. Parallax for nearby stars is usually measured when the Earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, and still only works for nearer stars. My God, this is an easy one people!
2) Sites please. Oxygen doesn't 'melt' things. It does increase the rate of oxidation, oddly enough.
3) The dust was only a few inches thick, on average. The dust was piled up around the LEM. The ladder extended out the side of the LEM, not the bottom.
4) Of course you can produce a flame in a vacuum, or is the sun not all firey and stuff? Ooh, better yet, maybe it has an oxygen atmosphere. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no chemist, but both the ascent and decent propulsion systems used N2O4, which includes oxygen.
5) This is just completely wrong. Even in a vacuum particles have distance between them and if compressed together, electromagnetic force (ie, static) is enough to help them keep their shape.
6) What exactly does this prove? That they invested in improved cameras or transmission systems maybe?
7) There isn't that I can see. I'm afraid you're going to actually have to show us what you're talking about.
8) Any irregular surface will create seemingly nonparallel shadows. Try it. Also, two different light sources will create shadows that fall in different directions unless those light sources are coming from the same point. Have you never been around more than one light at a time?
9) Show us the 'C'.
10) Assuming the antenna survived, it was because the designers had the forethought to install it somewhere other than the bottom of the capsule where the heat shielding was located. The heat around the upper portion of the capsule was nowhere near as great as at the bottom. The capsule was designed that way to prevent the death of the astronauts. Of course, one can also wonder why you brought up Gemini when Gemini never traveled to the moon. That was the Apollo series. Get your capsules straight.
cont...
11) How do you think the heat got to the capsule from the sun? Magic? Of course heat radiates in a vacuum. Have you ever stood out in the sun before?
12) What? This question doesn't make sense.
13) You're automatically assuming that you are capable of jumping 6 times higher in a gravity 1/6 that of Earth. Even a 200lb astronaut would still weigh in at 33lbs on the moon. Still a fair bit of weight to be throwing 10 feet up when wearing a bulky suit that limits freedom of movement.
14) The astronauts clearly hopped longer distances than is normal on Earth.
15) According to the NTSA ,the gross operation Earth weight of the Lunar Rover was 1535lbs with crew, equipment, and payload. Dividing by 1/6 gives us a Lunar weight of 256lbs. That's plenty of weight to keep it from flipping over at the speeds it was moving. Again, try it if you don't believe it.
16) Um, because there wasn't a solar flare at the time? If a severe solar flare had occured when the capsule wasn't in the shadow of the Earth or Moon then the astronauts would have died. Solar flares aren't continuous. An interesting report on a new solar flare imager
cont...
17) The spacesuits are multi layer suits. The inner layer was the one providing a contained atmosphere for the astronaut. The outer layer protected the inner layer. The buckels and such were for snugging it down after donning. From Wikipedia's article on Space Suits.
All space suit designs try to minimize or eliminate this(see question #18) problem. The most common solution is to form the suit out of multiple layers. The bladder layer is a rubbery, airtight layer much like a balloon. The restraint layer goes outside the bladder, and provides a specific shape for the suit. Since the bladder layer is larger than the restraint layer, the restraint takes all of the stresses caused by the pressure of the suit. Since the bladder is not under pressure, it will not "pop" like a balloon, even if punctured. The restraint layer is shaped in such a way that bending a joint will cause pockets of fabric, called gores, to open up on the outside of the joint. This makes up for the volume lost on the inside of the joint, and keeps the suit at a constant volume. However, once the gores are opened all the way, the joint cannot be bent anymore without a considerable amount of work.
Additionally, this image of a spacesuit from Apollo 15 clearly shows no zipper from crotch to shoulder, though the earlier suits would probably have been different.
18) See #17 and accompanying link.
19) This is not proof. This is, at best, evidence. Take the measurements yourself. Three non-used LEMs are on display, LM-2 (National Air and Space Museum), LM-9 (Kennedy Space Center), and LM-13 (Cradle of Aviate, Long Island). These are production units and not 'replicas'.
20) Why should they? Please cite your reasoning.
finis
However, they always miss or purposely avoid the the one piece of irrefutable proof that it did in fact happen. That is that the Soviet government never refuted the American claims and they were in a unique position to do so. For even after the Americans landed on the moon the Soviets still continued to send orbiters, landers and rovers to the moon.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html
Now if they wanted to get the goods on the Americans all they had to do was to land, photograph or explore with a rover the American landing sights. Just imagine the embarrassment not to mention the the damage to American credibility, at the height of the cold war no less, that such information would generate. Records even show that they never landed or even explored that areas that that American landings happened. So they did not even go and look to make sure because they knew it really happened.
The next question then is even if they did know they were faked why did they never use the information. They did not use it to pressure the Americans to stop bombing North Vietnam and Cambodia where Soviet military advisers were being killed as a result. They did not use it to
pressure the United States to stop sending military advisers to and providing Stinger missiles to the Afghan fighters during the Soviet occupation. They did not use it to stop the Star Wars program of the
Regan administration.
In fact they did not even use it to turn the West's attention away from the Soviet Union during the Soviet Coup of 1991 when members of the Soviet government briefly deposed Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev and attempted to take control of the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991
Which every body knew was the last death throws of the Soviet empire. If they did not use the information then to turn the attention of the American, and world public, inward to their own governments lies and thus corruption and force it to ignore the events in the Soviet Union
in order to deal with a damaging domestic and international issue. Then the proof of faked moon landings did not and never existed.
One final thought. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy tanked. People were selling all kinds of stuff owed by the crumbling state, ships, weapons, artworks and knowledge but nobody ever approached any Western news agency or tabloid to sell them this information. And to say that one would buy it but not publish is foolish. The seller could just keep peddling it until someone would.
Let's see, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That's 186,282 miles per second. I'm not sure how far away the moon was at the time of the landings, but I'll just use the average distance of 238,857 miles. That means it took only 1.28 seconds for the signals to reach the moon and another 1.28 seconds for the response to arrive back on earth. Hell man, modern radio communication has gaps that long.
So while the communication gap wasn't instantaneous (no communication is), it was easily short enough to allow for a normal flow of conversation.
Any other questions?
It was 115 miles on May 5, 1961. Alan Shepard became the first American in space. The moon landing came over eight years later, not five.
You're actually pretty right about the space shuttle. Not that I can see what your point is.
Please do some research be for you start to spout.
Still, it doesn't alter the fact that the moon's distance from the earth isn't anywhere near great enough to have caused an appreciable delay in communication on its own. With current technology I would expect the delay to be just over the 2.5 second turn-around.
Even with our communication advances, isn't there a time delay from live feeds from the US to Australia? Even if it is just a matter of seconds or nanoseconds or whatever?
Back then I don't believe there was anywhere near the communication ability as there is today. Ok, radio waves haven't changed in speed, I suppose, but it had to go through a satellite and then transmitted to the earth. It seemed to me odd that there was hardly any appreciable delay in communication.
Why was the transmission controlled entirely by the government? Months before, a satellite was put into orbit to broadcast to the control room simulated flight data for practice. The control room could never discern the difference between test flight data and the real flight data. The CONTROL room(funny name don't you think? It was a room controlled by the government...ok, you say it was controlling the Eagle)
THe television broadcast of the events was a recording from the video monitor in the control room.
Clear, color broadcasts from inside the Eagle and craptackular video from the moon's surface. Ok, techies, explain that one to me.
Why hasn't the US gone to the moon since then? Is it because Nixon isn't president anymore? The Apollo missions started and ended with Nixon, right?
Why didn't they put powerful telescopes on the moon instead of wasting their time driving around in dune buggies?
The questions can continue...
As far as the government controlling things - well, it was a government project. Did you expect them to set up telemetry computers in people's garages?
Well, the video monitors in the control room would have been the only ones picking up the live feed. As for being a recording, that's pure speculation with no evidence to back it up.
I've seen lots of color video from the surface. You have to remember, the surface of the moon is very stark. Not a lot of color out there, but what there was came through. Also, inside the capsule you didn't have the contrast issue you had on the surface. All that white/light grey rock and dust reflected a lot of light back into the camera, tending to wash out less bright images.
In fact, if the whole thing were staged wouldn't you expect them to do a better job of it? If the images were perfect you'd be using that as an example of how it wasn't real.
$$$$$. That and a lack of public interest pushing it through. With no obvious returns (the Soviets having already been beaten) why bother anymore.
Kennedy started the Moon Project. A rather famous speach of his, in fact.
Why would they? Any telescope they could have brought with them wouldn't have been any better than the far bigger telescopes on earth, though they would have had the benefit of not dealing with an atmosphere. And who would adjust them? Batteries would only last a short while then fail, rendering the telescope useless. Plus, they would have had the same issue as earthside ones in that the planet they were on kept moving all the damn time. That's why so many telescopes are being put into orbit.
You're such a gull!! Next you'll be claiming the Kennedy 'assassination' and Twin Towers 'terrorist attacks' were not set up and faked:) God, I can't believe there are still people who cannot see through this CHARADE!!!!!
😉
Certainly other countries would have continued to the moon, if it was possible at the time. A matter of pride? A matter of obtaining hugely significant scientific data? A matter of being the second country to do this. Nothing to snub one's nose at.China wants to do this by 2015.Not to mention Russia was far advanced in their space program. The first man in space, the first synchronous orbital flight, etc.
A telescope satellite could have possibly been jettisoned out into space further than ever at the time, right? I know, my scientific knowledge is lacking.
The video from the first landing was horrible on the surface of the moon. But the interior shots were great.
I wasn't talking about the moon mission including the Gemini, Mercury and others. The Apollo mission was during Nixon and ended with Nixon, I believe. Not saying he had anything to do with it.
October 11, 1968 Apollo 7 First Apollo mission to fly. Made 163 orbits around earth. 9 months later they broke free of the orbit and landed with no problems on the moon. Yes, Apollo 13 was made dangerous, probably to garner more public support for the missions(I mean, getting money.)
The space program lands on the moon in the time frame given by Kennedy in which Nixon calls the greatest event in creation...and they run out of $$$? Makes no sense. It makes more sense that this was a propaganda piece that NASA thought dangerous to continue. Or, NASA was completely successful in learning how to launch huge, far-reaching rockets that could have intercontinental ballistic missiles attached. Mission accomplished and instead of continuing the lie, they stopped.
US and Russia could have been in cahoots. Russia receives aid from US in return they don't blow the whistle. Speculation.
Do you know and can you provide info/sources on any observatories that kept track of the Apollo mission as it ascended in the direction of the moon? I would love an answer to this question.
Collins, Buzz, and Neil look extremely uncomfortable during the press conference after they returned. They didn't remember seeing stars on the surface of the moon either.Only question they did not have an answer for. All three retired after their mission. I've heard the top director of Apollo retired weeks before the missions for no given reason...forgot the name at this time(how convenient right?)
I'm unsure about your telescope comment. There's no reason to send most telescopes outside of earth's orbit. As long as they're in a location free from atmospheric pollution and can stay pointing at one part of the sky for extended lengths of time they do just fine. The only reason to send one further into space is to get close-up images of the other planets and misc, and we've been doing that with probes for 40 years.
The images from the surface would have been washed out. They improved in later missions. They also would have required far different cameras than interior cameras, ones intended to operate in a vacuum.
Again, how is this evidence the landing was staged? Do you think NASA would have used substandard cameras for their faked 'lunar surface' footage than for their interior shots? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just use the same cameras?
Mercury was the program to get Americans into space. Gemini was the program to develop the skills and technology to produce the Apollo program, operating from 1963-66. Gemini was the 'testing ground', so to speak, where we learned what it would take to get a manned capsule to the moon. The Apollo Program was the actual lunar program. Nixon was elected in '68.
The images from the surface would have been washed out. They improved in later missions. They also would have required far different cameras than interior cameras, ones intended to operate in a vacuum.
Again, how is this evidence the landing was staged? Do you think NASA would have used substandard cameras for their faked 'lunar surface' footage than for their interior shots? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just use the same cameras?
You're correct about Apollo 7. Your comment on Apollo 13 is pure speculation with no evidence to back it up.
The space program didn't 'run out of money', the government stopped funding it as much. Public opinion waned after the first landing. Subsequent landing barely rated television time, except on the news. Nobody wanted to pay for it anymore when the Soviets had already been beat. If another 'threat' had surfaced then perhaps the interest and funding would have come, but none did. By your own argument some threat should have been 'manufactured' at this time to keep interest and funding up, yet none came. You can't have it both ways. No government agency willingly stops accepting money.
Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin were not celebrities. They were people assigned a dangerous job who managed to pull it off, with the help of thousands of people supporting them. Of course they were uncomfortable being in the limelight.
And as for retiring, they had done something no other person had ever done before. It's hard to top that. And Armstrong in particular hated the attention and hounding the press gave him. Paparazzi isn't a modern phenomenon.
As for the top director of Apollo retiring, I have no info on that. Even so, what does it prove?
You keep making comments without any reasoning to back them up. You say "this is suspicious", but you don't follow through and state why, or why it would matter. You point out what you perceive as anomalous 'facts' as if that proved your case, yet you don't ever state why this should be so. You seem to be making huge leaps to your conclusions, leaps other people can't understand.
For instance, the camera quality issue. Even if the images from the surface are of less quality than the interior shots, how does this support your position? What reasoning are you making that would link this with the landings being faked?