Moon Landing: Fake or Real?

[LostLocke]

There was dust around the lander, in spite of the fact there would have been multiplied thousandths of pounds of thrust blowing all of it away and glazing the rocks from the heat. There would have been an actual crater surrounding the lander if reality was in effect.

Quote from http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxap...tml#crater



"Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle."

[Cyberman]

It was conjectured that, because of the belief the moon is millions of years old that the lander would come down into a vast dust cavity when landing.
Not a peep about this came forth after the "Landing" -
I remember that fact during the event.
Either the millions of years are bogus or the landing was.

Even Answers In Genesis wants people to stop using this as an argument because it makes creationists look bad.

The data gathered by unmanned vehicles prior to Apollo 11 showed that the dust accumulation was not insurmountable. Nobody was surprised when the LM didn't sink out of sight; despite which, the module's landing engine cleared away what dust there was below the craft.

(Yes, there were unmanned missions before Apollo 11. In fact it was the Russians who hold the distinction for being the first to reach the surface.)

There was dust around the lander, in spite of the fact there would have been multiplied thousandths of pounds of thrust blowing all of it away and glazing the rocks from the heat. There would have been an actual crater surrounding the lander if reality was in effect.

Though the descent engine did blow away some of the surface dust, the engine itself wasn't all that powerful. It didn't need to be - its sole function was to slow the vehicle's descent, something best done before you get anywhere near the surface. By the time the module made contact, the engine was switched into its lowest gear before being switched off entirely.

In the crisp black and white shots (done on a stage- probably at Area 51) shadows are seen at different angle and NO stars are seen.
If this was on the moon, stars would be visible and shadows would not reveal different light sources.

The only shadows shown at different angles are the ones falling across uneven ground. The smoking gun of multiple light sources is not shadows at different angles; it is multiple shadows - something not seen in any of the footage.

And do you know why no stars are visible? Because where the craft landed, it was daytime. The sunlight reflected from the ground washed out the relatively feeble light of the stars. That, plus the fact that the cameras were calibrated to compensate for daylight conditions, plus the fact that even at night a camera shutter needs to be open for some time to capture stars, should make for no surprise that no stars are seen. That said, certain of the brighter planets (Venus, Jupiter) have been identified in some of the photographs. And guess what? They're right where they should have been in the sky. It's almost as if someone was standing on the Moon with a camera.

The media was prevented from live feed at the control center and had to camera the fuzzy pictures off a projector. Why? Why were the pics fuzzy? The crew had a color camera on board, however, all pics supposedly on the moon were black and white.

I can't comment on this, other than to say if any of this is true there ought to be media articles about it. That plus check out the hi-res scans of the original Apollo photographs freely available (sorry, can't give the link right now. Can anyone help?)

The space capsule was orbiting the earth while pretending to be on the moon.
They were well out of range of anyone's radar to pick up and the Russians would not know where to aim radar anyway.

Then the doppler effect of the radio and telemetry signals would give the game away. No astronomer worth the title would be fooled for a nanosecond. The only way to simulate radio signals beaming to and from a spacecraft going to the Moon and back is to send a spacecraft to the Moon.

Being in earth orbit, the crew were out of range of the deadly radiation belt between them and the moon.
Why the Russians did not ballyhoo what they knew about the Van Allen belt, I do not know. Maybe they fell for the hoax too.

Well, since they cannot have been in LEO, owing to the doppler effect above, this claim doesn't even get to the starting gate.

Very few people who worked on the program knew the whole picture.
It is the same in every industry.
Especially one with the cloak of secrecy around it.

So we've got a small conspiracy, then, with only those with a need to know being in on it. That means that the vast majority of contract workers and ancillary staff had to believe they were working on a real mission, designing and building a modular space vehicle that would be physically capable of doing the job. That's like inventing a working lightsaber to fool people into thinking you've invented a working lightsaber.

Back when the event occurred, I did not think much about it. I saw it, believed it.
I was into cars not rockets.
I did escape Vietnam because of a severe injury, and as the years progressed I started adding up the lies of govt. to where I believe nothing they say- only what they do.
Just as I believe nothing the Impostor says - only what he does.

Okay, let's say the big bad Government conspired against the American people to pull off the biggest and most successful hoax in history.

Why?

[LostLocke]

The media was prevented from live feed at the control center and had to camera the fuzzy pictures off a projector. Why? Why were the pics fuzzy? The crew had a color camera on board, however, all pics supposedly on the moon were black and white.

I can't comment on this, other than to say if any of this is true there ought to be media articles about it. That plus check out the hi-res scans of the original Apollo photographs freely available (sorry, can't give the link right now. Can anyone help?)

Ah, this one....
The Apollo broadcast camera was limited to using the Apollo's radio transmitter as the signal, and hence was limited to a very low bandwidth. They had to go with 10fps @ 320x240, which had to be upscaled for TV broadcast with 30fps @ 525x394.
It seems the easiest and quickest way to do that at the time was to just broadcast off the live monitors.

[Crossless2.0]

Professor, you're an absolute loon. The moon landings were a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, and Sandyhook was staged -- in spite of the conspiracy mongers' claims being repeatedly debunked. Yet the Bible is true because . . . it says so! Nothing like selective skepticism.

What next? Paul is dead?

[Welsh cake]

Basically it would have been easier to go to the Moon.

And what would you do if you suddenly had no way of broadcasting the event to millions of patriotic Americans whose taxes paid to help get their fellow country-men on the Moon?

You're in a space race with the Soviet Union! Congress has already paid out billions! The show must go on!

[Cyberman]

In that event I'd probably be buggered. That doesn't exactly overcome the physical and technological impossibilities required for pulling off a fake, though, at least the way the Hoax Believers are trying to sell it. Like Alice, I'm prepared to believe three impossible things before breakfast but there's impossible and then there's just plain taking the piss.

[LostLocke]

You're in a space race with the Soviet Union! Congress has already paid out billions! The show must go on!

And there's one of the other issues with the conspiracies.

At any given point in time, the technology of scientific institutions and the military is far ahead of civilian technology. If at any point, an American civilian could detect a hoax in the photos or videos of the moon landing, the Soviet techno-military machine would also have been able to detect it, and far easier and more accurate than a civilian.
Had the Soviets found legitimate evidence of a moon landing hoax, they would have been more than eager to broadcast to the world the incompetence of the American "capitalists".

[pocaracas]

---

If I'm serious?... meh... I'm agnostic.

I must have missed that detail about your dad... sorry. Did any of your friends take pictures of that rubble? A Before and After would be nice...



There's a movie with all the conspiracy theories?!
How convenient...


See what I mean?
I ask for evidence of the facts and you guys attack... claiming the government is incompetent and, so, unable to pull such an elaborate stunt... As is the case in any organization, there are competent people and incompetent ones. Just because some incompetencies have surfaced, that doesn't mean that some competencies would surface as easily.

I haven't googled this subject, as I'd expect to find many conflicting reports... some from the conspiracy theorists, some from those debunking them... Please direct me to a clean source: one that gives me the facts and preferably not just debunkings.

This "I have friends who cleared Al Qaeda occupied buildings where they were hollowing out babies to fill with explosives. " reminds me of the old canard that communists (or whatever group of people you're trying to make out into an even worse "race") eat babies for breakfast... It's second hand (at best) information apparently intent on bringing forth the disgust of the general population.
Mind you, I believe there are people out there that would be capable of such actions... and the terrorist profile could fit... but did they really do that?

---

As for the moon landing, all it took was a bit of Newtonian physics, lots of thrust, oxygen tanks, some first steps venturing out... and it's there. They only got there at the 11th launch.
I see no reason to fake it, and all the evidence points to it having actually happened.

---

If you want to discuss your 9-11 conspiracy theory, start a thread, or go post in the thread where it's already being debunked. There is no point in spending time debunking something that hilariously far-fetched when this thread is about the moronic denial of the moon landing.

Too bad, I didn't start the derailing... But I don't see such other thread and this is just a final note about the subject.

As it is, you have yet to produce a reason for the conspiracy, the methodology of how such a conspiracy was carried out, or provide enough support for such wild claims.

I made a claim?
I only asked questions.
My goal was to ascertain the truth of what the media relayed.

You don't expect "9-11 was an inside job" to be taken at face value, and accepted as compelling just because you say so, do you?

The real thing I found difficult to accept was that about one or two weeks of the event, the media was claiming Al-Qaeda involvement.

According to one of your links:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-11-conspir...wont-stop/

Osama bin Laden publicly gloated about and repeatedly referred to al Qaeda's "success" on September 11, 2001. In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, "I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with those raids..."

So, if the attacks were claimed only in 2006, how did the media come to link them to Al-Qaeda in 2001?

None of your other links provided an answer to this.

So I googled... wikied, more like... and came across this:

For several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the primary responsibility fell solely upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility behind at explaining why they had carried the attacks out. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks.[20] On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden,[21] as did German intelligence agencies.[22] This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.[23]

Oh, damn... not what I want, yet...

The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, also by accessing material in their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."[25] The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] al-Suqami and [Ahmed] al-Ghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."[26]

Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.[27] Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden had since claimed full responsibility.

Ah... finally! Something!
Good, I'm convinced.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Truth is, no matter what you say to pricks like professor, and what overwhelming evidence you provide, their desire to be 'different' and to feel as though they've stumbled onto a truth that nobody else can see or accept will always mean any discussion with them is futile.

Idiots like him suddenly become experts in things like Astro-physics or building construction and engineering because they've done a google search and figured out in 5 minutes what apparently took thousands of people thousands of hours and Billions of dollars to plan and implement.

You'll also notice that idiots like the professor are very good at asking 'why', but never at offering an alternative, working theory that explains their objections. They scream nonsense like false flag and then cum all over their PC when they fine 'evidence' (usually conspiracy nut websites) that appear to support their opinion which they already know is true.

Laughable. Fucking laughable. Fuck off, professor. Where do you teach? Clown college?

[Ravenshire]

shadows are seen at different angle and NO stars are seen.
If this was on the moon, stars would be visible and shadows would not reveal different light sources.

Oh, for fucks sake. Mythbusters busted the different angles shit in the clip posted in this very thread.



You want to believe a government incapable of keeping a relatively small strategic asset secret for more than a handful of years can keep a massive conspiracy hidden (except from diligent you-tubers ), be my guest. Please, just quit spewing your shit here.

---

Where do you teach? Clown college?

Sorry, Fidel. You're giving the "prof" wayyyyyyyy too much credit.