The moon landing conspiracy

Quote from Ziggy's link:-
In order to better serve their alien clientele, the McDonald’s Corporation plans to release a new, “moon-only” dollar menu, which includes foods like Astro-Fries, Martian Nuggets, and a new sandwich, the Big Uranus.

Should read:-
In order to alienate their clientele, the McDonald’s Corporation plans to release a new, “moon-only” dollar menu, aimed to generate more activity in Uranus.
:WINK1:

 

If it was a hoax, the CIA would have whacked all the astronauts to ensure their silence!! After all, they whacked a President because he was bad for business..............

 

don't want to drag up an old thread, but this is something being discussed now on some other forums ...

Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1

read all the parts .... (hit the next button at the bottom of the pages)

makes for very interesting reading and sums up the whole lie

 

Well I nearly read all of that Dim, but now the link won't open, don't know if its my broadband or "them"

Pretty much convinces me that it just wasn't possible at the time or indeed now.

Like it said, if it was the greatest achievement of Mankind, you wouldn't loose all the film footage and the blueprints for the Saturn 5 rocket.

They'd never let you, even if they still had them, test one of the space suits by putting something organic in it and then seeing what happens if its exposed to the massive temperature extremes they would have experienced.

 

their site is most probably overloaded as this is being discussed on a very busy conspiracy forum

one of the best comprehensive reports I have read and it consolidates all the snippets from other debunkers ... the link still works for me

 

I read part of it - but couldn't be bothered to read it all.

I read enough to realise that the writer didn't understand the principle of physics and gravity.

 

I read it and he's got far too many facts wrong. he's also not very concise which detracts a lot from his points.

A few snippets taken from GLP;

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it.

Not true. The tapes missing were the ones recorded for Apollo 11 by the Australian tracking stations. That's all.

Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon?

Um, no.

Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

Not true. It's all on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites.

True, but in far smaller quantities than the 800+ pounds brought back by Apollo. And the only way we know these are lunar meteorites are by comparing them to the Apollo samples - the first one was only identified in 1982.

The problem, alas, is that the only known source for ‘authenticated’ Moon rocks is NASA, the very same folks who are known to occasionally hand out chunks of petrified wood.

There's no evidence that NASA has anything at all to do with the Dutch "moon rock," or in fact that any American ever claimed that it was in fact a Moon rock.

It appears then that having a ‘control rock’ wouldn’t really be of much help after all, since nearly 90% of the alleged Moon rocks that we would want to test don’t seem to be around any more.

The missing Moon rocks are those given as gifts to governments around the world. The total weight of them all combined is under 2 pounds. There are still over 840 pounds of Moon rocks available for study.

For at least two decades now, since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have been promised dazzling images of the lunar modules sitting on the surface of the Moon.

Only the hoaxers have ever claimed that Hubble could image the lunar modules. Anyone who knows the first thing about optics knows it's impossible.

In March of 2005, Space.com boldly announced that a “European spacecraft now orbiting the Moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored."

NASA can't be held responsible for what journalists claim. SMART-1 was never going to get detailed images of the Apollo landing sites.

Who knew, by the way, that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft off to orbit the Moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency? I wonder, given that they obviously have the technology to send spacecraft to the Moon, why they haven’t sent any manned missions there? I would think that it should be fairly easy to send some guys to at least orbit the Moon … right? I mean, all they have to do is add a couple seats to the spacecraft design that they already have and they should be ready to go.

Who would believe that someone writing about the space program would be so ignorant as not to know that Europeans had a space agency? Who would be so ignorant as to think the only difference between an unmanned spacecraft and a manned one is the number of seats you put on it?

Does anyone truly believe – and I’m including all the True Believers out there – that we had the technology in the late 1960s and early 1970s to hit a target of that size with a laser beam from at least 234,000 miles away? Does anyone believe that we have the technology to do it now?

Yes. It's not a big deal - the beam of the laser expands to several kilometers wide over the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

Next up is the massive amount of fuel that will be required to power all of those rockets, for both the ascent and descent stages of the mission. The ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the Moon’s gravity is a formidable challenge, to say the least.

It doesn't have to break free of the Moon's gravity - it just has to get into orbit.

I’m not at all sure how the air conditioning system is going to work, come to think of it, since air conditioning requires a steady supply of – and please stop me if I am stating the obvious here – air.

Cooling does not require air.

It would help, of course, if our spacecraft was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn’t appear to be the case

Appearances - to someone as ignorant as the author, at least - can be deceiving. The LM was well insulated.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not really sure why we have to pack the damn rover. There is no real compelling reason to take it to the Moon … except for the fact that they make for good TV, and that seems to be of paramount importance. And as can be seen below, it should easily fit into our spaceship.

The rover made it possible to do much more science in much less time. And it wasn't put inside the LM, but fastened to the side.

NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the ‘real’ modules that allegedly landed on the Moon).

This exhibit is around 10 miles from my house. I have no idea what McGowan is talking about here: the exhibit includes an actual lunar module and full-sized astronauts.

These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!

The lunar module was thoroughly tested, both piecemeal and as a unit, with three test flights (Apollo 5, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10) before the landings.

Today, of course, we can’t even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have lowered our sights considerably.

The space shuttle went 25 missions before the first failure (and even that one could be attributed to human error). There were only 11 manned Apollo missions (15 if you count Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz).

Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding

That depends very much on the type of radiation. It's definitely not preferred for radiation in space.

So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

There's a big difference between three days of exposure and billions of years.

Because the lighting conditions on the Moon are pretty unique, as you well know, and nobody had ever been there before, so I’m not really seeing how NASA’s photographers were able to work the exposures out “ahead of time.”

What's the big deal? They know how bright the Sun is, they know how much the lunar soil reflects.

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.

If you're really going to do this experiment, then you should train with the camera for several months before making this attempt, which is what the astronauts did.

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.

Airport security radiation isn't enough to damage any but the most sensitive film, and the film was never exposed to 540-degree fluctuations - those reflect what the Moon experiences during the course of a lunar day (an Earth month), and they weren't there nearly that long.

Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, light is not scattered and travels only in a straight line from the sun and is reflected back in the same direction.

Not true. Why would it go back in the same direction?

All of the scenes below, for example, which are obviously not very well lit, would have required long exposures – exposures that would have definitely captured the brilliantly shining stars, since they would have been the brightest objects in the camera’s field of view.

McGowan is showing images of the lunar surface in full, unfiltered sunlight and making the idiotic claim that the stars would be even brighter.

Phil also conveniently forgets that the view from the Moon is not filtered through an atmosphere, so the stars have many times the luminosity as here on Earth.

Not true. Earth's atmosphere is almost completely transparent to visible light, so there would be no noticeable difference between the brightness of the stars on Earth and on the Moon.

The shadows in the foreground and in the background are at nearly right angles, a phenomenon that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be explained away as a perceptual problem

The shadows aren't anywhere near being at right angles to each other, and the difference can be explained by lens distortions.

n truth, Goddard’s “nifty demonstrations” are entirely dependent upon the effects of atmosphere causing the light to disperse, and thus they have no validity whatsoever.

Goddard's demonstrations do not depend on atmospheric effects.

but what we’re really looking for here is depth of field, which this photo has very little of. The photographer has focused on the United States sign (and he did it blindly!), but little else is sharply focused.

The extremes are very slightly blurry in this very enlarged shot, but the edges are still remarkably clear. If it truly lacked depth of field, the stuff at the extremes would be unintelligible blobs.

which would, I would think, make it difficult for a portion of that lunar terrain to obscure part of the ship’s S-band antennae assembly.

The S-band antenna is in fact cut off at that point so it can be retracted. This is obvious in numerous photos if McGowan had only bothered to look.

Specifically, there is no crater visible under any of the modules, despite the fact that NASA’s own artist renderings clearly showed the presence of a substantial crater. Also, not a speck of dust appears to have been displaced by the 10,000 lb reverse-thrust engine that powered the alleged descent.

Do I really need to refute this nonsense yet again?

In addition, despite the ridiculously close proximity of the immensely powerful rocket engine, no noise from that engine can be heard on the video.

The descent engine had 10,000 pounds of thrust - hardly "immensely powerful" and was on the other side of the descent stage from the astronauts.

As can be seen in the photo above, the area directly under what is supposed to be the nozzle of the descent stage engine is completely undisturbed. Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced!

McGowan cherry-picks a photo where he can at least vaguely support this claim. There are others that show significant displacement and scouring.

First of all, no one with an ounce of common sense is going to cut the engine and let their three-ton spaceship simply drop onto the lunar surface. Nor are they going to cruise on in while progressively easing up on the throttle, effortlessly setting the module down, as Plait claims, like “a car pulls into a parking spot,” as if they had been landing lunar modules since the day they were born.

Except that's exactly what they did do. And if they hadn't cut the thrust, instead of landing, they would have gone shooting off back into orbit, which is what happens when you fire a 10,000-pound rocket engine at the base of a spacecraft that now weighs only a few thousand pounds because you're in lunar gravity and have used up most of your fuel.

Then there was the ever-reliable lunar module finding, catching and docking with another ship while in lunar orbit, utilizing some more completely untested technology.

First off, the technology had been tested, and, second, they knew where the other ship was - there was no need to "find" it, just to get to the same orbit at the same time.

What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye.

That would not have been necessary - the temperature exchange, due to the lack of atmosphere, was very gradual.

And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.

How does he figure this?

According to NASA, every square inch of every exposed surface of every rock allegedly gathered from the surface of the Moon shows this pattern. By extension then, we know that every square inch of the lunar surface is peppered with meteoroid craters. There really is no safe place to hang out. There you are minding your own business lining up your golf shot, and the next thing you know a meteoroid is ripping through your spacesuit at 50,000 mph. That has to sting a little bit.

Again, this is over billions of years, as contrasted with a few hours for the astronauts.

Anyway, doesn't it seem just a little strange that experts would now suggest that if we get to work right away, we might be able to land men on the Moon by the year 2020? Isn't that like saying that with a lot of hard work and a little luck, we might be able to develop a video game as technologically advanced as Pong by the year 2025? Or that by 2030, the scientific community might produce a battery-operated calculator small enough to fit into your pocket?

It would if it cost $125 billion to develop a computer game, and if the relevant technology hadn't improved more than marginally over the last 40 years.

And there apparently either wasn’t any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.

He didn't have to see into the future - he knew when the liftoff was going to happen.

 

I could only bothered to scan over the first page, but my eyes fell on this bit, and I couldn't be bothered to read past it:

Ok, I'm no physicist. I know the very basics, which is enough to make me doubt the argument put forward by the author of the article. I know about escape velocity for example, and I know that once an object achieves escape velocity, which anything that goes into orbit has to do, it then requires very little energy to keep going. Assuming you get the trajectory bang on, then momentum does the rest once you leave the drag of the atmosphere exceeding escape velocity.

There's also the small matter of gravity, both from the moon and earth. Having launched something into space, in the general direction of the moon (or more accurately, on a trajectory such that the moon will be where you need it to be by the time your object approaches it), momentum will carry it all the way there, with no fuel burn. If the trajectory is bang on, then your object will drop right into an elliptical orbit around the moon, with the moon's gravity taking care of pretty much everything. Then at some point, you want to come home. A very small fuel burn breaks the orbit, and you get a sling shot effect taking you all the way home, until you get snagged in earth's orbit on your return, a very small fuel burn to adjust the orbit for a bit of breaking, and then another small fuel burn to adjust the orbit again to a decaying orbit for re-entry.

There we go. Basic GCSE physics, and I only got a C.

 

That link was a giggle! That poor author must walk around constantly looking over his shoulder with paranoia like that - on the upside he probably had a whale of a time with the recreationals!!
A couple of excerpts.........

1; "So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that."

It never was a secret that the footage everyone watched was produced in this way.

2; "That monitor may have been running live footage, I suppose, but it seems far more likely that it was running taped footage."

Uhm, why is it more likely?

3; "We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel"

Secondary school science this bit - the engines are only fired to set the craft off on it's trajectory and when the gravitational forces which guide this trajectory need to be overcome, ie; to enter a fixed orbit, make a descent etc. Actually, this was known in the fifties as exhibited in Charles Chiltons radio trilogy Journey Into Space!


When can we get onto Diana or Kennedy?

 

Crikey Axl!
You did all that quicker than I made three little points!!

 

Dim - if there never was a moon landing, then I am sure there would be plenty of people with doctorates in physics and astronomy who would be only too pleased to produce well considered and technically reliable arguements.

Why do the arguements have to be put forward by people who don't understand physics - rather than by well respected scientists? I think that support from the latter would strengthen your arguement enormously - and I would have to take it seriously.

 

I only got as far as I did because although I'm definitely not a secret government person I wanted to check if there was anything in there that might have been considered an issue of national security, if I'd cared because I was a secret agent, which I categorically am not.