Apollo Hoax claim debunked

[vincent]

Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories

By Robert Myers and Robert Pearlman

In the early days of the Cold War, three men claim they were chosen by a powerful new government agency to undertake a historically perilous journey. They claim this well-funded operation was staffed with the best scientists and engineers using technology pioneered by the Nazis, and they created the most powerful machine ever built.

In July of 1969, they claim, they climbed aboard an enormous rocket assembled in a Florida swamp, and were sent hurtling at incredible speeds into the sky ? all the way to the Moon! Two of them even claim they landed on the Moon, got out, and walked around!

And what prize did they bring back from this momentous journey? Well ? they have a bunch of black and white photos of unidentifiable persons in bulky white spacemen costumes in a field of gravel (but curiously without any stars in the black sky) -- and several bags of gray, dusty rocks.

Put that way, the story of the Apollo program can sound pretty far-fetched.

But why should we believe the stories? What evidence is there, really, that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon and brought them back?

Phil Plait, an astronomer at Sonoma University in California, and the Web master of BadAstronomy.com, has his reasons.

If I were trying to fake this, I would put stars in the image," he said referring to the complaint made by hoax proponents that the Apollo photos lack stars. If this had been an oversight, he said, it's an amazingly stupid thing to have forgotten, considering the scope of the "hoax."

Not to mention that with the way cameras work, photographing stars under those conditions would have been nearly impossible.

"If you do know about physics and photographs, you can see these arguments are all ridiculous," Plait said.

So why do people even give an idea like this a second thought?

"I'm not exactly sure," said Plait, "Michael Shermer is a renowned skeptic? and he has a list of reasons (such as) we have an innate thing inside of our brain, we have a need to believe."

"But one thing he leaves off, is that some of these things are just believable. If you don't know much physics, these arguments might sound convincing."

Besides, Plait says the political realities of the time would have made a fraud of that scale almost impossible to pull off.

"We went to the moon to beat the Soviets. If the Soviets had suspected that we faked these missions in any way, they would have been screaming at the top of their lungs."

http://www.space.com/images/apollohoaxes_flag_02.jpg[The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.d.

The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag's edges are pulled taut. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The "flutter" was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, "Old Glory" appeared to wave.

http://www.space.com/images/h_in_vanallen_03.jpg<br%2%20The%20Science:%20The%20Van%20Allen%20Belts%20are%20created%20by%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,%20and%20protect%20the%20planet%20from%20dangerous%20solar%20radiation.%20The%20belts%20collects%20this%20radiation,%20and%20traps%20it%20in%20a%20layer%20surrounding%20the%20Earth.%20But%20unless%20you%20deliberately%20caused%20your%20spaceship%20to%20hover%20within%20this%20layer,%20for%20many%20hours%20or%20days,%20the%20radiation%20exposure%20is%20well%20below%20dangerous%20levels.%20The%20Apollo%20astronauts%20passed%20through%20the%20Belts%20in%20less%20than%20four%20hours%20total%20for%20the%20trip.%20"It's%20not%20much%20more%20serious%20than%20getting%20a%20chest%20x-ray,"%20said%20Plait.%20Outside%20the%20belt,%20the%20radiation%20drops%20to%20low%20levels%20that%20are%20only%20dangerous%20over%20extremely%20long%20periods%20of%20time.%2020<br%20/><br%20/>http://www.space.com/images/h_save_footprints_01.jpg[The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp. .

The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.

http://www.space.com/images/apollohoaxes_bean_02.jpg[The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted. .

The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.

http://www.space.com/images/apollohoaxes_boot_02.jpg[The Claim: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?t?

The Science: Not always. If you take some dry fine-grained dust such as talcum powder and dump it out, it's easy to make tracks in it that hold their shape. The particles hold their positions due to the friction between them.

http://www.space.com/images/h_leonids_fromspace_03.jpg[The Claim: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.s.

The Science: Space is really amazingly big. While there are indeed an uncountable number of tiny pieces of debris travelling through the Solar System at speeds in the neighborhood of 120,000MPH, the volume of space keeps the density low. The chance of any given cubic yard of space having a micro-meteor passing through it is incredibly close to zero. Additionally, the astronauts suits included a layer of kevlar to protect them from any tiny fragment they might encounter.

http://www.space.com/images/lem_landing_03.jpg[The Claim: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."t;

The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was "kicked up" as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.

http://www.space.com/images/a17_liftoff_03.jpg[The Claim: 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?a?

The Science: Though we are sure the photographer, Ed Fendell, would have loved to have been on the lunar surface instead of at his seat in Mission Control, he indeed was in Houston remotely controlling a television camera on the lunar rover (which was left on the surface).

http://www.space.com/images/a17_lrv_03.jpg[The Claim: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!3;

The Science: The rover was very cleverly constructed to be made out of very light materials, and designed to fold up to about the size of a large suitcase.

http://www.space.com/images/schmitt_flag_03.jpg[The Claim: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?s?

The Science: If you've ever taken a photograph outside at night, you'll notice that faint distant objects don't show up. That's not because the air blocks them -- it's because the brightness of the nearby objects washes out the film. In fact if you were standing on the day side of the Moon, you'd have to somehow block the landscape out in order for your eyes to adapt enough to pick out the stars.

OWNED!

source

[Rob2687]

More proof...

The LRV was folded up and placed inside the lunar module. The chassis (body) of the LRV is hinged in three places so it was folded in thirds and the 4 wheels were pivoted or turned nearly flat against the folded chassis. It occupied only 30 cubic feet. It was stowed inside the descent stage of the lunar module in quadrant Number 1 to the right of the ladder down which the astronauts descended to the Moon's surface.

source

That's like a 3x3x3 foot space. Which is almost nothing.

[j.nudd]

I seem to remember reading that some time ago. A good find, it's a shame that the people of this country can't trust our government just once... lol

or it's a 3x5x2 space :laugh:

[WesleyT]

yeah this conspiracy ppl are getting annoying lol

[Nashy]

What about the crosshairs on the camera being behind the objects? mmm... its all fake.

[Radium]

What about the crosshairs on the camera being behind the objects?? mmm... its all fake.

586246914[/snapback]

The crosshairs were really thin and the light from the surface was really intense, and the film is really low-tech compared to today's standards.

So forget about the crosshairs.

[vincent]

What about the crosshairs on the camera being behind the objects?  mmm... its all fake.

586246914[/snapback]

wow, how easy it is to form an opinion without looking at both sides of the coin. :rofl:

[killmaster84]

Come on, I tihnk its a huge fake becusae people don't go to the moon now.

Edit:The stars not showing up and be the wrong exposer time too.

Edited July 23, 2005 by killmaster84

[lav-chan]

Yeah. I'm totally inclined to believe the scientific theories of people who can't spell 'think'.

[vincent]

Come on, I tihnk its a huge fake becusae people don't go to the moon now.

What were you saying again?

Edit:The stars not showing up and be the wrong exposer time too.

586259877[/snapback]

Take a picture of the sky yourself on a dark evening.

[Rob2687]

You can barely see any stars with the naked eye as it is right now, unless you drive out for miles from any town or city.

[aristotle-dude]

What were you saying again?

Take a picture of the sky yourself on a dark evening.

586263822[/snapback]

These guys will never believe you. They are not worth the effort.

[HoochieMamma]

Wasn't there something about the radiation?

[_sphinx_]

Anyway, for the fottprint part, part:

you need moisture to make a footprint in "Earth's dust or sand"

Becuase of different conditions that might have strange effects on the dusty surface (assuming it has the same chemical/structural/behavioural (sp) properties as normal dust) and the abscence of wind currents, its very likely that teh footprint is authentic...

Forget that **** anyway...there have been dozens of expeditions to the moon after 1969 and none of them reported of "absence of footprints" that should've been there....unless they were told not to!

Its a good argument though...I'm sorry if I'm not too insightful in this statment, but I'll do some research and I'll get back to you!

[Orange]

You can barely see any stars with the naked eye as it is right now, unless you drive out for miles from any town or city.

586264490[/snapback]

Maybe ure blind... i can see stars from my house.. the moon landing was real.

[betamaxman]

They are using Baffin Island in the Artic to conduct experiments for a future Mars landing, because the terrain is very Martian like. I wounder if some 30 years after a successful Mars landing someone found films taken there now and when they test the actual landers etc, that people will view these filmclips and say "the Mars landing was all just a Hoax" No doubt a Moon landing was inacted somewhere lunar like, perhaps the Arizona Desert and it was likely filmed. Perhaps these are the clips some are proclaiming as hoax pictures.

[Aaryn]

Maybe ure blind... i can see stars from my house.. the moon landing was real.

586542990[/snapback]

If you live in the city, you would know that compared to the night sky in the country, there are virtually no visible stars out at night (most nights). Outside the city and in rural areas you see many, many more stars. And you would expect to see even more on the moon where there is no atmosphere, even in a photograph. But that's not to say that it's fake, because if it was, the people setting it up would has obviously not forgotten to put stars in the background.

[kylejn]

The biggest piece of proof that we landed to the moon, other than the radio signals being transmitted from there being picked up by US, Soviet, and other receivers alike, is the mirror we put there to measure the exact distance (with a laser) from the earth to the moon. Tons of scientists have measured the distance from a number of different locations here on the planet.

Anybody who thinks the lunar landing was a hoax is, simply put, wrong.