Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Exactly, so it's easier to lift as your muscular strength is not reduced on the Moon.

What were you trying to say?

A 10kg weight is still pro-rata your weight, whether on Earth, Mars or the Moon. There is no 'buoyancy' on the Moon. Gravity is gravity.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Low earth orbit (LEO) is nowhere near the Van Allen belts. As a comparison, the space stations are only apx 250 miles above earth, well within the Earth's protective atmosphere. The Van Allen belts start at apx. 1,000 miles out continuing for up to 30,000 miles. Even speeding up rapidly would still have taken Apollo 11 at least two to four hours to get through it in a relatively thin-walled aluminium capsule. (Ever been to the dentist and they stick a lead apron on you and leave the room whilst your teeth are being X-rayed?) Please don't pretend this cannot have an adverse effect on 1960's camera film which was NOT kept in a pressurized unit. There is no 'safe route'.

What protection do you think the capsule should have had and why?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Given this is 1960's technology - land lines, no software, and all the banks of screens you see in 'Houston' are tv monitors, NOT computers, everything was done to a pre-prepared script. Precision was absolutely key. For example, in docking and undocking. Think about it, Collins orbiting the Moon whilst the guys were 'collecting rocks' needed to be in exactly the right place at the right time for when the capsule took off from the Moon, etc. So, ditto, the "live" tv broadcast. Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationary to it, per position) nil problemo. But it had to ensure a localised satellite was ready in place at the right time - how incredibly logistically efficient would one need to be to have it there just when you need it?

And then Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon ringing Apollo by landline and chatting to the astronauts in person...yes, radio technology was absolutely marvellous: signals bouncing from one station to another to make this possible... Yes, mate! It's possible if we all just think hard enough.

What would they need the satellite for when they could see the earth and send a signal direct?

 

[Mojo]

Have you completely lost your ability to reason?

Begging the question.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A 10kg weight is still pro-rata your weight, whether on Earth, Mars or the Moon. There is no 'buoyancy' on the Moon. Gravity is gravity.

Some basic physics

Do you know the difference between mass and weight?

 

[Mojo]

So, ditto, the "live" tv broadcast. Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationary to it, per position) nil problemo. But it had to ensure a localised satellite was ready in place at the right time - how incredibly logistically efficient would one need to be to have it there just when you need it?

And then Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon ringing Apollo by landline and chatting to the astronauts in person...yes, radio technology was absolutely marvellous: signals bouncing from one station to another to make this possible... Yes, mate! It's possible if we all just think hard enough.

Post in thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

May 28, 2026

I haven't said it was a 'hoax'. You know perfectly well the mechanics of a geopositioned satellite. The fact the Apollo missions did not utilise one should make you wonder at the miracle of the live transmission to earth.

I'm sitting outside my local pub. I can see the Moon from here without the assistance of any satellite, "geopositioned" or otherwise.

This dismisses your point.

Don't post it ever again.

ETA: Unless you want to look like an idiot.

• Mojo

• 
• 

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A lot of repetition here. Vixen is just phoning it in now. On a landline, naturally.

 

[lionking]

To Vixen’s “point” about electric moon vehicles, how do you think golf buggies in those days were powered?

 

[zooterkin]

To Vixen’s “point” about electric moon vehicles, how do you think golf buggies in those days were powered?

Not to mention that in 1967, it was claimed that the UK had more electric vehicles on the road than the rest of the world combined (no data was produced to support this claim, though it may have been true); most of them were seen in most streets in the country, early in the morning, delivering milk.

 

[JayUtah]

If you go to the Moon carrying say, one half of your weight on the Moon, that proportion remains exactly the same on the Moon.

Which is utterly irrelevant.

Here's a poser for you: Two men are on the Moon. One man weighs 200lbs on Earth. Would he still be twice as heavy as the one who weighs100lbs on Earth? Yes or no will suffice.

Things weigh one-sixth on the Moon what they do on the Earth. It's very simple.

A lot of repetition here. Vixen is just phoning it in now. On a landline, naturally.

She's just aping for attention. No one is actually this stupid.

 

[junkshop]

Not to mention that in 1967, it was claimed that the UK had more electric vehicles on the road than the rest of the world combined (no data was produced to support this claim, though it may have been true); most of them were seen in most streets in the country, early in the morning, delivering milk.

Ha! I've just been reading that same page.

 

[JayUtah]

What would they need the satellite for when they could see the earth and send a signal direct?

Kepler's 3rd law relates the radius of an orbit to its period. In order for an Earth-orbiting satellite to have the same period as the Moon's orbit, it would need to orbit Earth at the same radius as the Moon. There is neither a need nor an advantage to any such satellite. And no, you can't just "geo-position" one lower to do that same job. Kepler's laws were correct in the early 1600s and they've been Kepling along just fine since then.

 

[JayUtah]

To Vixen’s “point” about electric moon vehicles, how do you think golf buggies in those days were powered?

The typical hoax claim is not that an electric vehicle was impossible, but that according to them the LRV suddenly sprang into existence on the lunar surface with no apparent means of getting it there. When shown how it was folded to fit into one of the LM's cargo bays (there were four), it's suddenly claimed that this folding process is somehow magical.

Of course it isn't. There are countless diagrams and even video of it being deployed. You can see how it unfolds and becomes the lunar rover. Several hoax claimants have presented their wrong versions of how they think the rover folded and noted that it doesn't seem to work. In the typical stunning stupidity of conspiracy theories, they posture their own incompetence as if it were somehow strong evidence against the facts. It's like trying to claim cookies are impossible because you mixed together eggs, motor oil, and sand and didn't like the result.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Apollo 15 rover deployment.
The video lasts over an hour

 

[Steve]

W

Which is utterly irrelevant.


Things weigh one-sixth on the Moon what they do on the Earth. It's very simple.


She's just aping for attention. No one is actually this stupid.

We have touched on this in other threads. The mods frown on us providing our actual opinion, even if backed by copious evidence as provided by Vixen.

 

[SteveAitch]

Not to mention that in 1967, it was claimed that the UK had more electric vehicles on the road than the rest of the world combined (no data was produced to support this claim, though it may have been true); most of them were seen in most streets in the country, early in the morning, delivering milk.

Then again, there were all the trolley buses on the streets.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dearie me. The Moon being 1/6th gravity of Earth does not mean a weight on your back is any less lighter.

Starting the above absolutely wrong, appallingly ignorant claim with a condescending "dearie me" only makes it funnier.

Being in 1/6 gravity absolutely means that a weight on your back is less heavy than it would be on earth. 1/6th as heavy, in fact.

The weight of 180lbs to your 180lbs on your back would still be in the same ratio even on the Moon and still as arduous to carry on your back.

What in the world are you trying to say? Are you under the impression that by landing on the surface of the moon, your muscles somehow become 1/6th as strong as they were on earth? And does your "ratio" argument mean that someone standing in an A7L suit on a planet with surface gravity of 3g would still feel the same as standing on earth or the moon, because the ratio is the same?

Buoyancy is NOT the same as gravity, as you claim. One force pushes you up, the other weighs you down. Walking on the Moon in no way is the same as being immersed in a pool, as you claim.

I was only attempting to create an analogy that might help you understand how easily they could support the weight of the PLSS on the moon by showing how much load your leg and back muscles would be under, but I overestimated your apprehension of physics.

Gravity is measured as an acceleration. On earth, it's equivalent to accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s². On the lunar surface, it's 1.62m/s². An Apollo astronaut who weighs 180 lbs. on earth will only weigh 30 lbs. on the moon. The fact that the A7L suit and PLSS he's wearing also weighs 30 lbs. on the moon doesn't mean that it's the same effort to stand just because the weight ratio of person to suit is still the same.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Low earth orbit (LEO) is nowhere near the Van Allen belts. As a comparison, the space stations are only apx 250 miles above earth, well within the Earth's protective atmosphere. The Van Allen belts start at apx. 1,000 miles out continuing for up to 30,000 miles. Even speeding up rapidly would still have taken Apollo 11 at least two to four hours to get through it in a relatively thin-walled aluminium capsule. (Ever been to the dentist and they stick a lead apron on you and leave the room whilst your teeth are being X-rayed?) Please don't pretend this cannot have an adverse effect on 1960's camera film which was NOT kept in a pressurized unit. There is no 'safe route'.

You have already had these misconceptions corrected. Why are you repeating them?

 

[JayUtah]

What in the world are you trying to say? Are you under the impression that by landing on the surface of the moon, your muscles somehow become 1/6th as strong as they were on earth? And does your "ratio" argument mean that someone standing in an A7L suit on a planet with surface gravity of 3g would still feel the same as standing on earth or the moon, because the ratio is the same?

Some people can be counted upon to foul up even the simplest concepts in physics.

I was only attempting to create an analogy that might help you understand how easily they could support the weight of the PLSS on the moon by showing how much load your leg and back muscles would be under, but I overestimated your apprehension of physics.

Rest assured everyone except your intended audience understood the point of the analogy. Vixen doesn't understand buoyancy either.

For HBO's From the Earth to the Moon, the special effects team (the real one, not the <fx: nonsense>) rigged the astronaut actors with weather balloons above frame, filled with enough helium to carry 5/6 of their weight. They removed the wires digitally in post production. That's certainly an application of buoyancy, and it has the effect of rendering your weight similar enough to the lunar environment.

This gave rise to hoax claimants interpreting video glitches as lights glinting off the wires from which the Apollo astronauts were supposedly suspended. However, carbon-coated wires for special effects were already well known to entertainment in the 1960s. Even in 70 mm Super Panavision you can only barely see the wires holding up Dick Van Dyke during his marionette dance in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. It's child's play to hide wires in low-resolution video. No telltale "glint."

 

[Foster Zygote]

Low earth orbit (LEO) is nowhere near the Van Allen belts. As a comparison, the space stations are only apx 250 miles above earth, well within the Earth's protective atmosphere.

The plasmasphere isn't really a part of earth's atmosphere. It's part of the magnetosphere, which is caused by the interaction of earth's magnetic field with solar charged particles. It's not enough to make an argument, then go and find a paragraph or two that you hope will support it. You're constant mistakes regarding science betray how little you actually care about it.

The Van Allen belts start at apx. 1,000 miles out continuing for up to 30,000 miles.

Actually they start ~400 miles altitude. Again, details.

Even speeding up rapidly would still have taken Apollo 11 at least two to four hours to get through it in a relatively thin-walled aluminium capsule.

There was more than just aluminum. The inner pressure hull was an aluminum honeycomb sandwich, the outer hull was a stainless steel honeycomb sandwich. There was also quite a bit of glass fiber insulation as well. You continue to unintentionally show us how much you actually know about this subject as you tell us all the experts are wrong.

And, again, they didn't travel through the highest flux regions of the belts. Look at this again:

The VARB doesn't have uniform intensity. The density of the dots in that diagram indicates the particle density. They avoided the more active parts of the belts during transit. They also flew during times of lower solar activity. But even if they'd flown straight through it wouldn't have been enough to cause them serious harm. They would have had to orbit within the core of the inner belt constantly for at least several days to have received a lethal dose within the shielding of the Command Module.

(Ever been to the dentist and they stick a lead apron on you and leave the room whilst your teeth are being X-rayed?) Please don't pretend this cannot have an adverse effect on 1960's camera film which was NOT kept in a pressurized unit. There is no 'safe route'.

So going to the dentist grants you greater scientific authority than the world's physics community. You still betray your ignorance by comparing X-rays to high energy particles. They aren't the same. You still haven't answered challenges to produce the levels of radiation encountered and their effects on film shielded within its own magazines and the hull of the Command Module. You still ignore the fact that film doesn't need to be stored in a "pressurized unit", as well as the even more inconvenient fact that for the vast majority of the missions, it was in a pressurized environment. At this point, "pressurized unit" is just another one of those "sciencey noises" you like making because you think it makes you sound knowledgeable.

And you still haven't explained how we have photographs of the Elephant's Foot under the Chernobyl reactor.