[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

One of the interesting bits that moon hoaxers often ignore, are the contractors.

'Bits' being the operative word?!

Either they (And their hundreds of employees, EACH) were in on the hoax, or they were kept in the dark, so they would go along as business as usual.

Why couldn't it have been 'business as usual' for the contractors? It was, afterall, business as usual!

Since no-one who was working on engineering the rockets, the lander, etc have come forward to say they were faked, they obviously believe that the items they built would have performed as intended. ie: to land a man on the moon.

Has somebody suggested even the harware was faked? Tut-Tut. Get real!

Here's how the conversation might really go:

Nasa guy #1: We're going to pretend to land some people on the moon fly the Apollo 11 mission as planned, but fake the EVA. WHat are we going to need?
Nasa guy #2: Well, We'll need some convincing actors, no, hang on, we could use the real astronauts, they've trained for it so will look convincing, A really big airless soundstage, no, hang on, there's no sound needed, and we can probably get around the airless bit with some simple special effects and post-production. And oh yeah, some contractors to build all kthe stuff, no, hang on, what am I talking about, we can easily create a lunar-like surface here on Earth. Jeez, it's only really a muck-shifting exercise. A few loads of the right-looking muck and a couple of bulldozers should do it. And, of course, we've already got the other props.
#1: Wait. Contractors? Thats a lot of people.
#2: Well, We don't have the manufacturing, and it would look obvious if no-one worked on this stuff. But as I said, a bit of muck shifting's all that's really needed.
#1: Oh. Right. Well, see if we can get someone to build that airless soundstage. It has to look, and act like a vacuum.
#2: Didn't you hear me? We don't need a soundstage! We'll just slow down the speed of the film to simulate gravity.
Time passes...
#1: We have a problem. We don't seem to have the real tech for that soundstage. Its proving to be a bugger.It's great that we don't need that soundstage ain't it?
#2: Sure is. Well, I just took a look around the manufacturing! Those engineers, they're real bright. Because we couldn't tell them we weren't actually going to the moon, they went ahead and designed stuff that could actually do it!Shouldn't be too difficult keeping the faked EVA from them, though. It's business as usual for them, and they don't need to be at the shoot!
#1: You're joking?
#2: Nope. At this point, its easier, and cheaper just to send those guys to the moon, and come back with some rocks, than it is to fake an airless atmosphere, run repeaters up to the moon to fool the amateur radio enthusiasts, let alone the other countries. It's pretty straight forward, when you think about it. Hell, we've got guys here who've worked out how to get men to the Moon and back (apart from a few show-stoppers). You tryin' to tell me that they can't work out how to do a convincing EVA video shoot on Earth? Get outa here! ...

 

[Southwind17]

[qimg]http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/7/5/B/ghost_on_stairs_lg.jpg[/qimg]

This looks really like a ghost. Does that mean it is SouthWind?

'Ghosts'? What are you nuts?!

 

[Southwind17]

Heck Alan Sheppard brought a 9-Iron and, golf ball to the moon!

Should've taken an 8 to it, if you ask me. He did end up with a bogey, right? And the size of those craters. Bloody hacker!

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17, does this mean that you are not going to defend your claims about ALSEP?

Oh, and could you answer the questions ("yes" or "no" for each will do fine) in post 524? It will only take a minute, and will really help clarify exactly which parts of the record you dispute.

I will sts, I promise, but I'm having way too much fun right now with this barrel o' fish! If you want to move on I'll PM you when I get onto it, if you like, to let you know?

 

[Southwind17]

Need help moving that goal post?

Excuse me?

 

[uruk]

I dare you to challenge the great Mr Randi that he cannot convincingly replicate this highly complex 'demonstration' on Earth to 'prove' that we, too, live in a vacuum!

Yes that alone will prove the Moon landing were a fake. Congradulations.

It does seem like an odd thing to do to me. To take a heavy hammer and a feather all the way to the Moon just for the sake of proving to 'the kids back home' that it really is the case that everything falls at the same speed in a vacuum (or was the hammer part of the LM puncture repair kit, and the feather for dusting off the Moon dust from the shiny surfaces to enhance the photos?!).

Yes I agree, it does seem odd to bring a rock hammer to hunt for rocks. Totaly ludicrous.

Yep, a billion dollars for a grade school physics demonstration. I though it was worth it.
But then we thought, well seeing as we went all the way there and there was some extra time left after the hammer/feather thing, we would just collect samples and leave some scientific equipment there also. It worked nicely thank you very much.



As for the demonstration. NASA is not ignorant of the importance of public interest. Heck NASA even has a television channel. NASA TV. Slightly more boring than CSPAN but a hell of alot more intresting than "Friends".

Seems to me like the motive was a little similar to why all those photos have 'Taken on the Moon' rubber stamped on the back! Why couldn't they just rely on all those physics teachers around the World to demonstrate the effect to the kids, like I remember my physics teacher doing (oh, hang on a second, that would have been around 1976. 'Technology' had obviously moved on by then - we'd learned how to insert a feather into a glass tube and suck most of the air out before sealing it!).

Wow. that cinches it. The experiment can be done in an evacuated tube on Earth, so that means the Moon landing was a fake. Try not to strain yourself on those leaps.

 

[uruk]

Heck Alan Sheppard brought a 9-Iron and, golf ball to the moon!

Well wouldn't you? The lines at tee off are rediculous here on Earth.

 

[Southwind17]

I, sts60, and others have had several questions pending for quite some time now. To introduce addtional points while ignoring those questions is bad form. So is tapdancing around your points.

You look like a patient type to me. Hell, it's been 40 years. What's another few days between friends?!

 

[uruk]

Excuse me?

My bad. But you're excused anyway.

 

[Southwind17]

I really ought to ignore him, but this is fish in a barrel...


It's not a fair comparison. Faking Apollo would have been far more difficult.


Yup, that's three straightforward cases of begging the question.


As a matter of fact, no. Minor differences at the most - black-body temperatures for the Earth and Moon are much the same.


The thing that you're consistently failing to get is that faking something is vastly more difficult than producing the real thing, if you want it to stand up to scrutiny. And as long as you're doubting 1970's tech, you do realise that this includes things like the Blackbird? There's no particular difficulty in getting people to the Moon if you have the funds to send a big enough booster into orbit. And the Saturn V's were good enough for Skylab, after all, so that's the hard part done. Or is that fake too?


None of them, obviously, since it didn't happen. The conjectural shoot would have required quite a few people, by the way - covertly transporting the LM out to location and back, setting it up, covering for its absence during shooting, cleaning it up afterwards (oh, you thought they had spares?), handling lighting, power to lighting (a non-trivial issue)... and this still requires the astronauts themselves to do all the supposedly-impossible photography that you're doubting, only now they also have to be careful so they don't catch the film crew in one of the frames. Difficult to avoid when wearing highly-reflective visors. Then there's all the other fakery that you need to do, since the equipment wasn't designed to work inside an atmosphere, such as designing and building fake PLSS units that contain air conditioners... I could go on for a bit when you produce a scenario instead of just innuendo, but there's not much point until you do.

Oh, and monochrome? Methinks you are ignoring the 16mm footage (which, by the way, is glorious). I'll add poor research to your list of fallacies.

Fish in a barrel? More like whale in a bucket this one! I'll leave it for tomorrow though - make for a restful night's sleep. Hell, I might even set my alarm early, it's such an enticing prospect. Good to get the day going with an easy start!

 

[CurtC]

Should've taken an 8 to it, if you ask me. He did end up with a bogey, right? And the size of those craters. Bloody hacker!

I would have taken my driver, so that I could have, for once, hit that damn thing straight.

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . a sound(?)stage that could, indeed, contain air . . .

The evidence that the films were shot in vacuum with 1/6 gravity is incontrovertible, to anyone with enough knowledge of basic science.

Please watch the following clip, preferably full screen, and pay particular attention to the rooster tails thrown up by Lunar Rover's wheels:



It's obvious from the parabolic arcs described by the dust that this was either filmed in a vacuum, or else the "dust" has negligible air resistance.

I estimate that the dust reaches a height of approximately eight feet above the surface.

From x = x₀ + vt + 0.5at², under earth gravity, an object starting with no vertical velocity takes approximately 0.71 seconds to fall eight feet. On the moon, such an object would take approximately 1.7 seconds to fall. Further, the earth object will have a final velocity of (32.2 ft/sec)(0.71 sec) = 23 ft/sec. The moon object will have a final velocity of (5.32 ft/sec)(1.7 sec) = 9.0 ft/sec. An object launched upward and subjected only to the acceleration of gravity will have the same initial velocity as its final velocity. Because the dust is coming off the wheels at close to a 45 deg. angle, if this film was shot on the moon, we would expect the rover to be traveling about (9.0 ft/sec)/(sin45 deg.) = 13 ft/sec, or about 9 mph, which is close to the rover's designed top speed of 10-11 mph.

In order to fake this shot, even assuming some sort of magic dust, the rover would have had to have been traveling over 30 ft/sec, or about 22 mph, and the film would have to have been slowed down by a factor of about 2.5

The problem is, the rover stops at the end of the sequence. The distance from where the last rooster tail is thrown up to a height of about eight feet to the point where the rover stops is about two rover lengths. The rover is approximately 10 feet long, so it stops in about 20 feet. At 13 ft/sec, it takes about 3 seconds to stop with an average velocity of 6.5 ft/sec. over the 20 ft. This requires deceleration of about 4.5 ft/sec², or about 0.14 gravity.

However, if the rover is actually moving at 30 ft/sec, its average velocity of 15 ft/sec gives a stopping time of about 1.3 seconds, requiring deceleration of about 23 ft/sec², or about 0.70 gravity. This is comparable to a skilled driver with good tires making a panic stop on dry pavement. Now, even assuming that it would have been possible for the rover to have achieved that sort of braking on the magic dust, please explain, if you could, Southwind17, why the astronaut, who is not restrained at all, does not even jerk forward during the stop.

 

[Belz...]

It does seem like an odd thing to do to me. To take a heavy hammer and a feather all the way to the Moon just for the sake of proving to 'the kids back home' that it really is the case that everything falls at the same speed in a vacuum (or was the hammer part of the LM puncture repair kit, and the feather for dusting off the Moon dust from the shiny surfaces to enhance the photos?!). Seems to me like the motive was a little similar to why all those photos have 'Taken on the Moon' rubber stamped on the back!

So, now the fact that is looks authentic is ALSO suspicious ?

Is there no end to your woo ?

 

[uruk]

'Bits' being the operative word?!

Why couldn't it have been 'business as usual' for the contractors? It was, afterall, business as usual!

So are you saying here the contractors were duped? or part of the conspiracy? How the contractors work is NASA gives them a set of specifications for something they need. The contractors then try to figure out how to make it work and build it. So that would mean that either NASA said " We need some thing that would look like it actually will work so that we can fake an event" or said " We need something that will actually work to accomplish an event but then we are going to fake it anyway".

Has somebody suggested even the harware was faked? Tut-Tut. Get real!{/quote]
So you are saying that NASA and the contractors actually built the hardware that could get us to and walk on the Moon but faked it anyway?

Here's how the conversation might really go:

Nasa guy #1: We're going to pretend to land some people on the moon fly the Apollo 11 mission as planned, but fake the EVA. WHat are we going to need?

So, we sent men there but we didn't walk on the Moon? Is that what you are alluding too?

Nasa guy #2: Well, We'll need some convincing actors, no, hang on, we could use the real astronauts, they've trained for it so will look convincing,

So we trained astronauts but never had the intention of actually walking on the Moon.

A really big airless soundstage, no, hang on, there's no sound needed, and we can probably get around the airless bit with some simple special effects and post-production.

And do that with the compositing techniques that were around at the time? Have you looked at the special effects that were around during the 60's?

And oh yeah, some contractors to build all kthe stuff, no, hang on, what am I talking about, we can easily create a lunar-like surface here on Earth. Jeez, it's only really a muck-shifting exercise. A few loads of the right-looking muck and a couple of bulldozers should do it. And, of course, we've already got the other props.

it would have to be a really big soundstage for the astronauts to go roving around several miles away from the landing sight. You would have to because you would need to be able to produce continuous unedited video coverage of the trip going away from the lander.

#1: Wait. Contractors? Thats a lot of people.
#2: Well, We don't have the manufacturing, and it would look obvious if no-one worked on this stuff. But as I said, a bit of muck shifting's all that's really needed.

yep, several miles of it. Two guys on a bulldozer can do it.

#1: Oh. Right. Well, see if we can get someone to build that airless soundstage. It has to look, and act like a vacuum.
#2: Didn't you hear me? We don't need a soundstage! We'll just slow down the speed of the film to simulate gravity.

Except for those incredibly high leaps the astronauts are capable of doing with all that weight of the suit. And what about the trajectoris of the dust? and no billowing. I mean with the astronauts running around some of that muck is going to get kicked up in the air. How do you keep it from billowing?

Time passes...
#1: We have a problem. We don't seem to have the real tech for that soundstage. Its proving to be a bugger.It's great that we don't need that soundstage ain't it?
#2: Sure is. Well, I just took a look around the manufacturing! Those engineers, they're real bright. Because we couldn't tell them we weren't actually going to the moon, they went ahead and designed stuff that could actually do it!Shouldn't be too difficult keeping the faked EVA from them, though. It's business as usual for them, and they don't need to be at the shoot!

Ok. So they did build the hardware that could actually put men there and walk on the moon. So tell me, why didn't we go?

#1: You're joking?
#2: Nope. At this point, its easier, and cheaper just to send those guys to the moon, and come back with some rocks, than it is to fake an airless atmosphere, run repeaters up to the moon to fool the amateur radio enthusiasts, let alone the other countries. It's pretty straight forward, when you think about it. Hell, we've got guys here who've worked out how to get men to the Moon and back (apart from a few show-stoppers). You tryin' to tell me that they can't work out how to do a convincing EVA video shoot on Earth? Get outa here! ...

I see, that old "we can send a man to the moon but we can't figure a way to fake sending a man to the moon" argument. Good god you are funny.

BTW, What are those "show stoppers"?

 

[Belz...]

Why couldn't it have been 'business as usual' for the contractors? It was, afterall, business as usual!

Contractor: "What ? ANOTHER city-sized, 1/6th gravity, vaccum chamber ?"

 

[Belz...]

Fish in a barrel? More like whale in a bucket this one! I'll leave it for tomorrow though - make for a restful night's sleep. Hell, I might even set my alarm early, it's such an enticing prospect. Good to get the day going with an easy start!

Why can't woo ever see that they're been demolished ?

 

[Belz...]

The moon object will have a terminal velocity of (5.32 ft/sec)(1.7 sec) = 9.0 ft/sec. An object launched upward and subjected only to the acceleration of gravity will have the same initial velocity as its terminal velocity.

Question: how can you have terminal velocity without air ?

 

[volatile]

I really can't believe that Southwind's argument against walking on the moon is that if we had the technology to walk on the moon, we could have faked it.

You're arguing that because we were capable of going to the moon, we didn't go to the moon! You're also arguing that NASA rocket scientists are also miraculously competent video editors, sound technicians, set-designers, prop builders, foley artists, gaffers, grips and lighting techs!

 

[SpitfireIX]

Question: how can you have terminal velocity without air ?

Sorry, I meant final velocity. I was thinking of terminal ballistics, as in when a projectile impacts a target. I'll fix it.

ETA: Fixed.

 

[volatile]

Let's concentrate on these bulldozers. Who drove them? Which company sub-contracted them? Who signed the invoice for NASA to procure bulldozers?

How high up the chain of command does this go? Who ordered these bulldozers, who told them what to build, and where to build it? Why has noone who drove the bulldozers, nor the guys who delivered the "muck", nor any employees at those companies (in admin, accounts, or middle-management) ever mentioned they hired out bulldozers to NASA for a massive sound-stage construction in the late 1960s?

Have you ever worked in an office? Do you know how many hands a single requisition goes through from order to invoicing?!

Your conspiracy is impossibly vast.