• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say that yes i'm on the fence about this topic but I have also been doing some reading that was graciously suggested by some people on this board.


I think you'll find that, once you've done just some of the reading (and viewing) of the voluminous amount of material covering the Apollo program, you'll realize that in retrospect your 'on the fence' position was a silly one to have.
 
I think you'll find that, once you've done just some of the reading (and viewing) of the voluminous amount of material covering the Apollo program, you'll realize that in retrospect your 'on the fence' position was a silly one to have.

There is ALOT of stuff to read that is for sure.:eek::)
 
There is ALOT of stuff to read that is for sure.:eek::)

Sure is. :) I've downloaded 36 meg pdf's just to learn details about the Lunar Rover drive system. Sometimes it's amazing how much of the original documentation is still around and has been made available on the web.

Here's perhaps a way you could start. Find one thing that you're not sure about and google it, see what you come up with for explanation. Then come on back here and ask questions. If you ask questions and appear to be interested in the answer you'll be surprised how polite and cooperative we can be. The converse is also true.

Most of us are over-educated science nerds in some way or another. I, for example, hang a little plastic Voyager (the nasa one, not the star trek or space 1999 craft) on my Christmas tree every year.

I won't say that I could absolutely "prove" that humans went to the moon, but I'm confident that I could absolutely disprove any of the "proof" that we didn't.

Best of luck.
 
Sure is. :) I've downloaded 36 meg pdf's just to learn details about the Lunar Rover drive system. Sometimes it's amazing how much of the original documentation is still around and has been made available on the web.

Here's perhaps a way you could start. Find one thing that you're not sure about and google it, see what you come up with for explanation. Then come on back here and ask questions. If you ask questions and appear to be interested in the answer you'll be surprised how polite and cooperative we can be. The converse is also true.

Most of us are over-educated science nerds in some way or another. I, for example, hang a little plastic Voyager (the nasa one, not the star trek or space 1999 craft) on my Christmas tree every year.

I won't say that I could absolutely "prove" that humans went to the moon, but I'm confident that I could absolutely disprove any of the "proof" that we didn't.

Best of luck.

I do have one question I can start off....I guess taking it in baby steps would be better for me.:( How about when the module landed there seemed to be no dust on the module after it landed.

And if you're not sure what to Google for then ask us.

Thanks for the help. I will truly be asking for some. :blush:

Gypseagirl, if I may ask, do you have any sort of technical background?

No technical or science experience :o I hope I can still be cool though. LOL
 
I do have one question I can start off....I guess taking it in baby steps would be better for me.:( How about when the module landed there seemed to be no dust on the module after it landed.
Baby steps is absolutely the best way to tackle something like this. Many of the more...excitable true believers in the hoax theory have a habit of indulging in what's known as the "Gish gallop", in which they regurgitate a rapid fire series of half-remembered or poorly researched claims without pausing to even listen to any rebuttal before moving on to the next. The far more mature and productive way of handling doubts is to methodically look at them one at a time as you are doing.

As with many of the issues around the landings, this one hinges on the way that the very different conditions on the moon mess with our "common sense" notions of how the world works based on how we see it behave around us here on Earth. In this case, the vital difference is the lack of atmosphere.

Here on Earth, dust blown into the air billows and eddies in air currents, so it can end up all over the place. In the absence of air, however, there is no billowing, so any dust particles displaced by the engine exhaust will move in simple ballistic arcs until they hit something or gravity pulls them to the ground some considerable distance away from the lander. If you look at the landing movies taken out of the LM looking towards the ground (available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and other sources), you'll see dust blowing straight out away from the landing spot just before impact. One of the astronauts (anyone remember which one?) described looking out the window at engine shutdown and seeing the streams of dust flying away from the LM suddenly "switch off", with the rear end of the stream shooting off towards the horizon the way a short squirt from a garden hose might look here on Earth.

So there was no dust hanging around in the "air"* to end up being deposited on the LM legs or other parts. You also need to keep in mind that on almost all of the missions the engine was shut off a few feet above the surface, with the LM dropping the last couple of feet (less extreme than it sounds - 1/6 gravity and big, big shock absorbers on the legs), so the dust flow blowing almost parallel to the surface had moved beyond the LM footprint before it hit the ground.

* See how our common sense notions of the world around us have almost invisible semantic limits? I wrote this meaning "The volume of space immediately around the lander", and I unconsciously did it in terms of our Earth experience in which "air" can mean "above the ground". There is, of course, no air in the "air" around the LM
 
Last edited:
I do have one question I can start off....I guess taking it in baby steps would be better for me.:( How about when the module landed there seemed to be no dust on the module after it landed.
To add to what cavorite said, there is in fact some regolith (lunar soil) on the pads. Some of the experts here, and at Apollohoax.net (where the best Apollo experts hang out) can dig up pictures of these.

ETA: The pads are the flat bits at the end of the legs, in case you don't know that.
ETA 2: Video from the Apollo 16 LM landing, with audio can be found here. It's from one of the LM windows, of course.
ETA 3: Shot of Apollo 11 pad here. No regolith on the pad, but you can clearly see the nature of the regolith around it; there is not a great deal of dust there. I think there are shots with regolith on the pad, but haven't found one yet.
ETA 4: Discussion of surface "undisturbed" by landing at ApolloHoax.net: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2733 Close to what you want. I can't find any references to regolith on the LM pads; perhaps I am misremembering that.
 
Last edited:
You might also want to check out Bad Astronomy and Universe Today's Conspiracy Theories forum. Probably at least half the posters in this thread are or have been regulars there. You might find some of the current and older threads informative. You'll also find the incomparable Jay Windley (JayUtah) there.

Jay is taking a break from the Interwebs for a bit, but hopefully he'll return

ApolloHoax.net is a good place to check out too, we're a lot smaller in population than here or BAUT, though most members there are members at one of both of BUAT and JREF, but everyone there is there because they are interested in Apollo so therre is a HUGE amount of knowledge.
 
There is ALOT of stuff to read that is for sure.:eek::)

I commented the other day that there is likely more stuff on Apollo than a person can read in their entire life. I'm firmly of the belief that anyone that says they have studied the entire record of Apollo is a lair, because there is just too much stuff, and there are things still being produced today that shed further light on what happened because stories from people that were involved but have never been recorded, are finally being put down on paper or film.
 
I guess taking it in baby steps would be better for me.


If you want baby steps, take a look at how the faked landing claims fall apart on purely logical grounds, never mind the fact that there is no evidence pointing to fakery.

For example, there were six manned landings on the lunar surface. With each subsequent landing featuring a longer and more complex stay on the surface than the mission before it. Does that make any sense at all if it's being faked? No, if you're faking something that much in the public eye, you'd fake it once, maybe twice, then quit before something went wrong and revealed the fraud.

There are many other such logical failings of the faked landings claims.
 
If you want baby steps, take a look at how the faked landing claims fall apart on purely logical grounds, never mind the fact that there is no evidence pointing to fakery.

For example, there were six manned landings on the lunar surface. With each subsequent landing featuring a longer and more complex stay on the surface than the mission before it. Does that make any sense at all if it's being faked? No, if you're faking something that much in the public eye, you'd fake it once, maybe twice, then quit before something went wrong and revealed the fraud.

There are many other such logical failings of the faked landings claims.

They left behind mirrors which can be used to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon,using lasers. NASA does not have sole access to them,many people have used them including students at various universities around the world. I doubt they are all in on the conspiracy.
 
Another poster on AH pointed this out yesterday, thought it might be handy here.

From The Invasion of the Moon -- The Story of Apollo 11, Peter Ryan, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, England, 1969, pages 78-79 (emphasis added):

On Apollo missions all communication between the spacecraft and earth — the telemetry, tracking, automatic commands and voice circuits — are combined in a single radio carrier wave which involves the use of only one antenna. This is called the 'unified S-Band system' and involves a staff of 4,500 distributed among fifteen tracking stations and numerous switching centres around the globe.

While the spacecraft is in earth parking orbit and just before splashdown, communications are routed through thirty-foot dishes at eleven sites on land and aboard four tracking ships. In addition to these thirty-foot dishes, eight Apollo range instrumentation aircraft (ARIA) operate in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. These are modified Boeing jets which carry seven-foot antennae in their bulbous noses. Once the spacecraft has completed the translunar injection burn and is on its way out to the moon, three more powerful eighty-foot dishes — one at Goldstone in California, one near Madrid, and one at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra — come into action. These deep-space tracking stations are so placed that, while the earth revolves on its daily axis, one of them can always 'see' the moon. On the Apollo 11 mission two even more enormous 'electronic ears', the 210-foot Mars antenna at Goldstone and the 210-foot dish at Parkes in Australia, were used. The Mars antenna was brought in to assist communications with the lunar module once it had separated from the command module in lunar orbit, while the Parkes dish was used to receive the television transmissions from the surface of the moon.

Apart from handling the voice, telemetry and command circuits between the spacecraft and earth, the dishes are also used to track the craft in space. By measuring the round-trip time of a ranging signal, automatically re-transmitted by the spacecraft and measuring the Doppler shift (the re-transmitted signal's frequency change, like the change in note of the whistle of a passing railway train), it is possible to determine the range of the craft to within a few hundred feet and its range rate or speed to within a few inches per second.

Linking all the tracking dishes of the MSFN is NASA's staggering global communications network (NASCOM). Using a web of about two million miles of cable, microwave, radio and satellites link, it is centred at the Goddard Spaceflight Center (GSFC) in Maryland. Information originating from the Apollo 11 spacecraft ('down-link data') such as the heart and breathing rates of the astronauts, the command module cabin pressure and temperature, etc., was transmitted automatically, second by second ('real-time' telemetry), through the cluster of four small S-Band dishes deployed outside the service module at the rate of 51,200 bits per second. Picked up by a ground station, it was then processed by computer before being passed on to Houston at a modest 2,400 bits per second. These computers at the tracking sites are also used for relaying commands to the spacecraft's systems for passing information ('up-link data') to the spacecraft's own computers at the rate of 1,200 bits per second. Several times a second the computers at Houston 'talk' to the other computers in the network or in the spacecraft. The MCC computers compare everything they receive from other computers with their memories and then indicate problem areas and other relevant data to the flight controllers. Another important function of the Houston computers is time-keeping, and they deal in thousandths of rather than whole numbers of seconds. Between Houston and the centre of the NASCOM web at the Goddard Spaceflight Center there are two 50,000-bit-per-second circuits. The volume of traffic handled at Goddard during an Apollo mission is equivalent to a 500-page novel per second. The computers there would take less than a second to add a column of ten-digit numbers three-quarters of a mile high. To talk to their operators, the computers around the network are capable of slowing down to a more reasonable 100 human language words per minute.

I guess they were all "in on it."
 
Here the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station conspirators gather for a post-hoax staff photograph. The look of pure evil on their faces sends a chill down my spine.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/people/staff_photo_1969/hsk_1969_names.html

36 years later some of the hoaxers gather to share another laugh at the world's gullibility. Notice how only a few are remaining? Obviously some were going to spill the beans and had to be "silenced".

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/people/reunions/reunion_2005.html
 
I will be catching up in a few. It is hard for me to get on-on the weekends. Hope everyone had a nice weekend.
 
Baby steps is absolutely the best way to tackle something like this. Many of the more...excitable true believers in the hoax theory have a habit of indulging in what's known as the "Gish gallop", in which they regurgitate a rapid fire series of half-remembered or poorly researched claims without pausing to even listen to any rebuttal before moving on to the next. The far more mature and productive way of handling doubts is to methodically look at them one at a time as you are doing.

As with many of the issues around the landings, this one hinges on the way that the very different conditions on the moon mess with our "common sense" notions of how the world works based on how we see it behave around us here on Earth. In this case, the vital difference is the lack of atmosphere.

Here on Earth, dust blown into the air billows and eddies in air currents, so it can end up all over the place. In the absence of air, however, there is no billowing, so any dust particles displaced by the engine exhaust will move in simple ballistic arcs until they hit something or gravity pulls them to the ground some considerable distance away from the lander. If you look at the landing movies taken out of the LM looking towards the ground (available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and other sources), you'll see dust blowing straight out away from the landing spot just before impact. One of the astronauts (anyone remember which one?) described looking out the window at engine shutdown and seeing the streams of dust flying away from the LM suddenly "switch off", with the rear end of the stream shooting off towards the horizon the way a short squirt from a garden hose might look here on Earth.

So there was no dust hanging around in the "air"* to end up being deposited on the LM legs or other parts. You also need to keep in mind that on almost all of the missions the engine was shut off a few feet above the surface, with the LM dropping the last couple of feet (less extreme than it sounds - 1/6 gravity and big, big shock absorbers on the legs), so the dust flow blowing almost parallel to the surface had moved beyond the LM footprint before it hit the ground.

* See how our common sense notions of the world around us have almost invisible semantic limits? I wrote this meaning "The volume of space immediately around the lander", and I unconsciously did it in terms of our Earth experience in which "air" can mean "above the ground". There is, of course, no air in the "air" around the LM

That actually does make sense. I'm going to check out Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Thanks for writing it to where I can understand it. I'm not really technical at all.:o

To add to what cavorite said, there is in fact some regolith (lunar soil) on the pads. Some of the experts here, and at Apollohoax.net (where the best Apollo experts hang out) can dig up pictures of these.

ETA: The pads are the flat bits at the end of the legs, in case you don't know that.
ETA 2: Video from the Apollo 16 LM landing, with audio can be found here. It's from one of the LM windows, of course.
ETA 3: Shot of Apollo 11 pad here. No regolith on the pad, but you can clearly see the nature of the regolith around it; there is not a great deal of dust there. I think there are shots with regolith on the pad, but haven't found one yet.
ETA 4: Discussion of surface "undisturbed" by landing at ApolloHoax.net: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2733 Close to what you want. I can't find any references to regolith on the LM pads; perhaps I am misremembering that.

Thanks for the site I will check it out.
 
At this point, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the voicies in his head.

Which voice...I have many.:p

Jay is taking a break from the Interwebs for a bit, but hopefully he'll return

ApolloHoax.net is a good place to check out too, we're a lot smaller in population than here or BAUT, though most members there are members at one of both of BUAT and JREF, but everyone there is there because they are interested in Apollo so therre is a HUGE amount of knowledge.

I'll be checking out the site today. It seems pretty interesting.

I commented the other day that there is likely more stuff on Apollo than a person can read in their entire life. I'm firmly of the belief that anyone that says they have studied the entire record of Apollo is a lair, because there is just too much stuff, and there are things still being produced today that shed further light on what happened because stories from people that were involved but have never been recorded, are finally being put down on paper or film.

I think you are correct on this. i just don't want to overload my brain. LOL
 
If you want baby steps, take a look at how the faked landing claims fall apart on purely logical grounds, never mind the fact that there is no evidence pointing to fakery.

For example, there were six manned landings on the lunar surface. With each subsequent landing featuring a longer and more complex stay on the surface than the mission before it. Does that make any sense at all if it's being faked? No, if you're faking something that much in the public eye, you'd fake it once, maybe twice, then quit before something went wrong and revealed the fraud.
There are many other such logical failings of the faked landings claims.

That does make sense. I also have some other questions but I will see if I can get them together today.

They left behind mirrors which can be used to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon,using lasers. NASA does not have sole access to them,many people have used them including students at various universities around the world. I doubt they are all in on the conspiracy.

That is very interesting. I had never heard of that. I will have to look into it. I'm curious to how big the mirrors are.

Another poster on AH pointed this out yesterday, thought it might be handy here.

From The Invasion of the Moon -- The Story of Apollo 11, Peter Ryan, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, England, 1969, pages 78-79 (emphasis added):

I guess they were all "in on it."

Thanks for the suggestion.

Here the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station conspirators gather for a post-hoax staff photograph. The look of pure evil on their faces sends a chill down my spine.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/people/staff_photo_1969/hsk_1969_names.html

36 years later some of the hoaxers gather to share another laugh at the world's gullibility. Notice how only a few are remaining? Obviously some were going to spill the beans and had to be "silenced".

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/people/reunions/reunion_2005.html

Thanks for the site...I'm going to it now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom