• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

If you think all the Apollo samples are fake all you need to do is wait for China or Japan or India or indeed some other country to land on the moon and the fakes will be exposed.
Why would NASA produce so many detailed samples and give them to the worlds Universities snd Geologists if they knew they would be exposed as fakes as soon as someone else got there?
Russia was also trying to get to the moon and NASA was in a race with them, as far as they knew Apollo could have been second in the race or followed within months.
 
wogoga said:
The problem: In addition to unexplainable natural remanent magnetism comparable to terrestrial magnetism [1], these Apollo samples also coincide with the wrong, then prevailing Hypothesis of a Dry Moon.
Click to expand...

I can't wait for you to go into detail about remanent magnetism - I've actually done work on it. Do please explain your theories here. Your suggestion that the remanent magnetism in lunar rocks is unexplainable is false. There are several possible explanations. All that is known for certain is that there is no magnetic field now.

Your problem is that you're using Apollo data to prove there are no Apollo data, and you are displaying your ignorance about how science works: You propose theories, you collect evidence, your theories are refined or revised. Apollo's data have led to both of those happening in many areas, often the revision has been radical.

"By the early 1970s the Dry Moon was settled science, especially among lunar geologists in the United States."

In the meanwhile the moon has turned out to be much wetter and to agree rather with the Soviet than with the NASA moon samples.
Click to expand...

Found to be much wetter when using much more sensitive equipment to do the measurement. You are failing to spot the distinction between the presence of water in large volumes, theorised by a small number of people as being responsible for the moon's surface features, and microscopic amounts of water chemically and physically bound into the lunar rock that have always been found. These latter amounts were often so small that terrestrial contamination could not be excluded as a cause - just as the Soviets cannot exclude it from their samples. Here's a quote from the paper you reference:

"but they were not willing to stake their reputations on an absolute statement that terrestrial contamination was completely avoided"

You seem to have missed that bit out, just as you neglected to mention the author's personal communications woth the Soviet scientists who could not rule out rule out moisture absorption in the laboratory.

"The Soviet Luna 24 mission of 1976 drilled two meters down and extracted 170 grams of lunar soil, which it brought back to Earth for analysis, taking every possible precaution to avoid contamination. The scientists found that water made up 0.1 percent of the mass of the soil, and published their results in the journal Geokhimiia in 1978."

The findings of the Soviets disagreeing with NASA's Dry Moon Hypothesis were simply dismissed.
Click to expand...

That is a dishonest conclusion from the article you quote there, which says more that the journal in which it was published was not read by people - if people aren't aware of results they can't cite them. The same is true of Soviet work on the Earth's radiation belts, which arguable pre-dates that of Van Allen, and had they published it more widely those belts would now have a Russian name.

"The three Soviet lunar sample return missions (Luna 16, 20 and 24) from 1970 to 1976 brought back a total of 327 grams of lunar soil. The six Apollo lunar landing missions in 1969 – 1972 returned 381,700 grams of rock and soil. Apollo won the samples race. No other author has ever cited the Luna 24 work, as of this writing."
Click to expand...

Again, this isn't an honest interpretation of the material presented in the paper. Neither does it say that Apollo samples aren't genuine - it discusses them elsewhere. See the bit there where it says "Apollo won the samples race"? Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context does not prove anything.

In any case, all Apollo landing sites had to be declared in the meanwhile by NASA "to be geochemically anomalous":

"All six of the Apollo missions on which samples were collected landed in the central nearside of the Moon, an area that has subsequently been shown to be geochemically anomalous by the Lunar Prospector mission."
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to be mistaking a statement that says Apollo's samples are not necessarily representative of the entire moon as meaning that they aren't genuine. This is not what was intended in Wikipedia's page, which again does not make any claim that Apollo's data are false.

If you spent less time on annoying formatting and more time reading the articles you're pretending to have read and subsequently misrepresent, you might learn something.
 
Space Adaptation Syndrome & Apollo 17

The crew of Apollo 17 with "Mission duration 12 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes, 59 seconds" had to suffer weightlessness almost during two weeks. (A period with lunar gravity of less than 17% instead of 100% of terrestrial gravity for two of the three astronauts is rather negligible in this context.)

Weightlessness and its effects on the human organism:

This condition, known as space motion sickness or space adaption syndrome, can last for several days in susceptible individuals.

Many of these symptoms will have almost completely disappeared by the end of the first week, as the whole body adapts to the new conditions in space. Unfortunately, this process of adaptation also means that the body starts to break down everything it doesn’t need in a weightless environment, including our tough, heavy bones, which all of a sudden have no weight to carry.

As a result of all these physiological changes, it always takes a while for astronauts to readapt their bodies and their senses to the pull of gravity after their return to Earth. Many returning astronauts find it hard to keep their balance at first.
​
At least when watching Apollo 17 (Full Trip) from 1:04:40 to 1:07:35 or from 1:09:30 to end, we have to conclude that re-adaptation from space adaption syndrome was no problem for Apollo 17. "Cernan, Evans and Schmitt were then retrieved by a recovery helicopter and were safely aboard the recovery ship 52 minutes after landing." (Wikipedia)

Duration of Apollo 17 is comparable to the final mission of the American Space Shuttle program STS-135 with 12 days and 18 hours. According to STS-135 Landing NASA-TV Coverage the crew left the shuttle for the crew transport vehicle between 31 and 45 minutes (3:09:30 – 3:13:15) after landing (1:59:30). The astronauts can first be seen 1 hour 20 min after landing when they leave the transport vehicle (3:19:30).

In any case, it is more difficult to keep fit in an Apollo capsule than in the International Space Station, and substantially more challenging to readapt to terrestrial gravity in an Apollo capsule on water than in a Space Shuttle and a crew transport vehicle on ground. Cheers, Wolfgang
The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?
 
wogoga said:
The crew of Apollo 17 with "Mission duration 12 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes, 59 seconds" had to suffer weightlessness almost during two weeks. (A period with lunar gravity of less than 17% instead of 100% of terrestrial gravity for two of the three astronauts is rather negligible in this context.)

Weightlessness and its effects on the human organism:

This condition, known as space motion sickness or space adaption syndrome, can last for several days in susceptible individuals.

Many of these symptoms will have almost completely disappeared by the end of the first week, as the whole body adapts to the new conditions in space. Unfortunately, this process of adaptation also means that the body starts to break down everything it doesn’t need in a weightless environment, including our tough, heavy bones, which all of a sudden have no weight to carry.

As a result of all these physiological changes, it always takes a while for astronauts to readapt their bodies and their senses to the pull of gravity after their return to Earth. Many returning astronauts find it hard to keep their balance at first.
​
At least when watching Apollo 17 (Full Trip) from 1:04:40 to 1:07:35 or from 1:09:30 to end, we have to conclude that re-adaptation from space adaption syndrome was no problem for Apollo 17. "Cernan, Evans and Schmitt were then retrieved by a recovery helicopter and were safely aboard the recovery ship 52 minutes after landing." (Wikipedia)

Duration of Apollo 17 is comparable to the final mission of the American Space Shuttle program STS-135 with 12 days and 18 hours. According to STS-135 Landing NASA-TV Coverage the crew left the shuttle for the crew transport vehicle between 31 and 45 minutes (3:09:30 – 3:13:15) after landing (1:59:30). The astronauts can first be seen 1 hour 20 min after landing when they leave the transport vehicle (3:19:30).

In any case, it is more difficult to keep fit in an Apollo capsule than in the International Space Station, and substantially more challenging to readapt to terrestrial gravity in an Apollo capsule on water than in a Space Shuttle and a crew transport vehicle on ground. Cheers, Wolfgang
The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Is there a point to this one?

The Apollo 17 astroanauts spent 12+ days in weightlessness. So what? The Gemini VII crew spent nearly 14 days in weightlessness in a much smaller capsule and both were fine after a night's sleep.
 
wogoga said:
The crew of Apollo 17 with "Mission duration 12 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes, 59 seconds" had to suffer weightlessness almost during two weeks. (A period with lunar gravity of less than 17% instead of 100% of terrestrial gravity for two of the three astronauts is rather negligible in this context.)
Click to expand...

Ah right, so 1 member of the crew had to suffer weightlessness for all of the trip, two did not. The two did not took part in quite a lot of physical activity on the 12.5 day (not two week) trip.

I am sure you have checked very carefully to verify what physical exercises Evans did while on board?

Weightlessness and its effects on the human organism:

This condition, known as space motion sickness or space adaption syndrome, can last for several days in susceptible individuals.

Many of these symptoms will have almost completely disappeared by the end of the first week, as the whole body adapts to the new conditions in space. Unfortunately, this process of adaptation also means that the body starts to break down everything it doesn’t need in a weightless environment, including our tough, heavy bones, which all of a sudden have no weight to carry.

As a result of all these physiological changes, it always takes a while for astronauts to readapt their bodies and their senses to the pull of gravity after their return to Earth. Many returning astronauts find it hard to keep their balance at first.
Click to expand...

Do you know if the astronauts, one of whom was an experienced astronaut who had been to the moon before, were susceptible? Do you know if they were part of the 'many' who found it hard to keep balance? Do you have any evidence that they had no problem at all, or are you just making massive assumptions on the basis of watching some sort of TV programme?

Oh..wait...

At least when watching Apollo 17 (Full Trip) from 1:04:40 to 1:07:35 or from 1:09:30 to end, we have to conclude that re-adaptation from space adaption syndrome was no problem for Apollo 17. "Cernan, Evans and Schmitt were then retrieved by a recovery helicopter and were safely aboard the recovery ship 52 minutes after landing." (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...

Yes, they were safely aboard the recovery ship 52 minutes after landing. After being hoisted up there in a helicopter. Do have any medical notes anywhere that says how long the recovery might take? Or are you just making stuff up?

Duration of Apollo 17 is comparable to the final mission of the American Space Shuttle program STS-135 with 12 days and 18 hours. According to STS-135 Landing NASA-TV Coverage the crew left the shuttle for the crew transport vehicle between 31 and 45 minutes (3:09:30 – 3:13:15) after landing (1:59:30). The astronauts can first be seen 1 hour 20 min after landing when they leave the transport vehicle (3:19:30).
Click to expand...

So, a comparable time after landing they are what, carried out on a stretcher? Staggering all over the place weak from exhaustion? Or walking cheerily and unaffected by their re-acquaintance with gravity?

In any case, it is more difficult to keep fit in an Apollo capsule than in the International Space Station, and substantially more challenging to readapt to terrestrial gravity in an Apollo capsule on water than in a Space Shuttle and a crew transport vehicle on ground.
Click to expand...

In your opinion? Backed up by any facts? No? Please outline the differences. Please also prove that no astronaut was seasick after a splashdown.

Argument from incredulity doesn't cut it, neither does it serve as a distraction from the discredited bilge you've already spammed us with, or the questions you have failed dismally to answer..
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
... substantially more challenging to readapt to terrestrial gravity in an Apollo capsule on water than in a Space Shuttle and a crew transport vehicle on ground.
Click to expand...

In what ways is it "substantially more challenging"? Can you list some ways?

Are you saying that after several days in space it's easier to stand up and walk out of a Space Shuttle and then climb down steps to a ground vehicle than it is to sit still in an Apollo capsule as it floats on the ocean? It sounds like that's what you're saying. Why would you think that?
 
They splashed and sat in the capsule, they were taken aboard a helicopter and sat in it while it recovered to the Carrier. They walked off the helicopter.
Time taken seems to be about the same as for Shuttle crew.
Where is this going?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Where is this going?
Click to expand...

Nowhere, I think.

In any event, my understanding is that the time it takes to leave a Shuttle was constrained by the time it took engineers to safe the hydrogen peroxide in the OMS. Presumably, Apollo had similar issues while divers reached the capsule and attached floatation devices.

It's not like the crew left the moment they were physically capable of moving.
 
wogoga said:
In any case, it is more difficult to keep fit in an Apollo capsule than in the International Space Station, and substantially more challenging to readapt to terrestrial gravity in an Apollo capsule on water than in a Space Shuttle and a crew transport vehicle on ground.
Click to expand...

So what? I'll happily stipulate that it's more difficult to maintain physical fitness in an Apollo capsule than in a space station or the space shuttle. You haven't shown any evidence that the Apollo 17 crew exhibited a level of physical fitness following their mission that is inconsistent with their purported environment. You simply mentioned an obvious limitation, waved your hands generally at the physiological effects of microgravity, and insinuated some inconsistency. Elaborate your argument.
 
wogoga said:
As a result of all these physiological changes, it always takes a while for astronauts to readapt their bodies and their senses to the pull of gravity after their return to Earth. Many returning astronauts find it hard to keep their balance at first.
​

[...]

Cernan, Evans and Schmitt were then retrieved by a recovery helicopter and were safely aboard the recovery ship 52 minutes after landing.

[...]

The astronauts can first be seen 1 hour 20 min after landing when they leave the transport vehicle (3:19:30).

In any case, it is more difficult to keep fit in an Apollo capsule than in the International Space Station, and substantially more challenging to readapt to terrestrial gravity in an Apollo capsule on water than in a Space Shuttle and a crew transport vehicle on ground.
Click to expand...

A classic example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy, weak form. In this case the time required to recover from the effects of weightlessness is simply listed as "a while," and it's then suggested by innuendo that this is longer than the time taken by the Apollo 17 crew to have recovered sufficiently to... what, exactly? Crawl, or be helped, out of the capsule and airlifted to the recovery ship? Doesn't seem to me that full recovery would be necessary for that in any case. It's the weak form of the fallacy because you're claiming that A<B where A=52 minutes and B is unknown (the strong form would be a claim that A<B where neither A nor B is known). Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, because one of your premises is missing.

Dave
 
The following quotes are from the thread "Camera Work of Apollo 17".


Giordano in #103:

I believe that wogoga understands the errors in his posts but that his posts will never concede these errors. There are a number of possible explanations for this, but forum rules justifiably do not permit me to publicly speculate here.​

We could also speculate why "skeptics" believe so strongly in the truth of the Apollo program, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


wogoga in #109:

Video: "Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity"

I would say that this video Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing contains evidence of the opposite. ...

However, there is a smoking gun: Rotation of the bag is continuously slowing down, due to air friction. Here the corresponding sequence further slowed down: pandualism.com/upload/apollo_flying_bag.mp4​

Answers specifically concerning the flying bag or camera work of Apollo in general, please post in the original thread.


Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com
 
wogoga said:
The following quotes are from the thread "Camera Work of Apollo 17".


Giordano in #103:

I believe that wogoga understands the errors in his posts but that his posts will never concede these errors. There are a number of possible explanations for this, but forum rules justifiably do not permit me to publicly speculate here.​

We could also speculate why "skeptics" believe so strongly in the truth of the Apollo program, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


wogoga in #109:

Video: "Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity"

I would say that this video Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing contains evidence of the opposite. ...

However, there is a smoking gun: Rotation of the bag is continuously slowing down, due to air friction. Here the corresponding sequence further slowed down [link to video removed]

Answers specifically concerning the flying bag or camera work of Apollo in general, please post in the original thread.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry, is your ego not getting enough attention? Not getting enough hits on your website?

You've made a claim in this thread now, so I'll respond to it here as well:
Prove the rotation is slowing down. While you're at it, prove that the manner of its rotation is somehow anomalous given that gravity behaves in the same way regardless of the presence of an atmosphere.
 
wogoga said:
The following quotes are from the thread "Camera Work of Apollo 17".
Click to expand...

Then why must we relive them all here?

We could also speculate why "skeptics" believe so strongly in the truth of the Apollo program, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

We don't have to speculate. The "evidence to the contrary" is largely the same ignorant, long-debunked nonsense that's been perpetuated by attention-seekers since the dawn of the internet. That you just discovered it and are trying to breathe new life into it doesn't change those facts. The strength of the belief in Apollo's authenticity derives from its demonstrable truth, and as further attested by a unanimity of appropriately qualified and educated people, myself included. You are not one of those people. You are not brilliant unsung physicist. You're simply copying the ramblings of other conspiracy theorists in the hope of maintaining the illusion of competence.

However, there is a smoking gun: Rotation of the bag is continuously slowing down, due to air friction.
Click to expand...

And your theory was firmly refuted in that thread, where you urge new comments to be posted. Since you haven't dealt yet with what's already posted, I suppose you're just groveling for attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom