Moon landing faked? Lets take a look...

[muckmaw]

From another thread, and the link therein. I think we've got enough smart guys on this board to debunk or fortify some of these points. Take a shot at it.

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

1.  Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2.  A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon.  Who did the filming?

3.  One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4.  The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5.  The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6.  Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7.  The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8.  How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9.  The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.


My reply:

1- The golfball was not sliced. A slice produces a curved flight path. One can hit a golfball poorly, and cause it to go far right or left. Someone not knowing golf all that well could easily use the word slice when it;s not appropriate.

2-IIRC that camera was remote contolled, either by mission control, or the astronauts

3-That camera was mounted on the LEM and activated remotely.

4-???

5-???

6- Not sure which photo they speak of.

7- The flag is not fluttering. It was supported by a metal rod from the top.

8: Stars are very difficult to see in the city due to city lights. The moons surface is highly refective of light, therby making stars nearly invisible.

9-???

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by muckmaw
From another thread, and the link therein. I think we've got enough smart guys on this board to debunk or fortify some of these points. Take a shot at it.

all this stuff has been debunked before but there are even a core group of even americans who think the stuff was faked.

Instead of wasting time with those little non points that have been called evidence, lets just explain the evidence of hundreds
of pounds of moon rock that geologists all over the globe have studied for 30 years?

Hehe.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by muckmaw

4.  The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5.  The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

9.  The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Here's my thinking, but you should be warned that I didn't do well in rocket science!

4. Who said the pressure inside the suit was greater than inside a football?  In zero atmosphereic pressure, all you need is a little pressure to allow the air to flow into the lungs when the diaphragm creates a suction into the lungs.

5. Let;s see, dark side, bright side.  Do you really think that some sort of man made flare would have been visibile on earth from the bright side of the moon where the moon missions landed?  And besides, that would just get the environmentalist wackos pissed for contaminating the moon.

9.  17 Tons on Earth. Moon has 1/6th gravity so it weighs 5/6 less.  Ever see a heavy truck drive on hard pan and not leave a mark?  Same principal.  The footprints of the astromaunts are clearly very shallow as the surface was described as powder on hard pan. The powder was not very deep, hence no penetration.  As for the weight of the lander, we don't know how deep it sunk because the landers were left there, covering over what they landed on.  As for the crater effect, the engine burn was not an explostion but a steady blast of high pressure exhaust which, in the footage of the landing, clearly shows powdery substance being blown by the exhaust.  As for scorching, as evidence that a rocket was used, that implies very inefficient burning of carbon based fuel in an oxygen atmosphere.  The smoke comes as much from moisuter in the atmosphere.  There is no oxygen or moisture in the atmosphere on the moon and the fuel burning was much more efficient and only took place inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor.  It was more like very high focues pressure than a rocket flame.  

Well, those are my guesses.

[CyranoAH]

I'll do my best to shed some light on the points you left unanswered:

Originally posted by muckmaw
4.  The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

 

Actually the pressure is not that high. Astronauts have to breath 100% pure oxygen (dry oxygen) for up to 4 hours to get rid of the Nitrogen in their bloodstream to avoid getting bends due to nitrogen bubbles. Alternatively, on shuttle missions where several EVAs are programmed, the atmosphere inside the orbiter is lowered to 2/3 the normal pressure so that the denitrogenisation procedure is shorter (1 hour).

If an astronaut starts getting hipobaric sickness symptoms, the suit can inflate to become an hyperbaric chamber until he gets back on the orbiter (or LEM in this case).

5.  The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

 

Actually, they did. They placed some reflectors that even today are used to effectively measure the distance between the moon and the earth. I know those can't be seen with the naked eye, but you can check at the observatories doing those measurements and you'll realize those couldn't be made without someone placing those reflectors on the moon. There are also pictures of astronauts placing them there.

9.  The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

 

Good one. Since the gravity on the surface of the moon isn't that of the earth, the thrust required to slow the descent of the LEM wasn't as much as some people would think. There was indeed a crater, and a lot of dust was blown by the booster... but that also means that the LEM didn't sink that much on the surface because, at that point, much of the dust underneath it was in suspension.

Later on, that dust settled around the LEM, and thus the footsteps of the astronauts around the lander were clearly visible. You have to realize that there was a time lapse between the actual touchdown and the moment when Armstrong went down the ladder. More than enough for the dust to settle again.


That's about it. Feel free to add/correct.

Daniel

[Octavius]

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

[/b]

Um, who made these comments?

Basic physics tells us that weight is relative.  17 tons... on earth they say?

Mass is constant.  What weighs 17 tons on earth will weigh less on earth's moon.  If their argument is based on "it weighed 17 tons" then the argument is bunk to begin with.  

Based on that alone, this author is retarded.

[AKIron]

Regarding the suit air pressure. While a football is relatively pressurized at slightly less (11-13 psi) than what would be sea level air pressure in space, the suit would not need this level of pressurization as someone mentioned.

However, even if it were pressurized to say 14 psi, the flexibility of the outer material is relevant to the freedom of movement of the astronaut. For example, pump up a tire inner tube to 14 psi. I think you'll find that it is still pretty flexible.

[Wlfgng]

this has all been rebuffed.. (looking for that site)

it is a joke that people think this didn't happen.. lol

the shadows, lighting, air pressure, 'wind'.. etc..
has all been explained, and rightly so.  They guy who really got this 'conspiracy' thing going was in high school and admitted he didn't know squat about it but was just basing his idea (that the landings were fake) on the pictures.

still looking for the site...

[udet]

Originally posted by muckmaw


7.  The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

The flag is obviously rigged with metal rods that go into the pole so it doesn just sag and wrap around the pole. It is fluttering simply because of the ground vibrating when the astronauts move around the flag. I am looking at a picture of 2 astronauts plantinga  flag and I can't spot any irregularities.

[AWMac]

Perk the Lander!!!

[AKIron]

Finally found a reference for suit pressure. Apollo suits were pressurized to 3.75 psi, far below that of a football's 11-13 psi. Proof that the conspiracy theorist didn't do his homework.

http://strangeblue.iwarp.com/sharp2000.html

[Ike 2K#]

hmmm, it seems like the Chinese are gonna be the 1st nation to land on the moon if these theories are correct.

[udet]

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
hmmm, it seems like the Chinese are gonna be the 1st nation to land on the moon if these theories are correct.

hmm-if the Russians didn't manage to land on the moon, the Chinse won't either, cause they're using Russin technlogy for their space program

[Ike 2K#]

LOL

The soviets didnt make it to the moon because of the propulsion problems on their N-1 Rocket but they have the functional lunar lander.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
LOL

The soviets didnt make it to the moon because of the propulsion problems on their N-1 Rocket but they have the functional lunar lander.

Correction ... they have an untested "functional lunar lander."

[Frogm4n]

anybody that thinks the moonlandings were faked needs to be taken out into the street and beating.