Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Looks fake to me, OBM. You can tell, from the pixels.

Actually, the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that Richard Nixon was actually an elaborate hoax concocted by the Russians.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Nixon attended the Apollo 12 launch on November 14, 1969 from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, therefore, the Apollo 12 launch was not filmed in a studio. Touché.

You have made the claim that if one cannot identify which astronaut took a given photograph, it is evidence that the photograph was faked. Using your own standard of evidence, I have challenged you to prove Richard Nixon was not faked by identifying the photographer who took any given photograph of him. You have failed to do this, therefore you cannot prove that Richard Nixon existed, making his alleged presence at the launch of Apollo 12 moot. Isn't it about time one of you cracked and admitted you've just been trolling for the past three years?

FoosM

Wait, so the LM had a heater? And which did they turn on while on the moon? The heater or the cooler?

misread..

does the LM even need a heater? this is where most of the physical work that the astronauts will do, heat wont readily dissipate in the lunar module without a cooler..

but ofcourse im sure you already know this so why ask?

reply to post by choos

The Environmental Control System in the service module was capable of both heating and cooling. Here you can see the control panel.

The ECS section is just to the right of centre, the part that has five big round dials. The text is rather small but hopefully you can see the "CABIN TEMP" control among other things.

Here's what that panel looks like in the flesh:



In the LM itself, it was cooling that was needed. Read all about the LM subsection of the ECS, and a review of how it performed, here: ntrs.nasa.gov...


Incidentally, if you ever doubt the amount of work and planning that went into the design of these spacecraft, have a read of this:

www.astronautix.com...

A detailed timeline of the development of the LM. Billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, more than a decade of work. And that was just the LM! It wasn't, as many hoax believers like to suggest, just a case of Neil 'n' Buzz going on a quick jaunt to the moon, taking a few photos and flying home. It was the culmination of probably the most complex engineering project mankind has ever undertaken.

reply to post by Rob48

A detailed timeline of the development of the LM. Billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, more than a decade of work. And that was just the LM! It wasn't, as many hoax believers like to suggest, just a case of Neil 'n' Buzz going on a quick jaunt to the moon, taking a few photos and flying home. It was the culmination of probably the most complex engineering project mankind has ever undertaken.

Exactly the point I was making earlier. One thing that Moon Hoax proponents and 911 conspiracy theorists have in common is that they take the incidents in Isolation. They ignore the fact that the laws of physics were discovered hundreds of years ago, that rocketry was developing independently in the United States and Europe from the 19th century and the theory of spaceflight even longer. The Second World War provided an impetus and funding for more rapid development, and the Cold War provided a motivation for putting human beings in space. (Computers were not sufficiently advanced to perform more complex tasks.) Instead, they just look at videos of people bouncing around on an alien world and decide it does not look right. Similarly, people ignore the fact that piloted airplanes were used as missiles by the Japanese in World War Two, that terrorist hijackings of airplanes became so common during the 1960s and 1970s that the phrase 'skyjacking' was coined to describe them, the pattern of terrorists choosing to attack symbolic targets (in fact, the WTC had been attacked at least one time before) and instead watch videos of buildings collapsing into their own footprint and decide it somehow doesn't look right.

In the case of the Apollo videos, the crispness of the scenery (due to lack of atmosphere) the strange, slow bobbing of the astronauts (due to reduced gravity) seem so unnatural that some people simply cannot comprehend the reality of it. In the case of the WTC, the only thing in their experience that people can compare it to is the controlled demolitions they have seen. Once the make this comparison, they can convince themselves that the collapse of the World Trade Center must have been a controlled demolition as well. In both cases, they abandon the lengthy trail of historical evidence that leads to the incidents in question, and the physics that explains why the videos seem so uncanny (of course a building will fall straight down rather than topple over) and instead cast out a wide net for anything that can confirm their foregone conclusion.

Just as Stanley Kubrick or Walt Disney making high quality science fiction films becomes evidence that they were behind the Apollo videos, so rumors of Israeli film crews and photos of vans painted with an airplane flying over a cityscape become evidence of something sinister. The same people who refuse to accept Apollo because they cannot visit the Moon to confirm it with their own eyes suddenly accept third hand stories about seemingly suspicious activities. Even then, they do not ask themselves if these activities may have a greater context. After all, why wouldn't there be an Israeli film team out on a clear morning? Just because they were, say, shooting a commercial for El Al that day doesn't mean they knew what was going to happen.

Most conspiracy theorists make the same sort of mistakes: they isolate their area of interest from its genuine historical context then selectively gather alleged facts that they can distort to confirm their preconceived theories. At each step, critical thinking is abandoned in favor of belief, and contradictions are ignored. The government that lacked the technology to land on the Moon in 1969 had the technology to project holographic airplanes and invisible death rays in 2001.

Rob48
...In the LM itself, it was cooling that was needed. Read all about the LM subsection of the ECS, and a review of how it performed, here: ntrs.nasa.gov...

This is correct, but to answer a question someone posed earlier "why was it cold for the Apollo 13 astronauts", the answer is that (1) some of the heat load that requires cooling is produced by the spacecraft systems; but almost all of those systems were turned off after the accident (so no systems heat load), and (2) their trajectory and craft orientation meant that the crew cabins were often in shade, and there was reduced warming by the Sun.

But for a nominal Apollo mission, cooling was mostly required (and as you mentioned). This is because when the spacecraft is in the Sun, PLUS when the systems were operating (and producing some heat load), the heat gain from the sun and the systems must be dissipated, or it will get too hot. Having said that, there are other times when the craft is in shade that the heaters need to be turned on to keep the temperature comfortable, even with the heat load from the systems.

"If you were taken up to the landing sites and shown, in person, that everything is still up there just as it should be, the LMs, the rovers, the instruments, the footprints, every rock just where the photos show it is, would that convince you? Or would you just say "It's all been planted by some secret robotic mission that NASA somehow managed to keep hidden from the whole world"?"


That would prove it to me. The shoddy LRO photos are of a horrible resolution. For as much excitement as they built up, they did not deliver IMO. Now I realize that I'm not going to physically walk on the moon -- at least I don't think so but some independent moon satellite or rover showing the site would be cool. I realize this wouldn't stop all conspiracy theorist and at the same time, it could be faked if it were a hoax; but it sure would help.

As to the other comments, or, I guess as to how this thread is devolving again to each side marginalizing each other -- this is where this thread gets rather annoying. Why do people take it personal when they are not in agreement? A pissing match of proving to the other who's more intelligent. I think at this point we can all agree there's nobody stupid arguing here. Just some people who believe that NASA could have faked this and the others who do not. I hope this thread gets back to the meat and potatos that made it great.

edit: because I am STILL getting used to posting on this site. Lot's to learn...

reply to post by cestrup

That would prove it to me. The shoddy LRO photos are of a horrible resolution. For as much excitement as they built up, they did not deliver IMO. Now I realize that I'm not going to physically walk on the moon -- at least I don't think so but some independent moon satellite or rover showing the site would be cool. I realize this wouldn't stop all conspiracy theorist and at the same time, it could be faked if it were a hoax; but it sure would help.

If one of the teams competing for the Google X Prize visits the Apollo 17 site and send back clear pictures, would that be enough? Or would the fact that NASA's Deep Space Network was necessary to receive the transmission be 'proof' of fraud?

reply to post by cestrup


I'm glad you say that would settle the matter for you. I just hope that that day comes sooner rather than later. The youngest of the Apollo astronauts is now getting on for 80 years old. The day will soon come where the entire lunar exploring generation has died out, which is pretty sad. But nobody seems to be able to make the case for going back any time soon. Maybe it will be left to private investment. Moon tourism for billionaires? It might be the only way.

The LRO image aren't exactly "horrible resolution", though. To be able to see the individual footpads of the LM and individual trails of footprints and rover tracks from lunar orbit is seriously impressive IMHO. But people are pretty jaded nowadays and anything that doesn't look like 3D IMAX special effects is lame. I understand.

cestrup
That would prove it to me. The shoddy LRO photos are of a horrible resolution. For as much excitement as they built up, they did not deliver IMO...

The LRO images in general are very good. Many of them have a resolution of 30 cm to 50 cm per pixel, which means it could see a rock at least the size basketball or large beach ball. That resolution is sufficient for the primary job of the LRO -- which was to map the Moon in detail in order to develop maps and landing sites for future on-surface exploration.

As for the images of the Apollo sites -- some people were looking for Google Earth - style close-up images, such as the ones where you can see details of your house from above. However, what most people don't realize is the most of those best images we see on Google Earth were taken from airplanes, not from satellites in orbit.

Sure, spy satellites probably do in fact exist that could see great detail from orbit, and even the commercial satellites (such as those used by Google) are getting better and better. However, the LRO did not require the necessary resolution to be able to make out fine details of the Apollo sites, so it was not built like a spy satellite. It would have been nice, but it was not required. For LRO to be like a spy satellite would have made it necessarily expensive, plus I doubt the spy satellite people wanted to give NASA the classified abilities of their spy satellites. The resolution abilities of spy satellites is not something the government wants their enemies (known enemies or potential) to know.

reply to post by DJW001


Ha, I don't know. Proof is subjective. I mean, we can take pictures of Neptune in amazing resolution and we get the LRO photos which look like an old Super Nintendo still frame. But, yes, it would be nice for someone outside of the narrative to visit the sites. Heck, it would be nice for anyone to go outside of 400mi.

reply to post by Rob48


I have trouble believing that there's no reason to go back. That's against human nature. You'd think we'd have been back 100x by now and starting some colonization efforts. You'd think someone would have built a rocket and did the same as we did (esp Russia). I understand that plans can change but judging at how much ALL technology has progressed, I find it rather disappointing that NOBODY has been able to recreate Apollo. I find it rather disappointing there aren't HD pics of the landing sites. We all know it's possible.

cestrup
reply to post by DJW001

 

Ha, I don't know. Proof is subjective. I mean, we can take pictures of Neptune in amazing resolution and we get the LRO photos which look like an old Super Nintendo still frame. But, yes, it would be nice for someone outside of the narrative to visit the sites. Heck, it would be nice for anyone to go outside of 400mi.

Here is one of the best images we have of Neptune, along with a comparison to the size of earth:


Here is the size of our Moon in comparison to earth:


Here is a picture taken from the LRO of and apollo landing site that shows the footpaths made by astronauts, plus can even resolve the backpacks (PLSS) worn by the astronauts (which were left on the Moon to conserve lift-off weight).


I think the LRO Apollo images are very good.
Far better than our images of Neptune.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Okay, okay -- I guess the point I was trying to make is that we have beautiful pics of Neptune and the LRO photos are inconclusive IMO. Something you forgot in your scaling post is that Neptune is exponentially farther away than the moon. You certainly make a fair point but I'm still under the belief that we can do better pictures than the LRO photos. If you took all of your knowledge away from the Apollo landings and someone handed you the LRO photo as proof that we went there; what would you think of it?

cestrup
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Okay, okay -- I guess the point I was trying to make is that we have beautiful pics of Neptune and the LRO photos are inconclusive IMO. Something you forgot in your scaling post is that Neptune is exponentially farther away than the moon. You certainly make a fair point but I'm still under the belief that we can do better pictures than the LRO photos. If you took all of your knowledge away from the Apollo landings and someone handed you the LRO photo as proof that we went there; what would you think of it?

I would think that the LRO images show equipment and footpaths that are consistent with the Apollo missions.

In fact, they are even consistent with other information taken 40+ years ago. Here is a still image from a movie taken by the Apollo 17 LM at liftoff from the Moon. In this image below, you can see the sill image from the movie the landing site as they left, plus a comparison of that frame from the movie with a picture taken by LRO 40 years later.


Here is an annotated version of that still frame from the Apollo 17 movie:


Here is the annotated image from LRO. In this image, the things around the item labeled "ALSEP" corresponds to the equipment labeled at the top of the image above.


From what I can see, the LRO images are consistent with what I expect to be seen at the landing sites. They are certainly not inconsistent.

cestrup
If you took all of your knowledge away from the Apollo landings and someone handed you the LRO photo as proof that we went there; what would you think of it?

If there was no other proof - if somehow all the photos and film footage from the Apollo program had been lost and all we had was the LRO images - then I agree that it might not be 100% convincing. (Although you can bet that if images like that showed up of an area where there wasn't a moon landing then there would be a hell of a lot of speculation about what these obviously artificial objects are! )

But the fact that you have these images on top of the thousands of photos, hours of cine film and video recordings, reams of telemetry and so on, and all of them match up, then it's really just the icing on the cake.

The patterns of tracks are a perfect match for the view seen from the LM as it lifted off:

I understand that plans can change but judging at how much ALL technology has progressed, I find it rather disappointing that NOBODY has been able to recreate Apollo.

So do I! Although it's not that nobody has "been able to" - that implies that others have tried and failed. It's a simple matter of money. The world today isn't like it was in the 1960s. It's a more cynical, less optimistic place. It's one thing to spend billions on totally smashing the boundaries of human exploration, but it's not quite so appealing to spend tens of billions, or even hundreds of billions at today's prices, to go back somewhere we've already been.

I totally agree that it is disappointing that nobody is going back. I was born a few years too late to see the Apollo program, and I can't even begin to imagine the excitement of growing up watching these things happening, live, for real. Let's go back. The sooner the better.

Rob48
So do I! Although it's not that nobody has "been able to" - that implies that others have tried and failed. It's a simple matter of money. The world today isn't like it was in the 1960s. It's a more cynical, less optimistic place. It's one thing to spend billions on totally smashing the boundaries of human exploration, but it's not quite so appealing to spend tens of billions, or even hundreds of billions at today's prices, to go back somewhere we've already been...

Yes. If the U.S. spent billions (one hundred billion+) in going to the Moon again, I think we would soon have the same outcry from the public that we had back in the 1970s when people complained "why are we spending billions on going to the Moon again when we have problems on Earth".

Sure, the public loved the Apollo Program at first, but halfway through the program in the early 1970s, the taxpaying public was already tired of it, and many wanted NASA to stop spending that money on going to the Moon "yet again". NASA had the space shuttle program in design (the first shuttle was being built less than 5 years after the last Moon landing), and they could not afford the Moon, especially with the social and economic climate being what it was...

...And the social and economic climate today is not much different (maybe a little less volatile). I suppose NASA could maybe get away with paying for another Moon mission if they spent their allotted budget (plus a little more) on ONLY a manned Moon mission, but NASA does not want to ONLY have moon missions.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Do you believe the military is still doing missions to the moon? (just out of curiousity)

Honestly, when has our government gave a **** about public opinion? If that were the case, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, Obamacare, invovlement in War (I can't imagine the cost) etc. I don't think we studied enough of the moon to conclude it's pointless to go back. I also think exploring our closest neighbor, if for inhabitation only, is of our best interest. Some of these reasons really make me wonder.

cestrup
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Do you believe the military is still doing missions to the moon? (just out of curiousity)

Not manned. I can't see how a manned presence on the Moon would necessarily be a military objective (at least not at the moment).

Honestly, when has our government gave a **** about public opinion? If that were the case, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, Obamacare, invovlement in War (I can't imagine the cost) etc.

They seemed to have cared back in 1972/1973 when congress decided that NASA could not afford both the Apollo Program and the Space Shuttle program. And congress certainly does care about public opinion -- each congressman cares about getting enough votes next time to remain in office. And they pick their battles carefully. They can easily cut NASA's budget to appease some people without too many other people really putting up a big fight. Obama care and going to war are different kinds of battles.

I don't think we studied enough of the moon to conclude it's pointless to go back. I also think exploring our closest neighbor, if for inhabitation only, is of our best interest. Some of these reasons really make me wonder.

It would be nice to go back (with human explorers with "boots on the ground"), but I don't think there is an urgent scientific "need" to do so. Anything they currently need to learn from a scientific standpoint that can learn from orbit.

The one reason I think going back would be beneficial is so we could learn how to live in such an environment; it would be a "dress rehearsal" for future manned missions to Mars.

reply to post by Rob48

So the logical conclusion from this is

a) Nixon attended a launch at the cape or
b) No rocket was launched it was in a studio and Nixon wasn't there

I'm not denying any of the Saturn launches Rob48. I was responding to DJW when he claimed that 'moon hoax believers' (which I am not one) claimed that all the Saturn launches were done in a studio (which I do not claim).

I have no problem selecting option "a".