How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

Plug · 18-12-2010 07:10PM

1) Where do you hide a rocket the size of a skyscraper? In space you can't just stop and turn around you have to go around the moon.
2)400,000 people involved how come none of them said anything?
3)Were did they get the rocks from?
4)Pictures of the landing sites?

Non believers watch the episode of the NASA moon landings by the mythbusters. I actually think its stupid to think they didn't go to the moon.

FISMA · 18-12-2010 10:39PM

On the subject of hot and cold things, I doubt many CT's understand the concept behind specific heat capacity.

Go around your room right now. More than likely, objects in your room are at room temperature and close to thermal equlibrium. Now touch them, metals "feel" cold whereas wood and plastics "feel" warmer, but they have the same temperature.

Don't forget, that in the upper layers of the atmosphere, the temperature can be extremely high, but you'll still freeze to death. Just because a particle has a high rate of speed, you'll still freeze to death because there aren't many of them.

Have a look at this clip, in case you have not already seen it. A blow torch heats a tile (like the space shuttle) for about 45s and glows it red. The torch is removed and the tile is picked up within a few seconds. If this were steel, bye bye fingerprints!

Lesson learned, hopefully, is that some objects cannot hold their heat and that there's a big difference between heat and temperature, not to mention, thermal energy and internal energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuSlkEob-3w

karaokeman · 18-12-2010 10:48PM

Plug wrote: »

1) Where do you hide a rocket the size of a skyscraper? In space you can't just stop and turn around you have to go around the moon.
2)400,000 people involved how come none of them said anything?
3)Were did they get the rocks from?
4)Pictures of the landing sites?

Non believers watch the episode of the NASA moon landings by the mythbusters. I actually think its stupid to think they didn't go to the moon.

That's easy.

1. The Astronauts might have not been in the Command Capsule at launch. The Saturn V flies to the Moon without them on board and an unmanned probe lands retroreflectors. The Astronauts are put into a C5A plane with their Command capsule and are dropped to the ocean

2. Only few high-level NASA officials knew the full story. The agency is so departmentalized, they would be stupid to let that many people "in" on the conspiracy if there was one

3. Rocks were manufactured from those they found in Antartica, 2 years before Apollo 11

4. Duh Photoshop

:cool:

18-12-2010 11:05PM

karaokeman wrote: »

That's easy.

And it's even easier to counter these claims.

karaokeman wrote: »

1. The Astronauts might have not been in the Command Capsule at launch. The Saturn V flies to the Moon without them on board and an unmanned probe lands retroreflectors. The Astronauts are put into a C5A plane with their Command capsule and are dropped to the ocean

The Apollo craft where all tracked by amateurs and professionals all over the world.

karaokeman wrote: »

2. Only few high-level NASA officials knew the full story. The agency is so departmentalized, they would be stupid to let that many people "in" on the conspiracy if there was one

So then how come none of the thousands of highly qualified and trained staff then and since have ever been able to produce any evidence for the hoax claims?
Surely if the conspiracies made sense and weren't easily debunked using leaving cert physics, someone at NASA would have noticed.

karaokeman wrote: »

3. Rocks were manufactured from those they found in Antartica, 2 years before Apollo 11

The Apollo missions returned over 300 Kg of lunar rock. Only about 16 kg have ever been found as meteorites in the Antarctic.
And then the lunar samples have characteristics not shared by meteorite samples and visa versa, and most of them are impossible to fake.

karaokeman wrote: »

4. Duh Photoshop

:cool:

Oops, I forgot about Adobe Photoshop: 1968 version. :P

karaokeman · 18-12-2010 11:41PM

Does anyone know about Jarrah White???

He is a youtube user and profounds himself "the grandson of the Apollo Hoax theory".

When you all see his "Moonfaker" videos you will know what I mean.

P.S. I am only 10% sure the landings were faked, I still believe that for the main part they were real. I mean, why not go back????

19-12-2010 12:33AM

karaokeman wrote: »

Does anyone know about Jarrah White???

He is a youtube user and profounds himself "the grandson of the Apollo Hoax theory".

When you all see his "Moonfaker" videos you will know what I mean.

Well if he's been telling you long debunked factoids like those ones, I wouldn't pay him much attention.

karaokeman wrote: »

P.S. I am only 10% sure the landings were faked, I still believe that for the main part they were real. I mean, why not go back????

And for the fifth time this thread: Lack of funds and political will.

Remember Concorde? How come there isn't a super sonic passenger plane today?
A super sonic passenger plane therefore must be impossible and Concorde was a hoax, right?

BoredGuy · 19-12-2010 06:10AM

King Mob wrote: »

The astronauts were dressed in white space suits.
White reflects the vast majority of the infra-red light from the sun.
The inbuilt cooling system was to deal with the heat produced by the astronaut, which couldn't be radiated away due to the insulation.

You are also wrong about objects not being able to cool in space.
Hot objects emit IR radiation and cool that way.

I don't have 3 answers for you (i can't and don't claim to have all the answers) but i can say this on the above:

if the astronauts suit cooling system was insulated thus preventing heat being radiated away how can you claim that cooling in space is accomplished by IR radiation as a reasonable explanation for the problem of cooling in space? Vacuum is an insulator, probably more efficient insulation than the astronauts spacesuits. IR radiation alone does not allow for a sufficient heat transfer rate to cope with temperatures of constant 265 degrees.
Having a white coloured suit is not going to reflect x-rays and gamma-rays away from astronauts. Cosmic rays can have energies of over 10 power20 eV, far higher than the 10 power12 to 10 power13 eV that man-made particle accelerators can produce. Ultra-High Cosmic rays have been detected having single particles with energies of about 50 J, the same as a well-hit tennis ball at 42 m/s [about 150 km/h]

Scram · 19-12-2010 06:51AM

This topic is fake so as to cover the fact that Moon Landings were done by Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan using a time machine.

19-12-2010 03:18PM

BoredGuy wrote: »

I don't have 3 answers for you (i can't and don't claim to have all the answers) but i can say this on the above:

That's to be expected when you can only regurgitate what you are told to by the sites you believe without question.

So if you can't actually explain why they didn't build a big enough hatch (which is entirly nonsense btw) why do you believe it proves a hoax?

BoredGuy wrote: »

if the astronauts suit cooling system was insulated thus preventing heat being radiated away how can you claim that cooling in space is accomplished by IR radiation as a reasonable explanation for the problem of cooling in space? Vacuum is an insulator, probably more efficient insulation than the astronauts spacesuits. IR radiation alone does not allow for a sufficient heat transfer rate to cope with temperatures of constant 265 degrees.

Because I didn't claim 265 degrees was radiated by IR radiation. Read my post again and you'll see that most of the IR radiation coming from the Sun is reflected away from the astronaut simply because their suits are white. So the temperatures you are giving are entirely nonsense.

BoredGuy wrote: »

Having a white coloured suit is not going to reflect x-rays and gamma-rays away from astronauts. Cosmic rays can have energies of over 10 power20 eV, far higher than the 10 power12 to 10 power13 eV that man-made particle accelerators can produce. Ultra-High Cosmic rays have been detected having single particles with energies of about 50 J, the same as a well-hit tennis ball at 42 m/s [about 150 km/h]

Again you've misread my post, probably deliberately.
And those sure are some scary numbers you have there. Unfortunately they aren't particularly impressive to people who actually understand what an eV actually is. Oh and whn you're typing out "to the power of" standard practice is to write it like this: 10^20

And no, the suit wouldn't reflect x-rays or gamma rays, nor did I claim so.

In fact at the energies the x-rays are at (which isn't the number you provided) they would simply be blocked for the most part due to the thickness of the suit. The Gamma rays are a different story, as they would be able to pass right through the suits and astronauts. However what the CTer site won't tell you, and probably don't know is that gamma radiation is the least ionizing radiation.
So again, exactly how much gamma radiation were they subject to and how much is a lethal dose?

alastair · 19-12-2010 04:24PM

BoredGuy wrote: »

Vacuum is an insulator, probably more efficient insulation than the astronauts spacesuits. IR radiation alone does not allow for a sufficient heat transfer rate to cope with temperatures of constant 265 degrees.

Firstly - where has the 265 degrees figure come from? It's a fahrenheit figure that's above the generally understood maximum temperature applicable to the moon (243 degrees at mid-day on the lunar equator - that's 117 degrees celsius) The mean daytime temperature is actually 107 degrees, and the Apollo EVA's took place nowhere near the hottest part of the day.

The radiant heat on the moon was much more easily handled than the metabolic heat generated in the suits - which was indeed too much for IR radiation to cope with. The cooling system of the suits relied on liquid sublimation - effectively the closed cooling loop went through a heat exchanger which converted the heat energy into sublimation energy, and the consequent ice formed by the process cooled the return liquid in the loop. While the cooling liquid was in a closed loop, additional water - stored and harvested from the oxegen/breathing moisture side of things was available to feed the sublimator/heat exchanger.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html

BoredGuy · 19-12-2010 06:35PM

alastair wrote: »

The radiant heat on the moon was much more easily handled than the metabolic heat generated in the suits - which was indeed too much for IR radiation to cope with. The cooling system of the suits relied on liquid sublimation - effectively the closed cooling loop went through a heat exchanger which converted the heat energy into sublimation energy, and the consequent ice formed by the process cooled the return liquid in the loop. While the cooling liquid was in a closed loop, additional water - stored and harvested from the oxegen/breathing moisture side of things was available to feed the sublimator/heat exchanger.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html

alastair you should further your understanding of how a heat exchanger functions and not just rely on what's published on nasa's website.
Sublimation (phase transition)
Sublimation is the transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.
At normal pressures, most chemical compounds and elements possess three different states at different temperatures. In these cases the transition from the solid to the gaseous state requires an intermediate liquid state.
Or in other words
Sublimation (phase transition) is the change from solid to gas, while at no point becoming a liquid.
Liquid Sublimation is a contradiction in terms and not a means to achieve heat transfer on the moon.

19-12-2010 06:44PM

BoredGuy wrote: »

alastair you should further your understanding of how a heat exchanger functions and not just rely on what's published on nasa's website.
Sublimation (phase transition)
Sublimation is the transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.
At normal pressures, most chemical compounds and elements possess three different states at different temperatures. In these cases the transition from the solid to the gaseous state requires an intermediate liquid state.
Or in other words
Sublimation (phase transition) is the change from solid to gas, while at no point becoming a liquid.
Liquid Sublimation is a contradiction in terms and not a means to achieve heat transfer on the moon.

The sublimator and heat exchanger are part of the "return circuit" of the PLSS. Oxygen, warmed by the heat generated by the astronaut's body, is cooled in the heat exchanger before being passed through the lithium hydroxide canister to eliminate exhaled carbon dioxide. Water circulated through the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG) also flows through the heat exchanger where it gives up heat to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater flows into the sublimator, where it is added to a layer of ice and, ultimately evaporates and carries away excess heat.

Please actually learn how these things work before you dismiss them.

alastair · 19-12-2010 07:08PM

BoredGuy wrote: »

Or in other words
Sublimation (phase transition) is the change from solid to gas, while at no point becoming a liquid.
Liquid Sublimation is a contradiction in terms and not a means to achieve heat transfer on the moon.

Sublimation applies to the ice formed as part of the heat exchanger process - it's most definitely liquid when it goes in - then heat exchanger forms ice (the solid), then sublimation causes offgassing of ice into vacuum. There's no contradiction involved - source material for sublimation is water.

shedweller · 19-12-2010 11:35PM

This is a schematic of the suits cooling system:

You can see the H2O sublimator mentioned on the right of the picture.
Pic taken from here:http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S6CH5.htm

shedweller · 19-12-2010 11:39PM

And a wikipedia page on the system and how it works:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment

stoneill · 21-12-2010 07:10PM

BoredGuy wrote: »

To make interstellar travel believable NASA was created.

Bored guy fails on the first sentence.

The Apollo mission were not interstellar, not even interplanetary.

Again - for you CT'ers, please do your research

squod · 22-12-2010 12:14AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT2k3gdo8gM

Read a quoted post. Something about the aastronaughts suits being white to reflect stuff. Yeah...........

kaiser sauze · 22-12-2010 12:31AM

Bored Guy = apt username.

Divorce Referendum · 22-12-2010 01:08AM

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT2k3gdo8gM

Read a quoted post. Something about the aastronaughts suits being white to reflect stuff. Yeah...........

Whats this stuff you talk of?

karaokeman · 30-12-2010 05:43PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Of course they were real!

This is easily one of the more ridiculous Conspiracy Theories!

Seriously I don't know why people think the Moon landing conspiracy is so stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they were real but I don't blame people who think they weren't.

If you really listen to the people that started the conspiracy, you will see where they are coming from. Problem with most people is they look at the theories themselves and think their stupid. I bet that most of the people here will have NO IDEA who Bill Kaysing is.

The no stars theory may seem idiotic but thats because the originators of the theory knew NASA had all the money in the world to have the best camera to take pictures of the stars.

Here are videos by the grandson of the theory that will help you all understand the people who started all this madness;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi70uLTD_Pc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi70uLTD_Pc

P.S. I think the pictures and footage are fake but the landing WAS real

30-12-2010 05:54PM

karaokeman wrote: »

Seriously I don't know why people think the Moon landing conspiracy is so stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they were real but I don't blame people who think they weren't.

If you really listen to the people that started the conspiracy, you will see where they are coming from. Problem with most people is they look at the theories themselves and think their stupid. I bet that most of the people here will have NO IDEA who Bill Kaysing is.

The no stars theory may seem idiotic but thats because the originators of the theory knew NASA had all the money in the world to have the best camera to take pictures of the stars.

Here are videos by the grandson of the theory that will help you all understand the people who started all this madness;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi70uLTD_Pc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi70uLTD_Pc

P.S. I think the pictures and footage are fake but the landing WAS real

But why do you have to listen to the originators of the theory specifically?
The claims haven't changed at all, no matter how debunked and shown to be stupid they are.

The only reason to believe the Moon Landings were faked is if you unquestioningly believe what you are told about them by the cranks.

GhostInTheRuins · 30-12-2010 05:56PM

karaokeman wrote: »

P.S. I think the pictures and footage are fake but the landing WAS real

If you think the footage is fake why do you think the landing was real? If they went to all the bother to fake the footage, why even go to the moon then?

And why would NASA risk fake footage of the moon landing being proven fake if they actually did land on the moon in the first place? Doesn't make sense.

shedweller · 31-12-2010 12:57AM

karaokeman wrote: »

The no stars theory may seem idiotic but thats because the originators of the theory knew NASA had all the money in the world to have the best camera to take pictures of the stars.

And what did they know? What kind of camera did they have? What could all the money in the world buy, in terms of cameras?
Wait a minute, are you saying that they could have taken pictures of the stars in situations where we would think they couldn't? Wow, serious conspiracy there. Go on, tell me what kind of camera could do that.
Explain the physics behind it. With real physics.

Steyr · 31-12-2010 01:12AM

What about that Organisation ( in California I believe or Montana ) that bounces a Laser off a reflector on the moon placed there by Astronauts and the Computer gives back the distance and speed it took to reach it and send back the return.

The amount of equipment there is just amazing why go making something so big just to fake it which is interesting as others across the world have done the same.

Steyr · 31-12-2010 01:13AM

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

uprising2 · 31-12-2010 05:04AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_missions#Unmanned_missions

Lost Soviet Reflecting Device Rediscovered on the Moon
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By SPACE.com Staff

A long lost light reflector that was left on the surface of the moon by the former Soviet Union has been rediscovered by a team of American physicists after nearly 40 years using lasers beamed from Earth.
The French-built laser reflector was sent aboard the unmanned Soviet Luna 17 mission, which landed on the moon on Nov. 17, 1970 and released a robotic rover that roamed the lunar surface and carried the sought after laser reflector..
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lost-soviet-reflector-found-on-moon-100427.html

Can I make one thing clear here to everybody, I do not doubt manmade objects are on the moon, I just dont think man was.
I know the photos are not as stated/fake, I've explained why.
Every and Any evidence to "prove" it did happen can be explained by unmanned missions.
They went through radiation in a tin can, radiation on the moon is supposedly far,far greater than previously though, yet they have moon rocks and petrified wood as moon samples yet couldnt detect the very high radiation from them?, is this a credible story or does it smell of bullsh1t?

"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lost-soviet-reflector-found-on-moon-100427.html

Rates are much higher than originally estimated

 Rarest events (> 100 MeV, punch through whole telescope) seen once a second

 The unprecedented solar minimum has led to the highest GCR fluxes and dose
rates in the history of human space exploration

 Integrated LET spectra showing presence of nuclear interactions, inelastic
scatterings, other deviations from simple radiation transport

 GCR rates drops as we approach moon (due to blocking increasing fraction
of the sky) until 500 km altitude

 Rate does not fall at expected rate as we get closer to moon

 Ionizing radiation > 10 MeV from lunar surface – possibly due to interactions
between GCR and surface
 Lunar surface radiation dose higher than expected as a result...................................

Characterize the LET of the lunar radiation environment as a function of time and determine typical and extreme conditions on the surface

 Measure how this spectrum evolves through different depths of tissue equivalent plastic (TEP) in order to:

 Directly measure biological impact of lunar radiation

 Produce precise detailed constraints for validation of radiation transport models

Hazard = Integral of (LET *Biological impact
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2009/presentations/Day-2%20AM/11-20_Kasper.pdf

[/FONT]

31-12-2010 05:24AM

uprising2 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_missions#Unmanned_missions

Lost Soviet Reflecting Device Rediscovered on the Moon

A long lost light reflector that was left on the surface of the moon by the former Soviet Union has been rediscovered by a team of American physicists after nearly 40 years using lasers beamed from Earth.
The French-built laser reflector was sent aboard the unmanned Soviet Luna 17 mission, which landed on the moon on Nov. 17, 1970 and released a robotic rover that roamed the lunar surface and carried the sought after laser reflector..
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lost-soviet-reflector-found-on-moon-100427.html

So you mean the unmanned mission wasn't able to correctly position the reflector?
Could you tell us what happened to the only other unmanned reflector?

Yet the apollo ones have been used consistently for the last 40 years all over the world.

uprising2 wrote: »

Can I make one thing clear here to everybody, I do not doubt manmade objects are on the moon, I just dont think man was.
I know the photos are not as stated/fake, I've explained why.

Nope you just declared it without evidence or support.

uprising2 wrote: »

Every and Any evidence to "prove" it did happen can be explained by unmanned missions.

Yes a secret space program of highly advanced robotic probes sent to the moon and back to return more than a hundred times the amount of samples ever returned to earth previously or since, and for which there isn't a jot of evidence.
And yet you still claim that "only a few have to know"...

So beyond that it's an attempt to patch a giant hole in the moon hoax theory, what evidence do you have for this secret space program?

uprising2 wrote: »

They went through radiation in a tin can, radiation on the moon is supposedly far,far greater than previously though, yet they have moon rocks and petrified wood as moon samples yet couldnt detect the very high radiation from them?, is this a credible story or does it smell of bullsh1t?

And I explained this to you. Which parts did you fail to understand?
Was it the part that the apollo samples are only a teeny tiny sample compared to readings of the entire moon?
Or was it the bit where I explained how radiation works and how that once the lunar rocks were no longer exposed to the bare solar radiation that they would slowly lose their own radioactivity?

So again Uprising for at least the fifth time, exactly how much radiation were the astronauts subject to and how much is a lethal dose?

And you do understand how you are dishonestly presenting that quote right?
Here's the important bit:

But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck.

The person you are quoting clearly believes that the missions were real.

uprising2 · 31-12-2010 05:38AM

King Mob wrote: »

So you mean the unmanned mission wasn't able to correctly position the reflector?
Could you tell us what happened to the only other unmanned reflector?

Yet the apollo ones have been used consistently for the last 40 years all over the world.

Nope you just declared it without evidence or support.

Yes a secret space program of highly advanced robotic probes sent to the moon and back to return more than a hundred times the amount of samples ever returned to earth previously or since, and for which there isn't a jot of evidence.
And yet you still claim that "only a few have to know"...

So beyond that it's an attempt to patch a giant hole in the moon hoax theory, what evidence do you have for this secret space program?

And I explained this to you. Which parts did you fail to understand?
Was it the part that the apollo samples are only a teeny tiny sample compared to readings of the entire moon?
Or was it the bit where I explained how radiation works and how that once the lunar rocks were no longer exposed to the bare solar radiation that they would slowly lose their own radioactivity?

So again Uprising for at least the fifth time, exactly how much radiation were the astronauts subject to and how much is a lethal dose?

And you do understand how you are dishonestly presenting that quote right?
Here's the important bit:

The person you are quoting clearly believes that the missions were real.

No only that unmanned mission wasn't, the rest did the job correctly.

The radiation wouldnt fade after 40 years, maybe 400,000 years perhaps, but even with radiation deterioration should they not have known the initial strenght of the radiation????, no?.

Ground control to kingmob..............

We have a problem in communication.............

I dont want to communicate with you.................

But I know I will.................I just know...

31-12-2010 05:52AM

uprising2 wrote: »

No only that unmanned mission wasn't, the rest did the job correctly.

There was two unmanned reflectors ever launched. One failed and was found only 40 years later. The other is not positioned as accurately as the manned missions.

So again where is the evidence for the massive secret space program and how can you both use that defence and the "only a few had to know" defence at the same time?

uprising2 wrote: »

The radiation wouldnt fade after 40 years, maybe 400,000 years perhaps,

It depends on the radioactive material, most have very short half-lifes.

uprising2 wrote: »

but even with radiation deterioration should they not have known the initial strenght of the radiation????, no?.

Unless of course the radioactivity had deteriorated to nothing or to an undetectable amount. Or it just was a very very very small sample size compared to the entirety of the moon.

So again you've ignored the question: How much radiation would the astronauts be subject to and how much is a lethal dose?

uprising2 wrote: »

Ground control to kingmob..............

We have a problem in communication.............

I dont want to communicate with you.................

But I know I will.................I just know...

Good for you. I mean why would you want to try and address points against your beliefs?

Mahatma coat · 31-12-2010 08:53AM

I'm of the Impression that NASA are Lying to us about a lot of Stuff, Primarily in this Discussion the 'First' and Subsequent Apollo landings, THE stuff about the other Crafts is the bit that interests me most, what exactly constitutes as a 'Bogey' and there are a few more anomalies that raise attention.

I believe man has walked on the Moon, I subscribe to another theory that were not the First Generation to land on the moon. whether or not The Americans had 'outside'

assistance during the Apollo program is another question.

How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

Comments