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

namloc1980 · 10-01-2011 07:53PM

squod wrote: »

I'm the one who brought it up :rolleyes:

What exactly is your point then?

Monty Burnz · 12-01-2011 04:14PM

noel1717 wrote: »

I refer you to this post http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=305794 as you can understand such evidence is erased over time, look at post 431 the french satellites are now under US jurisdiction. however if i come across the pics i will post them

Still no sign of this 'evidence'?

alastair · 12-01-2011 08:38PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Still no sign of this 'evidence'?

Someone claimed it on a forum. It must be true.

Nolanger · 16-01-2011 06:46PM

Why was the American flag waving on the moon with no wind?
Why no stars seen from the moon?
How did the astronauts get past the Van Allen radiation belts unharmed?
Why no crater formed when they landed on the surface?
How did they survive the low temperatures on the moon?
Why were the astronauts' suits so well lit on the moon when it was dark?

16-01-2011 06:59PM

Nolanger wrote: »

Why was the American flag waving on the moon with no wind?

Because the was a pole going across the top of the flag. The only time it moved is when the astronauts where touching it and just afterwards due to pendulum motion and a lack of air resistance.
There are plenty of examples of the astronauts hopping past the flag at speed and yet the flag remains unmoved.

Nolanger wrote: »

Why no stars seen from the moon?

The same reason we can't see stars during the day. The sun was up.

Nolanger wrote: »

How did the astronauts get past the Van Allen radiation belts unharmed?

Because they passed through the belts quickly and therefore only received low doses of radiation.
And question I keep asking CTers but never get an answer to is: how much radiation would the astronauts have received and how much is a lethal dose.

Nolanger wrote: »

Why no crater formed when they landed on the surface?

Because there wouldn't be one in the first place.

Nolanger wrote: »

How did they survive the low temperatures on the moon?

Because they wore insulated suits, their body heat was enough.
In fact it was more of a problem to prevent overheating.

Nolanger wrote: »

Why were the astronauts' suits so well lit on the moon when it was dark?

Because it wasn't dark. The Sun was up and the Moon's surface is fairly reflective.

squod · 16-01-2011 07:36PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4cFTJM288

Monty Burnz · 16-01-2011 07:48PM

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4cFTJM288

That video is unwatchable for me due to the 'comedy voice' the guy uses. I nearly felt sick after a few minutes :eek:

Dragonblaster · 16-01-2011 09:43PM

@Nolanger:

These points have been debunked again and again and again and again and AGAIN.

And they keep being raised again and again and again and again and AGAIN, as if they were new objections.

I have trawled the moon hoax sites for years, and I have never once see a hoax believer even acknowledge that all these points and more have been diligently addressed on countless occasions.

There is no rebuttal of the explanations - they are just ignored.

If you're really interested in an answer, you can find detailed rebuttals of all these supposed hoax claims and more at http://www.clavius.org/

I suggest you follow the link and see what they have to say. Then you can stump us with your own refutation of the evidence.

That is, if you're really interested in the truth and not just hopping aboard a trendy bandwagon for a quick joyride.

Phill Ewinn · 16-01-2011 11:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

Because they passed through the belts quickly and therefore only received low doses of radiation.
And question I keep asking CTers but never get an answer to is: how much radiation would the astronauts have received and how much is a lethal dose.

You've raised this point several time now. You know that they spent 90 mins travelling through the VA belts ( plus two days travel to the moon during a solar maximum) and that people will die after about 500 rad. You also know the effects of seconadry radiation caused by aluminium shielding would increase their' chances of death. You could google NOAAs data from the period and do the calculations for yourself.

16-01-2011 11:48PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You've raised this point several time now. You know that they spent 90 mins travelling through the VA belts ( plus two days travel to the moon during a solar maximum) and that people will die after about 500 rad. You also know the effects of seconadry radiation caused by aluminium shielding would increase their' chances of death. You could google NOAAs data from the period and do the calculations for yourself.

You see that's not the point.
You are claiming that the radiation was lethal.
If you can't show or even say with any confidence how much radiation they would have gotten during the mission, how exactly do you know it was lethal?

You say that the mission was during a solar maximum, which is true. But what about that makes the mission impossible.

You say that aluminium causes secondary radiation, which is true. But how much does it increase the radiation exactly?

And why do I have to ask the same question about the radiation so many times?

namloc1980 · 16-01-2011 11:51PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You've raised this point several time now. You know that they spent 90 mins travelling through the VA belts ( plus two days travel to the moon during a solar maximum) and that people will die after about 500 rad. You also know the effects of seconadry radiation caused by aluminium shielding would increase their' chances of death. You could google NOAAs data from the period and do the calculations for yourself.

Can you explain to us how astronauts who fly onboard spacecraft that goes through the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly while orbiting Earth aren't being killed on a regular basis from the radiation?

Phill Ewinn · 16-01-2011 11:55PM

King Mob wrote: »

You see that's not the point.
You are claiming that the radiation was lethal.
If you can't show or even say with any confidence how much radiation they would have gotten during the mission, how exactly do you know it was lethal?

You say that the mission was during a solar maximum, which is true. But what about that makes the mission impossible.

You say that aluminium causes secondary radiation, which is true. But how much does it increase the radiation exactly?

And why do I have to ask the same question about the radiation so many times?

I asked you to google it for yourself. The data is available you can take your marker from the pro-hoax conservative estimate or no. Anywhere from 1200 and up AFAIR

16-01-2011 11:59PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I asked you to google it for yourself. The data is available you can take your marker from the pro-hoax conservative estimate or no. Anywhere from 1200 and up AFAIR

1200 whats? over how long? Says who? Based on what information
What about the other questions?

Seriously for someone who pretends to care about the truth you're terribly tight lipped about it.

Divorce Referendum · 17-01-2011 12:45AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you explain to us how astronauts who fly onboard spacecraft that goes through the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly while orbiting Earth aren't being killed on a regular basis from the radiation?

I have had this discussion with him before and he will not concede that the space shuttle passes through SAMA. Waste of time.

Monty Burnz · 17-01-2011 12:51AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I have had this discussion with him before and he will not concede that the space shuttle passes through SAMA. Waste of time.

Why do you not accept it?

Divorce Referendum · 17-01-2011 12:53AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why do you not accept it?

Do i not accept what?

Monty Burnz · 17-01-2011 01:33AM

Sorry, I was addressing the lad who would not accept the point you made, not you.

FISMA · 17-01-2011 02:05AM

If nothing else, I believe this thread, now at 18,207 views, demonstrates the need for a better science curriculum, specifically Physics, in secondary schools.

Also, people should really learn how to use logic and the difference between proof and evidence.

quasar2010 · 17-01-2011 06:27PM

There are some things I would like answering about the moon landings. I'm not generally a none believer but there are several questions I would like answering:
1. The temperature on the moon in direct sunlight is very high, I think above 200 degrees centigrade and the temperature in the shade (because there is no atmosphere which can warm up) is about minus 180 degrees centigrade.
That is a variation of about 360 degrees between direct sunlight and shade. During the video's taken on the moon we clearly see astronauts walking in and out of the shade. My question is about the glass on the camera lenses which are mounted on the astronauts chests. From what I've read, the lens's of these camera's are standard lens glass. If you took a standard lens on Earth and heated it up to 200C then instantly dropped it into liquid helium or something they shatter. Or even if you heated it up to 200C then dropped it into tepid tap water it would also shatter. Can't figure this out - any ideas?
2. Any form of footprint on Earth exists because we expell either moisture or air from a substance, compact it and form a print. If you take dry desert sand and try to make a footprint you won't succeed because there is no moisture but if you have wet sand, the moisture holds the structure of the footprint together. Substances that have no moisture but contain molecules of air can also form a print i.e flour.
I was wondering, if there is no moisure or air on the moon what would hold the structure of a footprint together that we clearly see in pictures.
Any soils on the moon have no moisure or air in them so surely they would be as flat as they possibly can be already surely?

Monty Burnz · 17-01-2011 06:48PM

quasar2010 wrote: »

1. The temperature on the moon in direct sunlight is very high, I think above 200 degrees centigrade and the temperature in the shade (because there is no atmosphere which can warm up) is about minus 180 degrees centigrade.
That is a variation of about 360 degrees between direct sunlight and shade. During the video's taken on the moon we clearly see astronauts walking in and out of the shade. My question is about the glass on the camera lenses which are mounted on the astronauts chests. From what I've read, the lens's of these camera's are standard lens glass. If you took a standard lens on Earth and heated it up to 200C then instantly dropped it into liquid helium or something they shatter. Or even if you heated it up to 200C then dropped it into tepid tap water it would also shatter. Can't figure this out - any ideas?

I can help with this one - the glass isn't going to change temperature quickly as there is no medium to carry away the heat. If you took a lens at room temperature and put in a vacuum at -100, it would cool down, but there's nothing to carry the heat away except radiation. Similarly there's nothing to heat it when the temp is +200 except the small amount of light that does not pass straight through it.

quasar2010 wrote: »

2. Any form of footprint on Earth exists because we expell either moisture or air from a substance, compact it and form a print. If you take dry desert sand and try to make a footprint you won't succeed because there is no moisture but if you have wet sand, the moisture holds the structure of the footprint together. Substances that have no moisture but contain molecules of air can also form a print i.e flour.
I was wondering, if there is no moisure or air on the moon what would hold the structure of a footprint together that we clearly see in pictures.
Any soils on the moon have no moisure or air in them so surely they would be as flat as they possibly can be already surely?

You don't need moisture for a footprint. If you get dry flour you can test this one yourself. And the footprints will hang around a very long time because there is no atmosphere to move any of the grains of fine dust. The dust on the surface won't necessarily be as flat as it could be because a) there is less gravity pressing it down than we're used to here and b) picture how the dust got there - probably a lot of the surface dust is stuff that gently showered down after a meteorite or somesuch exploded on the surface of the moon. It would not settle in the most compact form.

Hope that helps?

Something that I'm wondering about is the videos from the surface of the moon that appear to show a 'stagehand' in the background...can anyone help me with the non-CT explanation for that?

17-01-2011 06:58PM

The important difference here is that on Earth you have an atmosphere the moon does not. This is the answer to both questions.

quasar2010 wrote: »

There are some things I would like answering about the moon landings. I'm not generally a none believer but there are several questions I would like answering:
1. The temperature on the moon in direct sunlight is very high, I think above 200 degrees centigrade and the temperature in the shade (because there is no atmosphere which can warm up) is about minus 180 degrees centigrade.
That is a variation of about 360 degrees between direct sunlight and shade. During the video's taken on the moon we clearly see astronauts walking in and out of the shade. My question is about the glass on the camera lenses which are mounted on the astronauts chests. From what I've read, the lens's of these camera's are standard lens glass. If you took a standard lens on Earth and heated it up to 200C then instantly dropped it into liquid helium or something they shatter. Or even if you heated it up to 200C then dropped it into tepid tap water it would also shatter. Can't figure this out - any ideas?

Heat doesn't transfer across a vacuum, except by infrared radiation.
The heats you are quoting is off the actual surface of the moon. Not around the surface of the moon, because there simply isn't anything there to be hot.
So the lens themselves would not be getting even close to the temperatures above, even if the astronaut went out at times where the surface was that temperature.

quasar2010 wrote: »

2. Any form of footprint on Earth exists because we expell either moisture or air from a substance, compact it and form a print. If you take dry desert sand and try to make a footprint you won't succeed because there is no moisture but if you have wet sand, the moisture holds the structure of the footprint together. Substances that have no moisture but contain molecules of air can also form a print i.e flour.
I was wondering, if there is no moisure or air on the moon what would hold the structure of a footprint together that we clearly see in pictures.
Any soils on the moon have no moisure or air in them so surely they would be as flat as they possibly can be already surely?

This is pretty interesting actually.
The soil on the moon is very different to that on the Earth. Looking at it through a microscope you'd see the grains of the earth sand is quite rounded and smooth. This is because it's had weathering from water and the wind among other effects. The Lunar soil simply doesn't experience these effects, due to the lack of an atmosphere and therefore the grains are quite rough and jagged which lets them stick together more than you'd expect.

The Mythbusters show exactly this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw

quasar2010 · 17-01-2011 07:10PM

If you get dry flour you can test this one yourself

Yes but dry flour contains air molecules trapped between the flour particles. When you apply pressure, the air is forced out compacting the molecules together. To test it properly you would have to use a vacuum with every single molecule of air removed from the flour, then see if a footprint would hold its structure I would have thought.
The dust on the moon on the video's seems to be pretty fine stuff, similar to sand sized particles. When we see sand on Earth that is dry with no air molecules trapped in it, its almost impossible to form a footprint in it. I would have imagined the moon's surface to be pretty similar with debris from meteorite collisions and so forth.
Going back to the glass, thats a fair enough and viable answer but could we extend the argument to the film inside. Standard Kodacolor 400, could that withstand the temperatures?

Nolanger · 17-01-2011 07:13PM

When will have telescopes powerful enough to see the rubble left on the moon by the Apollo mission or will it have decayed by now.

Monty Burnz · 17-01-2011 07:16PM

quasar2010 wrote: »

Yes but dry flour contains air molecules trapped between the flour particles. When you apply pressure, the air is forced out compacting the molecules together. To test it properly you would have to use a vacuum with every single molecule of air removed from the flour, then see if a footprint would hold its structure I would have thought.
The dust on the moon on the video's seems to be pretty fine stuff, similar to sand sized particles. When we see sand on Earth that is dry with no air molecules trapped in it, its almost impossible to form a footprint in it. I would have imagined the moon's surface to be pretty similar with debris from meteorite collisions and so forth.
Going back to the glass, thats a fair enough and viable answer but could we extend the argument to the film inside. Standard Kodacolor 400, could that withstand the temperatures?

King Mob has answered the footprint one pretty well.

Re. the film - I think the point is that it just wouldn't reach those extremes of temperature. You can freeze film (it's best to store it that way) and if it's frozen when you are using it it may have an effect on the 'speed' of the film (how much light you need to reach the film for it to record an image). It probably also gets brittle at very low temperatures and melts at very high ones - but as there is no medium to transmit the heat to the film, it probably changed temperature very gradually.

17-01-2011 07:18PM

quasar2010 wrote: »

Going back to the glass, thats a fair enough and viable answer but could we extend the argument to the film inside. Standard Kodacolor 400, could that withstand the temperatures?

The film was contained within the camera, away from direct exposure. The infrared radiation was mostly reflected away by the reflective surface of the camera and space suit. And with nothing to every little connecting the film to the slightly heated up surface there is no way for the heat to transfer.

Dragonblaster · 17-01-2011 07:19PM

Nolanger wrote: »

When will have telescopes powerful enough to see the rubble left on the moon by the Apollo mission or will it have decayed by now.

The landing sites have already been imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Observer satellite:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

And if these are fakes, why can't they get even better photos, and why didn't they fake them decades ago?

17-01-2011 07:20PM

Nolanger wrote: »

When will have telescopes powerful enough to see the rubble left on the moon by the Apollo mission or will it have decayed by now.

The flags would have mostly disintegrated due to UV radiation, but the bulkier stuff is still there.
And all of it was imaged by the LRO.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

quasar2010 · 17-01-2011 07:39PM

King Mob wrote: »

The film was contained within the camera, away from direct exposure. The infrared radiation was mostly reflected away by the reflective surface of the camera and space suit. And with nothing to every little connecting the film to the slightly heated up surface there is no way for the heat to transfer.

But the camera was made from a selection of aluminium based alloys, aluminium although reflective is also one of the best conductors we have on Earth and the heat would be conducted from direct radiation into the camera's workings very rapidly and like you say, there is no means of cooling apart from infra-red and conduction into the spacesuit.
On Earth metal warms up and conducts heat very rapidly, unless it is 100% reflective like a mirror. The camera's must absorb heat from the relentless 200 degrees centigrade and have little means of cooling down. This could possibly lead to superheating well past 200 degrees C.
Microwave and x-rays are also a problem worth thinking about. If an airports xray machine can damage a camera film when it passes through the detector, what could x-rays on the moon do to the film?
No atmosphere to protect against all the suns dangerous spectrum for that matter. Its an eye opener is this one really.

Monty Burnz · 17-01-2011 07:58PM

quasar2010 wrote: »

But the camera was made from a selection of aluminium based alloys, aluminium although reflective is also one of the best conductors we have on Earth and the heat would be conducted from direct radiation into the camera's workings very rapidly and like you say, there is no means of cooling apart from infra-red and conduction into the spacesuit.
On Earth metal warms up and conducts heat very rapidly, unless it is 100% reflective like a mirror. The camera's must absorb heat from the relentless 200 degrees centigrade and have little means of cooling down. This could possibly lead to superheating well past 200 degrees C.
Microwave and x-rays are also a problem worth thinking about. If an airports xray machine can damage a camera film when it passes through the detector, what could x-rays on the moon do to the film?
No atmosphere to protect against all the suns dangerous spectrum for that matter. Its an eye opener is this one really.

There are x-rays on the moon? Didn't know that. But the point stands - the camera doesn't heat up or cool down too much because there's not atmosphere to transmit the head, and even less reaches the film. There might be a bit of research on this area on the interwebz as a lot of camera hobbyists would be interested in it.

quasar2010 · 17-01-2011 08:05PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are x-rays on the moon? Didn't know that. But the point stands - the camera doesn't heat up or cool down too much because there's not atmosphere to transmit the head, and even less reaches the film. There might be a bit of research on this area on the interwebz as a lot of camera hobbyists would be interested in it.

There is no atmoshere inbetween the sun and the earth but solar radiation still gets here. Radiation doesn't use a calalyst as a means of transport like conductive or convected heat it is transported to the surface of the moon via the electromagnetic spectrum. This spectrum has many frequencies of light from visable to infra-red, ultra-violet, microwave, x-rays, gamma rays, beta rays etc.

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

Comments