Moon Missions Faked?

[Turtle]

I admit I have never beleived the claims the Moon missions were faked; now I'm not so sure. A link:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

[Tormod]

No worries.

http://www.badastronomy.com/ refutes all of it very well.

[Stargazer]

Here is another site:
http://www.clavius.org/

It's funny of the conspiracy theorists like to point out the "fluttering flag" as evidence for an atmosphere, yet never mention the fact that the dust kicked up by the rover acts exactly as expected if there was a vacuum. There are many more strange things, such as the probability to go to the moon to be 0.0014% or what it was. How do you calculate something like that? Was that the probability to go to the moon with current technology or possible future technology?

[Turtle]

Yes, the gentleman mentions his ongoing debate with the Bad Astronomy guys. The article is kinda long, but I read it all. He answers each of their challenges convincingly.
Oddly the fluttering flag is mentioned just once in the article, & at the very end. It's not a good argument for fakery in my view, because even with no wind & low G, motion imparted initially by moving the pole could continue to wiggle.
As I say, I never thought it was a hoax, & i never heard convincing arguments. Nonetheless, these seem to be new arguments in the old debate, and convincing arguments at that.

[Stargazer]

Just a little of it...

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

So that was some kind of number calculated regardless of technology availible? Or just technology availible in 1959? Maybe we'll never know.

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!

Not at all. The crosshairs seem to disappear only in bright objects, which suggests that the light simply bled over the thin corsshairs.

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?

The ground isn't flat, that's why. He claims that skeptics claim that the differences in the shadows are because there are more than one lightsource, like the Earth. This is obviously not the correct answer either, and no one who can think about this for even the shortest while would realise no skeptic would use that argument, because surely the Earthlight could not produce a shadows going in the same direction as the shadows produced by blocking the sun? Furthermore, even if that was possible, both astronauts would have two shadows. They don't. The weird shadows is because the surface is not flat.

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

The spacesuits were probably heavy and bulky.

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

Let's not mention the fact that they never ran a 3D simulation in a Windows environment, because that might blow this argument into pieces... The computer was indeed enough to navigate to the moon. However, they did actually encounter overflow problems in the landing phase.

30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

They had it in 1969, they still have it. However, they don't have any spacecrafts in operation that could be used for this.

[C2H5OH]

Thats the dumbest thing ever. Like the people that say the holocaust never happened.

[orbsycli]

i used to believe that america stepped foot on the moon, but i just read that entire page and am now disgusted.
what's going to happen when america loses it's spot as being the highest power on earth?
it's going to pull some bullshit like this because it's jelous.
once again, disgusted.

[Aquagem]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I admit I have never believed the claims the Moon missions were faked; now I'm not so sure.

For years I kept a copy of a Back to Godhead (Krishna) magazine from the early 70's with a cover article entitled, "We never went to the Moon". I kept it because it shows how religious thinkers often come to their conclusions about reality. Being from a different culture, the story didn't raise hackles like confronting your own dominant culture's ideas.

How did they know the whole thing was a fake? Simple. The holy Vedas state that the moon is seven (or so) times farther away from Earth than the Sun. We know the Sun is 93 million miles away, so the moon is much too far for us to have reached it. Good deductive reasoning from an unimpeachable source. (Good example of "begging the question" - reasoning logically from an unsupportable position to an irrelevant conclusion.)

What really interested most about the article, though, was that the author went on, now armed with the "truth", to elaborate on what it meant. To make the sociocultural context, the picture of America and the rest of the world, fit with this interpretation of events surrounding the Moon landing (backed up, as it was, by holy scripture), forced him into a grand, worldwide conspiracy, which, of course, was also highly secret, but which was being used by politicians to rob us blind.

Having the wrong theory really matters.

[Buffy]

Want a religious experience? Go to a shuttle launch. I always thought that no one could be a skeptic about the moon landings after having seen a launch. From 5 miles away on the beach in Titusville, you feel the ground shake. While there's not really a shock wave, from that far away its LOUD! Do this after having gone by on the tour bus to see this GIGANTIC thing sitting there on the lauch pad. If that's what they have to do to fake it, heck they might as well not fake it and just go to the moon. This is really awe inspiring stuff.

Oh and if you're in Orlando and you ask anyone "What's the best way to see the shuttle launch," the canonical response is "face east."

Originally Posted by Stargazer

The computer was indeed enough to navigate to the moon. However, they did actually encounter overflow problems in the landing phase.

No question. My dad had an ancient hp programmable calculator from the 70s (able to do 100, count em *100* instructions), and it had a program you could enter by hand that did a moon landing simulation. And if you've dug up any of the details on how these nav computers worked, they were basically programming in machine language, with buttons for "verb" and "noun" to indicate if a number was an instruction or a byte of data. Wild! Works, but man, having to fiddle with something like that while you're 60 seconds from running out of fuel is mind boggling...

Cheers,
Buffy

[zadojla]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Want a religious experience? Go to a shuttle launch. ...snip.

My wife attended a shuttle launch, and she found it VERY impressive.

Originally Posted by Buffy

No question. My dad had an ancient hp programmable calculator from the 70s (able to do 100, count em *100* instructions), and it had a program you could enter by hand that did a moon landing simulation. And if you've dug up any of the details on how these nav computers worked, they were basically programming in machine language, with buttons for "verb" and "noun" to indicate if a number was an instruction or a byte of data. Wild! Works, but man, having to fiddle with something like that while you're 60 seconds from running out of fuel is mind boggling...

That calculator was from the 70's. They did not exist in the late 60's when the Apollo program was active. Rapid calculations would have been done with a slide rule, which could calculate to three significant figures very rapidly in the hands of an expert. Computers from the late 60's would have had cycle times much less than one megaHertz. A large mainframe from that time might have had one megabyte of memory.