Moon-landing conspiracy theories weightless but persistent

[Ivan Seeking]

"Even today -- the 34th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, the first arrival by astronauts on the lunar surface -- there are people who think the whole program was a sham."

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6350437.htm

 

[Quasaire]

There are three things said about the moon landing that I find credible against it.

1. Remember certain motion pictures of the American flag and all? The flag is blowing as if there is wind. Well, the moon is too small and hence, gravity too feeble to support an atmosphere. So how can a flag blow?
   
2. There are absolutely no stars on the pictures. Even on Earth with clouds and all, if conditions are right, you can see stars. There was no stars on the pictures of the moon landing. Perhaps the resolution back in 1969 of modern camera's was not good enough to pick them up?
   
3. As noted in your quote, the moon landing was 34 years ago. How come we cannot even get a Mars Polar Lander on Mars? In fact, we have not even done another moon landing have we? I mean how much has technology advanced since the late 60s? Supercomputers, the Internet, cell phones, microwaves, Satellite communication, plasma TVs etc. Even NASA said it, the computers used to take man to the moon back then are weaker than a digital wristwatch today.
   [/list=1]
   
   Do not get me wrong, I don't strongly question the validity of the moon landing but those are three things that do make me wonder. It's kind of strange you know. The US was in a very stressful Cold War with the USSR back then. It would make perfect sense if NASA decided to fake the landing to psychologically damage the USSR's leaders and scientists. The USSR's space program wasn't centralized, unlike the US', which many say is the reason the US won the space race, or did we?

 

[nbo10]

Originally posted by Quasaire
There are three things said about the moon landing that I find credible against it.

1. Remember certain motion pictures of the American flag and all? The flag is blowing as if there is wind. Well, the moon is too small and hence, gravity too feeble to support an atmosphere. So how can a flag blow?
   
2. There are absolutely no stars on the pictures. Even on Earth with clouds and all, if conditions are right, you can see stars. There was no stars on the pictures of the moon landing. Perhaps the resolution back in 1969 of modern camera's was not good enough to pick them up?
   
3. As noted in your quote, the moon landing was 34 years ago. How come we cannot even get a Mars Polar Lander on Mars? In fact, we have not even done another moon landing have we? I mean how much has technology advanced since the late 60s? Supercomputers, the Internet, cell phones, microwaves, Satellite communication, plasma TVs etc. Even NASA said it, the computers used to take man to the moon back then are weaker than a digital wristwatch today.
   [/list=1]
   
   Do not get me wrong, I don't strongly question the validity of the moon landing but those are three things that do make me wonder. It's kind of strange you know. The US was in a very stressful Cold War with the USSR back then. It would make perfect sense if NASA decided to fake the landing to psychologically damage the USSR's leaders and scientists. The USSR's space program wasn't centralized, unlike the US', which many say is the reason the US won the space race, or did we?

1. 
   
   
   (1) There is no atmosphere to stop it from moving either, after they stuck it into the ground.
   
   (2) Look at any picture out of the shuttle, no stars in those either. Does the shuttle not really go into space?
   
   (3) They had 25times the budget back then. Now NASA's vision is Small, faster, cheaper.
   
   JMD

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think we went to the moon, but a couple of things from the never-went-to-the-moon crowd did surprise me. First, there was no divot under the engine of the lunar lander. At 2000 LBS of thrust or so [I think this is what I have heard], and considering that the engines were running right up to touchdown, how do we avoid making a hole in the loose moon dust?

Also, I have seen a picture, in fact I may have it, where a third astronaut can be seen in the reflection of the helmet of one being photographed on the moon. Clearly the reflection is not a reflection of the photographer. Did we ever land three men on the moon? Perhaps this photo was from another mission? Has anyone seen this? This one has really stumped me for the moment. I keep meaning to review the history of the landings but perhaps someone knows the explanation here?

Finally, did you all know that on one mission, and this is in the public record, the astronaut orbiting above the moon saw a blinking light, in the same location and on several passes, on the surface of dark side of the moon. I think this remains a mystery.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think we went to the moon, but a couple of things from the never-went-to-the-moon crowd did surprise me. First, there was no divot under the engine of the lunar lander. At 2000 LBS of thrust or so [I think this is what I have heard], and considering that the engines were running right up to touchdown, how do we avoid making a hole in the loose moon dust?

Also, I have seen a picture, in fact I may have it, where a third astronaut can be seen in the reflection of the helmet of one being photographed on the moon. Clearly the reflection is not a reflection of the photographer. Did we ever land three men on the moon? Perhaps this photo was from another mission? Has anyone seen this? This one has really stumped me for the moment. I keep meaning to review the history of the landings but perhaps someone knows the explanation here?

Finally, did you all know that on one mission, and this is in the public record, the astronaut orbiting above the moon saw a blinking light, in the same location and on several passes, on the surface of dark side of the moon. I think this remains a mystery.

1. The dust was only something like 3" deep. Under that is pretty much solid rock.

2. I've seen a number of photoshop'd pics. I'd like to see the one you mean though.

3. Never heard that one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
1. The dust was only something like 3" deep. Under that is pretty much solid rock.

Check!

2. I've seen a number of photoshop'd pics. I'd like to see the one you mean though.

I think I have a 12 X 14 or so. I will try to find this on the net and compare it to the picture that I have...from about 1980. But first I must determine if 3 persons ever landed. I know the picture exists but it may mean nothing.

3. Never heard that one.

Ya interesting eh? I have considered a Russian satellite as the source. This clearly was not ours...at least the regular guys at NASA didn't know about it. I have heard the original tape of the communications and the astronaut was quite excited. So was mission control. The trouble here is the energy requirement for a typical satellite. I guess it could easily be a nuclear powered lander…or one that crashed but that had not died yet. But how do you land on the dark side of the moon in 1970? This at least is an interesting fact of history. Perhaps with the release of the KGB files and such in the Ex-Soviet, we will find that they did have a lander up there...[edit: I really mean a crashed orbitor] If not, the explanations run thin rather quickly. Of course, you know where I want to go from here; but not yet.

Where have you been? Nobody has been slapping me around with you and Mentat both gone.


Edit: One question; Do nuclear powered or non-nuclear lunar orbitors come with blinking lights?

 

[Shadow]

There is an incredible mount of evidence that we did land on the moon. A while back there was something in the Astronomy forum and there is also an article on physics post about this.
Well I would like to say one thing. I could be wrong but it is possible.

2. There are absolutely no stars on the pictures. Even on Earth with clouds and all, if conditions are right, you can see stars. There was no stars on the pictures of the moon landing. Perhaps the resolution back in 1969 of modern camera's was not good enough to pick them up?

Have you thought aboout the lights? It is possible that the lights on the shuttle were so bright that in SOME pictures, it can prevent stars from being seen. (when they landed the shuttle had its search lights on) For example, if you are in a dim room with some light but not a lot. (let it take the role of the darkness of space etc...) have someone stand 5 feet away (more or less. Say this represents shuttle lights)and yes I know this sounds crazy but have them point it at your face/ eyes. And don't stare right into it but the point is this. You can not see the person because the light is too bright and makes it quite hard to see them. Perhaps the shuttles lights had a similar effect...? Don't be too harsh on me when you criticize, Phobos would probably be much more sited for prooving that we did land on the moon.

 

[HBar]

Here is a nice webpage. It debunks the most common "proof" that we never went to the moon. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
For example:

From www.badastronomy.com
Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

Also addresses the waving flag and the no stars in the pictures.
-HBar

 

[wimms]

this con stuff is just right disgusting.
Not only do they think NASA is too stupid to go to moon, but they right off assume NASA is too stupid to even make an errorfree hoax! come on.

Quasaire,
1. Does someone REALLY think that they couldn't shut the bloody doors in a studio to avoid any 'breeze'?
2. Does anyone really think they FORGOT??! to 'add' the stars??
3. Does 'non-piloted' flight ring any bell to you? safety measures are different. On other hand, distances and flight times are WAY different. Remote controlling such craft isn't playing quake, mind you.

When I first heard of this con theory, without knowing details, my first thought was that images they got were too crappy for headlines, so photographers made few truthful setups to show the public better images. But even that is wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wimms
this con stuff is just right disgusting.
Not only do they think NASA is too stupid to go to moon, but they right off assume NASA is too stupid to even make an errorfree hoax! come on.

I loved it when Buzz Aldrin punched the guy! Not bad for a 70 year old.

 

[Shadow]

this con stuff is just right disgusting.
Not only do they think NASA is too stupid to go to moon, but they right off assume NASA is too stupid to even make an errorfree hoax! come on.

Quasaire,
1. Does someone REALLY think that they couldn't shut the bloody doors in a studio to avoid any 'breeze'?
2. Does anyone really think they FORGOT??! to 'add' the stars??
3. Does 'non-piloted' flight ring any bell to you? safety measures are different. On other hand, distances and flight times are WAY different. Remote controlling such craft isn't playing quake, mind you.

When I first heard of this con theory, without knowing details, my first thought was that images they got were too crappy for headlines, so photographers made few truthful setups to show the public better images. But even that is wrong.

Bravo. I agree. Plus, if you think we can't get to the moon, how do we have space shuttles that go up to the ISS? For that matter, if we couldn't get to the moon, how could we even have an ISS? How about all the eyewitness accounts of Apollo 11 taking off? (not to mention all the shuttles that went up before and afterwards)

 

[HBar]

If people would actualy go to my link this question would already be answered! Anyway, yes in the video recordings of the moon landing the flag actualy did wave. The reason is because there is so little gravity and no air that there is nothing stopping it from moving. When they jabbed the flagpole into the ground it shook the flag. Since there is nothing to retard the motion, it just kept shaking/waving.
-HBar