PDA

View Full Version : More Moon Hoax Questions



Conan the Googler
2003-Dec-31, 04:35 PM
Hi,
I’ve read the Lunar conspiracy page regarding the documentary that was on, but I’ve also picked up a few other theories that you’ve probably answered a million times before, but I’m new, so anyway:
(I don’t particularly believe any of these, I’d just like to be able to answer them…)

1) The Rover was too big to fit in the storage bays of the Lander, or in the small corner of the Lander’s underside (where it was said to be stored :-?
I just thought it would have been assembled on site, but that's only a guess)

2) A fully suited Astronaut is too bulky to fit through the hatchways (I assume, connecting the Lander to the Orbiter?)…
(I imagine the answer to this one is, ‘No, he’s not.’ 8) )

3) Film in the Astronaut’s uncooled cameras would melt in the daytime solar-heated surface temperatures… :oops:

4) All the Lunar Lander test flight / landings failed every time on Earth but were still approved for use on the moon with 100% success.
So it has to be fake…
(By the way, check out the pic’s of the unused Soviet lunar lander, http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lk.html , it has similar looking legs to the US model, so it mustn’t have been too bad a design for them to have come up with the same thing?)

If there’s anyone still here after seeing that link… #-o
I also noticed in Phil Plait’s book ‘Bad Astronomy’, he explained that the Apollo flight path was designed to just nick the outer edge of the van allen belts (seeing as they are only ‘belts’ and not a sphere around earth), and so it wouldn’t matter whether they needed to be protected by 4ft of lead or not – except I haven’t found that explanation on the site. Has it been dropped or corrected since? ie. Can I still use it?

JimTKirk
2003-Dec-31, 04:40 PM
Conan,
As has already been said, welcome to the BABB 8) . If you want the rundown on all the claims and their rebuttals, I recommend JayUtah's site www.clavius.org. It has every one of the "problems" you mention and the true answers.

Good luck and good reading!

Glom
2003-Dec-31, 04:47 PM
Welcome. Cool name.


1) The Rover was too big to fit in the storage bays of the Lander, or in the small corner of the Lander’s underside (where it was said to be stored :-?
I just thought it would have been assembled on site, but that's only a guess)

It wasn't stored in any of the bays, it was attached to the outside, while folded.


2) A fully suited Astronaut is too bulky to fit through the hatchways (I assume, connecting the Lander to the Orbiter?)…
(I imagine the answer to this one is, ‘No, he’s not.’ 8) )

Pretty much. This sounds like James Collier's argument. It comes from his measurement of a mockup in Space Center Houston as the myth goes. Either way, it isn't based on anything substantive. AS11-40-5862 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apollo/images/AS11/40/5862.jpg) shows Aldrin egressing the LM through the hatch.


3) Film in the Astronaut’s uncooled cameras would melt in the daytime solar-heated surface temperatures… :oops:

Surface temperature has nothing to do with the film since the film was never in contact with the surface. Too much thinking with an atmosphere from the conspiracist in question (no doubt Collier). Try this. (http://www.clavius.org/envheat)


4) All the Lunar Lander test flight / landings failed every time on Earth but were still approved for use on the moon with 100% success.
So it has to be fake…
(By the way, check out the pic’s of the unused Soviet lunar lander, http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lk.html , it has similar looking legs to the US model, so it mustn’t have been too bad a design for them to have come up with the same thing?)

It would be very difficult for a LM test on Earth to fail since no full tests were done on Earth. The LM descent propulsion system wasn't powerful enough to lift the LM's weight on Earth. A crash of the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle is generally what's causing the confusion. (http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html)


If there’s anyone still here after seeing that link… #-o
I also noticed in Phil Plait’s book ‘Bad Astronomy’, he explained that the Apollo flight path was designed to just nick the outer edge of the van allen belts (seeing as they are only ‘belts’ and not a sphere around earth), and so it wouldn’t matter whether they needed to be protected by 4ft of lead or not – except I haven’t found that explanation on the site. Has it been dropped or corrected since? ie. Can I still use it?

Either way the radiation arguments are ignorant at best (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html) and lies at worst (http://www.clavius.org/envflash.html).

Conan the Googler
2003-Dec-31, 05:00 PM
Thanks.

I guess I'll be off to Clavius then...
:)

JimTKirk
2003-Dec-31, 05:01 PM
Sorry Glom,
Forgot you were looking for an HBer! :oops:

Conan the Googler
2003-Dec-31, 05:06 PM
I've still got an eye out. :wink:

I probably won't be much fun to argue against though since I appreciate sound reasoning...

JayUtah
2003-Dec-31, 05:31 PM
The Rover was too big to fit in the storage bays of the Lander, or in the small corner of the Lander’s underside

Jim Collier, the person who made this observation, was unaware that the rover folded up. When so folded, it fits very handily in the storage bay.

Considering that there are dozens of photographs of the rover being prepared and attached to the LM, a couple of photographs of the LM in space with the rover attached, several dozen pages of historical documents describing how the rover was to be stored and deployed, and live video of the rover being deployed, it is difficult to imagine how Mr. Collier could have missed such an important bit of information. If you follow Mr. Collier's other arguments, you quickly realize he lacks the understanding of Apollo equipment and procedures that were widely known even by schoolboys during Apollo.

A fully suited Astronaut is too bulky to fit through the hatchways

Collier again. He was unaware that the hatch connecting the command module to the lunar module was never intended to be traversed by an astronaut wearing a space suit. The suits were pushed deflated through the hatch into the LM, and the astronauts donned them after they entered unsuited into the LM via the overhead hatch. If the post-landing docking had failed, the astronauts would have passed via EVA from the LM via the forward hatch to the CM.

Collier also asserts that the LM forward hatch was too small to allow an astronaut to pass through. Collier claims to have measured an LM forward hatch in order to decide this question. Instead Collier measured the non-functional hatch in an LM cockpit simulator and neglected to verify that dimension in any of the LM's design documents. He also has no explanation for the photographs clearly showing suited astronauts emerging from hatchways on actual LM's or LM mockups designed for such work, whose hatchways are clearly larger than his asserted measurements.

In short, Mr. Collier is a very poor researcher who lacks even basic knowledge of Apollo equipment.

Film in the Astronaut’s uncooled cameras would melt in the daytime solar-heated surface temperatures…

Ironically conspiracy theorists alternately claim the film would have frozen too. It appears no conspiracy theorist has an adequate understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer to be able to predict adequately what the film inside should have done.

The oft-cited maximum temperature for the lunar surface (250-280 F) is the temperature of the surface (i.e., the rocks and the dust), not the temperature achieved by just anything in the lunar vicinity. And that temperature is the peak attained after more than a week of sustained solar irradiation. At the time of the landings, which took place in the lunar mornings, the surface temperature was generally only 30-40 F in most places. Since there is no air on the moon, the notion of air temperature (the figure commonly cited as "the temperature" on earth) is meaningless. In the L.A. area, for example, it is common for the air temperature to be in the mid 70s Fahrenheit while the surface temperature (e.g., the asphalt roadway, the top layer of beach sand) can be 150 F or higher. There is no One Uniform Temperature in any evironment.

In an environment bereft of air but lit by the sun, the temperature of objects in that environment depends solely on how much heat is conducted to them by direct contact with a hot object (e.g., grabbing a hot rock), and how much heat is created by absorbing sunlight. The latter is the primary means of acquiring heat on the moon's surface. And that, in turn, depends on the optical properties of each surface -- how reflective, absorptive, or transparent it may be, how emissive (i.e., how much heat it radiates away into space) it is, whether it's facing the sun or not. It also depends on its mechanical properties -- how massive it is, and how readily it conducts heat through its mass.

The cameras to be used on the lunar surface were coated with an aluminized paint that reflected away most of the solar energy that struck it. Further they were quite heavy, requiring a lot of solar influx in order to heat them to a dangerous temperature. The conduction paths (i.e., points of direct contact) between the outer surfaces of the film magazine and the parts that touched the film were minimized. The problem in that case became how to keep the film warm enough. If the camera had sat in direct sunlight for the entirety of the mission, the interior temprature of the film would have been right around the freezing point of water. If the camera had been entirely in shade, the temperature would have dropped to below zero.

This is why the Kodak "Estar" polyester film base was used in Apollo film, not the cheaper bases commonly supplied to consumers for the Ektachrome (E-3) emulsion. That base was developed for photoreconaissance and satellite photography and was good to -50 F without mechanical distortion that would have affected the ability to retain the emulsion. Further, polyester melts at 250 C, not the 75 C or so that melts more common film bases.

So in short, the people who claim the film would have melted know absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. There was no way for the film to get hot enough to melt.

All the Lunar Lander test flight / landings failed every time on Earth

That would be quite a trick since the lunar lander cannot be operated on earth or in earth's atmosphere and consequently was not tested there. The lunar lander could be operated only in space, or on or above the lunar surface. Hence, that's where it was tested.

You are probably thinking of the LLTV/LLRV, or the "flying bedstead" illustrated on my web site here

http://www.clavius.org/techlltv.html

These machines were built not to test the technology that would later be made into the lunar module, but to provide the astronauts with a vehicle that would behave -- from the pilot's point of view -- the same way the lunar lander would behave in lunar gravity. They were built to train the pilots, not to vet the technology. Hence the machinery in the LLTV/LLRV was radically different from the machinery in the lunar module.

Contrary to the claims of the conspiracy theorists, these vehicles did not habitually crash. As of 1967 they had collectively made more than 100 successful test flights. Mark Gray's excellent DVD set for Apollo 11 contains several minutes of footage from LLRV test flights, including takeoffs and landings.

There is an oft-shown clip of Neil Armstrong ejecting from an LLRV just before it crashed. This crash was caused not by the vehicle's instability but by a mechanical failure which vented his maneuvering fuel. That would be considered a maintenance failure. The LLRV/LLTVs were not designed to be robust flying machines (hence the reason for equipping them with ejection seats). They were intended to provide "look-and-feel" experiences for the astronauts solely for Apollo. They were not intended, as some have tried to argue, as good examples of VTOL technology or designs that would have (or should have) been developed into working production vehicles. For a vehicle that was essentially thrown together for one isolated purpose, three crashes among hundreds of flights is about right.

...it has similar looking legs to the US model, so it mustn’t have been too bad a design for them to have come up with the same thing?

The basic designs of the U.S. Apollo spacecraft were not especially secret. It would have been entirely within common practice for the Soviets to have borrowed elements of American designs. The Soviets also recovered boilerplate command modules from the bottom of the ocean. But there was no need for them to incorporate mechanical or aerodynamic designs from those spacecraft into their spacecraft because they already had a workable Soyuz "stack" that would have served them in a translunar mission.

...and so it wouldn’t matter whether they needed to be protected by 4ft of lead or not

There was no need for four (or six, as is most commonly cited) feet of lead even if they had driven straight through the thickest parts of the Van Allen belts. The belts are simply not as potent as the fear-mongering conspiracy theorists make them out to be. Conspiracists in general do not understand radiation in the least, and so inflate the perceived dangers grossly as well as inflating the engineering requirements for shielding and other dosage limiting techniques.

By adjusting the trajectory -- with the help of Prof. James Van Allen himself -- the Apollo engineers could make do with less shielding. A good engineering solution is one that applies all available means of mitigating risk.

Conan the Googler
2004-Jan-01, 04:05 AM
Wow!
That's an impressive reply. Thanks for the time you took to answer this.
:o
This site is great! (and clavius too).

I have found that the answers to the HB's conspiracy theories only serve to impress me more than ever with what an incredible achievement the moon landings really were, and with the courage and dedication the astronaut's had in risking their live's for the mission with so many variables untried.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Jan-01, 11:58 AM
1) The Rover was too big to fit in the storage bays of the Lander, or in the small corner of the Lander’s underside (where it was said to be stored :-?
I just thought it would have been assembled on site, but that's only a guess)

It wasn't stored in any of the bays, it was attached to the outside, while folded.

I don't who it was, but I remember a Comedian who had this as Part of his Act.

"Ya' know how we know that NASA didn't fake the Moon Landings? We land on a Whole Other Planet, and what's the First Thing that we do, when we get there? We Drive a Pick-Up Truck, on it! Now, isn't that just SO American?"

Now, Bad Astronomy aside, that's pretty funny.

If only I could remember who said it ...

kucharek
2004-Jan-01, 04:12 PM
On the topic of the hatch being too small:
Such a thing actually happened on the first Soyuz spacecraft. The flight of Soyuz 4/5 in 1969 featured a crew change by two cosmonauts from one craft (launched with 3 cosmonauts) to the other craft (launched with 1 cosmonaut) by doing an EVA (the early Soyuz could dock, but had no tunnel). The hatch of the early Soyuz was pretty narrow, so the cosmonauts had to wear the "backpack" (portable life support system) actually in front of their legs.

JayUtah
2004-Jan-01, 04:43 PM
I'm glad to help.

I have found that the answers to the HB's conspiracy theories only serve to impress me more than ever with what an incredible achievement the moon landings really were...

Absolutely. Make no mistake; it was a big stretch of our capabilities. But it happened just like they said it did, and it was a really, really cool thing. Part of the motivation for most conspiracy theories is the notion that the world ought to be more exciting than it appears to be, and therefore the convoluted, sinister explanations behind apparently straightforward occurrences. But in this case I can't think of anything more exciting than actually walking on another world.

Alex W.
2004-Jan-01, 09:11 PM
Is it just me, or do all those questions fall into the "Why can they make such a great conspiracy, but leave such obvious holes?" category?

AGN Fuel
2004-Jan-01, 11:10 PM
Given the LM DPS had a maximum thrust of ~10,000lb and that the fully fuelled LM weighed over 30,000lb here on Earth, a fully integrated test flight here on Earth would have been difficult (to say nothing of our atmosphere, which the LM was not built to handle)! However, in the environment and for the purposes for which it was designed and built, it was a wonderful spacecraft. =D>

And for those who argue that it was never tested, period: send them to any on-line archive such as the Project Apollo Archive, that has images from the Apollo 9 mission. (I especially love image AS9-21-3205 - one of my all time favourite Apollo photos. :wink: ) One of the primary objectives of Apollo 9 was a full shakedown of both the ascent & descent stages of the LM, which performed beautifully. :D

(Edited to clarify a New Years hangover-induced ramble....)

NASA Fan
2004-Jan-02, 05:43 AM
Pretty much. This sounds like James Collier's argument. It comes from his measurement of a mockup in Space Center Houston as the myth goes. Either way, it isn't based on anything substantive. AS11-40-5862 shows Aldrin egressing the LM through the hatch.

I do not know if he measured the one we have on display at Space Center Houston, but ours hangs from the ceiling, and it is very difficult for anyone to measure. If he did indeed come he would have had to eyeball the size.

Sticks
2004-Jan-02, 09:08 PM
I suppose it is time for me to make a maiden post on this topic, as we follow this from across the pond.

The main issue as far as I can see it is one of credibility, as a lot of people on some British forums do not believe anything said by the American government, especially WMD in Iraq. It is even alleged one one British forum (The Channel 4 News forum) (http://community.channel4.com/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=162603557&f=503603557) that the US government perpertrated the 9-11 attacks so it could go to war for oil against Iraq and the Afghan government who were not "compliant" enough and to clamp down on civil liberties

Therefore here are some further questions for this thread, it being a Q&A session.

1) What independant proof is there outside of NASA and the American government that this happened. All of the evidence this happened was "filtered" through what one could say is a biased source. In a court of law evidence from witness who might be shown to be biased would be flagged as suspect by opposing council, thats if they ever put it before the court in the first place. (I suspect this one is an easy one to be dealt with)

2) Related to (1) The evidence given and said to be "independant" is the quantity of moon rocks. How do we know they were from the moon and not just meteorites picked up from Antartica. Remember we only have NASA's say so they are. Has any comparative analysis been done with the Russian samples recovered to corroborate the claim.

3) I only raise this one because it was said by others on the previously mentioned British Channel 4 forum, What connection does Phil Platt have to NASA. It was claimed on the British site when someone posted a link to the Bad Astonomy site that it was just "NASA Lies"

Sorry Phil

I have to add a further observation that with the rise of Anti-American feeling in Europe it is seen as Fashionable to believe that the US government Hoaxed the whole thing, and because of the credibility issue people are coming around to the hoax theory on this side of the pond.

SirThoreth
2004-Jan-02, 09:34 PM
I suppose it is time for me to make a maiden post on this topic, as we follow this from across the pond.

The main issue as far as I can see it is one of credibility, as a lot of people on some British forums do not believe anything said by the American government, especially WMD in Iraq. It is even alleged one one British forum (The Channel 4 News forum) (http://community.channel4.com/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=162603557&f=503603557) that the US government perpertrated the 9-11 attacks so it could go to war for oil against Iraq and the Afghan government who were not "compliant" enough and to clamp down on civil liberties

And people wonder why Americans tend to be flippant or disregard the rest of the world?

Sheesh. Of course, what else would I expect from a nation that still refers to us as "the colonies"? #-o Bit touchy about that war, are we? :D


Therefore here are some further questions for this thread, it being a Q&A session.

1) What independant proof is there outside of NASA and the American government that this happened. All of the evidence this happened was "filtered" through what one could say is a biased source. In a court of law evidence from witness who might be shown to be biased would be flagged as suspect by opposing council, thats if they ever put it before the court in the first place. (I suspect this one is an easy one to be dealt with)

2) Related to (1) The evidence given and said to be "independant" is the quantity of moon rocks. How do we know they were from the moon and not just meteorites picked up from Antartica. Remember we only have NASA's say so they are. Has any comparative analysis been done with the Russian samples recovered to corroborate the claim.

I can answer both of these at the same time. Yes, American scientists have examined Russian samples, and Russian scientists have examined American samples, both of which confirm each other's claims.

Further, telemetry for the Apollo missions was monitored by a variety of tracking stations including, IIRC, some in Australia, manned by...yep, you guessed it, Australians. Russia undoubtedly also monitored transmissions from Apollo, as well.


3) I only raise this one because it was said by others on the previously mentioned British Channel 4 forum, What connection does Phil Platt have to NASA. It was claimed on the British site when someone posted a link to the Bad Astonomy site that it was just "NASA Lies"

Sorry Phil

IIRC, he didn't actually work for NASA, so much as have some of his work endorsed by them, including some educational stuff he did for kids. IIRC, they ended up using the latter. Either that, or they were impressed by other stuff, and hired him to do the educational stuff for kids.

Oh, and, like a lot of astronomers, he gets to look at Hubble data.


I have to add a further observation that with the rise of Anti-American feeling in Europe it is seen as Fashionable to believe that the US government Hoaxed the whole thing, and because of the credibility issue people are coming around to the hoax theory on this side of the pond.

Of course. Because, why let a little thing like the preponderance of evidence get in the way of a bunch of people looking for a scapegoat for the failings and shortcomings of their own society?

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Jan-02, 09:37 PM
Here is my bio: Who is The bad Astronomer? (http://www.badastronomy.com/info/whois.html)

JayUtah
2004-Jan-02, 10:26 PM
The main issue as far as I can see it is one of credibility

No. Conspiracy theorists try very hard to make it an issue of credibility, i.e., "Who are you going to believe?" This is a sort of short-circuit that tries to get you first to make up your mind before you actually look at any evidence. Then you are predisposed to interpret whatever evidence is given, and also predisposed simply to overlook evidence that shows the conspiracy theory to be absurd. Please read http://www.clavius.org/holmes.html .

The authenticity of Apollo can be decided on the basis of facts and reason. You don't have to form an opinion of the trustworthiness of the claimants in this case in order to decide whether their claims have merit.

...a lot of people on some British forums do not believe anything said by the American government, especially WMD in Iraq.

A significant number of Americans don't believe their own government on this point either, but this is irrelevant. This approach is still a sort of "guilt by association" proof which tries to decide the question based either upon emotion or upon irrelevant facts, and then selectively to fit relevant facts to it. Whether people in the U.S. government have lied about WMDs in Iraq is utterly unconnected to whether other people decades ago lied about having gone to the moon. Whether you like or dislike the U.S. government is utterly unconnected to whether they lied about Apollo (or anything else).

If the U.S. government lied about having gone to the moon, the evidence of that lie is not in your preconceptions or in some other set of facts. It is in the facts that surround Apollo, and so it is upon an examination of those facts that a reliable conclusion can be drawn.

If you suspect your nephew of stealing cookies from the cookie jar, whether he's a devil or a saint by reputation is irrelevant, as well as whether or not he lied previously about having trampled the daisies. The proof of his guilt or innocence will be the crumbs around his mouth and any nephew-sized footprints leading up to the jar. Conspiracy theorists would make their case, however, by taking eighty photos of the trampled daisies and by assembling a litany of your nephews past infractions, real or imagined. Many conspiracy theories are so flimsy that they neglect even to take the step of counting the cookies to see if any are, in fact, missing!

This indirect method which seeks to convince first and then to inform, is highly dishonest.

What independant proof is there outside of NASA and the American government that this happened.

A fair amount, but the question is presumptuous on its face. It presumes that NASA could simply lie about scientific claims and get away with it undetected by anyone else, and so we need some other trustworthy authority to vouch for them. Science doesn't work that way. All of the aspects of the Apollo missions that conspiracists claim NASA simply lied about, cannot be plausibly lied about for very long.

All of the evidence this happened was "filtered" through what one could say is a biased source.

If the information and evidence are wrong then this can be determined factually. Your nephew would be biased toward proving his innocence, but this does not impeach his observation that there are indeed no cookies missing, or that there is a suspicious trail of dog paw prints around the cookie jar. Truth, or likely truth, is founded upon facts, not upon suspicion or claims of bias.

Conspiracists, like any good lawyer, stir up doubt and uncertainty to get you to accept first the possibility of their conclusion, and then deftly move on to assert the certainty of it, all without any proof. They prey on doubt without stopping to investigate whether or not the doubt is reasonable. On an absolute scale, every conclusion -- without exception -- can be questioned. This is why we require reasonable doubt in order to impeach a legal conclusion. If mere conjectural possibility is considered a viable alternative without any substantiation, then no conclusion can be held on any question.

In a court of law evidence from witness who might be shown to be biased would be flagged as suspect by opposing council, thats if they ever put it before the court in the first place.

That's the job of the opposing counsel, whether such suspicion is warranted or not. The defendant's lawyer has the job of attempting to impeach accusational testimony even if the witness is telling the truth. A court of law is a poor analogue to a historical investigation. Ostensibly the purpose of a court of law is to discover the truth, but it is more accurate to say that the participants are often heavily motivated by other factors. The aim is to convince the judge or jury into a decision in one's favor.

How do we know they [the moon rocks] were from the moon and not just meteorites picked up from Antartica.

Because meteorites are very different from the Apollo samples, and occur in far less quantity.

Remember we only have NASA's say so they are.

Not true. The moon rocks are distinctive and unique. They are not typical of any earth rocks, nor are they artificial constructs. We have NASA's claim that they come from the moon, but that's simply the explanation given to account for the peculiar observations. Denying the explanation does not make the observations go away. None of the theories that attempt to explain the Apollo samples are even half as parsimonious as NASA's.

Has any comparative analysis been done with the Russian samples recovered to corroborate the claim.

Yes.

What connection does Phil Platt have to NASA.

Irrelevant. If Phil is incorrect, he is incorrect and that can be shown by an appeal to the facts, not by trying to deduce it from some perceived loyalty.

Further, the conspiracists are finicky on this point. They decry NASA's general apathy toward their theories. They say that NASA has an obligation to rise to defend itself and that its continued silence on the topic is suspicious. But then they turn around and dismiss anyone who might have a connection to NASA. The more closely associated one is with NASA, the less trustworthy he is.

I have no connection whatsoever to NASA. Nevertheless I am dismissed as irrelevant because I'm not perceived to have a "standing" in the debate. Phil is dismissed because his association to NASA -- however tenuous -- is considered sufficient grounds for assigning to him an ulterior motive that discounts his opinions.

And so it clearly doesn't matter what connection someone might or might not have with NASA. The conspiracy theorists are ready with a means of summary dismissal for an opinion that comes from any point along that spectrum of perceived loyalty. It's all a distractionary tactic to draw attention away from the facts of the arguments. The conspiracy theories contain nothing but fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

It was claimed on the British site when someone posted a link to the Bad Astonomy site that it was just "NASA Lies"

If they are lies then there must be some factual evidence that a lie was told. The conspiracists say, "Tom is not universally honest, therefore he must have lied about stealing the cookies." A better argument would be, "There are cookie crumbs around Tom's mouth and his fingerprints are on the lid, therefore he must have stolen the cookies." We don't need to know whether Tom is unreliable. We don't need to paint his psychological picture.

I have to add a further observation that with the rise of Anti-American feeling in Europe it is seen as Fashionable to believe that the US government Hoaxed the whole thing

Proof only of people's general inability to draw conclusions upon reliable means. If America is generally liked, their claims of success are believed. If America is generally disliked, their claims of success are disbelieved. Neither of these conditions has anything to do with whether those claims are supported by fact.

Conspiracy theorists realize this. They know full well that people are more susceptible to arguments based on impeaching credibility, upon stirring up doubt and dissention, than they are to arguments that correctly reason from facts. This is why conspiracy theorists generally aim their efforts toward the population that tends not to think critically, and avoid like the plague those people who address the conspiracy theories with rigor and reason.

Glom
2004-Jan-02, 10:35 PM
Might I just say that many Britons are pissed off because of the whole war thing, but most are not pathetic enough to be be of the mentality as described on that forum.

ToSeek
2004-Jan-03, 01:10 AM
A common refrain over at Godlike Productions goes something like, "You think the Moon landings weren't faked? Well, then, you must believe everything the US government tells you."

johnwitts
2004-Jan-03, 01:58 AM
I don't tend to believe what the US Govt says. I don't tend to believe what my govt says. I don't tend to believe what anyone says. It took me a long time to convince myself that NASA landed men on the Moon. I looked at the HB arguments, and had discussions with HBs themselves and realised they were con artists. There is a conspiracy here, a conspiracy to part the gullible from their money in return for books and videos...

Sticks
2004-Jan-03, 08:42 AM
Actually it was Judy who stole the cookies. She was tasked with filling the jar with the new packet and she pocketed a few directly from the packet. We found the crumbs in the pocket of her apron and she was kind of silent when challenged. The other dead giveaway was the chocolate smears on her fingers from melted chocolate chip.

Oh and the daisy's were stomped on by the next door neighbour's cat, the neighbour came round and apollogised. So Tom was innocent on all counts. :lol:

Thankyou for all of this, if you examine that forum it seems that America is the greatest threat to life in the universe and is responsible for all kinds of evil. That is when they are not warning of "zionist" conspiracies :roll:

What they seem to forget is that it was America that helped end World War II, (even if they were kind of late getting involved :P ) and helped the rebuilding of Europe. (The French have never forgiven them for that - and they have never forgiven us for Agincourt :wink: ) Maybe they have listened to the revisionist historians :roll:

I tend to think that one of Sir Winston Churchill's greatest legacies was the UK - US Special relationship, but if I said that on the Channel 4 News Forum I would be lynched. (A lot of them I suspect think he was a war criminal anyway :roll: )

I have found the link where Mr Platt's integrity was impuned (see this link (http://community.channel4.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=162603557&f=503603557&m=575601614) and see page 2)

Recently there was a discussion about the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers and on this thread (http://community.channel4.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=162603557&f=503603557&m=509601144) I quite like the postings of one Cyber Mole. (Can you just hear his sarcasm and pray tell me to what he must be alluding to :lol: )

jrkeller
2004-Jan-06, 04:33 AM
A fully suited Astronaut is too bulky to fit through the hatchways

Collier again. He was unaware that the hatch connecting the command module to the lunar module was never intended to be traversed by an astronaut wearing a space suit. The suits were pushed deflated through the hatch into the LM, and the astronauts donned them after they entered unsuited into the LM via the overhead hatch. If the post-landing docking had failed, the astronauts would have passed via EVA from the LM via the forward hatch to the CM.

Collier also asserts that the LM forward hatch was too small to allow an astronaut to pass through. Collier claims to have measured an LM forward hatch in order to decide this question. Instead Collier measured the non-functional hatch in an LM cockpit simulator and neglected to verify that dimension in any of the LM's design documents. He also has no explanation for the photographs clearly showing suited astronauts emerging from hatchways on actual LM's or LM mockups designed for such work, whose hatchways are clearly larger than his asserted measurements.

In short, Mr. Collier is a very poor researcher who lacks even basic knowledge of Apollo equipment.



Here's my two cents:

I doubt that he even measured the LM mockup. The LM mockup in Houston (which is the one commonly cited by the HBs) hangs from the ceiling at Space Center Houston. By my rough estimate, the door to this mockup is at least 20 feet off the floor. In other words, it was impossible for him to get an accurate measurement.

I visit Space Center Houston quite frequently, like once a month. I have never seen the LM anywhere, but hanging from the ceiling (http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/lunarmod/lta-8.html). Try this too (http://www.io.com/~o_m/images/NASA_2000/Inside_SCH/mainhall.jpg).

Sticks
2005-Apr-01, 02:36 PM
I just thought I would resurrect this thread as it has my maiden post where I came in playing at Advocatus Diabolli :lol:

Sadly all my links on the Channel 4 site are long gone

One question I still have

What is a Shill and how did it get that name :-?

JimTKirk
2005-Apr-01, 03:47 PM
I just thought I would resurrect this thread as it has my maiden post where I came in playing at Advocatus Diabolli :lol:

Sadly all my links on the Channel 4 site are long gone

One question I still have

What is a Shill and how did it get that name :-?

Wikipedia is your friend...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill :D

Psi-less
2005-Apr-01, 05:18 PM
=D> =D> Jay! =D> =D>

A very thoughtful, well-reasoned post and a good reminder that the debate should be decided by reason and not emotion.

(Edited to add--it must be April 1st--I didn't notice how old this thread was! :oops: I'm sorry I missed it the first time 'round, but glad I got a second chance at seeing Jay's post. So, belated bravo anyway!)

Psi-less

Sticks
2005-Sep-07, 08:25 AM
Another shameless bump

This thread had my maiden post, which leads me to the question as to what happened to the missing 100 posts from my post count. I realise this is in the Wrong section, but would have like to have known why I was denied my breaking of the 1000 posts barrier.
:(

ToSeek
2005-Sep-07, 02:57 PM
Another shameless bump

This thread had my maiden post, which leads me to the question as to what happened to the missing 100 posts from my post count. I realise this is in the Wrong section, but would have like to have known why I was denied my breaking of the 1000 posts barrier.
:(

The BA deleted some BABBling threads some months ago. This didn't affect anyone's post count at the time. However, when the boards were merged, the post counts were recalculated using the actual number of existing posts. So everyone lost some ground (I lost over a thousand). Look at it this way: you'll get to celebrate passing 1,000 a second time!

Sticks
2005-Sep-07, 03:41 PM
Look at it this way: you'll get to celebrate passing 1,000 a second time!

I had not yet reached 1000, I was coming up to it and suddenly I was just below 900

:(

I suppose we have to return this thread to it's original topic now, so I need to come up with a question about moon hoaxes.

Is there evidence that the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory has become more popular since the war in Iraq?

antoniseb
2005-Sep-07, 04:20 PM
Is there evidence that the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory has become more popular since the war in Iraq?

Thanks for bringing it back to the topic.

I'd be interested in seeing some measure of the popularity of the hoaxes. We could look at the tax returns of people that promote the idea of the hoaxes, or we could count the number of times FOX shows documentaries about the hoax.

die Nullte
2005-Sep-07, 05:50 PM
I had not yet reached 1000, I was coming up to it and suddenly I was just below 900

I was a "Bad Fellow," and I was looking forward to being promoted to the next level. Now I'm merely a "Senior Member." Well, I was a "senior" already -- a look in the mirror tells me that! :-(

Sticks
2007-Sep-23, 03:53 PM
Apparently in August 2003 I was posting on TiBB (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com) as if I was a HB :shifty:

From my first ever post on this board, I think I must have been playing Devil's advocate in a very clumsy manner.

Returning back to the subject of this ancient thread,

On TiBB SpaceBandit posted this


the best chance of proving and also disproving the hoax is Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2008, although funded in part by the Japanese it will fall under the control of Nasa.

Is that craft going anywhere near the lunar landing sites and is it capable of imaging the landing sites

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-23, 06:02 PM
As to your questions, this was already discussed, I think it will map the whole moon and it's cameras cannot zoom in enough to capture the landing sites. Not even Hubble can do that.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Sep-23, 08:12 PM
I was under the impression the LRO will have the same resolution as the MRO, and thus the landers should be visible.

Does anyone know what this probe can REALLY do?

PhantomWolf
2007-Sep-23, 10:16 PM
The lander bases and rovers should be within the resolution which I believe will be 1m. That'll make them about 2x3 pixels and 4x4 pixels.

R.A.F.
2007-Sep-23, 10:36 PM
Does anyone know what this probe can REALLY do?

I googled Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html) and the narrow field cameras resolution is .5 meters.

According to that page, the narrow field cameras will have...


...sufficient resolution to see the Apollo, Surveyor, and Luna hardware left there in the 1960's and 1970's.

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-23, 11:12 PM
I said "I think", not "I know". On the Kaguya thread, somebody said that it's camera wasn't good enough.

BigDon
2007-Sep-24, 12:12 AM
Thanks for the link and info RAF, thats good to know.

Neverfly
2007-Sep-24, 12:47 AM
I googled Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html) and the narrow field cameras resolution is .5 meters.

According to that page, the narrow field cameras will have...
...sufficient resolution to see the Apollo, Surveyor, and Luna hardware left there in the 1960's and 1970's.


ROCK ON!

Van Rijn
2007-Sep-24, 02:23 AM
I looked up the rover dimensions - a little bigger than I remembered: 3.1 meters long, 1.83 meters wide. So, if the LRO is looking straight down, it might be able to show that as, ideally, about 6 pixels by 3 pixels. An angled shot could be less. It might also be able to pick up the tracks by their shadow.

On one hand, that does mean it should be able to image these things. On the other hand, most of the moon hoaxers seem to expect something more like half centimeter resolution, not half meter resolution. And, of course, it will come from NASA, which they already assume is faking everything. So we might be impressed seeing a few pixels in an image, but that's all it will be.

Neverfly
2007-Sep-24, 03:06 AM
I looked up the rover dimensions - a little bigger than I remembered: 3.1 meters long, 1.83 meters wide. So, if the LRO is looking straight down, it might be able to show that as, ideally, about 6 pixels by 3 pixels. An angled shot could be less. It might also be able to pick up the tracks by their shadow.

On one hand, that does mean it should be able to image these things. On the other hand, most of the moon hoaxers seem to expect something more like half centimeter resolution, not half meter resolution. And, of course, it will come from NASA, which they already assume is faking everything. So we might be impressed seeing a few pixels in an image, but that's all it will be.

Yeah but Hoagland will easily see the rover in just a few pixels.
Sadly, he already believes we went to the moon and will most likely see a rover/tank operated by a Moon Bunny.

gwiz
2007-Sep-24, 01:49 PM
On the Kaguya thread, somebody said that it's camera wasn't good enough.
About 10 metres best resolution, so a LM is going to be less that a pixel.

NEOWatcher
2007-Sep-24, 06:00 PM
... On the other hand, most of the moon hoaxers seem to expect something more like half centimeter resolution, not half meter resolution...
They should have the easiest time to see it. If it only takes a few pixels to spot the Alien pyramids, bases, towers, smokestacks and the like, then the landing site should be a snap. :whistle:

Irishman
2007-Sep-24, 09:18 PM
Zombie thread threw me for a minute.

One point: does anyone know where the identification of Collier investigating the LM in Houston came from, and the time period it occurred?

While it is currently hanging from the Space Center Houston ceiling, Space Center Houston didn't exist before mid 1990's (after 1995, when I started working down here). Before that, the LM was parked in Bldg 2 (the old JSC Visitor's Center), and could have been accessible.

JayUtah
2007-Sep-24, 09:37 PM
Since James Collier's work was done in the early to mid 1990s I presume his access to LTA-8A occurred before it was hoisted aloft in Houston.

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-25, 12:00 AM
I was a "Bad Fellow," and I was looking forward to being promoted to the next level.

For he's a jolly bad fellow... :-D
One of us should get a rocket, fly to the moon secretly and write "Hey, CTs, get a life!" in big letter next to the LM.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Sep-25, 12:19 AM
Better idea:

Write "We went to the Moon. Deal with it."

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-25, 01:00 AM
As I suggested to my friend Nick:
"And Optimus presses a button that sends a signal to the moon. The LM transforms into robot mode and flies down here, picks up a CT and goes "I went to the moon. You got a problem with that?"

Nicolas
2007-Sep-27, 11:21 AM
We've got buzz for that job. ;)

Grand_Lunar
2007-Sep-27, 02:05 PM
We don't want to get Buzz's BP way, now do we?

I'd love to be their for a moment like that, then pat him on the shoulder and say "It's okay, buddy. I'll take it from here."

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-27, 09:49 PM
Pat who on the shoulder? Buzz or the Transformer?