|
|
A page of things you'd think were easily explained and proved nothing, yet I still get questions about.
Aldrin was in the military. Armstrong was a test pilot. Neither are TV stars. Considering their fame and media hysteria that followed Apollo 11, I think they did pretty well handling it. Let's face it, there's only so often you can answer the question "How did it feel to walk on the moon?" without going stark raving crazy. Do you really expect them to accept interviews from nutters who call them liars? Why should they give them the time of day?
What can often be seen in the background of the Apollo lunar photographs are not hills, but mountains. Very big mountains. The thing about the lunar surface is, because there's no atmosphere and it's pretty featureless, distances are very hard to judge. Things that are very far away can appear to be quite close, there's nothing to soften it over the distance and there's very few features on the surface in between.
So these 'hills' are actually mountains, and they're far away. So the astronauts would have to travel a long distance before they'd ever stop being in the background.
What the photos actually show is a slight variation in the angle you can see the mountains. Rather than proving they're a fake background, thay actually prove they are three dimensional objects.
This example was produced in the recent Fox "Special" about the supposed hoaxes and is based on the information titled on two snippets of film released by NASA. It's an obvious error, they two areas are the same, yet NASA says the video was shot in different areas and different times.
A guiding principle you hould keep with you in cases like these is "never attribute conspiracy to something that can be down to a plain old screw up".
What has happened is a rather unexciting mix up by the film compilers. The film was taken in the same area at the same time and then wrongly attributed. Never let it be said that this website believes that NASA can't mess up like any other government institute!
Some people think that NASA couldn't even manage to draw fake straight-lines on their faked photos without screwing up. Question is, why would they have to? If the photos were taken on earth is it impossible to have genuine cross-hairs? No matter, the patently obvious answer is that the photo was taken at an odd angle, rotated the right way around after printing and cropped to a tidy rectangle.
All these queries are based on jpeg images published on web-sites. Jpeg images are great, they take a large image and compress it down to a download friendly-size so that you don't have to wait until something the size of a planet crawls down your phoneline. Unfortunately there's a trade-off with this. Jpeg's use a 'losey' compression algorithm which mean the image loses detail. Usually this doesn't matter as the detail lost is minor and the algorithm makes a good job of disguising it. But then you get idiots who magnify the jpegs they've downloaded and crow about the flaws they find.
Oh, the arrogance of the 21st century! It's true that computing technology of the time was really primitive compared to that of today, but a few things have to be considered.
This daft conclusion is usually based on a comparison with the size of the Space Shuttle's fuel tanks and rockets. No consideration about the relative size and weights of either crafts. The Apollos actually jettisoned most of their rockets and weight once they have left the Earth, leaving behind a comparatively tiny orbiter and lander. The Shuttles, on the other hand, come back down pretty much as they left.
The majority of the Saturn rockets were required to place Apollo 11 into an orbit of only 100 nautical miles high. After that other factors come into play; speed given by the angular rotation of Earth (they don't put the launch site near the equator just for the sunny weather) and the fact that once you're moving in space nothing will slow you. All that was required from the rockets beyond this was to escape the initial Earth orbit (the "translunar injection", no small task, but not requiring as much effort as the initial stage) and any minor adjustments on the way. What it's really doing is establishing a bigger, 'loopier' orbit of Earth that will make it cross the path of the Moon's orbit. Once there it does another minor burn (the "lunar orbit insertion") and it's in a lunar orbit instead. So the rockets don't burn anything like all the way there.
Well, that's right! There's a number of obviously faked images on the internet, some of them are laughably bad. None of them are NASA originals and have been monkeyed around with. I don't believe it's Hoax theorists that have made these images up. They've been made by jokers having a bit of a laugh at the hoax geek's expense. Some are actually quite well done and amusing.
This is very true. That's why you can hear a lag. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, but the moon is far enough away for this to take a noticible amount of time. Roughly 1.2 seconds. This means that an Astronaut would have to wait 2.4 seconds before getting a response from mission control. So why can't we always hear this gap of 2.4 seconds?
It's obvious when you think about it. All recordings of radio conversations of the Apollo missions were made on Earth. This means that we hear things from the point of view of the mission controller. The Astronaut's message comes in and the mission controller immediately responds. There is no lag because we are not aware of the 1.2 seconds it has taken the message to reach Earth, nor do we have to wait the 1.2 seconds it will take the response to reach the moon. Obviously the reverse is true if the mission controller is asking the Astronaut something. In this case we have to wait for the request to reach the Astronaut and then for the answer to get back. So it's the Astronaut's turn to experience no lag.
The recordings and transcripts of conversations with the Moon show a mixture of this; sometimes a full 2.4 second gap, sometimes none at all.
What also is probably confusing people is that conversations between the Apollo craft and mission control were very often not really conversations at all. A lot of what you could hear, particularly at the vital points of the mission, were not so much conversations as people reporting set procedures. You don't get pauses between responses.
It was a remote controlled camera. Obvious really. They knew exactly how fast the lander would ascend, so knew how fast it had to pan up. It could all be set up in advance of the take off and triggered remotely.
Don't laugh, I've really got asked this one. Anyway, I've often wondered the same about Elvis. Early photos of him, when he was young, hip good-looking are black and white, and later ones, when he was old and fat, are in colour. What were they trying to hide about his early days? Huh? And how about Washington? We've only got portraits of him. First president of America and no-one ever filmed him in action! Are we supposed to believe no-one ever thought of taking their video camera along? Where was CNN!?
This is true. The suits can however radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate, some more than others, whether in a vacuum or not. The suits also weren't white just because it looked smart, white reflects the most heat radiation, thereby minimising the amount absorbed.
The suits were also cooled using a system not unlike your refrigerator in your kitchen. It worked because water sprayed into a vacuum experiences a very rapid drop in pressure and consequently temperature. The same thing happens to aerosol sprays. Why is it that spray-on deoderant is so cold? It is due to the sudden drop in pressure between the can and outside air. So, when a small amount of water was sprayed onto a cooling element on the rear of the spacesuit its temperature dropped so much that it would freeze over it. The cooling water of the spacesuit is then pumped through this element. The heat of the water melts the ice which rapidly boils off (the boiling point of water being very low in a vacuum) into space taking the unwanted heat with it.
I don't know. Is there? How like it? Maybe it was used for training. Maybe it's just coincidence. The hangers look like they could be used as film sets? Well, so do all hangers. Many film sets were hangers. What does all this prove other than the US military has military secrets? I'm afraid that various hoax kooks' attempts to bring the near mythical "Area 51" into things just makes them seem all the more desperate. I suspect the evidence here just points at certain people's eye for a cheap headlines and a quick buck.
The horizon on the moon is much closer because the moon is much smaller than the Earth. This isn't why the 'horizon' is so close in many of the photos that Hoax geeks produce. What these photos show is the summit of a hill. Doh!
There are some serious problems with using normal tires on the moon. Most significant would be the danger of them exploding because of the lack of any air pressure on the outside. NASA realized these problems, consequently it didn't have tires at all. The wheels were made of a wire mesh supported on spokes.
The moon buggy was collapsible and folded away. It was also stored on the side of the lander, not inside it, The Lunar Rover (or buggy) cost millions to develop. They didn't just load a jeep onto the back of a lunar lander.
This is one the same photo as the 'C' rock. The track we can see is going down an incline, a small part of which is hidden from us. But it does indeed appear to be turning at a right angle. But there is nothing unusual about this. The Lunar Rover steered with its back wheels, not the front.
Three things;
This is actually a good question. As I understand it; according to this theory (and it is just a theory) the Moon is the result of the a collision with the Earth of a large asteroid. It split off and reformed separately from the Earth. The thing about this theory is it happened absolutely unimaginably ages ago, in molten conditions, and well before the current crop of rocks formed. So all the rocks we have on either body have formed since then.
What's unique about the Moon rocks is their formation from molten rock in airless conditions and the hammering they've been getting for billions of years from radiation. Earth rocks don't have this and couldn't be made to replicate this.
Because the asteroids have all the marks consistent of landing on Earth after scorching through the atmosphere. The Apollo moon rocks arrived unscathed tucked up nice and safe on a Apollo mission.
The Russians wanted to reach the moon first just as much as the Americans did. Make no mistake about it; regardless of the scientific value of a moon landing, it was the politics of the situation that drove things. It was a question of national pride. The two superpowers really wanted to out do the other and if there was any military benefit to be gained from it, then they'd have that as well. It wasn't easy. The Soviets, despite being first in space, had a number of major and explosive problems with their moon landing project. When the US succeeded (and you can be sure that the USSR would have kicked up a major fuss if they thought the Americans were cheating) the Soviet's enthusiasm for the whole thing waned. They played down the efforts they had made to get there first, had some unmanned landings and that's it. A distant second place didn't interest the politicians. Then, of course, by the eighties they had enough problems running nuclear reactors, submarines, the country without bothering about the moon.
This question is most often asked about the lander. Why can we see the flag on it's side when it is in the shadow? What people don't consider is any reflected light. The surface of the moon reflects a lot of light, you only have to look at the moon at night to see this. The Astronauts were dressed entirely in white to reflect both light and heat. The Earth also reflects light. These things could provide plenty of light to illuminate the darker side of the lander.