Search This Blog

Saturday, 12 March 2016

Can you believe it? They put a man on the moon!

Can you believe it? They put a man on the moon!

Between 1968 and 1972, manned missions to the Moon were conducted by the United States as part of the Apollo programme. Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to enter orbit in December 1968, and was followed by Apollo 10 in May 1969. Six missions landed men on the Moon, beginning with Apollo 11 in July 1969, during which Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon. Apollo 13 was intended to land, however it was restricted to a flyby due to a malfunction aboard the spacecraft.

But did NASA really get too the moon and if they did, did they actually put a man onto the moon? Or was it just a big hoax? And if it was a hoax then why? In the US, the hoax claim was originated by libertarian writer Bill Kaysing (1922-2005) with his 1976 book "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle". It is a shame Kaysing is mostly remembered for that, because he also wrote books on sustainable living, privacy, hot springs, homelessness, cooking, and other topics. It is reported that Bill Kaysing was originally requested by his publishers to write his book as a satire, but he somehow became convinced of the truth. Kaysing alleged that his own publishers were working with NASA to suppress the book after he received a letter from his own editor saying that the manuscript wasn't good enough for publication. Kaysing then self-published both the book and the letter, creating a false Streisand effect.

The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. Six of the missions (Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) achieved this goal. Apollo's 7 and 9 were Earth orbiting missions to test the Command and Lunar Modules, and did not return lunar data. Apollo's 8 and 10 tested various components while orbiting the Moon, and returned photography of the lunar surface. Apollo 13 did not land on the Moon due to a malfunction, but also returned photographs. The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples.

The Apollo mission consisted of a Command Module (CM) and a Lunar Module (LM). The CM and LM would separate after lunar orbit insertion. One crew member would stay in the CM, which would orbit the Moon, while the other two astronauts would take the LM down to the lunar surface. After exploring the surface, setting up experiments, taking pictures, collecting rock samples, etc., the astronauts would return to the CM for the journey back to Earth.

Apollo Lunar Landings (1969 - 1972)
Apollo      Launch       Landing                                                    EVA time   Traverse    Sample  
mission      Date          Date         Landing Site       Latitude     Longitude   (hours)      (km)    Return (kg)
-------     ------       -------        ------------       ---------    ---------   --------   --------  -----------
  11     16 Jul 1969   20 Jul 1969  Mare Tranquillitatis    0.674 N      23.473 E     2.53       0.25       21.7  
  12     14 Nov 1969   19 Nov 1969  Oceanus Procellarum     3.014 S      23.419 W     7.75       1.35       34.4
  14     31 Jan 1971   05 Feb 1971       Fra Mauro          3.645 S      17.471 W     9.38       3.45       42.9
  15     26 Jul 1971   30 Jul 1971     Hadley Rille        26.132 N       3.634 E    19.13      27.9        76.8
  16     16 Apr 1972   20 Apr 1972       Descartes          8.973 S      15.499 E    20.23      27.         94.7
  17     07 Dec 1972   11 Dec 1972    Taurus-Littrow       20.188 N      30.775 E    22.07      35.        110.5

Above NASA has listed six Luna landings, they have provided dates, coordinates and a map of the moon showing where the missions were. That s easy to say though the moon is a long way away! How can the average person stuck here on Earth be sure they actually happened? Can you see from earth the Luna landing sites?

As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.
Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror has a resolution of 0.024″ in ultraviolet light, which translates to 141 feet (43 meters) at the Moon's distance. In visible light, it's 0.05″, or closer to 300 feet. Given that the largest piece of equipment left on the Moon after each mission was the 17.9-foot-high by 14-foot-wide Lunar Module, you can see the problem.

So individuals doubting the authenticity of the moon landings will chalk that one up in their favour, we can't see any evidence from Earth. However no one denies that NASA has not been to the moon !
Missions to the Moon have been conducted by the Soviet Union, United States, European Space Agency, Japan, India and the People's Republic of China. The Moon has also been visited by five spacecraft not dedicated to studying it; four spacecraft have flown past it to gain gravity assists, and a radio telescope, Explorer 49, was placed into selenocentric orbit in order to use the Moon to block interference from terrestrial radio sources.

If the moon landings had been faked, none of the above nations would have found any evidence on the moon and the US have been quite open about leaving objects behind on the surface of the moon, not a good idea if they were faking the landings. We can see the landing sites in very good detail too from satellites orbiting the moon mapping it's surface.

NASA'sLunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail. LRO is a robotic mission that set out to map the moon's surface. Images of the landing sites can be found by clicking on the below link.

So far all the evidence has been coming from the US/NASA but the they are not the only ones to have satellites orbiting the moon, the Soviet Union, Japan, China, and India all have there own space programs, building their own space probes which are launched on their own launch vehicles, and have their own deep space communication networks that are completely independent of NASA no NASA facilities were used, and there was no NASA funding.

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings. Comparing two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille And one in 2008 a reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.

As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.

Space craft can also be independently tracked and monitored by radar from Earth. The Sovie Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps and the missions were also tracked by radar from several other countries on the way to the Moon and back.
So it would seem then that NASA did get too the moon and was able to leave items behind on the surface and as you will read below was able to retrieve rocks but did they actually put a man on the moon?
Not only did NASA leave behind their trash on the surface of the moon but they also brought back samples of rocks and soil from the moon! In this they are not alone, the Soviet Union conducted unmanned missions that deployed rovers and returned samples to the Earth. Three rover missions were launched, of which two were successful, and eleven sample return flights were attempted with three successes. So both the US and the Soviet Union have samples from the moons surface and to the best of my knowledge no one is disputing that the Soviet moon missions were also faked.

Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the US Apollo manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites.

I have heard the argument that the rocks held by NASA are samples of moon rocks found on earth or are just rocks found on earth that they think resemble moon rocks.

Almost all lunar rocks are depleted in volatiles and are completely lacking in hydrated minerals common in Earth rocks. In some regards, lunar rocks are closely related to Earth's rocks in their isotopic composition of the element oxygen. The Apollo moon rocks were collected using a variety of tools, including hammers, rakes, scoops, tongs, and core tubes. Most were photographed prior to collection to record the condition in which they were found. They were placed inside sample bags and then a Special Environmental Sample Container for return to the Earth to protect them from contamination. In contrast to the Earth, large portions of the lunar crust appear to be composed of rocks with high concentrations of the mineral anorthite. The mare basalts have relatively high iron values. Furthermore, some of the mare basalts have very high levels of titanium (in the form ofilmenite).

Moon rocks can only come from the moon and cannot be forged. Samples are held by the US and Russia taken directly from the moon, also president Nixon gave away 135 samples to 135 country's and 50 states. Most of these have ether been lost or stolen, but what is important is that the US gave away samples of moon rock to 135 country's!

Following the money trail …

Landing men on the Moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($24 billion) ever made by any nation in peacetime. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.

If as suspected by many the moon landings were a hoax employing 400,000 people and 20,000 firms and universities, it would have been impossible to keep this secret. Someone would of talked!You can't pull the wool over the eyes of that many people and companies all of them working together to build the Apollo space craft, if it was not possible to reach and/or land on the moon someone would have said as non of them would want their part of the project to be the part that failed. Also $24 billion has to be accounted for, money is constantly being chased for by every government department, $24 billion is too large a sum of money to finance a hoax too many people in congress would be wanting some of that money, too many independent eyes watching where the money is being spent.

The Apollo program costs $20.4 billion if we simply added yearly spending of its 15 year-lifespan (1959–1973), or $109 billion in today’s money. Since 11 Apollo piloted missions were flown, that amounts to $9.9 billion per flight. That’s way over Mercury and Gemini mission costs, reflecting the complexity of going to the Moon. And if we consider these $109 billion resulted in six lunar landings, each of these missions costs some $18 billion!

These figures are difficult to calculate. First, we need to find how much NASA spent each year on this program, and then add these dollars taking into account inflation. We couldn’t add 1970s dollars to 2000s dollars. For example, if we simply added Apollo programs fiscal spending during its fifteen-year existence, we obtain $20.4 billion. That’s the usual program cost reported. However, doing the same maths using constant 1975 dollars give $29.3 billion. And using 2010 dollars give us $109 billion. We thus could say that the Apollo program cost $20 billion in then-year dollars, $30 billion in 1970s dollars, or $110 billion in today’s money.

The first challenge NASA leaders faced in meeting the presidential mandate was securing funding. While Congress enthusiastically appropriated funding for Apollo immediately after the president's announcement, NASA Administrator James E. Webb was rightly concerned that the momentary sense of crisis would subside and that the political consensus present for Apollo in 1961 would abate. He tried, albeit without much success, to lock the presidency and the Congress into a long-term obligation to support the program. While they had made an intellectual commitment, NASA's leadership was concerned that they might renege on the economic part of the bargain at some future date.33
Initial NASA estimates of the costs of Project Apollo were about $20 billion through the end of the decade, a figure approaching $150 billion in 1992 dollars when accounting for inflation. Webb quickly stretched those initial estimates for Apollo as far as possible, with the intent that even if NASA did not receive its full budget requests, as it did not during the latter half of the decade, it would still be able to complete Apollo. At one point in 1963, for instance, Webb came forward with a NASA funding projection through 1970 for more than $35 billion. As it turned out Webb was able to sustain the momentum of Apollo through the decade, largely because of his rapport with key members of Congress and with Lyndon B. Johnson, who became president in November 1963.34
Project Apollo, backed by sufficient funding, was the tangible result of an early national commitment in response to a perceived threat to the United States by the Soviet Union. NASA leaders recognized that while the size of the task was enormous, it was still technologically and financially within their grasp, but they had to move forward quickly. Accordingly, the space agency's annual budget increased from $500 million in 1960 to a high point of $5.2 billion in 1965.35 The NASA funding level represented 5.3 percent of the federal budget in 1965. A comparable percentage of the $1.23 trillion Federal budget in 1992 would have equalled more than $65 billion for NASA, whereas the agency's actual budget then stood at less than $15 billion.
Out of the budgets appropriated for NASA each year approximately 50 percent went directly for human space flight, and the vast majority of that went directly toward Apollo. Between 1959 and 1973 NASA spent $23.6 billion on human space flight, exclusive of infrastructure and support, of which nearly $20 billion was for Apollo.36 In addition, Webb sought to expand the definition of Project Apollo beyond just the mission of landing humans on the Moon. As a result even those projects not officially funded under the Apollo line item could be justified as supporting the mission, such as the Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Surveyor satellite probes.
For seven years after Kennedy's Apollo decision, through October 1968, James Webb politicked, coaxed, cajoled, and manoeuvred for NASA in Washington. A long time Washington insider- -the former director of the Bureau of the Budget and Undersecretary of State during the Truman Administration--he was a master at bureaucratic politics, understanding that it was essentially a system of mutual give and take. For instance, while the native North Carolinian may also have genuinely believed in the Johnson Administration's Civil Rights bill that went before Congress in 1964, as a personal favour to the President he lobbied for its passage on Capitol Hill. This secured for him Johnson's gratitude, which he then use to secure the administration's backing of NASA's initiatives. In addition, Webb wielded the money appropriated for Apollo to build up a constituency for NASA that was both powerful and vocal. This type of gritty pragmatism also characterized Webb's dealings with other government officials and members of Congress throughout his tenure as administrator. When give and take did not work, as was the case on occasion with some members of Congress, Webb used the presidential directive as a hammer to get his way. Usually this proved successful. After Kennedy's assassination in 1963, moreover, he sometimes appealed for continued political support for Apollo because it represented a fitting tribute to the fallen leader. In the end, through a variety of methods Administrator Webb built a seamless web of political liaisons that brought continued support for and resources to accomplish the Apollo Moon landing on the schedule Kennedy had announced.
Funding was not the only critical component for Project Apollo. To realize the goal of Apollo under the strict time constraints mandated by the president, personnel had to be mobilized. This took two forms. First, by 1966 the agency's civil service rolls had grown to 36,000 people from the 10,000 employed at NASA in 1960. Additionally, NASA's leaders made an early decision that they would have to rely upon outside researchers and technicians to complete Apollo, and contractor employees working on the program increased by a factor of 10, from 36,500 in 1960 to 376,700 in 1965. Private industry, research institutions, and universities, therefore, provided the majority of personnel working on Apollo.
To incorporate the great amount of work undertaken for the project into the formal bureaucracy never seemed a particularly savvy idea, and as a result during the 1960s somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of NASA's overall budget went for contracts to purchase goods and services from others. Although the magnitude of the endeavour had been much smaller than with Apollo, this reliance on the private sector and universities for the bulk of the effort originated early in NASA's history under T. Keith Glennan, in part because of the Eisenhower Administration's mistrust of large government establishments. Although neither Glennan's successor, nor Kennedy shared that mistrust, they found that it was both good politics and the best way of getting Apollo done on the presidentially-approved schedule. It was also very nearly the only way to harness talent and institutional resources already in existence in the emerging aerospace industry and the country's leading research universities.
In addition to these other resources, NASA moved quickly during the early 1960s to expand its physical capacity so that it could accomplish Apollo. In 1960 the space agency consisted of a small headquarters in Washington, its three inherited NACA research centres, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Goddard Space Flight Centre, and the Marshall Space Flight Centre. With the advent of Apollo, these installations grew rapidly. In addition, NASA added three new facilities specifically to meet the demands of the lunar landing program. In 1962 it created the Manned Spacecraft Centre (renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Centre in 1973), near Houston, Texas, to design the Apollo spacecraft and the launch platform for the lunar lander. This centre also became the home of NASA's astronauts and the site of mission control. NASA then greatly expanded for Apollo the Launch Operations Centre at Cape Canaveral on Florida's eastern sea coast. Renamed the John F. Kennedy Space Centre on 29 November 1963, this installation's massive and expensive Launch Complex 34 was the site of all Apollo firings. Additionally, the spaceports Vehicle Assemble Building was a huge and expensive 36-story structure where the Saturn/Apollo rockets were assembled. Finally, to support the development of the Saturn launch vehicle, in October 1961 NASA created on a deep south bayou the Mississippi Test Facility, renamed the John C. Stennis Space Centre in 1988. The cost of this expansion was great, more than 2.2 billion over the decade, with 90 percent of it expended before 1966.

So we have seen what independent witnesses have said and what NASA has said and it seems at this point that it adds up, the US did acquire the funding needed by NASA. NASA built the rockets and delivery system and lunar lander. We saw them launch, the Russians and others tracked them on their way too the moon and NASA left behind evidence that has been independently verified and brought back samples from the moon which they handed out samples of too 135 country's. Their are two more things I'd like to discuss and that,s the film and photo's taken during the Apollo missions and the laser ranging retroreflector experiment.

The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.
Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometres in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometres in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimetres (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometres).
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment has produced many important measurements. These include an improved knowledge of the Moon's orbit and the rate at which the Moon is receding from Earth (currently 3.8 centimetres per year) and of variations in the rotation of the Moon. These variations in rotation are related to the distribution of mass inside the Moon and imply the existence of a small core, with a radius of less than 350 kilometres, somewhat smaller than the limits imposed by the passive seismic and magnetometer experiments. These measurements have also improved our knowledge of changes of the Earth's rotation rate and the precession of its spin axis and have been used to test Einstein's theory of relativity.

Secondly theirs the photos taken during the missions. NASA had until recently refused to release them all and there are a lot! This has played in to the hands of the people who doubted the moon landings. They have accused NASA of a cover up and suspect that these pictures contain evidence of the hoax. If this was the case I'm sure NASA would have destroyed the photos. Instead they have now released them all to the public here.

So what do people say who doubt the moon landings happened? I will list here what some of them have said …

  1. The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.

Since there is no wind or atmosphere on the Moon, how can the US flag be flapping in pictures of the first Moon landing? This theory deals with the American flag. The picture that was sent back showed this flag fluttering as if in a wind. This is proof that this picture had been taken on earth and not the result of a moon landing. The fact that the flag flutters in the wind when there is no wind on the moon adds credibility to the belief that the moon landings are a hoax.

  1. If the astronauts had passed through the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.
In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earth’s magnetic field and stays perpetually in the same place. The sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminium coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.

  1. Multiple-angle shadows in the moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.
On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions. This must mean multiple light sources are present suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a film set.

  1. In the sun's rays, the Moon's temperature is 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.
Over the course of a full lunar day and night, the temperature on the Moon can vary wildly, from around +200 to -200 degrees Celsius (+392 to -328 degrees Fahrenheit), so it’s natural to wonder how lunar astronauts survived this huge temperature variation.

  1. To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil.
If there’s no moisture on the moon, then how come you can see footprints perfectly? Because when you step in the desert where there’s no moisture in the sand, all you see is a circle. But in the photographs of the footprint on the moon, you see an absolute impression of the footprint indicating that there is moisture in the soil which means they’re not on the moon.
  1. When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface.
Before the Apollo landings, NASA scientists and artists thought that the engine firing may create a blast crater underneath the lunar module. Pictures of the site, however, showed no such crater, not even a big depression in the surface, as though the module was just “placed there.”
  1. There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!
The Lunar Rover was too large to fit in the Lunar Module. If one takes the measurements of the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV) it does not fit into the Lunar Module.

  1. Space is littered with stars. Why then are they missing from the photographs?
The sky is black and without an atmosphere we should be able to see stars! On the moon without an atmosphere in the way, the sky should be filled with stars. Since there aren’t stars, it must be fake. In fact, it is a really bad fake because NASA knew that they wouldn’t be able to figure out where every star goes on their black backdrops for their sets because other people would realize they are in the wrong place, so they just eliminated the stars all together and made the backdrops completely black.

  1. Slow-Motion Walking and Hidden Cables
If you take the moon landing footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to be moving in Earth’s gravity. As for the astronaut’s impressive jump height, hidden cables and wires have been used giving the astronauts some extra height. In some photos outlines of hidden cables can be seen!

  1. The “C” Rock
In Apollo photograph AS16-107-17446 (Apollo 16, film roll 107, photo #17446), there is a large rock in the foreground, a “C” is visible on the rock. This is obvious evidence of a hoax because it’s a prop rock, the prop man forgot to turn the rock over. NASA labelled all the prop rocks to make sure they go where they’re supposed to.

  1. Layered Cross-hairs
A cross hair, which is burned directly into the image by the film plate, and so should always appear on top of the objects in the photograph, appears behind the object in some photos, clearly revealing a composite of two pictures into one.
Oh! Your finished? Well allow me to retort! ...

  1. The flag they put on the moon has a metal rod running along the top, and when Neil Armstrong pushed it into the ground, he twisted it a little, which set the fabric into motion. The fabric hanging down from the rod acts like a pendulum, moving back and forth under its own momentum, restrained by the elasticity of the fabric attaching it to the rod above. The result is that the fabric undulates or ripples rhythmically, while the stiffness of the fabric resisting deformation gradually slows it. On Earth, things have to be relatively heavy or compact to swing like pendulums, because air resistance stops anything, like a flag, that's too bulky or too light to have enough momentum to push through it. But these images didn't come from Earth. There's something counter-intuitive about a flag swinging around like a pendulum, that's only because we're not used to seeing things move around in a true vacuum or under reduced gravity Intuitively, seeing a flag waving like this, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that it must be due to wind (because when flags move like this in our everyday life, it is because of wind), but in this case, on the moon, it's not.

  1. It's no secret that radiation exists in space, and we know radiation can cause death, so, to the ordinary person, the only conclusion is that space is deadly and will kill any outbound astronaut. Unfortunately this is a very simplistic way of looking at the problem. Radiation levels vary dramatically in strength and intensity, with some being at dangerous levels and some being at a harmless level.
Whether or not a human will experience illness or death is related to the radiation dose received. Observations from the ground and from spacecraft demonstrate that the space radiation hazard of the Van Allen belt could be kept small by use of low-altitude Earth orbits and rapid transits to the Moon along trajectories with inclinations of about 30 degrees.
Only the solar flare particle events presented a hazard for the moderately shielded spacecraft. Also, secondary radiation was not significant for such spacecraft. Most of Apollo's radiation protection activity was directed towards providing protection against major solar flare particle events that might occur while astronauts were in the lunar module or on the lunar surface. The events, which start at the sun, were detected by ground-based instrumentation and were measured at the spacecraft by dosimeters and particle spectrometers. A prognosis of the radiation dose was prepared and continually updated by radiation environment specialists using a console in the Mission Control Centre (MCC). Dose estimates were then provided for the use of the medical officer, who advised the Flight Director of the radiation effects to be expected.

  1. Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, and the Earth, as well as the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the expectations of the ordinary people. More significantly, perspective effects come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground. This leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. And finally, the camera in use was fitted with a wide angle lens, which naturally resulted in subtle versions of fisheye lens distortion.
  1. All the trips to the Moon’s surface were planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to know how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface. There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them.

  1. This was tested by the Mythbusters team and below is their explanation.
The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon’s soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil.

  1. The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.
A good page to read further into this is:

  1. The Lunar Rover was folded and stored in quad 1 of the Lunar Module with the underside of the chassis facing out. Deploying the Rover: One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place and when they touched the ground the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys. The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. In short it's lightweight and compactly folded/stored and assembled on the moon.

  1. The lunar landscape is so bright that the camera exposure settings to take a good lunar landscape photo are not sensitive enough to image the fainter stars that are in the lunar sky. If the camera was set to record the stars, the moonscape would be washed out white and featureless. Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The light from the Sun in outer space in the Earth-Moon system is at least as bright as the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface on a clear day at noon, so cameras used for imaging subjects illuminated by sunlight are set for a daylight exposure. The dim light of the stars simply do not provide enough exposure to record visible images.

  1. Thanks again to the MythBusters team for the below.
Adam donned a replica NASA space suit and mimicked the astronauts' motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon's lower gravity. While comparing the new and original footage, the MythBusters noted that at first glance, they looked similar, but there were many small discrepancies due to filming in Earth's gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the MythBusters boarded a reduced gravity aircraft run by Zero Gravity Corporation and filmed exactly the same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and made more sense in microgravity, and the footage from the plane looked exactly like the original film. The MythBusters concluded that the Moon landing film is authentic.

  1. One picture does seem to show a letter C. But this particular picture is a third generation copy after the original negative has been through a photographic enlarger - prone to dust and hair infection if not careful. Such items will show up as a silhouette. Most of the published images seen in books etc are not from the original film taken on the moon; they are priceless and are handled to an absolute minimum. Images you see in print are often 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th generation copies. The entire Apollo film archive has now been digitised by high quality scanners to remove this problem of contamination by dust & hairs and decreased quality. Such facilities were not available when this 'C' Rock picture was published.

  1. In photography, the light white colour (the object behind the cross hair) makes the black cross hair invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. This saturation effect would not happen if the cross hairs were drawn on after the photo was taken, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have cross hairs would make the compositing process far more difficult. Also prints were often cropped and rotated, which causes the illusion of reticules occurring off-centre or "not straight.

At the end of the day it is up to each person to make up their minds on this topic. For myself the moon landings are too big and complex a task, and too open to scrutiny by interested party's, to name a few the press, other nations (Russia), organisations like the military who were in competition with NASA for funding and the general public, to fake. The moon is not the US's exclusive playground other nations have been their and will go their again who have and will continue to confirm NASA's presence their.

No comments:

Post a Comment