|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 20, 2010 9:22:26 GMT -4
Welcome fireballs. Coming in late, but here's my two penn'orth on the subject:
Radio, same as everyone else. Apollo communications frequencies were published so anyone could listen in, and since radio receivers are pretty directional, you can tell if a transmission is coming from the Moon or not.
Paltry, quite simply. The only sample return missions ever performed on the Moon were simple probes that scooped up some soil from the site of the landing and then launched it back. The total amount returned is a few orders of magnitude lower than that returned by Apollo.
Or it would do if all six missions were the same. Apollo 11 spent less than three hours on the surface and didn't venture more than a couple of hundred feet from the LM. Apollo 17 spent three days on the Moon and drove out to more distant sampling sites. The amount collected on each mission actually increased steadily from mission to mission, and they are distinct enough to be placed to each mission.
The question is less 'would it be possible?' than 'what evidence is there it was done that way?' There is not one single scrap of evidence for the existence and launch of such robots. Given the extensive development and testing that would have to go into such a technological project, that is exceedingly unlikely.
Because of their sheer weight of numbers and distribution around the world. If all you had was some NASA geologists publishing the data you might have more of a leg to stand on when questioning the information given, but for the past four decades thousands of geologists across the world have studied the Apollo samples and not one dissenting voice is heard.
When a hoax requires almost an entire field of science to be written off as either incompetent or in on the lie, the idea of a hoax needs serious re-evaluation. The amount of effort required to keep such a hoax going undiscovered for decades makes actually going to the Moon look like a stroll to the corner shop.
Not without being detected. The Apollo spacecraft stack was highly reflective and large, and would have been one of the brightest naked eye objects in the sky. If a bright satellite appeared in the sky at the same time and for the same duration as the Apollo 11 mission then someone would have noticed.
Additionally, the TV transmissions from the spacecraft on the journey to and from the Moon lasted too long. In low Earth orbit they were only in range of any given ground-based tracking station for about ten minutes at a time (it was not until the space shuttle that a satellite network was set up allowing continuous communication from low Earth orbit). The TV transmissions from the Apollo missions were far too long to have been sent from low Earth orbit. You can see this in the Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 broadcasts, none of which was longer than 12 minutes as these missions stayed in orbit, but the lunar missions all included TV broadcasts that could only have been made in space from a location that remained in line of sight with a tracking station for anything up to an hour.
If you assume the accident was genuine then it does suggest that, but if the accident was staged (and if faking going to the Moon is easy then why not faking an accident to regain public interest and make a few more NASA astronaut heroes?) then the astronauts were never at risk so it doesn't matter how long it took. See the above point though: the Apollo 13 TV broadcast from just before the accident was too long to have been made from low Earth orbit.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 20, 2010 9:31:23 GMT -4
Good post, yet I'm still skeptical Do you have any idea what information would alive your skepticism?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 20, 2010 10:33:06 GMT -4
Although the following is certainly not proof of anything, I present it to give you something to think about…
Despite the total lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever, let’s suppose that NASA really did have the technology in 1969 to land unmanned probes on the Moon for the purpose of robotically collecting and returning large quantities of rock and soil. Why have they not adapted this technology to use elsewhere in the four decades since? There is a whole army of geologists who would love to get their hands on samples from Mars, for example. Does it make sense that NASA would simply abandon the great advances made in robotic sample retrieval? I think they would just be itching to go to Mars and try to collect samples from there. Granted, returning samples from Mars is not the same as from the Moon, but with such stunning success at returning lunar samples, the engineers would be chomping at the bit to adapt the technology and reach out to other destinations. Yet, here we are in 2010 and NASA has not returned a single sample from anywhere other than some dust collected while flying through space. If NASA really did collect the lunar samples robotically, what a total waste for not doing anything more with the technology for nearly 40 years.
Furthermore, if NASA could land such a large and complex vehicle on the Moon as would be needed to collect over 800 pounds of samples, why couldn’t they land astronauts? It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe one thing is possible while doubting the other. Given the two possibilities, the only one that is supported by evidence is that astronauts landed on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 20, 2010 10:48:00 GMT -4
Although the following is certainly not proof of anything, I present it to give you something to think about… Despite the total lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever, let’s suppose that NASA really did have the technology in 1969 to land unmanned probes on the Moon for the purpose of robotically collecting and returning large quantities of rock and soil. Why have they not adopted this technology to use elsewhere in the four decades since? There is a whole army of geologists who would love to get their hands on samples from Mars, for example. Does it make sense that NASA would simply abandon the great advances made in robotic sample retrieval? I think they would just be itching to go to Mars and try to collect samples from there. Granted, returning samples from Mars is not the same as from the Moon, but with such stunning success at returning lunar samples, the engineers would be chomping at the bit to adapt the technology and reach out other destinations. Yet, here we are in 2010 and NASA has not returned a single sample from anywhere other than some dust collected while flying through space. If NASA really did collect the lunar samples robotically, what a total waste for not doing anything more with the technology for nearly 40 years. Furthermore, if NASA could land such a large and complex vehicle on the Moon as would be needed to collect over 800 pounds of samples, why couldn’t they land astronauts? It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe one thing is possible while doubting the other. Given the two possibilities, the only one that is supported by evidence is that astronauts landed on the moon. Not to mention what happens if the Russians/Japanese/Chinese/Indians put something equivalent to the LRO in orbit of the moon and image the remains of these sample collecting missions in locations that don't tally with Apollo? It's a basic problem with the hoax theory, it wouldn't just have to fool people in 1969 but in 1999, and 2009, and 2019, etc...
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 11:04:33 GMT -4
Although the following is certainly not proof of anything, I present it to give you something to think about… Despite the total lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever, let’s suppose that NASA really did have the technology in 1969 to land unmanned probes on the Moon for the purpose of robotically collecting and returning large quantities of rock and soil. Why have they not adopted this technology to use elsewhere in the four decades since? There is a whole army of geologists who would love to get their hands on samples from Mars, for example. Does it make sense that NASA would simply abandon the great advances made in robotic sample retrieval? I think they would just be itching to go to Mars and try to collect samples from there. Granted, returning samples from Mars is not the same as from the Moon, but with such stunning success at returning lunar samples, the engineers would be chomping at the bit to adapt the technology and reach out other destinations. Yet, here we are in 2010 and NASA has not returned a single sample from anywhere other than some dust collected while flying through space. If NASA really did collect the lunar samples robotically, what a total waste for not doing anything more with the technology for nearly 40 years. Furthermore, if NASA could land such a large and complex vehicle on the Moon as would be needed to collect over 800 pounds of samples, why couldn’t they land astronauts? It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe one thing is possible while doubting the other. Given the two possibilities, the only one that is supported by evidence is that astronauts landed on the moon. Not to mention what happens if the Russians/Japanese/Chinese/Indians put something equivalent to the LRO in orbit of the moon and image the remains of these sample collecting missions in locations that don't tally with Apollo? It's a basic problem with the hoax theory, it wouldn't just have to fool people in 1969 but in 1999, and 2009, and 2019, etc... The Japanese Kaguya mission has already imaged the Apollo 15 (and I think one other) site.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 20, 2010 11:43:25 GMT -4
The Japanese Kaguya mission has already imaged the Apollo 15 (and I think one other) site. But I don't think it had the resolution to image the hardware. If I recall correctly it did show that the terrain features matched the landscape shown in the Apollo photographs.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2010 12:18:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 20, 2010 12:18:45 GMT -4
Here's what I have been able to put together so far: 1) NASA claims to have put a man on the moon (duh) 1a) Claims backed up by: -pictures -moon rocks (which I still doubt somewhat) -repeated missions -Russians never said anything -There is 3rd party evidence -etc. I still doubt the moonrocks for the reasons I've listed (if clarification is needed, please ask). And I can still see it as a possibility that it was filmed.... I guess I need some sense beat into me (with a moonrock) Go to curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/10003.pdf and have a read. It's a report on one rock from Apollo 11. The website has over 350 such reports, each on a rock, a core sample or a soil sample. Go to the last two pages of the article I linked and have a look at the academic articles listed - 34 of them. I counted 126 separate authors of those reports, although I suspect a few of those names were repeated. Let me make the point again - that's 126 authors writing 34 articles about one Apollo 11 rock sample. How much money would you need to shut up for the rest of your life about an event as significant as faking Apollo. Multiply it by (say) 10,000 for all the scientists who've had a look at Apollo rocks. How much money are we talking about now? I don't know where you live, but I reckon it's a better than 50% chance that if you were to contact the geology department of the university nearest to you, at least one person on the staff has studied a Moon rock. Perhaps you could talk to that person and ask them about their experiences and findings.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 20, 2010 13:26:02 GMT -4
Good post, yet I'm still skeptical You can't just say you're skeptical without giving specific reason for that skepticism. Please give us a list of the explanations that don't convince you, and we'll expand upon them. One that was mentioned in brief but you may have missed. NASA sent lunar sample to the Soviets, who had their own samples to compare to. They agreed that the samples were very similar.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 20, 2010 13:34:28 GMT -4
How much money would you need to shut up for the rest of your life about an event as significant as faking Apollo. Multiply it by (say) 10,000 for all the scientists who've had a look at Apollo rocks. How much money are we talking about now? It would also be very suspicious if every time a scientist examines a moon rock, that scientist suddenly has new found wealth. A person is not going to lie on NASA's behalf unless the payoff is big enough for the person to do things previously beyond his/her means (otherwise, what's the point). It's a pretty good racket actually - request a moon rock from NASA and receive instant wealth.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2010 14:26:45 GMT -4
But what are the greatest reasons why the missions were not filmed in a studio and were real? I know it seems like cheating, but the real question to ask is what tells you they were fake? That is, in the study of history, if some bit of evidence passes cursory tests of plausibility, then the presumption should be that it is genuine until some case can be made that it is false. You can never prove conclusively that something is genuine, only that it has not been faked according to any method you can test for. In contrast, where fakery has occurred there can usually be found proof of it, and it's usually pretty conclusive. Authenticity is simply the natural course of most activities and so leaves behind a pretty unremarkable and uninteresting set of effects. Fakery is a specific act that entails specific activities and specific causes and effects that don't fit. Hence the burden of proof lies there. The Apollo video easily passes cursory standards of plausibility. It depicts what we expect video taken on the Moon to depict. It exhibits certain peculiarities that we would want to see. It exhibits numerous properties that differ markedly from cinematic attempts to duplicate the space environment. Its provenance is solid. Hence we accept it as genuine. That's not to say there have been many attempts to show evidence of fakery. However, if you take a look at my site and at the many threads in this forum, you'll see how silly those attempts are. They fall flat, because they're indirect arguments based on assumptions and guesses, not on fact. And when cornered on the flaws in their arguments, they'll quickly devolve to calling you a "government disinformationist" or similar names. To the hoax theorist, the question is "Whom are you going to trust?" For me the question is, "What do the facts say?" Mark well the difference. Apollo defenders often get baited into having to prove it was impossible to fake the Moon landing video. That's not necessary, although to do so would amply prove, as a side effect, that it was not done. But the bar is necessarily lower. Much lower, in fact. The bait arises when the argument is made that Apollo could have been faked, and this is the only challenge offered to its authenticity. Many things are possible that are simply not done. It is entirely possible for me to shave my neighbor's cat. But I have not done it. I don't have to prove that it's an impossible task in order to dispute someone's accusation that I have done it. The abstract lack of impossibility is not adequate prima facie proof that the task was done, and that it was done by me at some point. An accuser would need specific evidence of the specific deed done at some time and place. That burden of proof is never met by the conspiracists, or even acknowledged as a necessity. They're satisfied with vague, untestable accusations and indirect propositions based on naive expectations. Their case, in fact, falls right there. But their opponents, out of an abundance of generosity, often try to meet them far more than halfway. No amount of failure to meet someone's expectations proves the proposition that Apollo was faked. Only proof of the act of fakery itself would do that.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2010 15:05:52 GMT -4
A person is not going to lie on NASA's behalf unless the payoff is big enough for the person to do things previously beyond his/her means (otherwise, what's the point). Not everyone is coin-operated. You don't go into geology for the money. You go into it because it interests you. At a certain point someone will care deeply enough for the integrity of the field that he won't accept the proposition to lie for money in order to protect U.S. political interests. And what's to keep him from spilling those beans? Where's the exposé in some non-U.S. publication saying, "I was offered money to lie about the Moon rocks?" Then there is the personal interest. A scientist's advantage in the marketplace is his credibility, which combines his skill and his honesty. For whatever reason, misrepresenting the nature of the Apollo samples in a scholarly paper risks discovery by other scientists, since the study of lunar samples employs some standard observational and analytical techniques in the field. He risks his credibility in the field by agreeing to lie for any reason and thereby misapplying or misusing those techniques. The collaborative nature of science means you can't credibly lie about it for very long. And once you're uncovered, your career is over and your name lies in ruins.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 20, 2010 15:46:12 GMT -4
A person is not going to lie on NASA's behalf unless the payoff is big enough for the person to do things previously beyond his/her means (otherwise, what's the point). Not everyone is coin-operated. You don't go into geology for the money. You go into it because it interests you. At a certain point someone will care deeply enough for the integrity of the field that he won't accept the proposition to lie for money in order to protect U.S. political interests. And what's to keep him from spilling those beans? Where's the exposé in some non-U.S. publication saying, "I was offered money to lie about the Moon rocks?" Then there is the personal interest. A scientist's advantage in the marketplace is his credibility, which combines his skill and his honesty. For whatever reason, misrepresenting the nature of the Apollo samples in a scholarly paper risks discovery by other scientists, since the study of lunar samples employs some standard observational and analytical techniques in the field. He risks his credibility in the field by agreeing to lie for any reason and thereby misapplying or misusing those techniques. The collaborative nature of science means you can't credibly lie about it for very long. And once you're uncovered, your career is over and your name lies in ruins. The recent debacle over the leaked Afghan War documents illustrates its nigh on impossible for government to keep a secret nowadays. All it takes is one whistleblower and the truth about the 'hoax' would all around the world before the US government could even think about responding.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 20, 2010 16:45:01 GMT -4
"Nowadays"? I once got really, really angry at someone spouting the "government secrets" line on BAUT and started going back through political scandals throughout US history. Heck, I know some from the sixteenth century!
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 20, 2010 17:10:52 GMT -4
For whatever reason, misrepresenting the nature of the Apollo samples in a scholarly paper risks discovery by other scientists, since the study of lunar samples employs some standard observational and analytical techniques in the field. He risks his credibility in the field by agreeing to lie for any reason and thereby misapplying or misusing those techniques. Bingo!!! Think "Organic Transistors" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandalOr to a lesser degree, perhaps cold fussion?
|
|