|
Post by fireballs on Aug 20, 2010 17:49:03 GMT -4
Sorry I've taken so long... School eats up the time. Anyway, the most popular question seems to be "Why do you (I) think they are fake?" Here's an answer: To be honest, I'm 50/50. The hoaxers put up some good arguments, IMO, and so does NASA. They both sound plausible to me. There's no clincher that says "A ha! This proves they went!" The closest thing to a 'clinches' is the fact that the Russians never disputed it, though sometimes I doubt they really tracked it the right way. Secondly, I doubt the moon rocks are legit, but the posts I read today make very good points. If clarification is needed, please ask. Questions will draw more detail out of me I'll try to respond to some of the posts, but there's a lot so I might not get to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2010 18:19:29 GMT -4
The hoaxers put up some good arguments, IMO. Would you mind telling us which arguments of theirs you consider good?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 20, 2010 18:23:24 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. Very good post. Can you (or someone) expand on the radio things (how could you tell from a radio transmission that it was from the moon?) and is there documentation about the bolded stuff? Thank you
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 20, 2010 18:26:07 GMT -4
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. True... Excellent points. This got me thinking, and while I'm not totally convinced they are really rocks from the moon, I'm starting to reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 20, 2010 18:45:30 GMT -4
The hoaxers put up some good arguments, IMO. Would you mind telling us which arguments of theirs you consider good? Sure. Authenticity of the moon rocks mostly, and I do see it as plausible that it could have been filmed in a studio. Couldn't they haven rented a huge studio (or studios) from MGM, filmed, and payed them off (with royalties of course)? Are any of the hoaxer's theories plausible to you guys?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2010 18:49:30 GMT -4
They both sound plausible to me.Pro-hoax arguments are meant to sound plausible. Just like Star Trek technobabble, they're meant to convey the illusion of rigor without actually achieving it. There's a reason no qualified professionals put any stock in the hoax theories. Hoax authors aren't experts, and they hope you aren't either, because otherwise you'd see right through their hogwash. And as a matter of fact, NASA doesn't really participate in the hoax debate. We're not simply representing NASA's stated point of view, we're offering our own point of view that comes from our own expertise and understanding. You really won't find NASA responding in detail to any of these claims. What you'll find are private citizens who happen to be qualified in the relevant fields. Secondly, I doubt the moon rocks are legit...Please provide more details on this. You haven't adequately explained how they otherwise came to be, and why the entire world's geology community accepts them as real after clearly informed consideration. Your only explanation is the unsubstantiated hypothesis that they all must be lying, which is pretty absurd. Do you have anything stronger than disbelief?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2010 18:54:16 GMT -4
I do see it as plausible that it could have been filmed in a studio.But that's not good enough. "Could have been" is no different than saying I "could have" shaved my neighbor's cat. Proof of actuality, not just possibility! You're still in the mindset that the only way Apollo can be real is if there's no possible way for it to have been faked. That's not how proof works. Couldn't they haven rented a huge studio (or studios) from MGM...So you're going to rent a soundstage or two in the busiest studio in Hollywood for a mammoth top-secret project and no one's going to notice? Then there are the gravity and vacuum effects that can't be duplicated on a soundstage. ...and payed them off (with royalties of course)?Show us the money. Are any of the hoaxer's theories plausible to you guys?Nope. I've spent ten years studying them in depth. They're completely laughable.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Aug 20, 2010 18:54:26 GMT -4
Very good post. Can you (or someone) expand on the radio things (how could you tell from a radio transmission that it was from the moon?) and is there documentation about the bolded stuff? Thank you Hi fireballs, one telling piece of evidence that the TV signals were coming from the moon is from the recordings made at Bochum Observatory for Apollo 16 (the one I definitely can confirm). Using the frequency information from NASA but operating idependantly from them, the staff there managed to receive the TV information _without_ Houston's voice channel (as the only were picking up signals from the Descartes region on the moon). A complete listing of all transmission times for Apollo TV is available in the book "Live TV From the Moon" www.livetvfromthemoon.com
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 20, 2010 18:59:45 GMT -4
To be honest, I'm 50/50. The hoaxers put up some good arguments, IMO, and so does NASA. They both sound plausible to me. The hoax arguments are meant to sound plausible, but (and this is no reflection on you) they sound plausible only to those who lack the relevant expertise. They are relying on you not doing your own research, because you will quickly find out how full of holes their arguments are. Why? How would you track a lunar mission, and why do you think that would be different from how the Russians did it? Why? That is a serious question, because the answer will largely determine how the debate here will proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 20, 2010 19:05:40 GMT -4
Can you (or someone) expand on the radio things (how could you tell from a radio transmission that it was from the moon?) Radio receivers are directional, especially the ones used to track Apollo. Ever see those big dishes? You can tell if a transmission is coming from the Moon simply by seeing if your receiver is pointing at it. Orbital mechanics dictates that if you keep your receiver trained on the moon then whatever it is receiving can only be coming from the Moon or something else orbiting the Earth in the same line of sight and with the same period as the Moon. Physics dictates that any such object must be AT the Moon. Probably but I can't lay my hands on it right now. However, you can see for yourself how limited the communications time with a satellite in Earth orbit is with any ground-based receiver: many satellites are visible to the naked eye, so you can see how quickly they move across the sky. once they go below the horizon you can't receive radio from them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 20, 2010 19:07:12 GMT -4
I do see it as plausible that it could have been filmed in a studio. Couldn't they haven rented a huge studio (or studios) from MGM, filmed, and payed them off (with royalties of course)? No. The film and video is full of evidence of low gravity and vacuum. No studio in existence could be depressurised and remain intact. The largest vacuum chambers in the world are much too small to shoot the Apollo footage in. Frankly, no. After ten years of hearing them they are all as flawed as each other.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 20, 2010 19:08:37 GMT -4
Would you mind telling us which arguments of theirs you consider good? Sure. Authenticity of the moon rocks mostly, and I do see it as plausible that it could have been filmed in a studio. Couldn't they haven rented a huge studio (or studios) from MGM, filmed, and payed them off (with royalties of course)? Are any of the hoaxer's theories plausible to you guys? Leaving aside the technical aspects consider that this is something that wouldn't have to be secret not for weeks or months but for generations. if it ever comes out those responsible face ruin and prison, the damage to US politics would dwarf Watergate. And yet you would have to have so many people involved just to do the filming, how could you trust them? The kind of people who would do it for money are probably the same kind who would sell you out for more money. Sure you could assign 'men in black' to watch over them but that's another group of people who have to be trusted, and government agents can be corrupted or have attacks of conscience just like anyone else. And then what happens if someone figures out a way to solve whatever problem stopped you going to the moon? What are you going to do if some unfriendly power goes there and finds the Apollo sites empty? I simply cannot imagine any gain that would warrant the incredible risk of faking the moon landings.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 19:14:09 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. Very good post. Can you (or someone) expand on the radio things (how could you tell from a radio transmission that it was from the moon?) and is there documentation about the bolded stuff? Thank you fireballs, Its good to see that you are absorbing all the discussions. I hope this will help on the radio transmissions. It takes a few attempts to get the idea but once you get it you will figure it out yourself.... Radio signals fron space are are directional - that is why you need to point your reciever at them to revieve a strong signal, and that is why radio antennae on earth always have massive dishes behind them to focus the signal. For example, Jodrell Bank in the UK. Jodrell Bank was one of a number of recievers that tracked Apollo. Their tracking is on public record. If Apollo was in low earth orbit, the vehicle would have been whizzing across the sky at such a speed (about 8 minutes from one side of the sky to the other, something like that) that JB could not have followed it. And even if it did follow it, that could only be for 8 minutes then it would lose the signal until Apollo circumnavigated the Earth and came round again. Because Apollo was not orbitting the earth, recievers such as could simply be pointed towards the moon and the signals could be tracked for as long as the moon remains in the sky, a lot longer than would be the case if Apollo were orbitting the earth. Exceptions to this would be when the CM went round to the far side of the moon during its orbit, but the LEM was stationary on the moons surface which (as you probably know) is always facing the earth. So - radio tracking proves conclusively that Apollo was at or around, or moving towards or from, the moon, and not orbitting the earth. It would have been extremely simple for the Russians to blow the cover of Apollo if it were just orbitting the earth. But even that would not be necessary - as explained earlier - if Apollo was on Earth orbit, it would have been highly visibly to millions (actually the whole population of earth) of people on earth in the night sky. Nobody blew the cover so the whole population of the earth, including my good self, was in on the scam. I'm still waiting for the cheque from NASA.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2010 19:18:51 GMT -4
And then what happens if someone figures out a way to solve whatever problem stopped you going to the moon? Which brings up another question. Fireballs, why do you think NASA would have needed to fake the landings? What do you think prevented them from going to the Moon for real? Forgive my repetition of this part of the question, but do you think the Apollo flights before 11 were real?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 20, 2010 19:29:31 GMT -4
Can you (or someone) expand on the radio things (how could you tell from a radio transmission that it was from the moon?) and is there documentation about the bolded stuff? Thank you Sure. One very easy way to tell that a transmission is coming from the moon is to note that the antenna receiving it is pointed at the moon. Additionally, the tracking stations that are both transmitting to and receiving from the spacecraft have the means to measure, with extreme accuracy, the round trip distance to the spacecraft (range) and the rate at which that distance is changing (range rate). Those big dish antennas you see at spacecraft tracking sites and radio astronomy observatories are highly directional. They produce (or receive) narrow flashlight-like beams. Even if you're not doing range/range-rate tracking, if you point your dish at the moon and hear a signal, that means the signal is coming from the moon or from some point along the line between the antenna and the moon. How can we rule out the possibility that it's on that line but not on the moon? Well, one simple way is to look at it with several antennas in different locations and note that all are pointed at the moon. If the object were simply on the line of sight to the moon from one observatory, but not actually on the moon, it would appear off the moon to another site by parallax. But you don't really need to do that because we also have orbital mechanics. Objects in space move primarily under the influence of gravity. Spacecraft with rockets can generate (for a short time) additional forces to influence their motion. But chemical rockets are puny devices. Virtually all of the impulses (forces times time) that affected an Apollo spacecraft during its flight were the forces of gravity exerted by the earth, moon and sun; the rockets can only be fired for short periods before they exhaust their fuel. They just can't flit around willy-nilly like spaceships in SF/fantasy movies like Star Wars. It is straightforward to compute the non-gravitational (e.g., rocket thrust) necessary to make a celestial object fly a given path, or to hover at a certain point. Unless the total rocket thrust is either zero or a very small amount, we can rule it out. And that is the case when you point your antenna at the moon and receive a signal from it for a long time. You can quite reasonably conclude that the signal really is coming from the moon.
|
|