Im a senior in High School, and the only one in my high school science class that thinks we went to the moon. I think my teacher agrees with me, but he's staying out of it. We're having a debate soon and its me against 25 riled up 17 year olds. I've got to be prepared for anything they can throw at me. I've got responses to most of the HB mumbo-jumbo they've got, but there are a few im missing.

Many of them claim that in the sunlight on the moon, temperatures would be around 215 degrees, and in the shadow it woud be -200.

Another thing they claim is that in the videos of the lander descending (from inside, looking at the surface) there is no engine noise. Is that attributed to the fact that sound doesnt travel in space? I need some help.

If anyone can help me with these 2 things, it might help me sway my class away from the Dark Side. Thanks!

Not sure about those two specifics, but make sure you absorb the information here:

http://www.clavius.org/

It should help somewhat. Welcome to the board Poddo.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Welcome to the board, Poddo! (Cool nick by the way!)

I agree with Musashi that www.clavius.org should be your starting point to investigate any of the hoax arguments. However, some things to remember with this first argument:
- The quoted temperatures are for the lunar 'noon' and 'night'. The Apollo missions were never there during those times. They all landed during the lunar 'morning' when the sun angle was low and so the solar intensity was much lower per square metre. Ask your classmates whether it is as hot at 8:00am as it is at 1:00pm on a summer's day. Why not? How long does 'morning' last on the moon?
- The only real form of heat transfer on the moon is radiation. Conduction & convection are ineffective in the lunar environment. If you are wrapped in something that reflects the radiation from the sun, you will not heat up as quickly than if you wear something that absorbs the radiation. What were the astronauts wearing? What is it made of, and why? Why is the Lunar Module wrapped in that gold foil stuff?
- Look at the astronauts on the moon. See the 'backpack'? That is a Portable Life Support System, or PLSS. AS well as oxygen, potable water, etc, it contains a funky air conditioning unit. Check out how it works.

Partly.

What creates most of the sound of a rocket engine on Earth? (Hint: Imagine a large cubic volume of air happily minding its own business, when suddenly someone injects a tight bucketload of very high temperature gas...). How does that sound of a rocket engine reach your ears? Can sound waves be carried through a vacuum? Finally, why were the microphones used by the astronauts referred to as 'throat mikes'?

Go get 'em!

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

If this one is thrown at you, respond with "The Temperature of what (since there's no air, thus no "ambient" temperature) and if they believe that these temperatures are reached instantly on the application and removal of sunlight, respectively. (They aren't.)

Close. Rockets make noise in the atmosphere because the expelled gasses create turbulance with the surrounding air. In a vacuum, the expelled gasses simply dissipate, so there's nothing to create the noise in the first place, much less carry it.

As for inside the cabin, the only noise produced would be some very minor flow noise through the valves, the most audible of which would be during the ignition transient. The astronauts' microphones were not only designed to exclude non-vocal sounds, but they were inside of the astronauts' "bubble" helmets at the time, so any such minor sounds would never be picked up anyway.

This brings up another related topic. The DAC film did not have an associated sound track. In documentaries, such film is often overlayed with the astronauts' comm channel from roughly that time, though perfect synch is very difficult, if even attempted. (For the Apollo gurus: Did the DAC have any sort of timecode other than what was manually logged?) Something to keep in mind when trying to reconcile what you see with what you hear.

__________________
"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby

Bearer of the highly coveted "I found Venus in nine Apollo photos" sweatsocks.

DataCable^2008 A+

That's the most depressing thing I've heard all day.

Hopefully you'll be able to turn them around. Go get 'em.

If after your presentation they still don't believe, why don't you send them here and we'll try to educate them.

Good luck! make sure you don't just try and refute their arguments (make sure you digest Clavius and this site to do so).

Also throw things at them. Make them work at it. remind them (and the audience) that the onus of proof is on them, not you. Take the initiative rather than be on the defensive (but be ready for the standard objections too, also make sure you know enough about Apollo to cope with non-standard questions). Be brief, punchy, and if possible, witty.

Ask them about 4.5 billion year old moon rocks with unique chemistries that have been sand blasted by micro meteorites (studied by independent scientists). Ask them why the Russians did not expose the hoax, or about the numerous independent amateur optical and radio astronomers who tracked the missions and the ham radio operations who tuned in to them. Ask how out of 400,000 people around the world who worked on Apollo not one has come forward and confessed. Remind them how hard it is to keep a true conspiracy secret - if the White House could not cover up a simple buglary, how on earth could it cover up a hoaxed moon mission? Point out that there are hundreds of tonnes of Apollo artefacts round the world that people can handle. They are real machines, not stage props. If you can show them video clips, show the view of the dust on the lunar surface blown by the descent engine - it moves in streaks, and does not billow. show them the dust from the lunar rover footage, how it moves in parabolas, and does not form clouds. Compare this with genuine faked footage - 2001 or landing scenes in "From the earth to the moon" where the dust does billow. Explain the difference in behaviour between dust and air.

of you could try the murder mystery approach. Did the US have the means, the motive or the opportunity to carry out a moon hoax. Point out the absence of motive (there were other cheaper ways of demonstrating technical supeority), means (faking the moon landing was beyond the means of the 60's and the present day, faking half a tonne almost of moon rocks is probably because any conceivable technology) and opportunity (the world was watching including independent and hostile space powers).

Let us know how you go!

Cheers

Jon

Poddo:

Here is a very brief debunking of many of the "hoax" claims:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=105193#105193

And Bob B., in his post above, was obviously so depressed or momentarily overcome by uncharacteristic modesty that he neglected to refer you to his own excellent and fairly brief web page:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Then, of course, you've already been referred to Clavius, where you could spend many hours reading the very full debunkings of the many "hoax" beliefs

Best wishes. I hope you totally bowl them and encourage them to do some critical thinking and thorough research.

Note the simple answers to the landing "videos." First off, it wasn't video it was 16mm movie film. Secondly, the film had no soundtrack. Thirdly, it wasn't filming in real time anyway, but at a reduced speed. I forget the exact frame rate, but could find it if you want it.

Here you go -- from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
Apollo 11 "The First Lunar Landing," between 102:31:04 and 102:31:32, my empahsis:

[Caplinger - "The Maurer camera weighed 2.8 pounds with a 140-foot, thin base film magazine attached. It had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps automatic and 24 fps semi-automatic at all lens focal lengths, and shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/500 and 1/1000 second, again, at all lens focal lengths. At one fps, a 140-foot 16mm magazine would have a maximum run duration of about 93 minutes. During the descent of Apollo 11, the camera was activated at 102:31:04 MET and the landing occurred at 102:45:47 MET, for a total duration of 14m43s. From page 3-68 of the Apollo 11 Flight Plan, the camera was set to 6 fps (max. run duration 16 minutes), infinity focus. So the amount of film was just barely sufficient to record the descent. I assume that the magazine was changed prior to the EVA."]

Note:
DAC = 16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera.
Fps = frames per second.

Encourage your school-mates to read just that one section of the ALSJ -- the first landing. It might impress on them that the procedure was a tad more complex than they probably think. I was listening in to it on the radio just after 8 a.m. on Monday 21 July 1969 -- the most thrilling day of my life.

Try to include a good, easy to understand explanation of how convection currents work. Be sure to mention that that is the main method of heat transfer on the Earth, but it requires an atmosphere.

You will certainly hear the non-parallel shadow excuse. Look for the recent parallel shadow post for a picture showing non-parallel shadows on the Earth. If you could find a good example to take your own pictures or videos of, it might help.

You will hear the no stars babble too. Try to get a picture at night showing some bright lights in the foreground. You won't see any stars in that picture either.

If they try to blame it on tricky Dick Nixon mention that Nixon had only been in office for 6 months at the time of Apollo 11 and that the Apollo 8 lunar orbital mission occured during Johnson's administration. If Apollo 8 was a sham, it would have made far more political sense for Nixon to blow the whistle. He could have caused severe damage to the Democratic party by proving that the Johnson administration had lied to the American people.

The worst problem is that there the shear amount of nonsense they can throw at you. It take a lot longer for you to correctly explain things than it does for them to spew it out.

Now for wrath! Now for ruin! And the red dawn! Forth Eorlingas!

In my experience of dealing with HBer scum, their favourite arguments are the radiation argument and the unstable LM argument. The HBer scum I dealt with was blissfully unaware of either the LM RCS or the DPS gimbal. Be sure to mention that. And don't forget the LLRV was not a LM prototype and it didn't crash because it was a bad design but because it was broke and it was only one accident in over one hundred successful flights.

With radiation, don't forget to mention that ISS astronauts are constantly orbiting in the lower regions of the Van Allen Belts and that the Soviets sent a bunch of animals to the moon and that thousands of commercial satellites operate in the bad parts without problem despite using NASA data.

Clavius is probably the best place to go as well as BA's page and Bob B's site. That has all the information you'll need. Study it. Learn it. Know it. There are also some great threads here and at Apollohoax.com worth reading. The recent one about the Soviet space program here is worth a read.

The best advice we can give you is on strategy and handling the debate.

Do not:

• allow them to interupt you. Make them listen to what you have to say.
• allow them to handwave. If they have a quantitative argument to make let them make it or stand down. If they say the stars should have been brighter, ask them how much and do not accept "much brighter" as an acceptable answer.
• allow them to make vague arguments about specific things. No things like "I saw this picture with a weird crosshair but I'm not going to tell you which one or clearly describe what was going on." If you allow them that benefit, they will be able to worm their way out by saying that your rebuttle doesn't cover this particular situation. If they can't provide the specifics, reject their argument as unfulfilled.
• allow them to get away with clear layman speak. If they don't have the knowledge to use proper terminology take them to task for their inexpertise.
• allow them the right of FUD. If they can't explain why their hoax theory provides a better explanation for some observation, reject their argument. Simply pointing out a weird crosshair is insufficient. They must give a plausible explanation under the hoax theory why that crosshair is how it is or their argument is rejected. At the same time, make sure they're aware that refuting a proposition does not prove the converse.
• allow them to pass the burden of proof onto you. They are the ones who have to prove it's fake.

Do:

• test their knowledge. Ask them the meaning of acronyms and abbreviations like ALSEP, TLI, UHT, PSE, LOI, S-IVB. If they can't answer, hold them accountable for their lack of knowledge. Only the worthy may challenge the legitimacy of Apollo. How can you call something fake when you don't even know what it is?
• try to appear as knowledgeable as possible. If it's clear you know more, you gain credibility.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Don’t forget that you have resources in your teachers that can be brought to your side. Your high school art teacher is probably a good source for information on the perspective of representing a three dimensional world on a two dimensional plane. Your school may have photography program as well. These outside source can get you up to speed on countering the silly parallel shadow and no stars in photos arguments and can be quoted as legitimate authorities. They will carry weight with undecided students because one can go talk to them to verify information.

A great strategy in such discussions is to pick the arguments that you know the best and question your opponent about his knowledge. For example, if they use the parallel shadows argument, work with your art teacher to devise a simple blackboard test for them to see if they can draw from different perspectives what they claim should show on the photos. They cannot of course, demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge about the subject, undermining their position. Also the legitimacy of the test can be verified by the art teacher, an independent expert.

Remember to take the high ground. Its not personal, it is a search for truth. Read as many of JayUtah’s posts on this board as possible to get the attitude and tone to deal with others ignorance. Have fun!

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Too bad about your predicament.

Stay polite and stay calm in your debates, but don't get soft. Question their assumptions (i.e., make them question their own assumptions). For example, when someone says "The temperature on the moon is 200 degrees," you should ask, "The temperature of what?" Then you can get into a discussion of heat transfer and explore what affects it.

If someone says something that sounds like a fact, ask "How do you know that?" (Many moon hoax arguments are based on things that everyone "knows" but aren't necessarily true.)

The roar of a rocket engine is created when the exhaust plume hits the atmosphere. No atmosphere, no roar.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What can I say, it was late, I was tired, and I wasn't thinking clearly.

But seriously poddo, you have already received some good explanations and advice here. I really don't have much I can add at this time. You probably need to study the information given here and in the links provided. Get your thoughts together and then, if you have additional questions or require clarification, please come back here and we'll be happy to help you some more.

I doubt anyone here will disagree that the Clavius site is the best and must complete hoax debunking site on the Internet. You would definitely benefit from reading it, though it will take a while to get through it all. My page and the Bad Astronomy page, although not as complete, can be read in a single sitting and may give you ammunition for hoax claims you might not have thought of or been otherwise unprepared for.

One more thing, be prepared for a lot of subject changing and handwaving. When you demonstrate that you know more about a particular topic than they do, they'll likely want to drop that topic and immediately move on to something else. You'll get a lot of "well what about this... well what about that...". Don't let them get away with it. If you have them on the ropes keep pounding away, don't let them slip away by changing the subject (but be polite at all times).

I highly recommend you read Clavius' radiation primer. You will no doubt have people, who know nothing about radiation, telling you the astronauts would have never survived a trip to the Moon. Make sure you do your homework and are prepared. Know the difference between gamma rays and particle radiation for instance. If you demonstrate that you really know the subject you'll likely get nothing more from your opponents than handwaving arguments by people who don't know what they're talking about.

edited spelling

By the way, Poddo, if you want some really good ammunition about radiation in the Van Allen belts, how about a statement from Professor James Van Allen himself?
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...?p=63333#63333

Note that he says the astronauts received less than 1 per cent of a fatal dosage during the entire round trip.

He also thought that the Fox TV show was "an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense."

Good luck, and please do come back and tell us how the debate went.

It's possible they all picked that side because it's the more fun side. After all, who needs facts?

You haven't explained the structure of this debate. Is it an in-class debate? Oral, written? Timed segments or back and forth? Questioning each other or laying out your own case? The format will help determine your approach and what, if any, peripherals (video, pictures, etc) you can bring in.

I get the impression it may be interactive. If so, be prepared for evasiveness. With so many people and just one of you, perhaps you could ask for some ground rules from the instructor, like one person at a time, so they can't swamp you with multiple topics simultaneously. Maybe the teacher will moderate? Also, get them to commit to their arguments. Don't let them argue vague maybe statements. "How about this? Maybe this?" No, they need to commit to their argument. If they aren't behind it but just throwing maybes, throw them a maybe - "Maybe the sky is green and you're just color blind." "Maybe Kennedy was a midget and they had him stand on a box all the time." If they can't commit to the argument, then they don't really believe it so why should you take it seriously. Also, if you are doing one question at a time, consider taking a show of hands - "Interesting question, how many others agree with that?" If they have to commit to stupid* questions, and you quickly show how stupid some of the questions are, that will make them less likely to ask the next stupid question. Don't let them pass around the stupid hat. If one person only presents one question he can later lay the blame on the rest of the class and say he wasn't that fooled. But if he has to commit to every argument, even those voiced by others, then that's part of the record.

They may try to bring up Bill Kaysing as some kind of Apollo insider. Don't let them over promote his (or anyone esle's) credentials. Kaysing was a technical writer - that means he wrote technical documents and checked their spelling and punctuation and grammar. Kaysing is not an engineer, and not technically trained. Ask them if they think their English teacher should have a say in organ transplants. Also, yes Kaysing did work for a NASA contractor (Rocketdyne), but he left the company in the early 1960's, well before the designs were mature and much of the hardware was built. His "insider knowledge" was out of date and untrained.

Same thing for Ralph Rene. Read up at Clavius, but the bottom line is that Rene claims to be a "self-taught" physicist or engineer. Ask them what that means? Ask them if they would rely on a "self taught" engineer to build a bridge they had to drive on every day.

Their strongest held arguments are likely to be the things they know least about. This seems to be a constant pattern of behavior. It has something to do with the feeling that if a topic is complex and you don't about it, then nobody else does either. Rene is extremely prone to this. Explaining technical details about those topics shows that you are more knowledgable than they are, which means the experts probably know something about it, too.

You might get a question about the gloves, or space suit design. Read up on it, especially the cooling system. Learn about evaporative cooling. The glove argument will possibly mention balloons. Mention the different suit layers - the inner pressure bladder (balloon) and the overlying cloth layer that held the pressure bladder from expanding. Discuss constant volume (accordian) joints.

If you get more specifics for this project and want more help, ask away. Keep us informed.


*I said stupid because it's funnier, but I mostly mean ignorant, as in uninformed. Show how uninformed they are, and make each of them commit to every uninformed question. That way they see it's their own ignorance, not the-next-guy-over's.

I hate to muddy the waters here as it were, but there is another potential HB argument that JayUtah addressed on my maiden post (soo long ago)

(I raise this as I tend to play devil's advocate a lot )

<HB Argument>
The US lied about WMD's in Iraq so that proves the US government is not above lying to its people and the world, how do you know they did not lie about the moon landings </HB Argument>

I suspect this is a red herring and trying to link unrelated events to prove "Poisoned Root" and thus undermine the authenticity of the Apollo Programme :roll:

__________________
Van Rijn's original Invisible Elf was running for the North Carolina Senate, but dropped out of the contest after the paparazzi snapped him with a cute pixie just outside Disney World in Florida. Now he has settled down with her as they await their first child, writing his biography of life in Van Rijn's backyard, - Now you prove me wrong

This is a typical FUD tactic (FUD = Fear, uncertainty, doubt). Rather than attempt to discredit the copious evidence supporting Apollo, the HBs try to get you to believe it is all a lie simply because the government has lied in the past. Once they have you doubting Apollo's authenticity they present their own theory, which they'll claim must be true by default. In this way they've gotten you to believe their theory without having to prove or disprove a thing.

Yes, the government has lied in the past but they've also told the truth. We must examine each case individually. The Apollo record stands on its own and nothing can be implied about its authenticity based on unrelated events.