I can't remember if Jay has blasted these or not, but most of them are pretty misleading and it doesn't hurt to take my own hand at debunking now and again (this will come across as written to the website author so I use "you" a lot, but am not referring to anybody on the boards):
Quote:
|
1) Sceptics say there are no stars in the black sky, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface.
|
Utterly misleading to start off and incorrect to boot. Of course you can see stars in space, but seeing stars in space is an utterly different animal than photographing stars in space. If the exposures are not set to be long enough then you can't pick up the relatively faint stars in comparison to the bright objects all around them and the sky appears to be black.
Quote:
|
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
|
Misleading again and doesn't show any proof of the oxygen mix that was actually used in the module.
Quote:
|
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
|
The first portion of this statement is provable mathematically. You can calculate the amount of material that should be displaced. Secondly as has been pointed out plenty of times the LM was not instantaneously at 10,000 pounds of thrust on either ascent or descent. The footprint argument is so insipidly stupid that I wont' bother with it.
Quote:
|
4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)
|
We'll add failing to understand basic rocketry and jet fuel compositions and reactions to the list of things this website doesn't understand.
Quote:
|
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
|
On this one I have to say, huh? I guess the assumption is that in an environment with no atmoshpere gravity would eventually compact everything into it's tightest form. Which is absolute hogwash. The exceedingly light particles of lunar soil could easily balance against each other leaving empty pockets between the individual grains that could then be compacted further by a foot.
Quote:
|
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
|
Yeah, god forbid they figure out the broadcast problems and used improved technology on the subsequent missions.
Quote:
|
7) In most Apollo photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.
|
And? Seriously this is like the third out of 7 points where he makes a statement and then doesn't conclude it with an actual point.
Quote:
|
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles.
|
Debunked so many times that's it not worth going into. Buy an optics textbook and get back to me.
Quote:
|
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
|
I'll beg the quesiton here. Why didn't the preceeding and following pictures of the same rock have that C on them? Because it was a development mistake on Earth.
Quote:
|
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
|
So now apparently Gemini didn't happen now either. Here's a fun change of pace.
Prove that the antenna would be incapable of surviving the heat of re-entry.
Quote:
|
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
|
Remember that optics textbook I suggested getting. The same store will have one on Thermo-dynamics. Look up radiant heat transfer and get back to me.
Quote:
|
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that had never been driven before?
|
Apollo 11 was the first test of the LEM. Let's look at another risky business, submersibles. At some point you're going to have to take your submarine under the water and see if it actually works in the environment it was designed for. Are we now suggesting that the submarine industry is fraudulent, because they have field tests as well?
As for the relative question, first of all I shouldn't be answering such a loaded emotional question, but if my relatives
job was to go and test a vehicle in its environment and the standard safety and design principles of the time had preceeded the actual test flight (a fact conveniently left out by the author), then yes I would send them in it.
Quote:
|
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
|
You put on a several hundred pound non-flexible space suit and see if you suddenly when the high jump on the moon.
Quote:
|
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts traveled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
|
Yes, but it plainly showed the fact that they were using a gate that would generate almost no movement on Earth especially with all of that equipment strapped to them.
Quote:
|
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
|
We'll add a book on Dynamics to your optics and thermo-dynamics course requirements.
Quote:
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn't
the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?
|
Because their flights were scheduled to take place during low flare periods as has been laid out in nearly all NASA literature. I'm curious if that same astro-physicist actually said this was proof that Apollo was faked or if you bogarted their credentials and then quoted them out of context to help your case.
Quote:
|
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.
|
Oh dear lord #-o . Go actually read the documentation on how a pressurized space suit works and look at what the suit they were wearing underneath the pretty white exterior looks like and tell me where air was supposed to leak out.
Quote:
|
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
|
I love how easy it was for the astronauts even though there is footage of them moving very awkwardly, and this is with a bunch of practice. I have a feeling that the 5.2 psi was not uniform, but would have to research that further. The suits looked pretty ballooned up to me.
Quote:
|
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM...
|
a) It's a replica b) it's a replica of an older version of the LM that doesn't represent that one used on Apollo 11, and c) it's hanging in the ceiling at Houston so I doubt he got to actually go and measure the hatch.
Quote:
|
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.
|
And why should they have produced vapor discharges. Just once it would be nice to see actual math accompanying these assertions.
[quote]21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.[/quoted]
Debunked ad nauseum, but what the hey. They twisted the flag into the ground to stand it up. That book on Dynamics I suggested to you should handle the rest.
Quote:
|
22) With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?
|
How do they make those wacky songs fit perfectly into movie scenes? Timing.
Quote:
|
23) Why did NASA's administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?
|
Why hasn't NASA's administrator come forth and say that Apollo was faked? Non-issue.
Quote:
|
24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
|
Is this actually a new argument? I'm almost shocked. First show how the crash was a misinformation lie. It might shock you, but some of us require evidence for that sort of thing.
Funny how out of those hundreds instead of thousands nobody has ever come forward and told the truth. Secondly I'm curious as to how a single satellite was able to transmit this data and why nobody could tell that the signal times would be doubled in length than expected. Remember if they're transmitting from Earth than their signals have to go from Earth to the satellite and back to Earth as part of a response. They could try to time it, but they would have to give responses before Houston finished asking the question on Earth so that the timing would be correct.
Quote:
|
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
|
Professor Van Allen says your argument is full of crap. So do the many shuttles that have ventured into the Van Allen belts. Had they stayed in them there would have been a problem, but that's why they passed through the thinnest point they could while maintaining course for the moon.
Quote:
|
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).
|
First of all this is just slanderous non-sense without proof. Secondly, you haven't mention what Gus's son actually has and how it prooves ill-will on anyone's part. He just has it in his posession.
Quote:
|
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
|
Yes, but nowhere in that article does it say that the astronauts should have been killed instantly or even within the span of time they spent travelling through the belts. High fat content foods were found in the last years to be more damanging than we though yet nobody died outright from eating them in the past.
Quote:
|
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
|
Misleading argument. A moon simulation in 2002 has to take into consideration other aspects that the LM guidance computer didn't, including graphics, not to mention I landed the lander on the moon on my Commodore 64 back in the day so I know what an old computer was capable of performing. Instead of trying a numbers to numbers comparison between the extremely advanced computers we have today and what we used to do all kinds of impressive things in the 60's. PROVE to me that the LM computer was inadequate.
Quote:
|
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?
|
This is covered in that optics book I told you to get. Clementine does not have the resolution strength, especially through Earth's atmosphere, to resolve an item the relative size of the Apollo sites on an object as large as the moon. Besides if we did do it, you'd just tell me the pictures were fake.
Quote:
|
30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
|
Misleading. We don't have the tools to build a vehicle to land us on the moon. All resources were shifted to the Shuttle program and expertise was procured in making that program work. Ford can longer crank out a Model T for you, but it doesn't mean they never made them to begin with.
Quote:
|
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".
|
Statements like this always confound me. For one that video was always readily available as part of the Apollo record. Uncovered in this instance means I actually walked into a library for once and found something I hadn't seen before. Secondly, civilians do not appreciate how much practice went into something like Apollo where they actually walked around in their suits and practiced using the camera.
Quote:
|
32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
|
Buy a map to the Library of Congress and head over there. Everything still exists just no longer in hard copy form. All of the hard copy documentation on Apollo would fill a good sized airplane hangar and was thus eventually destroyed. Microfilm and other forms of media still contain almost all of the records with the noted exception of the records destroyed by the private firms that aided in the Apollo program. This was their right as the owners of the documents.
20-April-2005, 09:31 AM
Has this been debunked..???
