Due to popular demand, New Zealand's TV3 is to rescreen the Fox Special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" at 9:30pm on 24 June 2003.

There are plenty of web sites which debunk the programme in detail, including the article by our own Bad Astronomer and JayUtah's Clavius, but a few months ago someone posted a link to a web site, possibly in the UK, which gave very brief answers -- just a few lines each -- to the various points raised in the programme. It was especially good for anyone who wants quick answers. However, I didn't record the address and after spending some time Googling have not found it. Can anyone please help?



[Edited time -- should be 9:30pm, not 8:30pm]

DAng, just when I'd almost forgiven them for the last two screenings.

__________________
A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.
-Arthur C. Clarke

Hey Kiwi, any chance of speaking to the people at the station and seeing if anyone's willing to discuss the show? Might be fun to educate a few people live on TV, and show them what a piece of cow manure it is. Or one of the other stations? Or that Holmes bloke?

Kiwi, you may be referring to Redzero, which used to have a very concise and witty rebuttal the Fox Special.

Whose popular demand is it?

...any chance of speaking to the people at the station and seeing if anyone's willing to discuss the show? Might be fun to educate a few people live on TV, and show them what a piece of cow manure it is. Or one of the other stations? Or that Holmes bloke?
I'd love to do it but couldn't, and I don't personally know anyone who could do a good debunking. It's a pity that there isn't a video programme which does this. The egotistical twerp that you mention last is on the public-owned station so probably wouldn't tackle a programme from the privately owned one. I haven't watched him for years.

Kiwi, you may be referring to Redzero, which used to have a very concise and witty rebuttal the Fox Special.
No, Redzero was one of the first to come up in Google. As I recall, the site mentioned in my first post was a single-page text file with no links and may have had a plain yellow background.

Whose popular demand is it?
TV3 said "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon is back by popular demand to examine both sides of this controversial issue", so they must have had a few requests to reshow it. I don't recall it examining "both sides" in a particularly competent manner.

What's the difference between controversial and insultingly stupid?

What's the difference between controversial and insultingly stupid?
In this case, advertising semantics?

In all respect the last time they showed it they followed it up with a rebuttal from the auckland astro society.

An interesting angle is that TV-3's sister channel the youth-oriented TV-4 is screening the excellent "From The Earth To The Moon" mini-series again starting the following Saturday..so maybe there's hope..

Where's our expert finder of obscure but excellent web sites, David Hall?

Oh well, I have made up a brief debunking to submit to general bulletin boards, for sending by email and for using in letters to editors in order to catch those who aren't on the internet.

Comments, criticisms and advice would be appreciated.

********************************

The movie "Capricorn 1'' was filmed five years after the last moon-landing and was deliberately made using Apollo-style hardware, even though it would have been useless for landing on Mars.

In the late 50s and early 60s many Russian and American scientists doubted it was possible to land on the Moon, but rapid advances in computers and other technologies, the experience and knowledge gained from a lot of spectacular failures, plus heaps of money, soon overcame the problems.

Eight (not ten) astronauts died in accidents involving, cars, aircraft and untested spacecraft, but there was nothing mysterious about their deaths. Flying and space travel are dangerous businesses.

Gus Grissom was a very enthusiastic contributor to the space program. To illustrate his concern for safety he hung a lemon on an Apollo SIMULATOR (not the lunar module), which, early on, had some faults, but he was NOT dissatisfied with the entire Apollo program.

Stars didn't show in photos because they are far too faint to register in a photograph of a sunlit scene. To register on film they need at least 30,000 times more exposure than a sunlit object.

The flags appeared to wave only when the astronauts manipulated the main pole which had a horizontal bar at the top holding the flag up. The lightweight structure moved easily in one-sixth gravity and there was no atmosphere to impede the flapping of the nylon flag.

Blast craters didn't appear under the lunar module because the Moon's surface is quite firm and the rocket engine was throttled back. It did, however, blast away the top layer of dust immediately under its nozzle.

Not all shadows on the Moon were dark because the Moon itself reflected light into them, and different camera exposures could lighten them further. We see the Moon's reflectivity when it lights up the Earth at night.

Multiple light sources cast multiple shadows and large light sources cast fuzzy shadows. Objects in the lunar surface photos cast only fairly sharp, single shadows.

Shadows cast by the sun are only parallel if the viewer is perpendicular to them, and their lengths and directions varied on the Moon due to the uneven surface. A key term here is one that is familiar to most artists: VANISHING POINT.

Two video clips are claimed to be taken on the same hill a day apart, but in the original video they were in fact taken only about five minutes apart. An editor of a documentary film made a mistake. Hoax believers make PLENTY of mistakes.

The rocket noise could not be heard above Aldrin's voice because rockets do not make a roaring noise in a vacuum - the roar we hear on Earth is due to the turbulent reaction between the exhaust plume and the atmosphere. The gas exits at above the speed of sound, causing a sort of continuous 'sonic boom'. The only noise audible within the lunar module would have been the flow noise of the fuel and oxidizer through the system. Besides, Aldrin's microphone was sealed inside his helmet and was designed to exclude environmental noise.

The training machine that crashed when Neil Armstrong was flying it did so because it broke after a number of successful flights. It was a very different vehicle to the actual lunar module.

Different photos showed similar backgrounds because the tall mountains were distant, so the astronauts would have had to move many kilometres to exclude them.

The lunar module could not be thrown off balance by the astronauts moving because it had a feedback system which corrected for changes in the centre of gravity (whether by astronaut movement or fuel depletion) by swivelling the rocket nozzle.

No rocket flames were seen when the astronauts took off from the Moon because the special fuels used, hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, do not produce highly visible flames or smoke in a vacuum.

It is claimed that all the pictures taken on the Moon were perfect, but the truth is, they weren't -- most publishers used only the best ones. There were plenty of bad photos which can be viewed on the internet.

Crosshairs were sometimes obliterated by bright objects due to a characteristic of film called emulsion bleed. It can often be seen in photographs of a sunlit scene taken from a shaded room through a window which has an open venetian blind.

Radiation in the Van Allen belt is made out to be much harsher than it was where the astronauts went through it at high speed, and they received less than 1% of a fatal dose.

Neither Earth-based telescopes nor the Hubble telescope can see the moon-landing sites because they are not powerful enough. The Hubble would have to be more than eight times more powerful to see the part of the lunar module that was left on the Moon.

[Edited to include suggestions below and to change present tense to past tense.]

[Additional edit to improve the point about rocket noise in the LM. Edits have been done to keep this brief rebuttal in one place so that it can be used by others.]

Should anyone think the figure regarding stars requiring "at least 30,000 times more exposure…." sounds much too high, here's the maths. A typical down-sun exposure with 100 ISO film is 1/250 at f11. The shortest exposure that will register the brightest stars is about 8 seconds at f2.8, but because of film's reciprocity failure during long exposures, 20 to 30 seconds at f2.8 is a better exposure.

Each step below doubles the exposure and the increase over the sunlight exposure is shown.

1/250 @ f11
1/250 @ f8 ======= 2x
1/250 @ f5.6 ====== 4x
1/250 @ f4 ======= 8x
1/250 @ f2.8 ===== 16x
1/125 @ f2.8 ===== 32x
1/60 @ f2.8 ====== 64x
1/30 @ f2.8 ===== 128x
1/15 @ f2.8 ===== 256x
1/8 @ f2.8 ====== 512x
1/4 @ f2.8 ===== 1,024x
1/2 @ f2.8 ===== 2,048x
1 sec @ f2.8 === 4,096x
2 sec @ f2.8 === 8,192x
4 sec @ f2.8 == 16,384x
8 sec @ f2.8 == 32,768x
16 sec @ f2.8 = 65,536x
32 sec @ f2.8 = 131,072x

[Edited to improve readability]

You might like to mention that Apollo-style hardware was used in the movie, even though it would be absolutely useless for landing on Mars.

Did he hang the lemon on a Command Module simulator or a Lunar Module simulator? What did the program say?

Maybe you could include the URL of the web-site which has all those photos on-line? And the URL of this site or Clavius?

Otherwise, this is an excellent summary of the arguments. Congratulations!

I know you've tried to keep your answers "short and sweet", but you might want to point out that the ascent engine exhaust is invisible in a vacuum (it might well be visible in air), and when running steadily (ignition transients may well be visible).

Thanks for the comments, guys. Yes, the main point was to write something brief, punchy and simple for the layperson, and to hopefully indicate that there is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were not faked. Will include links for those who want to look further.

Have edited the original to include your suggestions and to change a few cases of present tense to past tense.

Feel free to copy it and make use of it.

Doug Bennett

How about including a couple of the positive proofs that we went: rocks (geologists all accept the reality of Moon rocks as objects photographed in situ, and corresponding to theories about their creation), radio signals (picked up in real time by ham radio people, and including commentary on current events), and video footage (objects behave like they're in a low gravity vacuum).

Recalling from the time I saw this program (which was what aroused my interest in the conspiracy idea in the first place), there are a couple of other things that might be included in a rebuttal of it.

1: As I recall, one of the claims was that the speeded up film looks like it was filmed in Earth gravity. They include a shot of the rover zipping across the surface. The dust behaves like it would in a vacuum, not forming any clouds whatsoever, and simply falling back to the surface. Did they depressurise the studio?

2: The film of the LM ascent stage blasting off always comes up because of the lack of exhaust plume. What I have never heard a conspiracist explain is what it was that blasted the mylar coating apart when it lifts off. You can see quite large bits of mylar being shot out in all directions, and they're all still travelling in a straight line away from their point of origin when they leave the frame. Something must have pushed them out with some considerable force, and if it wasn't the invisible exhaust from the LM ascent stage, what was it?

Little threads! Same way they did the ballistic dust from the rover wheels...

The dust behaves like it would in a vacuum, not forming any clouds whatsoever, and simply falling back to the surface.

This often comes down to a difference of opinion. If you look at the Grand Prix footage, which is the footage most commonly referred to, there are some ejection patterns that conspiracists use to argue that the dust is hitting a "curtain" of air and falling to the ground intsead of being ejected for a great distance horizontally. In one case it's simply because the rear wheel is turned away and the dust spray is foreshortened. (Keep in mind the LRV used four-wheel steering.) In the other it's simply because the spray disperses before traveling horizontally for very far.

When Young screetches to a halt there is a particularly telling dust spray over the top of the wheel from just under the fender. But until you're willing to plot the ballistics of each of those dust grains, the conspiracists will simply disagree with you.

Did they depressurise the studio?

That would be a trick. The largest soundstage in the world in 1969 has concrete walls eight inches thick. That's to keep sound out, obviously. But even that won't sustain a vacuum inside. The largest walls would crack at the center. And long before that, the ceiling would collapse: while the walls are stout, the ceiling is not. In short, people don't realize the structure that would be required to maintain vacuum over such an enormous volume. The load would be tremendous.

Ironically conspiracists propose using airplane hangars instead, which have even flimsier walls.

What I have never heard a conspiracist explain is what it was that blasted the mylar coating apart when it lifts off.

I've never heard a conspiracist explain why the plume should be especially visible.

If they would simply watch all the ascent footage, they could watch the Apollo 17 lunar module ascent and shrink to a dot in the distance. (So much for wires.) And if they applied some of that "expert" photo analysis they use on the photos, they'd see at a certain point that they're looking right up the skirt of the ascent stage into the glowing thrust chamber of its engine.

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

"When Young screetches to a halt"

Ooh, careful. A conspiracist might read that and misinterpret it (having no sense of humour or irony). Then they'll say you're a whistle-blower, because you know that Young can't screech to a halt in a vacuum because there would be no air to carry the screech of brakes, so you must know that he was in a studio and not on the moon....

Then where's the banjo music coming from? :-)

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

Oops, my Bad Astronomy! After reading the debate with CosmicDave in this thread I have changed the 12th rebuttal to read as follows:

The rocket noise could not be heard above Aldrin's voice because rockets do not make a roaring noise in a vacuum - the roar we hear on Earth is due to the turbulent reaction between the exhaust plume and the atmosphere. The gas exits at above the speed of sound, causing a sort of continuous 'sonic boom'. The only noise audible within the lunar module would have been the flow noise of the fuel and oxidizer through the system. Besides, Aldrin's microphone was sealed inside his helmet and was designed to exclude environmental noise.

Well, it screend a bit over 14 hours ago. At about midnight, on a local bulletin board, there was roughly an even number of believers and skeptics. I'll direct those with questions to this bulletin board, but will try to persuade them to do a bit of homework first and not behave the same as so many hoax-believers.

I couldn't help noticing in the programme something that could be very useful to debunkers, particularly in regard to lighting in the Aldrin egress photos. About 5½ to 6 minutes from the end is a brief scene, probably taken with the DAC camera, of an astronaut who looked like he was on the ground at the base of the ladder. Although in full shade, he was beautifully rim-lit by light that was reflected off the Moon's surface, from both sides and from down-sun.

If you watch the entire 16mm roll, you see that Aldrin adjusts the exposure according to instructions from Mission Control. You can see how the film responds to adverse lighting conditions as the f-stop is varied.

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

Noooo
*sob*
Im now surrounded by ppl who dont believe that NASA ever went to the moon.
*snuffle*
Damn u TV3!

The problem i have with that fox special is that its all so one damn, golly damn di de damn god damned! sided!

No debunking at all!

ALWAYS WITH THE SHADOWS!
*crys**runs around in circles*

My wife said "well that fixes it then, u can see the flag waving in the wind"
MY OWN WIFE!

RickNZ

You poor sod! I feel sorry for you.

Why not direct your friends to www.apolloarchive.com, and get them to watch the MPEGs from Apollos 14 and 17 of the astronauts erecting their flags. The clips last 30 seconds (A14) and a minute (A17), and you get to see the behaviour of the light nylon in a low-gravity vacuum.

Also get them to look at the MPEG on Apollo 11 of Buzz Aldrin demonstrating various methods of locomotion. At one point he moves past the flag, yet it doesn't move. If he did that on Earth, the flag would be disturbed by his slipstream.

Oh i have no problem debunking. Not since i first found this website many moons ago when i chased up what the first screening of fox claimed.
No.
Im suffering from RMDI, a form of RSI.
(repetitive moon debunking injury.)

If you watch the entire 16mm roll, you see that Aldrin adjusts the exposure according to instructions from Mission Control. You can see how the film responds to adverse lighting conditions as the f-stop is varied.

Sorry, JayUtah, I should have said in my post about this that the scene is not from Apollo 11. It is much clearer and the rim-lighting is really impressive. Well, at least it is to a photographer.

I wonder if there are any good stills taken from the LM of someone at the bottom of the ladder and taken in such a way that he could only be lit the same way.

Sorry, JayUtah, I should have said in my post about this that the scene is not from Apollo 11.

Not your fault. I shouldn't have assumed I knew which film you were talking about.

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

You mean to tell me the CIA hasn't stopped that show from airing yet! :P

There are those on this board that seem to be immune. I often wonder how they do it time and time again.

<hoists pint to those immune> Cheers

Would that I had the patience.