Anyone here speak Dutch? This page is an article in Dutch about the hoax. Given that it links to this site and Jay Utah's comprehensive website http://www.clavius.org I think this one is on the side of the good guys.

Actually that's Danish. Too bad google or babelfish don't have Danish to english yet. Any danes want to help us out?

"Et lille skridt for mennesket, et kæmpe spring for menneskeheden."

I understand this part of it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

According to the Danish-to-English translator at www.tranexp.com, that sentence translates to, "a little steps by the human being, a struggle spring by the humanity."

Kind of loses the poetic flow, doesn't it?

I've got tranexp working on the whole page, but it's kind of slow . . . I'll let you know what I get out of it.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Edited to add the following]
Okay, I know Phil doesn't like full text posts here, so I'll put it on my own site and link to it.

The translation still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but you can get some idea:

Translated Danish Moon Hoax Page

_________________
SeanF

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2002-03-18 11:48 ]</font>

yeah... "ein kleiner Schritt für Mann, ein riesiger Sprung für Menschheit" leap, spring same difference [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Well, my Danish is rusty, and was never incredible in the first place, but let's take a look. Just don't ask me to do a word-for-word translation. Heh, it helps to have a pretty good idea of what it's saying before I even read it... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Erf... Well, it's a good report, presenting arguments HB's give and the counter-arguments that tell why they're wrong. They cover radiation, unstable LM's, dust and flag-waving, flames from the LM rocket, lack of stars in the sky, shadows, and multiple light sources as well as other photography difficulties. They also mention Bill Kaysing's view on the Apollo 1 fire.

One thing that's sort of interesting is they have a HBer, Henrik Melvang, claiming that rocket propulsion wouldn't work in a vacuum. I've only heard that before in accounts of British scientists in WW2 claiming that V-2's wouldn't work, while they were being bombed by them. What I say is "Has the guy ever watched sattilite TV?" But it's sorta nice that they stick it in, 'cause it covers the basics of rocketry anyway. Actually, IMO they about it a bit too much. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Oh! A PhD they interviewed said almost the exact same thing about sattilite TV. That's worth a grin. The Dr also invited Henrik Melvang to the Intitute of Physics and Astronomy, where they have a demonstration of a rocket engine working in a vacuum.

Hmm... there's also some issues on re-entry... Apparently they say that the command module returning to earth would be going just as fast as when it left earth, and the engines wouldn't be able to slow it enough to survive re-entry. I know, you're not bringing back nearly as much mass as you're sending up, and seem to explain that one pretty well. But still, it's something new, and just how fast WOULD the CM be moving when it returned? Even if it was on a pretty free trajectory on the way back, it would fall towards the earth and pick up velocity for a couple hundered thousand kilometers before actually reaching it.

It also mentions some arguments about the capsule landing in the ocean, which is also new (at least to me). Some guy argues that the capsule was falling too fast during splashdown to be safe. The site says it was moving 40 km/h... that's about as fast as a fender-bender. Some various other things along the same lines, issues with the capsule flotation system, etc. Finishes up with a short discussion of "are you sure the rocks are really from the moon" and "then why didn't the Russians think of it first or blow the whistle on the hoax?"

I'm not sure all the details are 100% correct, but for a non-scientific news report that's sort of a given anyway. They do quote the BA several times, even if they mis-spell his name in the link at the bottom [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] (it's spelled right in the article). In all, it's pretty good, definately a "good guy" article. Thanks for digging it up.

Reentry velocity was about 25000 mi/hr, or 40000 km/hr, if my memory serves. Yes, that's just about the same velocity they had as they left Earth.

No rockets were used to decelerate. Virtually all of the kinetic energy was dissipated by atmospheric friction. The resulting heat was shed by ablation - literally, the heat shield melted and the vaporized material blew away.

The last small percentage of the capsule's descent speed was moderated by three large parachutes. The landings were sometimes fairly rough, but the astronauts were in their couches to help cushion the blow a little. Also, the water landings helped soften the impact.

Anyhow, the HB was both right and wrong - right about the reentry speed, but wrong about the need for any powered deceleration.

Landing speed for Apollo I think was supposed to be about 30 feet per second, which seems to come out at 20 mph, or 33 km/h.

Apollo 15 had one of their parachutes fail, and landed at about 34 fps.

The other thing was that the CM was tilted at an angle of over 20 degrees, so that rather than doing a belly flop into the water, one edge hit first, and the shock of landing was attenuated.

It's amazing what you can find out by reading the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (even if it was put together by those NASA hoaxers and their co-conspirators [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ).

Maintaining the integrity of the CM underside during and after splashdown was critical to keeping the astronauts safe. With the equalization cock open, a fracture of the hull would have filled the CM rapidly with water.

The astronauts would have survived a "whackdown" on land. The couch struts were designed to collapse and absorb the impact, and the problem of cracking the spacecraft was not as grave.

Ill get you folks a lenghty translation (I speak swedish and norwegian, danish isnt that much different) after school, have a electronics lab, shouldnt take more than an hour or two... so hang on for a while and Ill have that translation for you.

Ok folks, here comes the translation. It's a pretty long article, so Ill just take out the 'important' parts...

What evidences do we really have of the moon landings? could it have been just a large hoax carried out by NASA to beat the russians?

Here are some arguments for and against the hoax.

Some hoax believers believe the core of USAs government was behind this hoax, others believe that it is a worldwide conspiracy by all space corporations.

Radiation

The van allen belt, discovered in 50ties, several tests made with small rockets holding tissue samples etc, measured levels, solar flares could kill people, danish scientist quoted, links to radiation pages...
"but the spaceships' hulls were thick enough to protect the astronauts from the radiation they would normally encounter".

Lunar Module

And then there's the LM, which HBers claim was so unstable that it would tilt if any of the astronauts moved around inside it.

But that's not true, the LM had a feedback system that measured if the mass balance moved, and during decent the rocket engine could compensate for this. Lunar gravity is also only a sixth of earth's.

'why is there no dust on the LMs landing pads' asks a danish hoax writer.
During decent the LMs rocket engine would blow away most of the dust, sideways so that it would not get up on the pads.

- Astronomer Philip Plait from Sonoma State University goes through the most common hoax claims on his website (link). He explains how most hoax believers forget that there is no atmosphere on the moon, and that dust set in motion will not billow as on the earth.

The waving flag

the flag waves when the astronauts are setting it up, and in some pictures you can see how it's waving without anyone touching it.

- debunking (telescopic rod, flag doesnt wave when nobody is touching, wrinkles may make it appear to be waving.. etc).

When the lunar module took off from the moon there was no visible exhaust from the engines, clearly faked.

- mix of propellants was used, which created a see through exhaust, and would not be clearly visible in vacuum..

about the rocket (link)

no stars/shadow anomalies

debunked in lenght, with all the common explanations (3d terrain, short exposure times, etc).

Dead astronauts

Apollo 1 fire, Bill kaysing claims, baron report, fire investigation, security investigation, etc. link to baron report and complete list of Apollo astronauts.

rocket engines wont work in vacuum

lenghty debunking on that, physics etc, thermodynamics...

discussion about reentry etc, "why were there no brake rockets, reentry by that speed would be lethal, etc", long explanation about the heat shield and so on.

water landing

long hoax believer post about how it would be impossible to walk out alive from a landing like that. the velocity of impact would be 40km/h, and the capsule didnt go further down than 50cm, so the impact would be lethal if there wasent some sort of special chairs in that capsule, and there were none during launch... etc

and the debunking is short, shutes combined with air resistance would slow the capsule down to around 32km/h impact...

lunar rocks

if the lunar landings were really a hoax, why didnt the russians do it first?

a short explanation about lunar rocks, how they prove man went, almost 400kg of em, etc. Russians also sent their own probes and picked up samples, which were then compared with the US rocks.

US/Russian cooperation

worldwide freemason conspiracy, US working together with russians, etc. 'We know now that since Apollo 11 didnt land on the moon, and supposedly the russians had Luna 15 in lunar orbit at the same time the eagle was supposed to land, we have evidence that the russians worked together with the americans'...

a short summary of info about Luna 15 and Apollo 11 launch dates etc.

Then the article ends with 'there are no telescopes on earth capable of viewing great enough detail on the moon to find out if the moon landings were real, but in 2003 japan is sending a lunar probe into lunar orbit, and hopefully then we may get the final answers'.


The End (with some links)

then again, why wouldnt the japanese be in on it?

oh well [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Wow, nice job. Thaanks, Johnno. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

TBA: no problem, couldve done it more accurate, but since it's the same old claims, same old debunkings, didnt figure it was necessary to through it all word by word.

agreed. Maybe we should assign a single word to refer to the same old tired claims so that we can refer to them more easily [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] here are some: flag, stars, exhaust, radiation, shadows...

Maybe we should assign a single word to refer to the same old tired claims so that we can refer to them more easily

I already thought of a word, but B.A. won't let me write it here. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Now I have to think of another one.

In the best Red Dwarf tradition, how about Smeg? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

At first I entertained the notion there was some validity to these hoax believers claims...until I realized these are the same people that believe Championship Wrestling is real! (Of course, most of them live in Minnesota). [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Cheers SeanF!

The computer translation of that Danish article is hilarious! My imagination ran riot. Just visualize:

"...crawled Neil Armstrong forth from Tea Eagle"!

One giant crawl for mankind!

And despite its bad grammar, this expression is priceless:

"That all were fup and bluff"

I'm going to start using that in rebuttals - "You're all fup and bluff!"

Excellent.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-03-19 23:29 ]</font>

Thanks, Jovianboy - I thought it turned out kind of funny sounding as well. Computer language translation obviously has a long way to go yet!

(Didja notice further down the comments about no "asterisks" in the pictures and the comparisons between "moonshine" and "Earthquake"?)

And, as to those looking for a simple term to identify common moonhoax theories, I nominate "all fup and bluff."

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I believe it says "I ate a little skirt for the man skit, at camp spring for a milkshake."

I belive that's it.

I believe it says "I ate a little skirt for the man skit, at camp spring for a milkshake."

"Tranquility Base, this is Houston. Uh, we'd like you to check your O2 flow ..."

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]