Re: The Apollo Hoax FAQ

From: Mark Underwood (mark.j.underwood_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:26:00 +0000 (UTC)

Oh Just go away .. this is an astronomy site anyway ...lol

"darla" <darla@moon.base.com> wrote in message
news:EELBLUDY38190.2875@anonymous.poster...
> THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
> Written by Nathan Jones
>
> Subject: (1) Forward and Intent
>
> In recent years there have been many criticisms and
> refutations made in various media of the Apollo record, the
> so called proof of the Apollo space missions that allegedly
> landed astronauts onto the surface of the Moon during the
> period 1969 to 1972. The criticisms and refutations by authors
> such as David Percy, Ralph Rene, the late James Collier, Bill
> Kaysing and others take the form of analysis of the photographic
> record and video footage shot by NASA astronauts and questions
> about the viability of other aspects of the operation such as
> the flight worthiness of the Lunar Module (LM) and the
> radiation risk posed to astronauts who venture outside of the
> Earths protective shield - the Van Allen belts.
> Critiques of the Apollo record have sprung up all over the
> internet in various websites and in the form of books,
> television documentaries and video presentations such as James
> Colliers "Was it only a Paper Moon?".
> Counter claims (debunking arguments) made by so called "skepti-bunkies"
> have also appeared in websites such as
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm
> and http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html
>
> A rational and scientific analysis of many of the Apollo anomalies
> is made here in the form of a FAQ.
>
> Subject: (2) Table of Contents.
>
> (1) Forward and Intent
> (2) Table of Contents
> (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?
> (4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea say the Apollo
fanatics.
> (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?
> (6) The flag waves.
> (7) There's no dust on the lander footpads.
> (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio broadcasts?
> (9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?
> (10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its effects?
> (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?
> (12) Where's the blast crater?
> (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.
> (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon say Apollo fanatics.
> (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof right?
> (16) Why don't they point the HST at the landing sites?
> (17) The Russians had to be in on it right?
> (18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?
> (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.
> (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.
> (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows and perspective.
> (22) What still film was used?
> (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?
> (24) The noon day temperature misconception.
> (25) How did the space suit cooling system work? (or not) (NEW)
> (26) How much insulation does it take to keep an astronaut warm?
> (27) Can the Moon rocks be faked?
> (28) Is unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?
> (29) The Eagle landing site anomalies. (NEW)
> (30) Some skeptics websites.
>
> Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?
>
> I would remind the reader that It's up to scientists and
> claimants of this or that fact to provide proof of their claims.
> That's how it works in science and to do this scientists use
> something called "the scientific method". When they are done
> presenting their case anyone may examine it for errors and
> so forth. If we find flaws or errors in their method or in the
> results of their scientific work then we may call in to question
> the validity of their claims. It's just not up to us to prove
> that man did or did not walk on the Moon. We are only to show that
> the evidence as presented to us is faulty, contrived or in some
> way unrepresentative of what we know and we may then throw the
> evidence out. Claims based on discredited evidence have no
> scientific validity and may be ignored or discarded altogether.
> Sometimes people claim Apollo is a historical fact and that it
> is different from scientific fact. But Apollo was not so long ago
> that we must rely on peoples memories and just a few scraps of
> circumstancial evidence. No, the Moon landings were exceedingly
> well documented with photographic imagery and technical data
> pertaining to the missions and to the Lunar environment. It is
> those facts that we may scrutinize. The landing claims are just
> that, claims. It is the factual evidence upon which the balance of
> probability weighs.
>
>
> Subject: (4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea say
> the Apollo fanatics.
>
> Many of the NASA "believers" (aka debunkers some of them) that
> swallow the NASA story hook line and sinker usually end up making
> remarks of this kind or worse.
> It has been said that up to 20% of the American public believes
> we did not go to the Moon and that there is no idea so dumb that
> they will not buy it. Or something of that sort.
> This is a non-argument. It is neither supportive of nor detremental
> of any scientific analysis of the Apollo record. It is merely an
> attempt at ridicule and should be ignored.
>
>
> Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?
>
> In order to capture stars on film you need very long exposures
> in comparison to "daylight" scenes even if the sky is pitch
> black. Just try and take a photo of stars for yourself whilst
> including some brightly lit scene (say a lighted car park at
> night) and you should find that the car park images are
> "burned out" when the stars begin to show in the pictures.
> Though it's correct that stars will have been absent from the
> Lunar photographic images it is strange that none of the
> astronauts remarked on the stars in the sky. The stars really
> will have been a magnificent sight at all times from the Moon
>
>
> Subject: (6) The flag waves.
>
> The only footage I have seen where the flag waves or flaps
> about is when the astronaut is adjusting the flag pole.
> Because he had his hand on the flag pole and was making
> adjustments to it then I would expect the flag to wave
> around for a time. Note also that the flag had a rigid
> horizontal support along the top.
>
>
> Subject: (7) There's no dust on the lander footpads
>
> The Moon has no atmosphere in which eddies and such can cause
> the dust to swirl and "float around". Dust is "shot" away when
> there is no atmosphere. Therefore it is difficult to say
> whether the foot pads would have been covered in dust with any
> certainty. The chances are that some hollows and crevices will
> contain trapped dust but all of the images I have seen look
> remarkably clean. Nothing conclusive here in my opinion though.
>
>
> Subject: (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio
> broadcasts?
>
> Hmm... Your guess is as good as mine. At least we should hear the
> sound of the attitude control thrusters right?
> The LM was pressurized to about 5 psi (oxygen rich atmosphere)
> during the landing and ascent phases of the missions so that the
> astronauts could breath the cabin atmosphere. The LM cabin will
> have been filled with the sound from the engine and control
> thrusters. The following website has an account from a book about
> the shuttle describing the noise from the engines on the space
> shuttle orbiter; http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
> Quote: "The forward primary thrusters sound like exploding
> cannons at thrust onset". Each primary thruster produces a thrust
> of only 870 pounds. The LM engine produced a 3000 pound thrust
> and would have made much more violent sounds and actions.
> "jets of flame shoot out from the orbiter's nose. ...The orbiter
> reacts to the primaries' shove by shaking slightly and moving
> very noticeably. For the crew on board, a series of attitude
> changes using primaries resembles a World War I sea battle,
> with cannons and mortars firing, flashes of flame shooting in
> all directions, and the ship's shuddering and shaking in
> reaction to the salvos". How come the Lunar Modules attitude
> control thrusters were not heard as they were fired on and off
> during flight corrections? They were 110 lb thrusters each and
> there were 16 of them. Debunkers claim that once in constant
> burn that the LM motors were very quiet and they would not have
> been heard. Even if that were true and I'm not personally
> convinced that it is what happened to the noise from the
> attitude control thrusters which will have been firing
> intermitantly? The ascent engine was mounted inside the cabin
> only inches away from the astronauts and there was no noise
> pick up by the astronauts microphones, not even after they had
> been actuated by the astronauts own voice during comms.
> Remember that the Lunar Module was of a metal construction and
> any engine sounds or vibration will have easily been
> transmitted through the structure just like road noise from
> your car tyres is transmitted into the passenger compartment
> where the driver is seated.
> Debunkers have made comparisons with engine noise levels inside
> commercial jets claiming that passengers cannot hear engine
> noise coming over loadspeakers when the pilot addresses them
> on the intercom so why should anyone expect to hear engine
> noise over the radio say by ground controllers? I say that the
> reason passengers may not hear engine noise via the loadspeaker
> is because the passenger compartment is already filled with
> engine noise so what comes over the speaker is overwhelmed by
> existing similar noise. As for not hearing engine noise via
> radio comms I'm 100% certain I heard just that many times over
> vhf radio myself!
>
>
> Subject: (9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?
>
> The Lunar Module engine and the Space Shuttle Orbiter both use
> hypergolic fuel engines of the same type and fuel and yet the
> Space Shuttle Orbiter does produce a visible exhaust flame but
> the Lunar Module never did.
> The flame from the Orbiter is plainly visible in the image at
> this website: http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm.
> It is often claimed that a visible flame is produced during
> ignition transients only but images of the Titan2 rocket which
> used exactly the same fuel and oxidizer mix as the LM produced
> copious amount of visible exhaust flame but the LM never did.
> Comparisons of LM type engines and other types have been made
> but when considering them the reader must insure that they are
> fair comparisons. For example exhaust nozzles must not flare
> excessively thus diluting the exhaust and its luminosity.
> Flared exhausts result in wasted thrust and will not be part
> of a working system.
>
>
> Subject: (10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its
> effects?
>
> It is often claimed that in space the exhaust spreads out
> greatly immediately it exits the exhaust nozzle but that is
> wrong. Take a look at the photograph at the url
> http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm and see
> how much the flame spreads. It spreads only a little. Also the
> exhaust bell on the LM will have been only a couple of feet
> above ground as the LM touched down and given that the bell
> was five feet in diameter the ground just below will have felt
> the full effects of the engine as it set down. From a couple
> of feet away the LM motor should have left unmistakeable marks
> on the Lunar surface where it blasted the surface powder
> (which was inches thick) away. It is a matter of record that
> during the Eagles descent the motor was not turned off untill
> after the Eagle had set down.
>
>
> Subject: (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?
>
> Basically, no. The Lunar Module was the vehicle that was
> supposed to take the astronauts down to the Moons surface and
> allow them to take off again back up to rendezvous with the
> command Module. The LM just wasn't designed for reuse and for
> flight in Earths gravity where it's weight would have been six
> times what it would have been on the Moon. That's why they
> developed simulator vehicles for training. NASA had Lunar
> Module "simulators" built for astronaut training but four out
> of the five training/research vehicles crashed.
> NASA experimented again with VTOL (vertical take off and landing)
> rockets during the 90's and had some successes but cancelled the
> program in 96 just after it's last test ended in a crashed
> landing. NASA claims that the LM underwent successfull "testing
> and manouvers" out in space and in orbit around the Moon.
> Given the record of the training vehicles that would have
> been risky. On Earth the pilot could (and did) eject in cases
> of failure but in space it would almost certainly mean curtains
> for the astronauts flying the LM.
> The simulators or training vehicles were actually called
> LLRV's and LLTV's - Lunar landing research vehicles and Lunar
> landing training vehicles but they were nothing like the LM.
> See here: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm.
> Jim Collier the late investigative reporter had some remarkable
> things to say about the interior conditions and dimensions of
> the Lunar Module based on measurements of the crew cabin
> simulator at Houston Space Center and the LM museum piece in
> Washington. In his video he is seen to measure various
> dimensions of the LM crew cabin simulator including the hatches
> through which the astronauts would have had to egress. He
> concluded that the astronauts suited up and with their back
> packs on would not have been able to get out of the LM.
> That there was not enough room for them to manouver in the
> cabin also. He discovered that the clearance between the the
> LM/command Module hatch and the top of the ascent engine housing
> was only three feet and yet in the Apollo 13 mission, NASA's own
> footage shows astronauts plunging through wide open space into
> the LM cabin when there should have been a rocket motor engine
> in the way but the footage clearly shows the astronaut diving
> through as if it was not there to obstruct him. How could that
> be unless the Apollo 13 footage was a fake, a set up, all a
> fraud, he asks?
> While Collier was no physicist and that is obvious in his
> video I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, or his ability
> to use a tape measure.
>
>
> Subject: (12) Where's the blast crater?
>
> The Moon is covered in powdered rock and rubble. The dust has
> a consistency described as being like cornflour. The blast
> emitted by the descent engine 3000 or so pounds and averaged
> out over the exit area of the exhaust "bell" came to about
> 1.5 pounds per square inch. That's some draft. In some instances
> it is known that the rocket motor was still firing when the LM
> set down. There should have been a lot of evidence of disturbed
> surface soil. There should have been a "star burst" type of
> pattern on the ground made by the relocated powder but there was
> none. See this image: as11-40-5921.jpg. It's not a blast crater,
> it's more like someone swept up with a broom just underneath
> the bell. All the pictures I have seen showing the ground under
> the bell are like that.
>
>
> Subject: (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.
>
> A claim on the badastronomy dot com website said; "you will see
> dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in
> a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again,
> the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which
> has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and
> floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the
> video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually
> a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum".
> So, badastronomy dot com tells us how it is supposed to be,
> what is supposed to happen on the Moon, however frames from NASA's
> own footage of the Lunar rover show us a very different picture.
> It reveals the presence of atmosphere. In parts of the rover
> footage "vertical walls" or "curtain" formations of dust are seen
> to form in the wake of the dust kicked up by the rear wheels.
> Look at http://www.empusa.demon.net/Lunar/Lunar6.jpg and
> notice that clouds of dust form behind the rover's wheels.
> It looks just like there is an atmosphere!
> It is easy to get the curved arc effect driving on sand for
> example so a few ballistic looking dirt trails proves nothing here
> but the impeding effect of an atmosphere is absolutely conclusive.
>
>
> Subject: (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon
> say Apollo fanatics.
>
> Jodrell Bank and various scientists around the world might have
> pointed their antennae at the Moon and received signals from
> that direction in space but that does not prove that man set
> foot on the Moon.
>
>
> Subject: (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof
> right?
>
> No, they are not proof that astronauts put them there. NASA
> and debunkers have claimed that astronauts placed reflectors
> on the surface of the Moon so that astronomers may bounce laser
> beams off of them in order to better determine various Lunar
> parameters, distance from Earth, period and so on. That fact
> is often incorrectly cited as a proof. There may well be
> reflectors on the Lunar surface but that doesn't prove anyone
> set foot on the Moon. The Russians deposited a reflector during
> their Luna (Lunakhod) series of unmanned missions to the Moon
> some time in the early nineteen seventies. In fact the Russians
> were first with the ability to "soft land" instrument packages
> on the Moon in February 1966 with the Luna 9 mission. The Soviet
> success was closely followed by the American Surveyor missions
> which also "soft landed" instrument packages.
> No proof of a manned Moon landing there then.
>
>
> Subject: (16) Why don't they point the HST at the landing sites?
>
> Even today, the largest telescopes in the world and the Hubble
> space telescope (HST) do not have the resolving power to identify
> the LM or what would be left of it on the Moon's surface. The
> smallest object they can discern is something about the size of a
> football pitch at the distance of the Moon and even then it would
> be hard to tell exactly what it was they were looking at.
> In order to make a specific determination you will need more
> information than size alone.
>
>
> Subject: (17) The Russians had to be in on it right?
>
> No, the Russians would have exposed the Missions if they could
> have. The 60's was the peak of the propaganda wars between the US
> and the USSR as it was known then. There was no known technology
> available that could detect the presence of humans aboard a
> capsule from a distance. The only means of detecting a hoax would
> have been from the "leakage" that may have resulted in relaying
> communications from the Earth to the capsule in order to make it
> appear to originate from the capsule or from the Lunar surface.
> That would not have proven a problem however as microwave links
> are highly directional and thus inherantly very "leak proof" and
> when that is coupled with secure communications methods such as
> frequency hopping, spread spectrum techniques, encryption and any
> other unusual modulation methods it's virtually certain that an
> outsider of that time would not have detected it.
>
>
> Subject: (18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?
>
> Apollo 8 orbited the Moon and returned to Earth. Apollo 9 never
> left Earth orbit. The astronauts allegedly practiced deploying and
> docking with the LM. Apollo 10 practiced everything but the landing
> itself. Lunar orbit, deployment and docking with the Lunar Module. If
> they were "real" then there's no technical reason we could not have
> gone on to land astronauts on the Moon is how the argument goes. The
> answer to that is, why should the deployment and docking trials
> of the LM be any more real than the Moon landings? If the LM wasn't
> fit to land on and takeoff from the Moon with then why would anyone
> risk any space manouvers with it? It would have been illogical to do
> so. Apollo 8, 9 and 10 don't prove astronauts landed on the Moon.
>
>
> Subject: (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.
>
> - From http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm "According to an expert at
> DERA in the UK: Radiation is the biggest show stopper affecting
> mankinds exploration of the universe. As far as the probability
> of encountering SPEs or solar flares went, the thin-walled Apollo
> craft (from 8 through to 12) travelled during a solar maximum
> period, a time when there was a likelyhood of three or four
> severe flares per mission. The ability to predict solar flare
> activity was very poor indeed. The CSM did not have any shielding
> against such an event. Neither did the LMs, nor did the spacesuits".
> Even NASA admitted that should there have been a severe flare while
> astronauts were on the Moon the likelyhood would have been a fatal
> dose of radiation. There is no comparison with the international
> spacestation which does have shielding and which orbits inside the
> protection of the Earths Van Allen bands as well.
> Now here's what is typically said in response to questions about
> the problem of radiation: from: http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html
> "A major solar event doesn't just cut loose without warning.
> It is possible to observe the "weather" on the sun and predict
> when a major event will occur. And this is what was done on
> the Apollo missions. To be sure, the missions were planned
> months in advance and the forecasting was not that farsighted.
> But they would have had enough warning to call off the mission
> should a solar event have started boiling up from the depths
> of the sun". Except that's not quite right, It takes millions of
> years for anything to "boil up" from the depths of the Sun and
> It just wasn't possible to accurately predict when a solar flare
> would occur. About the best that could be done is say they correlate
> with high sunspot numbers but the Sun can have high sunspot numbers
> for months on end.
> - From http://www.Lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
> "As to the issue of solar flares and the danger they
> presented, there simply weren't any major ones during any of
> the Apollo missions. So the biggest reason that none of the
> astronauts died from their radiation exposure was that they
> simply did not get a bad dose to speak of".
> That's right, they gambled with the astronauts lives. The
> chance of encountering a severe solar flare was 3 or 4 per
> mission, any single flare of which could have proven fatal
> to the crew. To tackle this problem NASA had a "Sun" watch
> going by the name of SPAN, the solar particle alert network.
> This was a network of telescopes that monitored the Sun day
> and night for flares. It was known that electromagnetic
> radiation, the gamma and radio bursts for example would reach
> the Moon (and Earth) well ahead of the solar particles that
> were thought to be more dangerous. This might have bought
> anywhere from 10 to 100 minutes time for the astronauts to
> find shielding from the deadly particle stream. NASA says
> the astronauts would have been ordered to leave the Moon and
> fly back up to the safety of the command Module. But the
> command Module didn't have the sheilding to protect against
> a severe flare. Oops! Another NASA clanger.
> Another potentially serious radiation hazard are the Van
> Allen belts or zones. They are regions in space near the
> Earth where the Earth's own magnetic field traps and
> "concentrates" radiation from the Sun. The most damaging form
> of radiation that we need worry about are the solar wind
> particles that the Sun continuously emits and which is
> prevented from reaching the Earth's surface by the Earths
> magnetic field. Whilst we are protected from this radiation
> on the Earth just above us at a range of approximately 500 to
> 20 thousand miles the radiation is concentrated and transit
> times through these regions must be kept to a minimum. It is
> not thought that any of the Apollo mission astronauts will
> have spent sufficient time in the Van Allen belts for it to
> have been a worry. The International space station however
> must keep clear and thus orbits underneath the Van Allen
> zones and whilst keeping away (most of the time) from a
> related problem known as the South Atlantic Anomaly.
>
>
> Subject: (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.
>
> It is sometimes argued by Apollo yes men that the surface
> of the Moon is so bright that it accounts for all the so
> called fill-in lighting that critics of the Apollo record
> claim has been used. For example it has been argued that,
> "One celebrated picture shows an astronaut with the sun
> behind him, and the Lunar lander and American flag reflected
> in his visor. According to critics, the astronaut should have
> been merely a silhouette. And so he should, if he weren't
> surrounded by brightly-lit ground. If the full Moon can
> brightly illuminate the earth from 250,000 miles away, just
> imagine what it can do to an astronaut standing on it".
> That argument is about as wrong as it can get.
> Here's what NASA had to say about the Moons surface brightness.
> From: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/UNIVERSE/MOON.HTML
> "Next to the sun, the full Moon is the brightest object in the
> heavens. However, its surface is rough and brownish and
> reflects light very poorly. In fact, the Moon is about the
> poorest reflector in the solar system. The amount of light
> reflected by a celestial object is called the albedo (Latin:
> albus, white). The Moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that
> falls upon it, so the albedo is 0.07."
> The reflectance of grey paper is 18% and the Moon (close up)
> is brown with a reflectance of only 7%. This means that
> close up on the Moon the lanscape is going to look very
> gloomy because the ground is brownish and the sky is black.
> - From a distance the Moon might be a beacon of light
> (comparatively) but it's not that way close up.
> Now, concerning the photography, the Lunar soil has a
> reflectance of 7% and the astronauts in their white suits
> have a reflectance close on 100%. Slide film cannot cope
> with a 10:1 highlight to shadow ratio and so it cannot be
> reflected light from the ground that provided fill-in
> lighting when the sunlit subject is correctly exposed
> for highlights.
>
>
> Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows
> and perspective.
>
> Note, all the images referred to here used the same file name
> as that used in the NASA online archive and were easily located
> with Google <filename> or alternatively at the following
> websites:
> http://Lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/images/USA/
> Apollo_11/Spacecraft/medres/
> http://Lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/images/USA/
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/
> kippsphotos/apollo.html
>
> The following images all contained "photographic"
> anomalies or inconsistencies. In aS11-40-5903.jpg there is a
> strong lighting hot spot very near the subject and the brightness
> of the ground fades rapidly into the distance to nothing. The hot
> spot is indicative of spot lighting and may not have been caused
> by the Sun which illuminates all the ground equally and nor is
> it caused by reflections from Lunar Module panels or altered surface
> characteristics due to the ground being swept by the landing engine
> exhaust gases (see section 28 for more about this). Neither is the
> hotspot due to a curious phenomena that goes by the name of
> "heiligenschein" effect. Lighting has to originate from behind the
> observer in order for heiligenschein to be visible but in this case
> the Sun is almost 90 degrees to the right of the camera.
> Some of the shaded areas of the astronauts suit is brighter than
> the Lunar ground which if it is the only source of fill in (light
> reflecting from the ground acting as fill in light) is not
> possible. Why is the brightness of the astronauts suit (his right
> ankle/calf) so bright near the ground? There should be much less
> reflected light reaching him down there and yet the brightness is
> the same as it is at the top of his suit.
> Try looking at as11-40-5902.jpg for all the same anomalous
> features and inconsistencies. What about the following images,
> 10075741.jpg and 10075742.jpg. In these images Mt Hadley is
> the back drop but with a small change in veiwing position and
> a slight increase in camera height of a couple of feet the top
> of Mt Hadley has completely changed it's angle relative to the
> horizontal. Mt Hadley is 3 miles in back so a small shift of a
> few feet in camera position ought not to produce such a large
> shift of perspective at the top of Hadley.
> Many images look like the background is dropped in to the
> foreground and some are obviously air brushed just like
> 10075841.jpg. There are many more examples of images that are
> not right and which may be described as fakes.
> In some NASA film footage included in the late Jim Collier's
> video "Was it only a paper Moon?" Young and Duke of Apollo 16
> can be seen against exactly the same backdrop on two different
> EVA's (EVA1 and EVA2) which were on different days at alleged
> different places and in different directions from the LM base
> camp. On EVA2 Young describes the scene as "absolutely unreal".
> On another EVA to and from a site near Hadley Young makes a
> similar remark about the scenery being unreal during the return
> journey when exactly the same backdrop (which should have been
> laterally reversed with respect to the origin but which was
> not) was displayed as that used in the forward (to) journey.
> Of course the whole debacle is explained away as human error in
> the editing room by debunkers.
> What can I say except, "It's absolutely unreal".
> Next have a look at AS14-64-9089. Examine the astronauts shadow
> paying particular attention to the shadow of his legs. See anything
> funny about them? They are like matchstick leg shadows. Compare
> them with the astronauts legs which are wide due to the bulk of
> the space suit. Both shadows also exhibit straight edges which
> do not correspond with the form of the astronauts legs and if
> there were to be a terrain feature such as two parallel trenches
> that modified the fall and representation of the shadow from the
> cameras veiwpoint I very much doubt it would happen twice and
> exactly in parallel like that. The ground looks reasonably flat
> there anyway. It's an obvious fake shot.
>
>
> Subject: (22) What still film was used?
>
> - From http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm
> "It was actually ordinary Ektachrome film emulsion. However,
> it is now claimed by the Enterprise Mission
> (post justification) that there was a special transparency
> film created for these missions under a NASA contract. Called
> XRC,apparently this was a specially extended range color
> slide film that allowed the astronauts to take perfect
> National Geographic-quality pictures. So you might ask how
> does the agency justify the fact that according to Kodak in
> 1969 and confirmed again in 1997 the film was just ordinary
> 160 ASA high speed Ektachrome?"
> Ordinary ektachrome slide film will shatter at -4F. The Lunar
> temperature will drop to as low as -200F in the shade and
> the cameras had silver cases presumably to reflect the solar
> heat so how did the film stay warm enough not to shatter?
>
>
> Subject: (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?
>
> "So it may be +200F in the Lunar sunlight and -200F in the
> shade, but in a vacuum there is no heat". Wrong!
> There is plenty of heat in the vacuum and especially close in to
> a star. Heat is energy and there is plenty of it in the "vacuum"
> of space in the form of an energy flux. The sun pours out massive
> amounts of heat energy and other radiation. We can feel this heat
> energy often termed infra-red when we feel the Sun warming our
> skin. At the distance of the Earth (and this goes for the Moon too)
> the amount of heat energy in the "vacuum" of space amounts to 1.36Kw
> per square metre also known as the solar irradiance. Both the Earth
> and the Moon receive this amount of energy from the Sun but at the
> Earths surface you can sometimes subtract about 30% from the solar
> irradiance figure due to reflection by clouds in the atmosphere.
> What people often confuse is temperature with energy. Things can
> have high temperatures but very little heat. Or even low
> temperatures but have large amounts of heat. That is because heat
> is energy and not temperature. Hot and cold are measures of
> temperature not heat. So, again things can be hot and have very
> little heat if they have small specific heat capacities. The amount
> of heat an object or material may hold varies with it's specific
> heat capacity and has nothing to do with its temperature or how
> hot it is.
>
> Having said all that physicists do actually ascribe temperatures
> to energies too but that need not concern us here. There is also no
> such thing as a completely empty vacuum with no energy in it. There
> is a virtual partical flux throughout the whole of space and there
> is a base level of energy associated with that flux. It's called the
> zero point of energy. It's not zero energy but a baseline of energy
> below which we cannot work with.
>
>
> Subject: (24) The noon day temperature misconception.
>
> It is often said or implied that it takes 14 days for
> temperatures to reach +200F on the Lunar surface. That is
> plainly wrong. Claims that astronauts landed on the Moon
> during the "Lunar morning" in order to "avoid noon day heat"
> are ridiculous. They might say they landed at that time but
> it would not have helped them to avoid any heating problem
> that they will have faced.
> Heating to +200F or more can happen in less than 24 hours of
> exposure to sunlight on the Moon's surface. Here's how;
> surface temperatures (not the regular air temperature
> measurements) may reach 200 degrees fahrenheit on Earth in
> places like deserts and so forth. If we consider that during
> the night the temperature may in all probability have dropped
> to freezing (-32F) or near freezing then we may note that the
> Sun's energy in a matter of only a few hours (less than 12
> hours) will have brought about a temperature rise of around
> 200 degrees fahrenheit and that is after the additional
> cooling effects of atmospheric convection which are not found
> on the Moon have done their worst. If we remove atmospheric
> cooling then the ground will heat up much faster because there
> will be no convective heat losses caused by the presence of
> the atmosphere which are far more severe than the radiative
> losses and the final temperature may even be more than 200F.
> Now that is a very important point to understand. The heat
> losses into the atmosphere are more severe than the radiative
> losses per unit time. On the Moon there is no atmosphere so
> this avenue (atmospheric losses of heat) does not exist and
> radiative cooling only will occur. Since radiative cooling is
> smaller than losses due to atmospheric effects then comparable
> surfaces on the Moon will experience a faster temperature rise
> than their Earthly equivalent.
> Now, hypothesizing a world where the minimum starting temperature
> is -200F (that's what the surface temperatures on the Moon can
> cool off to during the night and in the shade) those same 12 hours
> of sunlight would also easily bring a rise in temperature of 200F.
> Cooling processes are faster at higher temperatures so it is
> easier to bring the temperature up from low values than it is to
> raise the temperature starting with high values. Thus there is no
> special difficulty here just because we are starting with a large
> night time low of -200F.
> We can see now that it is easier for the Sun to raise the
> temperature of a surface on the Moon starting from -200F. Now if
> in 12 hours the Sun can warm a desert surface to +200F from a
> night time low of -32F with the added severe heat losses caused
> by the atmosphere then on the Moon the same heating time will
> cause a larger and faster heating response. What this means is
> that we can expect a Lunar surface to go from -200F to +200F in
> less than 24 hours. Actually in significantly less time than
> 24 hours.
> None of this takes into account that the Lunar day is 14 Earth
> days long. What that fact results in is even more extended
> periods of heating since the Sun's rays will be shining down
> on any particular surface at any given angle for 14 times as
> long as they do on Earth. Searing heat for 14 times as long!
> An important factor in all this is the angle which the surface
> presents to the rays from the Sun. In the Lunar morning it
> will be hillsides and other vertically oriented things (like
> astronauts and their Lunar Modules) that will feel the full
> force of the Suns power. When the Sun is overhead at 7 days it
> will be surfaces like horizontal ground and the tops of things
> like the Lunar Module that will capture the full magnitude of
> the Suns heating power. Landing on the Moon in the "morning"
> just means that the insulation in the soles of the astronauts
> boots will not have to work so hard since the angle presented
> to the Sun rays by the surface of the ground is not optimal for
> maximum exposure and thus the current temperature of the surface
> will be lower as a result of that. If he picks up a boulder
> which had presented a surface facing toward the Sun then that
> surface will be searing hot and the insulation in the astronauts
> gloves will be working hard to protect him from the heat.
>
> Subject: (25) How did the space suit cooling system work? (or not)
>
> They had backpacks which dissipated heat via the sublimation of
> ice from a porous plate located inside their backpack which,
> presumably, because it would have been in the shade and out of
> the sunlight would have been very cold. The trouble with this is
> that we now know that ice deposits have been found on the Moon's
> surface on the permanently shady side of some polar craters.
> So, water ice either "evaporates" away or it doesn't. Which is it?
> Actually if we study the phase diagram for water we discover that
> water does actually exist as both solid and vapour below it's
> freezing point. Not only that but that it (water ice) exerts a
> vapour pressure from its solid form (of which there are several)
> and it is this which carries away the heat load produced by the
> astronaut as he toils on the Lunar surface. Just like we lose
> heat by water evaporation from our bodies when we are hot the
> porous plate in the backpack dissipates heat generated by the
> astronaut which would make it unbearable inside the space suit
> otherwise. The trouble with this is that the vapour pressure of
> solid ice decreases rapidly with temperature and below zero degrees
> Celsius it is a small fraction of what it is at room temperature.
> And at very low temperatures like -200F it is quite negligible.
> In basic terms what this means is that there is not enough water
> vapour emitted (sublimated) by the solid ice on the plate to cool
> the astronaut fast enough. Not unless he has a porous plate with
> maybe 4 times or more the surface area of the human body. And that
> is at the melting point not -200F where something the size of a
> football field will be required. So, the temperature of the plate
> if it is a small one will have to rise significantly in order to
> increase vapour pressure as it inadequately tries to dissipate the
> heat generated by the astronauts metabolism and in a short time it
> will have melted all the ice on the plate. Thereafter huge coolant
> water losses ensue as the liquid water practically explodes out
> of the plate and into the vaccuum but the plate cannot cool down
> with this expansion because the astronaut is heating it to this point.
> Liquid coolant water loss ensues. How much and at what rate depends
> on the size and properties of the porous plate of course.
> The astronauts backpack would have to have housed many porous plates
> in order to have provided sufficient vapour pressure in order to
> provide sufficient cooling of the astronaut but there is no mention
> of multiple plates just "a porous plate". Not only that but the
> backpack would have to have been continuously vented to prevent heat
> build up and "melt-down" but the backpacks appeared to be closed.
> Postulating that they had a small aparture for water vapour to escape
> from would still cause heat build up in the interior of the backpack
> as the warm vapour touched the insides of the backpack. Any usefullness
> provided by insulating the insides of the backpack from solar
> radiation would have rapidly been lost and the temperature inside the
> backpack where the plates were would have risen untill it reached
> "melt-down" and liquid water loss ensued. The porous plates should
> have been located outside in free space and shaded from direct
> sunlight in order for the system to work correctly.
>
>
> Subject: (26) How much insulation does it take to keep an
> astronaut warm?
>
> Not much. The biggest problem is in keeping him cool. However,..
> In order to maintain a normal temperature (37C) the human body
> (naked) would have to radiate about 800 watts of heat to the cold
> sky of space. With an average layer of clothing the losses can be
> considerably reduced to around 200 watts but the average daily
> calorific intake is only sufficient to support losses of around
> 100 watts. Therefore a little more clothing on top will suffice
> to stay warm under a cold sky and losses would then be at the
> normal 80 to 100 watt level which is easily sustained given
> proper calorific input.
>
> The reader should not allow himself to be confused here because
> of the fact that a cooling system was also required for the
> astronauts. You see a spacesuit is a tightly closed environment,
> it is highly insulated from losses to the outside as well as
> affording strong insulating properties from the searing inward
> heat of the Sun. Basically, it shuts out the external thermal
> environment and the astronaut must be kept in an artificially
> created atmosphere within the suit. Without built in
> thermo-regulation an astronaut performing heavy aerobic work
> or exercise in a closed environment permitting no heat
> dissipation could as a worse case scenario find his body
> temperature trying to go from 98F to a theoretical 140F but of
> course nature butts in at 111F and the astronaut dies.
>
>
> Subject: (27) Can the Moon rocks be faked?
>
> They don't need to be faked - see section (27)
> While I do not offer an opinion on the authenticity of the
> samples I think it is important to "tidy up" a couple of
> related issues.
>
> - From http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/
> ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm
> "You simply do not see unaltered olivine on earth. This could
> not have been faked. These rocks have grains easily visible
> to the unaided eye, which means they cooled slowly. To have
> made these materials synthetically would have required keeping
> the rocks at 1100 C for years, cooling them slowly at thousands
> of pounds per square inch pressure. It would have taken years
> to create the apparatus, years more to get the hang of making
> the materials, and then years more to create the final result.
> Starting from Sputnik I in 1957, there would not have been
> enough time to do it. And, you'd have to synthesize several
> different types of rock in hundred-pound lots".
>
> The curator at JSC claims that sample sizes are of the order of
> a few tens of milligrams. That's sugar lump size. There's no
> need to manufacture "hundred pound lots at once or in single
> pieces. I'd think the manufacture of small sample sizes is
> easier and faster than large ones.
>
> "All I did to get the Moon rock specimens (on loan) was write
> in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not
> in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I
> might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example,
> zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition.
> So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of
> scrutiny that researchers might give them".
>
> Researchers had to supply a protocol to the curator at JSC
> that described exactly their intentions. If anything "funny"
> happened or showed in undisclosed testing then they broke
> protocol.
>
> "Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have
> devised a story of Lunar evolution to fit the samples".
>
> Lunar evolution is still undecided. We still aren't sure
> exactly how the Moon formed. Whether it is a piece of the
> Earth broken away after a collision with a small Mars
> sized planet or whether the Moon evolved on its own in an
> orbit near ours and was captured. The former hypothesis was
> not even publicly proposed until the Kona conference in 1984!
>
> "And you'd have to put in exactly the right amounts of
> radioactive elements and daughter products to get the rocks
> to date radiometrically at 4 billion years old - older than
> any terrestrial rocks. And you'd have to anticipate the
> development of new dating methods not in use in 1969 and make
> sure those elements are present in the correct abundance.
> And it's not like adding carrots to a stew, either. To mimic
> the results of potassium-argon dating, you'd have to add
> inert argon gas and trap it just in the potassium-bearing
> minerals, and in exact proportion to the amount of potassium".
>
> K-Ar dating is often unreliable. Volcanoes that errupted only
> a few hundred years ago yeild dates of millions of years! And
> another thing, K-Ar dating is patched with fixes up to its
> neck and some. Depending on what you think happened to the
> rock sample you apply factors because of the mobility of the
> argon. I'm not saying K-Ar dating is total hogwash you
> understand but....
>
> More info on moon rocks can be found at:
> http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/Lunar/Lunar10.htm
> http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/
> apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_
> rock_analysis_000522_MB_.html
>
>
> Subject: (28) Unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?
>
> Lets not forget that the Russian unmanned mission actually
> brought back about 100 grams or so of Lunar rock so it wont
> have been beyond the wit or wisdom of NASA to do it bigger and
> better will it? In the light of the above and when you take into
> account all the anomalies and flaws in the Apollo record that
> have been demonstrated to exist why should we believe that the
> samples were retreived manually just because they say so?
> All claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence (favourite skeptic/debunker terms of
> evidential proof). So where is it?
> According to Jim Collier "30 billion dollars were spent in
> sending man to the moon but all the paper work has been flushed
> down the toilet. All we have is a bunch of faked photos".
>
>
> Subject: (29) The Eagle landing site anomalies.
>
> Serious discrepancies in the photographic evidence still remain
> to be explained by the "pro Apollo" fanatics. All images may be
> viewed or located by google at the NASA archive as described in
> section 21.
> In attempts to explain away the lighting hotspot visible in images
> AS11-40-5902 and AS11-49-5903 it may be 1) postulated that it was
> as a result of Solar reflection off of an instrument housing panel
> or 2) postulated that it may have been due to changed optical
> characteristics of the Lunar surface after it had been swept over by
> the engine as the Eagle landed.
> The first postulate is easily falsified with examination of image
> AS11-40-5915 where it becomes apparent that the reflective panel is
> facing almost directly at the Sun and not angled anywhere near
> sufficiently to cause the reflection in question. The second postulate
> is also falsified when consideration is given to the trench dug in the
> ground by the footpad probe (contact probe) as the Eagle landed.
> The footpad is about 3 feet in diameter and the contact probe is about
> 6 feet in length. The boot impressions in the ground must be at least
> 12 inches in length. The footpad and contact probe concerned are in the
> lower right corner of AS11-40-5915 and it is clear that the last 3
> metres if not more of flight of the Eagle was in a straight line and
> came in from the right side as viewed in the image. This is clearly
> evident from the gouge in the ground made by the surface probe which
> was attached to the foot pad. The lighting hotspot in the ground is
> to the left in the picture and if it were caused by the ground being
> swept by the engine exhaust gasses then that would indicate that the
> engine (and the Eagle) followed a last few metres trajectory different
> to that indicated by the gouge in the ground made by the contact probe.
> The swept area indicates a possible landing trajectory originating
> from the left side in the picture but the evidence left in the ground
> by the contact probe indicates a landing from the right.
> The only way the exhaust gasses could have swept the ground in the left
> of the picture and at the same time the Eagle come down to land from
> the right as evidenced by the trench is if the Eagle had landed with a
> severe list to the right. If that had happened then the probeless leg
> on the Eagle, the one on the right side in back of the picture would
> have dug into the ground first and caused the LM to spin clockwise
> when veiwed from above in AS11-40-5915. That would have meant that the
> footpad and the trapped contact probe would no longer have aligned with
> the trench in the ground so neatly and all in one straight line. Had
> the Eagle listed so during the last few metres of travel then the
> contact probe would have made an arc shaped trench. Thus the "swept
> area" is not consistent with a landing from the right as is implied by
> the trench made in the Lunar ground by the contact probe. This leaves
> the lighting hotspot anomaly intact and without reasonable explanation
> so far.
>
>
> Subject: (30) Some skeptics websites.
>
> While I cannot vouch for the scientific accuracy of the content in
> any of the following websites they may be interesting to read
> all the same:
> http://www.empusa.demon.net/lunar/lunar1.htm
> http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
> http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm
> http://www.apollohoax.com/
> http://www.grade-a.com/moon/
> http://www.moonmovie.com/
> http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
> http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/
>
>