|
 |
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> That's the least of it! A secretary sent this out to the department with the
> text, "This is cute in an odd way." I loved the condescension, but the
> actually document made me very sad.
>
> http://www.erichufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf
Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do? Who of those "Moon
Hoaxers" would read even a single line? After all, to them it would probably be
just propaganda. They don't even seem to bother reading the information
available out there for anyone to read (except the pamphlets of other "Moon
Hoaxers").
Well, I'll just jump on the occasion to do my ranting here then (please,
everyone who does believe that Americans landed on the mon, this is not
addressed to you)...
"Computer technology was very primitive in the 1960's"
True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers. They were
still trained in figuring out computations with nothing but a slide rule. And
they knew when that slide rule result would be good enough, and when they would
better do more precise math on a sheet of paper, and have their colleague
double-check. (Apollo 13 astronauts actually asked the ground crew to
cross-check some rather trivial maths they had to do on one occasion during the
initial emergency situation.)
"Manufacturing technology was also very primitive"
The fact that high-precision tools of that time were invariably hand-operated,
and that certain tasks were difficult, does not mean that the high-precision
work required for the Moonshot was impossible. It just means that it required
skilled operators.
The advancement of today's manufacturing technology lies mainly in replacement
of the highly-skilled operators of old by computers, and automation for a gain
in throughput (i.e. quantity), and not so much in precision. The Moonshot did
not need quantity.
"How did Americans in 1969 do what nobody can do today?"
America was driven by pride to achieve something nobody had ever achieved
before. This is a motivation no nation can tap today: You can't motivate your
people to be the first to reach the moon, because they know it's not possible.
America has been there, done that already. (Unless it was all a fake, of
course. Strangely enough, almost nobody *outside* the US seems to believe
that.)
"Furthermore, if Americans had such incredible engineering talent, why can't we
make incredible automobiles, train systems, and other products?"
Show today's automobiles, train systems, and other products to a 1960s/1970s
American to find out what's wrong about this question.
(Okay, America seems to have been lazy recently, but show them around the
world... show them Japan's Shinkansen, or Eurpoe's TGV or ICE... show them the
tunnel between England and France... show them the famous Star Trek
communicators having become reality (mobile phones) including Lt. Uhura's ear
thingumajig (aka in-ear wireless headset)... show them flat TV screens...
microwave ovens in every kitchen... computers not only in every household, but
in every pocket (each with more processing power than a whole armada of Apollo
spacecraft)... and if you want to show them how advanced America still is re
the rest of the world, show them America's weapons arsenal; show them jet
fighters that cannot be detected by radar; show them laser-guided smart bombs;
show them modern tanks, heat rays, tasers... well, maybe you'll get the point.
Show them the whole smash. Maybe you're not impressed by this - but any
1960/1970 person will.)
"The Lunar Lander had Never Been Tested."
Systems that have never been tested as a whole *can* be made to work at first
attempt. It just requires a hell of attention during development, assessing the
design over and over again in every miniscule detail, and of course testing the
subsystems to exhaustion - which is why the try-and-error approach is much more
common.
Even so, the lunar lander *was* tested. Every little detail of it. Every
component was tested separately on earth. The system as a whole was first
tested in space during the Apollo 5 shot, which was - ta-daaah! - unmanned; and
twice more in the manned Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 missions, the latter in lunar
orbit including a descent to a few km above the lunar surface. Virtually the
only thing they didn't test was to actually put the thing down on real lunar
soil. But they sure as hell knew (probably from subsystem tests) that the
landing gear would be able to carry the weight. Plus if it wasn't, they knew
from the prior tests that the astronauts could just press that Big Red Button
(well, maybe it wasn't red, but anyway) anytime to instantly shoot them up
again to safety.
The Saturn V rocket that was to carry Apollo astronauts to the moon had already
been tested unmanned likewise, first in the Apollo 4 shot, and again in the
Apollo 6 mission, before it was entrusted with human life in the Apollo 8 shot.
"Where are the technical specs for the lunar lander? For example, the top
section blasted off the moon with how much fuel?"
Oh come on, just take the time and gather some information, folks! I've even
read some of you go about this very information claiming that they wouldn't add
up, so obviously NASA is not keeping this stuff secret.
"How did two men live in this tiny module? Why doesn't NASA provide details on
how they accomplished the miracle of keeping men alive in an incredibly harsh
environment?"
They do. They tell you everything, from Oxygen supply over CO2 scrubbers, water
supply, cooling garment, waste disposal facilities, up to how you can "pop your
ears" when you can't hold your nose nose shut with your hands.
"Did anybody vomit from the zero gravity of space?"
Yes, actually most did. Read the records.
"Did the astronauts wear diapers?"
Yes, they did. Although they had a much more technical term for it. Again, read
the NASA documents available.
"The Stupidest Astronauts?"
This is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that NASA *did* test the rockets first
*despite* the scientists' confidence... have *you* ever operated *anything*
while stuck in a bulky suit with rather stiff joints that encumbered your every
move, carrying a heavy backpack, and wearing thick, stiff rubber gloves reducing
your tactile sensitivity to virtually zero?
Try it, then laugh again about astronauts learning how to walk down a ladder, or
put a flag into dirt.
"Fake lunar dirt on the floor. What was the purpose for this?"
PR photographs. Training under the expected visual conditions (you don't
normally have such extreme contrasts between light and shadow here on earth).
"Why in 1963 did Kennedy and the scientists want to cancel the moon race?"
Debate about whether to carry on with something difficult ist just perfectly
normal.
"Without moisture or organic material, what is holding the particles of dust
together?"
Maybe because they're from a totally different material? Maybe because the
gravity acting on the soil to have crisp impressions collapse is far less on
the moon? Maybe because the dirt is much finer-grained? Maybe because the
bombardment with cosmic particles charges up the soil and has it stick
together?
And if this cannot be done with dry soil on earth, why would Lunar Landing
fakers fake it this odd way? Would not a layman obviously tend to use dry soil
for such a fake (after all, you do)? So if it was all a fake, someone must have
had a good reason to moisten the soil. Well, maybe their scientific advisors
knew that lunar soil would behave this way, because of some effects unknown to
a layman... oh, hey, but if that's how lunar soil really behaves, doesn't that
have your argument crumble to dust?
"Also, why does the Apollo moon dirt look different from the moon dirt in the
photos that were taken by the Surveyor craft?"
Maybe because those photos were taken at much different resolution, at much
different camera angles, under much different lighting conditions... and, most
of all, taken miles and miles apart?
Ever considered that lunar soil is noth the same at every place? Like, for
instance, that the soil inside a fairly new crater may show much different
characteristics than that on an old lunar plain - or even the soil just outside
the crater rim?
As you name it: "These two photos are from *a* Surveyor craft camera" (emphasis
added).
[The Flag]
"However, it appears that the corner of the flag has moved compared to
AS17-134-20378"
Yes, but compare to AS17-134-20377: The position of the flag is identical; the
corner kept bending the same way. The reason is simple: The flag was made of a
thin foil, designed to have a somewhat crumpled, flag-like appearance; to this
end, it had to be made of a material that would "spring" back into a
pre-defined shape. Obviously the astronaut was not happy with that pre-defined
shape, but to fix that he had to tug at the corner.
"Why such a tight grip? And how did he bend his fingers so easily in pressurized
gloves?"
Maybe you're mistaking his pinkie for his index finger??
"The astronauts also had a perfect opportunity to demonstrate lunar gravity
and physics to the TV audience. For example, an astronaut could have dropped a
handful of dirt at the same time he dropped a rock."
They did. IIRC there is footage of an astronaut dropping both a feather and a
stone. And you name the golf ball trick yourself.
"Wouldn't the stars and planets be brighter and more numerous to astronauts than
to U2 pilots?"
No Sir. NASA explained, but you won't listen, so I'll do it again: Astronauts on
the moon did not (normally) see starts because (a) they would be quite busy
(time in portable life support systems is precious), (b) they would be wearing
their famous golden sun visor (covering their entire field of view, and
reducing visible light intensity by 80%) to not be blinded by the light of
their environment (how much do your typical sunglasses filter out? Can you see
the stars at night wearing them?), (c) they would have bright light reflect off
objects in their field of view, like the visor rims, ever so tiny fissures on
their protective visor's or bubble helmet's surface (ever seen glass or plastic
that did *not* have any such?) or just dust on them, or (d) it would take them
some time to adapt to darkness, with them working in blazin sunlight all the
time.
Plus, NASA astronauts were typically fighter pilots. From high-altitude flights
they would be quite used to the sight of stars in a pitch-black sky, and would
not find it worth mentioning. Much different seeing the earth in the sky.
"Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a
monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey
died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon."
- 1966 Russia had already demonstrated a 22-day stay of a dog in space
- The manned Apollo 8 and 10 missions had already demonstrated before
Biosatellite 3 that travelling to the moon in an Apollo capsule posed no health
hazard to humans.
- The Apollo 1 disaster had made clear enough already that being an astronaut
was not without risk. Still the Apollo 11 astronauts were eager to go. So were
the Apollo 14 astronauts when it was their turn, despite the epic, almost-fatal
failure of Apollo 13. I bet there would have been men back then who would have
volunteered to go on a guaranteed one-way trip to moon. I bet there are even
today.
Would I get onto a spacecraft heading to moon after watching a monkey die in
space? Yes, I for one would. Any time. I would want to see moon soil. I would
want to see an earthrise.
"It seems that there were two separate programs going on at NASA. One was of the
wonderfully sucessful landing of men on the moon, and the other was the real
space program, which often ended in disappointment and failure."
Maybe that's because the one was about humans, while the other was "only" about
animals?
"were the astronauts lousy photographers?"
I bet they were the best. *You* try to photograph with the camera strapped to
your breast (well, not even your breast, but a bulky, pumped-up rubber suit
your're wearing), with no access to a viewfinder whatsoever, no rangefinder
(autofocus? hey, we're at the beginning of the 1970s!), and no light meter.
Given these conditions, I guess the astronauts did quite a good job.
"Clouds? Or a sign of photo editing?"
I'd say dust on the camera lens. Another thing the astronauts lacked: A way to
wipe the lenses while out at work. Or even noticing that there was dust on the
lens in the first place.
"Do these shadows seem parallel to you? NASA supporters claim the cameras had
"wide angle lenses" that distorted the shadows. Why didn't NASA give them
cameras that provide accurate images?"
Why should they have? Just to get the shadows line up? This is ridiculous. As if
all concern NASA had back then was to convince *you* that they really did it.
So what do you do if you want astronauts to take photographs of various things
but can't provide them with any way to see what they're photographing? Easy:
Equip the cameras with wide-angle lenses, so they don't need to aim the camera
perfectly, 'cause they can't.
"Is this the same powerful sun that blinds us on the Earth?"
Yes. But it doesn't blind a good camera nearly as much as it would you or me.
Because if our eyes would not "shut down" from the sun's light, it would
forever ruin the part of the retina that captures the sunshine. It does the
same to photographic film - but photographic film is only used for a single
exposure anyway. Our retina must last for a lifetime's worth of exposures.
Notice that despite the camera being wide-angle, the sun seems of immense size.
This is due to the sun ruining more than just the part of the film directly
exposed to it.
"Are these sunrays due to the camera lens? Or due to an atmosphere?"
Looks like perfectly normal "lens flare" to me. Which is so called because it is
due to the camera lens indeed. Thanks for asking this time instead of just
claiming some nonsense or using ridicule.
"Why is this area of the moon so dark? Just how powerful is this "sun"?"
I guess if you'd "subtract" the whole lense flare effect from the shot, it would
look perfectly normal.
"Darker here, also, but this should be a bright area because lots of sunlight
should be reflecting towards the camera."
No, Sir, because the moon surface does not reflect in a dull specular fashion,
but primarily in a diffuse way, i.e. the exiting radiation is dependent almost
exclusively on the surface orientation, and not the incident light angle
(otherwise we'd see highlights on the moon in the night sky). Except for a
phenomenon that causes more light to be reflected straight back to the sun than
in the other directions.
"NASA did not bother to test the Lunar Module, but they built these angled-walls
so the astronauts could practice walking in low gravity so that they wouldn't
fall down on the moon. Why make astronauts practice moon-walks when we cannot
be sure the Lunar Module will work? What kind of scientists have such
priorities?"
As you repeat that claim again which you obviously never checked yourself, I
will repeat my answer, too: The Lunar Module *was* tested.
(Even if it had not been because that might have been impossible for some
reason, and they had just prayed for it would work, wouldn't it prudent to test
& train everything else they could?)
"An angled wall can be used to fake brief moon walks ... just make a large wall
and turn the camera sideways."
As you can plainly see, this process involves some wires, and straps that would
for sure leave hints.
"Shall we convince ourselves that this moon was only for a museum?"
Maybe it was a tool to train the astronauts for orientating themselves in lunar
orbit, in case their guidance system would malfunction? Add a beam with a
camera, and a close-circuit projector, and you have a mechanical "graphics
engine" for a simulator.
"Is it possible to land on the moon without getting dust on the gold foil, and
without the foil being damaged by the engine exhaust?"
- The lighter dust particles were all "kicked away" already by the engine
exhaust
- Somewhat heavier particles "kicked up" by the landing gear would fly away from
the landing pads; an atmosphere would be required to have any dust land on the
pad itself (or a very "bumpy" landing in which the pad "digs" into the dirt, as
may have happened with the Surveyor probes)
- As for the foil possibly being damaged by the exhaust, guess why one side of
the foil (the inner!) is wrapped in some black stuff...
"How many more decades will Americans make themselves look like fools for
boasting that they landed on the moon?"
How many more decares will (a few) Americans make themselves look like fools by
boasting to have come up with the ultimate proof for yet another conspiracy?
So far, all "evidence" you Moon Hoaxers have put on the table was either (a)
flawed by wrong assumptions or misinformations (like the claim that the whole
smash had never been tested), (b) based on a lack of scientific knowledge, (c)
plausibly explainable assuming the landings were real (which doesn't prove that
the moon landings were real, but neither does it prove that they were faked), or
- worst of all for you - (d) brought attention to details which, examined
closely, turned out to be sound evidence that Americans *did* land on the moon.
So far, what I have given are only answers to your questions. Now I have one
single question for you in return:
If - as you claim - it was possible to fake the lunar landings with 1960s/1970s
technology to such a level of detail that even today people like you keep
discovering phenomena that under close investigation turn to speak in *favor*
of the landings...
.... then why has *nobody* to this day pulled off the stunt to repeat this feat -
neither Hollywood (the "Apollo 13" movie was a start, but no more than that),
nor you "Moon Hoaxers"?
End of message. You show me some, say, 60 seconds of self-made fake lunar
landing footage, and we can talk again. Until then, please do me and a lot of
others a favor and STFU; because while it seems that NASA has at least *some*
evidence in their favor that a real lunar landing was technically feasible in
1960/1970, you guys can't provide the slightest evidence that a fake of this
quality and scale would have been any easier than the real thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
com> wrote:
