I don't know hpw I can convince you of anything since you have shown a tendency towards ignoring or misinterpreting the information given to you and making assumptions based upon that lack of understanding.

That said, here are the facts I have been able to find:

The batteries carried on the LM were six 400 Ah (ampere-hour) silver-zinc batteries (later upgraded to 415 Ah batteries for the 3 J missions), 2 in the ascent stage, 4 in the descent stage, which provided power for all LM systems during launch and after separation from the CSM in Lunar orbit prior to landing. These batteries provided between 24 and 32 volts DC and, through a pair of inverters, 115 volts AC power. The whole system was rated as providing 50 KWh (kilowatt hours) of power.

The video camera on Apollo 11 drew 6.5 watts of DC power, and as of yet, I have not found figures showing how much power the S-band system consumed (although I did find information showing that it transmitted at approximately 18 watts, but it did not specify if that was for just the video portion, or for the entire Unified S-Band subsystem). Perhaps someone else has more detailed figures than I have been able to find.

The tv system was not the same system as "standard" tv of the time. It transmitted 320 lines of resolution at 10 frames per second (compared to 525 lines at 30 frames per second for standard tv) operating on a bandwidth of approximately 500 Khz compared to 4.5 Mhz for standard tv. So while the signal might not have been compressed, the signal did not carry as much information as a standard tv signal, however it was sufficient to send viewable tv pictures from the lunar surface.


Here are my sources:

Apollo TV and Communications Documentation (lists many different articles)
Encycolpedia Astronautica - Apollo LM
Wikipedia - Apollo TV Camera
Wikipedia - Apollo Lunar Module
NASA - NSSDC - Spacecraft - Details - Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) Eagle)
Apollo Operations Handbook, Lunar Module (LM 10 and Subsequent), Volume One. Subsystems Data
Apollo Program Summary report
On Eagle's Wings: The Story of the Parkes Apollo 11 Support - Television from the Moon

EDITED to add Parkes link and this last sentence...

There is undoubtedly more information in those sources than I have listed here. This might be a good opportunity for you to have a look through them and find the answers for yourself if mine do not sufficiently answer your questions.

Cz

The moving flag video is enough to prove that , at the very least , the scene on that video is not filmed on the surface of the moon , so i don't know if we can conclude that all the videos related to these apollo missions where faked , but at least this video , for some mysterious reasons , got faked .

everyone probably know that video , but just in case , here is a youtube link to it :

watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4


Of course , it is next to impossible to believe any other videos related to the moon landing to be genuine after that , why would they fake only one video ? why would they only fake a video from apollo 15 ? why would they fake a video at all if they really went 9 times to the the moon , including 6 succesfull landing.

This topic has been discussed several time before, most recently a page or two back. Essentially the general consensus seems to be that, while it cannot be definitely stated what caused the flag to move, it most definitely was not gust of wind / air or any other kind of atmospheric effect, since the Moon has no appreciable atmosphere.

Back in November when this topic came up, MID posited a scenario that seems to be the most likely and logical explanation as to why / how the flag moved:

Original post HERE

Here is the relevant portion:



Basically, while it may seem as though there is some mysterious reason why the flag moved and it may appear to be reacting to an atmospheric anomaly (and in truth, apart from saying it definitely was not a gust of wind, it is very difficult to say definitively why it moved), the rest of the video, added with the other video footage of that and all other Apollo missions, show clearly that the astronauts were in a vacuum. It can therefore be said that the flag moved for reasons other than a "gust of wind" since it would not be possible for the two effects - conclusive evidence of a vacuum and the presence of that kind of an atmospheric effect - to be present in the same place at the same time.

And your final statement also says quite a great deal about this whole issue:



Why indeed...



Cz

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...17/MN81755.DTL

A third of a century after astronauts left mirrors on the moon, the reflective arrays are still helping scientists explore the question: Was Albert Einstein right?

Scientists continually refine the known distance to the moon to determine whether Einstein's theory of gravity -- which works great on the cosmic scale for explaining the motions of planets and galaxies -- remains valid at very small scales.

Their latest goal: to use laser reflections to measure the distance to the moon with almost unbelievable precision -- about the thickness of a paper clip.

Simple radio triangulation is how we, and other countries knew that Neil, and previously other devices, were on the Moon or in orbit.

The USSR launched Sputnik secretly, knowing we would discover it was in orbit, how did they know this? Radio triangulation.

Astronomers around the world were asked to view the ill fated Apollo 13 to help NASA better determine its coordinates. How did NASA know where it was? Radio triangulation.

Scientist all over the world to this day study the Moon rocks and soil.


So I'll just be ignored as an interloper?

Welcome aboard, Maj. Todd...



I'm not sure what you're expecting.

As to the examples you provide, typically Hoax Believers will say that the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors left by Apollo 11, 14 & 15 were all placed by unmanned robotic lunar probes. And in fact, two robotic Soviet Lunar landers (Lunokhod 1 & 2) did have similar reflectors onboard. Lunokhod 1's stoped working in 1971 but Lunokhod 2's is still operational.

As to the radio triangulation, the typical argument presented against those facts goes along the lines of faked signals by orbiting satellites, observatories controlled by "heavy handed NASA agents" or other government's respective agencies somehow "in on" the "conspiracy" or some combination of those.

The Moon rock argument goes along similar lines - cover-ups by NASA, faked moon rocks, NASA passing off Lunar meteorites found in Antarctica as ones being returned from the lunar surface or clandestine robotic sample return missions.

Of course, they never have any proof of these wild fantasies, and disregard any legitimate evidence that proves their theories wrong because "it's all part of the cover-up".

Btw, the link you're trying to post isn't working. It looks like there's a part of it missing, specifically here

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...17/MN81755.DTL

There's a part of the link missing between "articl" and "17". Perhaps you could go back to where you got the link and instead of highlighting it and copy & pasting it, right click on it and select either "Copy Link Location" or "Copy Shortcut" (depending on the browser you're using) and then paste that link into your message



Cz

EDITED gramtically...

pretty much impossible , due to the simple fact that they are supposed to be in 1/6 gravity , this rotation movement due to gravity , will be so soft , so slow , not mentioning that it would happen with a "probability that the insert pole wasn't perfectly seated" , but remember that this is a probability , calculate that probability to match the probability that this rotation will occur at the perfect moment to match a passing-by astronauts , astronauts that by another probability will pass near the flag part , the movement by another probability matching exactly what you could expect to see if this flag was affected by the wind gust , knowing that we already know that this probability is certainly extremly low , since even by removing the passing-astronaut and apparent atmospheric disturbance motion-like ones , we still can't seems to find any moving flag from a standstill at all , anywhere on any other flag scene videos , probability that a camera that have 360 degrees of rotation would have filmed this as a bonus , and that's a lot of probability we have here.

And by removing the probability that this flag could have been affected by a wind gust just because the scene is supposed to be filmed on the vacuum of the moon , is not understanding the very brough by this video , wich show a flag moving from a standstill while an astronaut happen to pass close by at a decent speed , because do you realise that if you enable the probability that these scene where faked on earth , this moving flag , affected by a wind gust would be certainly the more probable of all rational probability , and with a comfortable margin i must say.

There were several possibilities discussed a few weeks ago on this very thread. IMO it's impossible to come to a definite conclusion as to what caused the flag to move with the available data. What it is possible to do is rule out an atmosphere, since there was very little atmospheric damping of the flag after it started moving (IIRC it continued to move for about 25 seconds). I've tried this myself using a 5' x3' nylon flag, identical in size and material to the Apollo flags. David C used a small pillowcase, made of different material, probably cotton but I don't think he specificed that. That's simply not a like for like comparison. Try it yourself with a 5'x3' nylon flag (available on ebay for about $5).

I'm more than happy to discuss this issue if you have something to bring to the table that hasn't already been discussed. Turbs and I were going to produce videos of our own experiments on this issue, but neither of us has had the time (Christmas/Work/"Having a Life" - you know how it is!) Noone here is "nervous" about the Apollo 15 footage, or if they are, they shouldn't be. IMO it's actually evidence of a lack of atmosphere due to the lack of damping of the flag. Perhaps some HBs are nervous because they realise this? Or maybe they don't want to address issues that show the original premise to be false, and prefer to cling to the belief that it must have been caused by a gust of wind? I really don't know.



Hey, you're entitled to your opinion and beliefs - I prefer to base mine on examination and discussion of the actual evidence.

The fact that the settling happens as - or rather, just slightly before - an astronaut passes said flag is just a random coincidence. You claiming it is "pretty much impossible" does not mean that is IS impossible. Your lack of understanding does not mean that no one else understands it or cannot explain it or at least provide an entirely plausible and logical explanation which takes into account ALL the evidence. And given that this clip is the only clip of this nature in existence, the probability of your explanation being correct is vanishingly small.

As to what brought this video about, or into the "limelight" so to speak, some Conspiracy Theorist was grasping at straws and found something he/she couldn't explain or understand and decided that it fit an impossible-to-prove theory. There is far too much evidence in just that video alone, not to mention the hours of other video from the Lunar surface that show conclusively that it was, in fact, filmed / videoed on the Moon. The effects of the 1/6th gravity coupled with the lack of atmosphere can be seen clearly in how the lunar soil reacts to being disturbed by the astronauts boots and by the LRV's wheels.

What is impossible is for there to be any kind of "wind gust" on the surface of the Moon.


Cz

Have a read of the issue which was discussed back in November, starting with this post.

Please feel free to come back with any comments, questions after that. Contrary to what some might say, no-one is trying to stifle debate on any Apollo issue here. There's just no point going over stuff that's already been discussed. I'd be interested in hearing your comments after you've perused the thread, especially if you can bring a new perspective to the discussion. Maybe you have a similar flag you could do your own experimentation with?

Cheers

No i don't have any new perspective about this waving flag , for me at it's obvious that this flag is affected by a wind gust , because of that passing-by astronaut , this is for me at least , the more probable explanation of that flag movement , eliminating this possibility only because the scene is supposed to be filmed in a vacuum on the surface of the moon is almost absurd in this case , since the electrostatic charge explanation doesn't hold 5 seconds against observation made in the same video at differents time , the rotating flag , in a supposed 1/6 gravity let alone any other parameters , would probably not make such a distinct movement , because it would move so slow due to the 1/6 gravity in the first place , but even considering this movement possible (wich i personally don't , but just to check) , it would have to move at the right moment matching the passing-by astronauts , and moving exactly like we might expect to see that flag move , if it was affected by a wind gust .


In other words , i don't have any other explanation than this video is not filmed on the vacuum on the surface of the moon , because this flag move exactly like we should expect a flag to move if someone would pass close-by at a decent speed , and with such a heavy bulky suits on , the wind gust would be quite larger than average normal clothing person.

imagine that no one told you that this scene was filmed in a vacuum or under a different gravity than earth , wouldn't the more probable possibility to explain this moving flag would be that a wind gust affected it ? , that's the point i try to raise there , it seems like no one found valid explanation until you try the possibility that this was filmed on earth , with an atmosphere , and from that point , the possibility that this flag move due to a wind gust is extremly high , probably 95% of the overall probability , that's why i don't understand how someone can eliminate this possibility as beoing impossible from the start , and then searching the most improbable ones and put them in the dance , while the most probable one as been left out before the dance even started , something i can't understand there .

I understand entirely what you're saying. Upon first viewing, I was also quite surprised by the motion of the flag, and can understand why anyone on first viewing would automatically assume this was filmed in an atmosphere. If this footage is supposed to be on the moon, then it's an anomaly that requires further investigation. I've done my own research on this, and while I can't say with any degree of certainty what caused the flag to move, I've proven to my own satisfaction that this was not filmed in an atmosphere. I don't have any direct evidence to present on this forum, but I can and have described how I performed the experiment, and it's something anyone can do relatively easily. All you need is a 5'x3' nylon flag, and some means of supporting it. I wouldn't recommend using a pillow-case as David C did, since no objective person would possibly expect a 5'x3' nylon flag to behave in the same manner as a much smaller, cotton pillow-case. Anyway, try it yourself and see.

If and when I get the time, I'll do this experiment again and present it as a video (I'm not putting a time-scale on this as it's not a personal priority!) IIRC, the flag was totally damped in less than 10 seconds, and didn't display the regular, pendulum like motion of the flag in the Apollo video. Another reason I'm reluctant to spend time doing thsi, is that I know exactly what argument some HBs will put forth - that I should wear a spacesuit with a backpack and bounce past the flag in order to create the same kind of turbulent wake. Clearly, I'm not going to do that!

You convinced yourself that it couldn't be due to an atmospheric disturbance , because you made a test with a nylon flag , while being fully aware that different materials can yeld different result , different wrinkle on the flag can yeld different result , different bending angle of the pole , mixed with again , different wrinkles and materials (including the solid edge material , the whay the flag is attached to that solid edge , can yeld different result , yet you convinced yourself that it couldn't be an atmospheric effect ? are you sure that you didn't wanted to convince yourself about that in the first place ? , there is so many parameters that could change the result of such a test , it would lose everyone time , someone will come with a 50% matching , you see i tested with the same flag size , it's impossible , another will come hey , i have 80% with the same flag buy on ebay ... , virtually every flag will lead to a different result , being nitpicky even air temperature and humidity could make some variations , i can't see where you can convince yourself that this motion is impossible , for example , the duration of the motion , if you manage to make a test in wich the flag move roughly the same way , except that it stop 5 or 10 seconds before the original video , you might say that's strange , indeed it is impossible that flag being in an atmosphere because it move for a much longer time , but it move exactly the same way , except this , and what about the original video being slightly slowed down ? suddently your 5 or 10 seconds gap is reduced to nothing , another parameter to take into acount , note that of course imply that the video is a fake , and i don't see why this possibility should be discared at all this don't make any sense.

that's for the kind of possible test even if we clearly see that it would be hard to make a definite conclusion because of the numerous parameters that could change the result , in the other hands , we have electrostatic charge claim , go test that in a vacuum , of course not even think about this , the astronaut brushing the flag , easy test at first look , but in fact impossible since we would need to test in a vacuum at 1/6 g ... , the rotating flag , easy at first look , impossible to test because of 1/6 g and vacuum , micrometeorites test , no comment , ground vibration test , seen the ground is such a soft surface i don't see where this vibration would propagate with enough strenght to make that flag move , but beside this , test impossible due to 1/6 g and vacuum , this is a very good time dumping case indeed , one thing can make you win quite a lot of time tough , using common sense , and you will see that from all these solution , the atmospheric disturbance still make more sense than anyone else , and that even if this probability completly remove any credit for the apollo 15 mission at the very least , and should question the whole apollo program.

It is obvious from the rest of the contiguous video that it was filmed in 1/6 gravity and in a vacuum. Given that, it doesn't matter what happens in a few seconds. It can't be caused by air movement because the rest of the video shows there was no air. What about all the other times that astronauts passed close to the flag and it didn't move? Were they somehow not stirring up air at that time or is it the more likely that they were in a vacuum on the Moon?

My question is if the entire Apollo Lunar Program, studied and reviewed by independent scientists from around the world, should be declared null and void based on the motion of a movable object that does not comport to a non-scientist's observations?

Further, I requested information as to the return on investment of the lunar program, if it was gamed by scammers in the USG. Specifically, what was to be gained from a scam, and did that return materialize?

Please explain. Thank you.

HAND UP ASKING QUESTION:
Why are there mountains on the moon? I thought the Moon had no plate tectonics like Earth as. Also, if the moon as as much fine sand like material on it's surface, how did that get into that state, on earth our sand is as it is via sea erosion, acting against shells and rocks, theres no water on the moon so how did it happen please?

You raise some very good points. That's another reason why I'm reluctant to make a video of this, because there are many different variables. All I can say is, the motion of the flag was nothing like the motion of the flag in the Apollo 15 clip. Not even close. Damping is immediately very obvious. The flag I used is the same size and material as the Apollo flag. That's why I'd rather urge people to try this for themselves with a similar flag: that way, you are in control of the variables, and you can experiment for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

As has been mentioned, that's not the only evidence available in the video. There's also the motion of the kicked up dust, which to me looks very similar to kicked up dust seen in other videos on other missions, and is indicative of no atmosphere and low gravity. There's the motion of the astronauts themselves. One theory put forward for how they could have faked TV footage is that it wasn't done live, but was pre-recorded and slowed down to imitate Earth gravity. If that's the case, then surely this flag motion would have been picked up on and editted out? After all, the camera operator zooms in on the flag for a few seconds after it begins moving, so it can't have gone un-noticed.



From my point of view, I'm not too interested in finding out exactly what caused the flag to move. We may never know for certain. Several possibilities have been mentioned: who knows which if any of those it was. It may even be something not considred by anyone yet. My interest is in whether or not this is good evidence that it was filmed in an atmosphere. In my opinion, when you look at the evidence available in the entire video clip, it couldn't have been filmed in an atmosphere, for the reasons given which I'll summarise below:-

(1) Motion of flag does not resemble motion of similar flag on Earth (pendulum-like vs more irregular)
(2) Flag continues waving for much longer than I can recreate on Earth
(3) Motion of kicked up dust earlier in video suggests vacuum and lower gravity
(4) Motion of astronaut around flag earlier on in video did not cause appreciable movement of flag, even though he was closer to it
(5) If footage was faked, it would have been easily spotted and edited out

That's why the "filmed in an atmosphere on Earth" hypothesis doesn't hold water from my point of view.

You are correct, the Moon does not have any form of plate tectonics. The mountain ranges on the Moon were created through various processes, mainly impact craters and large impact ejecta, ancient volcanism and other geological processes in the past.


The Lunar regolith is the result of billions of years of small and large asteroidal and cometary body impacts. Over time, these impacts have continually pulverized and eroded the lunar surface and formed the sand-like regolith.


Cz

That the flag issue is still chundering on amuses me, not least because no seems to have latched on to one simple fact... it blows a huge hole in one of the favourite arguments of the Hoax believers.

A good hypothesis needs to explain all that is observed. The hoax hypothesis does not even attempt to do this, instead it picks on little points, blows them up out of all proportion and ignores everything else. There is a huge danger in this, it leads to contradictory arguments. The flag movement is just such a contradiction.

What exacly am I on about? Well the HBs tell us that because the flag looks how it would look in an atmosphere it must be in an atmosphere.

The HBs also tell us that to simulate the 1/6g on the Moon the "fake" film is shown in slow motion (I think the claim is that the film is slowed down by about 2 and a half times).

And here is the problem for the HBs, the astronaut moves past the flag in a way totally consistant with other film of astronauts on the Moon. If the HBs are right then this film is being shown in slow motion. But if that is the case the motion of the falg should not be consistant with a gust of wind on Earth, the falg show flutter 2 and a half times slower than we would expect. The fact that it doesn't shows that the film can not have been slowed down.

If the film is not slowed down then the moon footage must have been filmed in 1/6g.

If the footage was shot in 1/6g it must have been shot on the Moon.

If the footage was shot on the Moon then the motion could not have been caused by a gust of wind.

What causes the flag to move? I don't know and I don't care, all I do know is that the motion of that flag is far more problematic for hoax believers than it is for the Apollo believers.

well it is clearly not obvious for me , i made a little analysis of that full video and i give you my toughts about this

based on this video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

-at 03 seconds , there is some dust pushed by an astronauts , looks like this dust exhibit some sort of cloud shape to me , hard to tell with the video quality tough.

- from 08 to 31 seconds the two astronauts are both seen in the frame , one of them planting the flag , the dusty surface looks indeed to not leave any clouds , once again with video quality this is not impossible that there is in fact brief near transparent cloud formation , but i can't say that there is any single obvious one , note that to me , the flag looks like he's affected by atmosphere in all this time-frame , even if this motion isn't as apparent than the later motion from a standstill , in particular the triangle edge/right-corner/base portion , but i know that whatever atmosphere or not , this portion would be the most sensible to motion anyway .

- from 31 seconds to 50 seconds one of the astronauts move to place himself for the flag-salute photo , he walk very close to the most sensible part of the flag , but at a very slow speed without jumping , and while he was at his closest point, the flag was still moving a little from his precedent motion when an astronauts planted it , so it wouldn't have been easy to see an atmospheric distubance affecting the flag at that point , given the very low walking motion of the astronaut , note that we don't seems to see any attract or repel due to any static charge as well , and this unlike the atmospheric effect would have been more likely to be seen if it had occured , since the electrostatic field woudln't care much about the pace of the astronauts (even if it would still have been more difficult to notice because the flag was still having a motion) , in that time frame , we can see some more dust kicking and again , no visible dust cloud , the dusty surface seems coherent , if we except the little stranger dust kicking at 03 seconds.

- 51 seconds to 1 minute 28 seconds , nothing special , no major movement could have caused an atmospheric disturbance , no noticeable dust kicking , no induced ground vibration , the flag is slowly stopping to move and don't seems affected anywhere by any additional motion.

- 1 minute 28 seconds to 2 minutes 35 seconds , the second astronaut place himself for his flag-salute photo , he move with little jumps at an acceptable speed , and kicks quite a lot of dust , including one dust kick that seems to hit the flagpole , with apparently no disturbance caused to the flag , no apparent induced ground vibration that move the flag as well , and this probably seal the the end of the ground vibration claim , since that astronaut jump a little and very close to the flag pole , if any induced vibration would cause that flag to move , it would be now , once again no apparent electrostatic charge repel/atract phenomenon is observed , but it is true that the astronaut is standing on the pole side , wich is not the most sensible part. , the flag seems to move a little bit around 1 minutes 31 secondes , but it can very well be due to the colors 'vibrations' on this video , in any case if this flag move , that can very well be related to an atmospheric effect , i personally think it's a video quality issue.

- 2 minutes 36 seconds to 2 minutes 38 seconds , one of the astronaut pass close to the flag part , with a decent speed and little jumps , both his arms are visible and he don't exhibit any specific movement to touch the flag with his left arm as far as we can tell , i estimated the distance to the flag part , at roughly 1 time is wide , of course there is margin of error about such estimation , but to me , it is clear that whatever distance he is , he doesn't touch the flag anywhere in that timeframe , unless he specificaly move his arms to touch it , wich don't seems to be the case there. visual estimation based on various time frame on this video.


my toughts about this video , the flag seems to to behave like if the scene was filmed on earth with normal atmosphere, the flag don't show any disturbance caused by an electrostatic charge , the flag don't show any disturbance caused by ground vibration nor caused by kicked dust in its flagpole , for the rotating flag claim i already submitted my toughts about this possibility that for me is close to zero , due to the fact that in a supposed 1/6th gravity , this flag rotating pulled by gravity will move so softly , the motions wouldn't have been noticeable , yet this motion at 2 minutes 37 seconds is the second higuest motion of the flag if we except some movement when the flag is planted , not even speaking of the odds for that already unlikely motion to perfectly match the passing-by astronaut , the ground in the other hands is certainly not composed of normal dusty mud or whatever if this scene is faked on earth , and i can't exactly say what particular kind of ground surface can produce this effect , wich for me is certainly not an impossible task given the budget involved anyway , make it fine sand , mixed surfaces , some kind of powdery materials , and the least probable for me being genuine lunar regolith , because i can't ignore the most probable possibility on that moving flag issue , wich for me is clearly that this scene was filmed on earth , and not in a vacuum.

Sorry if I gave that impression, but after more than 200 pages of this thread we've all seen how the hoax side have this amazing ability to explain away absolutely anything that they don't like. You think that your post presents some pretty good arguments in favour of Apollo being real, and I agree with you, but the hoax side will either ignore them or explain them away by postulating that the scientists are incompetent, bamboozled by NASA or in on the hoax too. I'm afraid that this is not a scientific debate.

Point 1) You cannot see static with the naked eye, not in the way you are suggesting anyway



Point 2) Ground vibrations of the magnitude needed to move the flag would not be visible either



Forces still exist in 1/6 gravity as well you know.



Can't make sense of this, it's like a fragmented sentence.

That's not the full video though. I'm talking about the hours upon hours of video available from all the missions. This is the only movement of the flag that is seen when the astronauts are not touching the flag or pole. If this were filmed in an atmosphere then we are supposed ot believe there was no air movement in the many hours of video that the flag was seen. Light nylon flags like this will move in even the slightest movement of air. And there are other times on this and other missions that the astronauts move close to the flag without the flag moving at all.

Ah, there you go frenat!

And kudos to Cz and Posty for the discussion...(and actually finding that post from November of mine!).

The key to this issue is the fact that the video itself clearly shows that it is a vacuum at 1/6g.
Thus , the ONLY obvious thing about it is that wind had nothing to do with the movement of the flag.

Buy, that cut to the chase on this issue, I'll say!

Swanny,

How correct that is!

That's why I refer to this as an educational opportunity.

Science doesn't debate Apollo...

these vids, pretty much explains alot, the've probably been posted here before.


Nasa Hoax


Nasa Fake

You're right.
They have.

The first one is comedic in its lack of understanding. It is actually a serious endeavor, which is what makes it so funny.
It's also been thoroughly debunked...to the point of boredom.


The second was intended as a joke, and never had any value as anything else.

Yes, well, to you it means non-sense, but, to the millions of people who don't buy any of the lies of that particular agency, it makes perfect sense. Nasa is a another useless bloated government agency needing to be shut down, billions in wasted dollars.

The second video is fake. The website it origined from (and the video itself) contains several humorous references to the moonl landings, indicating it's fake. For example, the website it origins from (moontruth.com) used to have a page on its website named "full.htm", where it was explained that the film was made as a spoof/joke. (You can see it retrieve with the Wayback Archive here.)

what shut down NASA? are you nuts? Why? Yes it's very expensive, but look at all the good work they do, or is the space shuttle a hoax as well for you. We need NASA! How about we save all the money from these stupid wars and really try to get man into space such as the Moon again,and Mars and beyond. Or should we just turn curiosity aside and be content right here on earth our tiny tiny little niche in space? NASA has done wonders and will continue to do so for a very long time.

Moon hoax or not I really don't think that is the issue when you compare what NASA has done since.

What have you done for me lately? Ever hear that phrase? In the case of NASA,NOTHING, in the past 25 years can you honestly point out anything worthwhile that agency has done, that has benefitted humanity? whether you believe they went to the moon or not is not the question. I would rather see that money go to social and educational programs here in America, where it is badly needed, of course the huge waste of money in the wars would also be nice for social programs to benefit people, but, we can't have our cake and eat it too sometimes. But NASA can be replaced easily thru the private sector, where super rich people would love to do all those things you write about,heck, Bill Gates can start his own space agency. How about Microsoft in Space.

Shutting Down NASA seems like a good idea. finally someones thinking inside of the box.

Guys this thread is not for a debate about shutting down NASA, if you want to do that start another thread (I won't be visiting it).

ok, sorry. so, I believe that we didn't land on the moon.
Edit: I won't start a new thread.

Are you inferring they lied about sending men (notice I underlined it) to the Moon? Name a specific instance, and offer some tangible evidence.

Also, if you can, explain why such a lie was perpetrated. And, what the demonstratable, historically manifested benefit was.

Good point Frenat. Evidence should be examined in context - not in a vacuum.

And a Happy New Year to you, postie (and all)!



Maybe the logic isn't understood yet? Let's continue....



Orbiting Earth 163 times will indeed add a few million miles onto the ol' "Space Capsule Odometer", but I'm not talking about flying around in the same 'circle', over and over and over again.

I'm comparing the longest distance(s) we have been able to travel away from Earth (call it point A); to any given point(s) out from point A (ie: out to a given point in deep space).



Let's look at your reasons first....



True.



??!? What do you mean by "going somewhere"? That if you're going to fly through the VA Belts, it's pointless, unless you keep right on flying all the way to the Moon?

And what if you wanted to fly past the Moon? You'd have to fly over 50 million miles before you got "somewhere" else beyond the Moon!



True. But you're forgetting that there are also some differences.



That's quite obvious.



The VA Belts protect us from several hazards which exist in deep space, including solar flares. That is very important for any mission - whether long or short in duration.



"What's the point?"?!?

Nothing else needed to research and study about deep space, before shooting humans through 240,000 miles of it? Each way? No hazards in deep space to really worry about? No concerns about re-entering Earth's atmosphere from deep space?

You really seem to believe that once you get past the VA Belts (which aren't a big deal, either, in your view), that it's pretty much "clear sailing" to just keep on flying, all the way to the Moon!

A common claim of Apollo defenders is that solar flares were "luckily" avoided. MID claims we used Soviet reports about Zond 5 as "some confirmation". This would mean that we saw Soviet reports on Zond 5 as fully reliable and credible, and confirmation that it was completely safe for us to begin sending humans to the moon and back. I don't know what excuses have been made for NASA being unconcerned about re-entering Earth's atmosphere from deep space.

All of these serious issues are simply swept under the rug by Apollo supporters, as either trivial, or as something that NASA had already solved by that time.

Sorry, but that's not the least bit convincing.



This gets into a whole different argument. It needs to be addressed in a separate post. Soon as I can.

You say "Zond 5 was successful, by all reports." Sure - because all the reports came from the very same source - the USSR!

You also say "There was actually no reason to doubt Soviet reports of accomplishments". That's nonsense. The USSR was well-known for publishing fake "news" reports all the time, through their state-controlled media outlets (ie: TASS)!

There is no reason for us (NASA) to have accepted the Zond 5 reports as wholly credible and reliable. Not when we regarded almost everything they reported with doubts and skepticism.

That's because their reports were usually not confirmed and verified, through independent, outside sources. Unless it could be verified, we did not simply accept it as true anyway!

Which brings us back to the Zond 5 reports - which were never verified through other sources.

NASA would not - and did not - accept those reports as fully credible and reliable.

And that's before you consider the enormous implications - if NASA had really accepted these reports as credible and reliable!

To use such reports as confirmation that manned lunar missions are safe?

Way beyond reality, MID.

turbonium, I find your last post interesting because you are using the mistrust of the two sides during the Cold War to your advantage. It's funny how the HBs totally ignore this mistrust when asked the simple question, "if Apollo was faked so as to appear that the USA beat the Soviet Union to the Moon why did the Soviets not reveal the fact to the World?"

It seems that the Cold War existes when it is useful to the HBs but didn't when it presents a problem. Beyond belief turbonium.

If you think the distance travelled is an issue, please explain why?



The main difference physiologically between flying to the moon and flying to Mars is the amount if time you're going to be in space. To the moon and back, 5/6 days. To Mars and back, 365 days. That's 70x the level of radiation exposure, and a much incdreased chance of encountering a powerful solar flare. (I'm assuming you're not interested in other issues such as long term in microgravity/zero gravity?)



I'm unsure what data NASA had on cis-lunar radiation hazards prior to Apollo, I'll try and dig something out.

The astronauts had several personal dosimeters, as well as geiger-counters on the CSM. If the dose they were receiving was too high due to some hithertoe unknown radiation hazrd, they could have returned back to LEO. Solar flares were basically a case of Russian Roulette with the odds stacked in favour of individual missions (though the programme as a whole ran a greater risk the longer it went on). There were still ways of mitigating this while in cis-lunar space (orienting the heavily shielded CSM to provide even more shielding from the sun). If in lunar orbit, the moon provides even more protection.

As pointed out by Czero in post 3176, Apollo 4 successfully proved the safety of re-entry at approach speeds that would be required of a lunar mission.



Depends what you mean by a "big deal". I've seen no data that shows travelling for an hour or so through the less dense part of the belts while en route to the moon would pose an immediate danger to astronauts health. Can you provide me with links to a site that shows that the level of exposure the astronauts would have received from the VA belts while travelling to the moon would have exposed them to deadly or dangerous levels of radiation?

In terms of navigating to the moon, it's a proven concept. A mid-course correction to ready you for lunar orbit insertion. This was proven with the Surveyor programme. I'm sure you can't be claiming that actually getting to the moon is the problem, but it's the radiation hazard you think is the stumbling block? Your wording was a bit unclear is all.



As mentioned earlier, the re-entry was proven safe with Apollo 4. I've previously looked at the data for solar flares through the Apollo period, and IIRC there were no major ones that caused any great during actual missions. There were contingencies and procedures if one did occur, dependent on what the mission phase was, how strong the flare was etc. The fact that none of the Apollo missions were seriously affected is down to statistics. If Apollo missions had flown continuously every few months for the last 40 years, I've no doubt that at least one mission would have been affected. It would only be a potentially deadly situation if astronauts were caught in EVA, since the suits and the LM offered little protection from solar flare radiation. Much would have depended on how quickly they were warned, how quickly they could have gained the LM, prepped for launch and returned to the LM (not to mention how strong the flare was).

The solar flare risks were known and prepared for. The only thing they couldn't do was predict when a solar flare would occur.

That's the thing about space travel - it's risky. You either accept that there are risks, and try and mitigate them where possible, or you call the whole thing off and take up something safe like knitting. If you're a test pilot, and someone gives you the chance to go to the moon, you're probably going to say "Hell yeah!" It doesn't always end happily. 3 astronauts died while testing a rocket - they weren't even trying to get off the ground, let alone into orbit or even ti the moon. 3 more nearly died due to a mal-function in Apollo 13. 14 astronauts died in two separate space shuttle disasters. Guess what? The Space shuttle had an estimated failure rate of 1%. They expected it to fail. Given the amount of misisons they were flying, they knew it was more than likely that at least one mission would result in death.

The space shuttle was a numbers game. Due to the high number of missions, there was a good chance of disaster. Apollo was a numbers game. There was a relatively low number of missions. If they'd flown a similar number of manned Apollo missions as they have space shuttle missions, we'd be mourning Apollo dead IMO.



I don't know why you're suggesting Apollo believers think solar flares are trivial? We just don't believe that the reality of solar flares precludes manned lunar exploration. Similarly with travelling thorugh the VA belts for a short time (not somewhere you'd want to live for months on end, but no immediate danger in a few hours). As for re-entry when returning form the moon, that was part of Apollo 4's mission objectives. It passed the test.

Now - do you have any other reasons why Apollo 8 could not possibly have achieved its mission objective of flying to the moon and back?

UTH said..

Hey Mid,I have a question that I always forget to send to you ,but now I remember...
Is it true that the control mission director of apollo program (sorry,I don´t remember his name) asked to go out of his job 1 or 2 weeks before the apollo 11 launch after working all those years on apollo program?People say that he refused to take part on fake apollo missions at the same moment that he was told by NASA about all the fakery that it would be.If that was true,this must be a real great man! And I would like to know more about him.



I didn't see this answered yet, so let me help out - it was James Webb.

Webb became NASA's administrator - the top official for all NASA - on Feb. 14, 1961.

And he resigned on Oct.7, 1968.

That was just 4 days before Apollo 7 launched.

Only 2 months before Apollo 8.

And only 9 months before Apollo 11.


Looks to me like Mr. Webb got out just 2 months before the stench of Apollo 8's fakery. It also makes me curious about Apollo 7....

This would be the same James Webb that revealed the Soviet manned lunar programme to the world would it (and the reason that the Soviet N1 booster was nick named Webbs giant)? The same James Webb that campaigned for more cash for Apollo? The James Webb that was instrumental in Apollo.

You analysis makes no sense turbonium, either Apollo was genuine in which case he did not get out because of the stench or Apollo was fake in which case Web bwould have had to have been one of the main players in the fakery. Either way his leaving in 1968 does not seem to fit with your conclusions.

That question doesn't hold up.

The US could have claimed the Soviets faked many of their achievements in space. There are obvious problems with the Soviet photos of Gagarin, etc. which could have easily been pointed out by the US as fraudulent.

So, why didn't we blow the whistle on Soviet fakery?

Have you considered the possibility that both sides could have blown the whistle on each other, but decided not to?

The bottom line is that we don't know - and most likely, we will never know - all that really went on behind the scenes during the so-called "Space Race", and during the so-called "Cold War". We do now know that many things were contrived, made up, exaggerated, etc. on both sides.

Btw, are you saying NASA believed the Zond 5 reports to be wholly credible and reliable?

You seem to think that NASA had not sent anything at all to the Moon prior to Apollo 8.

What about Project Ranger?

What about Project Surveyor?

What about Project Lunar Orbiter?

By the time of Apollo 8, NASA knew as a certainty how to put a spacecraft into Lunar orbit. They'd proved it MANY times.

How's this...?

From DESTINATION MOON: A History of the Lunar Orbiter Program,
Chapter XI: Conclusions: Lunar Orbiter's Contribution to Space Exploration,
Results of Non-photographic Lunar Orbiter Experiments


Again, Turb, you are basing your opinions on what YOU think is or is not possible. You provide NO FACTS in your arguments.


Cz

No. Webb left NASA 2 months before the fakery started - with Apollo 8.

So how would he be found responsible for fakery which only began after his departure?

You're not following the argument. I'm referring to animal missions not being conducted first by NASA. They went right into manned lunar missions - so they claim, anyway.

It's an entirely different issue when it involves fragile life forms, like dogs or humans.

You might as well ignore this. Seems like my posts are dead in the water, anyway. Just to difficult to answer, I guess...

Link

This also doesn't make sense. If there was no fakery BEFORE Apollo 8 than that means that NASA could not have been aware that the Van Allen belts were deadly, the Apollo hardware MUST have been genuine. In other words there was no problem with Apoll and hence no reason to fake it in the first place. If Apollo was faked then it must have been planned as a fake from the very beginning.

Ok, so let me get this straight...

Your position is that since NASA did NOT send a dog or a chimp or a rat or whatever to lunar orbit in a vehicle that NASA already knew was suitable to support and protect a human crew, there's no way they could have done it...?

This is your position, despite the fact that NASA had proven that man could be in space without serious adverse effect for periods of up to 2 weeks or at the very least, the 6 days required for Apollo 8, had tested and man-rated the CSM on previous (manned and unmanned) flights, had proved that the CM heat shield could withstand a re-entry at lunar return speeds, had empirical evidence proving that the shielding on the Apollo CM provided more than sufficient shielding from the radiation in the Belts, and had the evidence just from the mere fact that the Soviets publicly admitted to the successes of the Zond program (it is a proven fact that the Soviets glorified their successes to the entire world, and hid their failures from everyone, even their own people) that going to the Moon was survivable for biological specimens (animals)...?

Why do you think it was necessary to send animals on Apollo first? Where is your proof that it was required? What do you have to back up this opinion?


Cz

Waits for the inevitable hand-waving

What if we consider the VA Belts another way...

Let's say NASA faked the moon landings. In large part, because the hazards within VA Belts were far beyond NASA's 1960's technology.

Now, let's say that NASA is really planning to put men on the moon for the first time ever, by 2020.

Except that NASA tells us they plan to "return" to the moon by 2020 - as we're now being told. To maintain the lie about Apollo.

So, how would NASA handle the hazardous VA Belts today, in order to get the first man on the moon by 2020?

1. They would need to spend tens of millions, to study the Belts, in order to make it safe for humans to travel through them, on the way to the moon.

2. They would need to conclude their study well before 2020, obviously.


Millions spent to study the VA Belts, to make manned missions safe. Study will end a few years before 2020.

NASA is proceeding exactly like someone who lied about the "safe" VA Belts over 40 years ago, in order to lie about the Apollo landings.

NASA would NOT be spending so much money, just before the "return" to the moon, on supposedly "safe" VA Belts!


And please don't tell me it's being done because NASA would really like to make it safer for some satellites in LEO!!