http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87476


this was a guys argument about if we did or didnt land on the moon. I know its prolly been talked about but what do you guys think about it?

I think it would have been harder to pull off a hoax of this magnitude than it would have been to just go to the moon.

Then again, NASA does have a way of doing things the round-about way. Take for example the pen NASA spent millions of dollars developing, that would work in space; the Russians used pencils.

The whole thing was shot on a Hollywood lot. Stanly Kubrick did around the time he shot 2001 a Space Odyssey

we landed on the moon. deal with it.

I recently started to question the authenticity of the moon landing. My biggest reason is due to the loss of bone density/muscle tissue all astronauts suffer after just a few days in space. The Russians sent people up and after 5 days they had lost so much bone density and muscle that they couldn't even walk, sit up etc. I believe the moon landing was 7 or 8 days total and I have never heard of any reports that they suffered this type of physical stress. They also appear happy, healthy and holding themselves up just fine in the pictures in the quarantine trailer. If anyone has any info about their physical state could you please let me know?

Another aspect of the moon landing that has always made me wonder a little bit is the radiation of the Van Allen Belt, which Nasa claims is harmless.

This just seems a little fishy to me. But I really can't say that it didn't happen. I need more concrete evidence.

We landed on the moon.
Conspiracy theories, lol, maybe there is no moon and the earth is hollow, too... Not even going to the moon themselves would satisfy the people who think it never happened.

I think much of it depends upon whether it is possible to get through the radiation belt without being fried. If it is not possible, without heavy lead shielding, then we did not go there. Whenever this particular point is brought up so as to settle the argument once and for all, why is it always skirted and the subject is quickly changed? If they had put heavy lead around the entire missile, it wouldn't even have launched.

Why, when Bart Sibrel just asks the astronauts to place their hand on the bible and say they went to the moon, do they take off running with hands in pockets? Why not just do it and let that be the end of it? Why punch him in the jaw or kick him in the rumpus?

Apart from all this, unless any one of us was actually there [on the Moon] on that day/ night, to see whether they landed or not, we cannot say unequivocally whether it happened or not. All we can do is take a "side" because of a certain so-called loyalty of some kind.

The strangest part of it all to me was their press conference right afterwards. They weren't the least bit excited, though one would think they could never have been MORE excited in their whole lives, and they kept giving each other "looks" as if to check their stories with one another before answering questions. I had just gotten married that year, and the whole thing was entirely strange; like a diversion against the Viet Nam war.

LOL....yes...but, I would like to point out, that NASA's favorite line is "It would be harder to pull off the hoax." When that is not true in the least. I watched a program on tv, where they were trying to "prove" that the pictures were NOT faked, that they were real. They went to the desert "near area 51", and they took the pictures, proved that you wouldn't see any stars, that the shadow's were the same, well...to me...they just showed me that in 2 hours, (an extra for the 1 hour photo) they managed to prove to me that it was entirely possible, and that it was extremely probable that it was a hoax. Uhmanduh, I have to agree with you about the loss in bone density and muscle. It doesn't make any sense at all, if they were in space longer for the moon landing, then the Russians, then why were they sitting up just fine in the life rast just after "re entry"?

The topic has been addressed ad nauseum in the past, but since there are a number of new members who may not have participated in past discussions, this will be allowed to progress for now. The thread will be watched closely, however, to insure that the subject doesn't become repetitive and unproductive. In the meantime it will be moved to the correct category.

MM

This is just plain wrong. Bone density issues only become a problem on missions lasting several months. Russian Cosmonauts have been able to walk within 24 hours of long duration missions lasting up to 400 days.



NASA has never claimed that the van Allen belts are harmless, however the short amount of time the astronauts spent passing through the belts was insufficient for them to be exposed to a harmful dose of radiation. Radiation damage depends on two things, the strength of the radiation and the amount of time you are exposed to it.

The strength of the van Allen belts is no secret. If you have satellite TV you are receiving a signal from a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit, 22,500 miles above the earth. That satellite and all the others that handle TV, telephone communications and some weather satellites have all passed through the van Allen belts. If the radiation was intense enough to fry an astronaut don't you think that the engineers that built these satellites would have noticed.

Great story, but that is actually a myth. The space pen was developed by Fischer, and the pens were sold to NASA at the princely sum of $2.95 each. They were also sold to the Russians. Until the space pen came along (about 1967), NASA also used pencils. No development money was paid by NASA to the company.

Hi!

The lunar missions were up to about 12 days in duration. The longest was Apollo 17 at 12 days, 13 hours, 51 mins. Before Apollo, there was a long duration flight to examine this very issue; it was Gemini VII, and lasted 13 days, 18 hours, 35 mins.

Problems with extended stays in zero-G is indeed a problem - but not an insurmountable one. Part of the answer is exercise. Have a look at the durations of the Skylab / Salyut / Mir flights; they were a lot longer than Apollo.

Here is a good PDF paper about the problems associated with bone / muscle loss during space travel.

I'm always reminded of Borman & Lovell from Gemini VII, and the way they walked when they were aboard the recovery carrier. As Jim Lovell says, they looked like they had pooped their pants! It was having to get used to the gravity again. There is a video of them aboard the carrier; I'll see if I can find it and post the link for you.

Hi Swandancer! I wouldn't say it is skirted; the problem is that it is a very complex subject that a lot of us don't have the necessary understanding of. As others have said, the short duration for exposure to the Van Allen Belts and adequate protection from cosmic radiation reduced their doses to acceptable levels. In fact, the Skylab and Mir astronauts / cosmonauts received higher doses than the Apollo astronauts.

This is a good explanation of the radiation problem and why it is not proof for an Apollo 'hoax'.



That is a very often-asked question, and a quite understandable one. It has to do with the despicable methods Mr Sibrel has used to gain access to the astronauts and his treatment of their answers. Put bluntly, he lies about why he wants to interview them. He has used false pretenses (claiming to be from educational networks, etc) in setting up interviews. He has stalked astronauts. He even shows that after astronauts accede to his demands, he calls them liars (Al Bean, Ed Mitchell). When he asked Buzz Aldrin to swear on the bible - and that if he did, Mr Sibrel would give $500 to an honorarium of Buzz's choice - he intended to then claim Buzz has lied (this was revealed by Mr Sibrel himself - under oath - after the famous 'Buzz Punch' incident) and the money was obtained under false pretenses.

Let me put a hypothetical to you. I have no idea what your profession is, but let's say you are an artist - a quite famous one. An interviewer asks to talk with you on camera about your work. You agree. They start quite normally, but then claim all your work is a fake - that you never painted the artwork you are famous for. They demand you swear on the bible that you did indeed paint the work, and that it is entirely yours. You agree, and swear on the bible. The interviewer then claims that your "swearing" was just another example of your deception, that it was just another lie.

Do you think you'd be calm & collected with this guy? When he had pulled the same stunt with other artists?



That's a pretty fair point. Unless we were actually there, we can't - but it doesn't have to be because of a 'loyalty'. What we can do is look at the technology involved, the environmental factors, and the data returned from the missions. This has been evaluated by many scientists around the world, and has indeed been used as the basis for future missions. People study this stuff - and none with the requisite expertise in the individual fields have any doubt that it was capable of doing the job. We can look at the biology / radiation problem. We can look at the aerospace design problem. We can look at the computer technology problem. We can study the returned lunar samples.

If you still have doubts, you should scout around your local universities for some experts in the fields - computers, biology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, mechanical engineers, aerodynamic engineers, etc. Ask them - was this possible? Why? Then get another person in that same field and ask them the same question.

So, we cannot say we saw it ourselves (except for a privileged few) but we can confirm that everything associated with the missions were indeed possible.



If you have a look immediately after the missions, they are most certainly euphoric. Later during the press conferences (for the earlier missions), they had been quarantined for some 21 days, unable to touch their loved-ones, having blood samples and medical checks performed, being isolated from everyone. They were tired, maybe a little depressed that they had completed an achievement of a lifetime - and what could top that?

Thank you Obviousman!

I was wondering, if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, then who was video taping him when he came out of the lunar module?

There is a little known invention called remote control.

I have also thought about that. They were said to have installed a television camera into the side of the lunar module. There was no protection at all for this electronical equipment from the Van Allen Belt. Even today, our satellites are protected against the radiation from the Van Allen Belt, and they are still shut off when they are near it. I'm confused as to how then, could this camera have survived the trip.

How did the camera, that the little known invention called the remote control controlled, survive the Van Allen belt?

They were in the van allen belt for only a split second (when your travelling at that kind of speed you can only be anywhere for a split second!)...not long enough to fry anyone or anything.

And the lack of gravity wouldnt really effect you after only a few days....as has already been stated both russians and americans(and at least one brit iirc) stayed up for over a year on MIR etc and didnt have much trouble when they got back.

Torchwood, my dear. On Wikipedia, (yes I know LOL).....it states that the radiation will still stick to everything, and penetrate the rocket. hmmm... I also have an article...that states with no exercize, being up in space, that after only a few days, the muscle mass can be reduced 30%. (some people more, some people less). I'm sorry if I'm not making too much sense, I'm a bit tired. Here's the link to the NASA article though.
http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_912a.php...-202&gl=912 I would also like to point out, that they found out that it was needed to exercise, from personal experience. (Not my own of course)

It wasn't a remote control actually, it was activated by Neil Armstrong pulling a lanyard which opened the MESA. The camera had already been pre positioned to point that the ladder, it's in the Press Briefing pack I have if anyone wants to see it.

If NASA didn't land on the Moon then they'd better hope that either:

a ) As well as the Russians and Europeans, the Chinese are also in on the conspiracy

or

b ) They can secretly launch a lunar lander in the next few weeks and ferry all the stuff that's supposed to be on the Moon onto the Moon before the Chinese launch their probe later this year.....

That's correct. You can see the camera here on a ground-based mockup for training purposes:

Ok it can pentrate the rocket but Van allen himself reckoned the astronuts would only get a mild dose (it says that on wiki as well!). As far as I can see the amount of radiation involved means youd have to stay in the belts for about 5 or 6 months before you'd recieved the 1000rads neccessary to kill you. Apollo went thru the narrowest part and was only there for a few seconds.
And wheredid u find the bit about it sticking? I never knew that, what does it stick to, and how? Can you accumulate it like gum on a shoe?
I forget now what he astronuts had onboard apollo but Im sure they had some training techniques that work in space....most of the space stations have an onboard gymnasium! Anyway astronuts tend to be physically very fit, so can probably quite easily survive a fair bit of loss of mass in their muscles. Nasa had a few years of practice to c how space and zeroG effect the human body and Id be surprised if they hadnt learnt how to compensate for it.

LOL..Torchwood my dear, I have been looking for the information from the above statemant and I'm thinking that the government came and changed the informantion in the 4 1/2 hours that I was sleeping. LOL jk. I will find the information that I'm looking for, it may just take me awhile. (I have to go back through everything, sorry for my bad "record keeping" abilities) As for the radiation being toxic, I never stated that it would have killed the astronauts, I'm wondering as to why the radiation didn't damage the camera. Based on the (missing) information that I was searching through, I know that I saw somewhere that stated the radiation would not be enough to kill them, but that the radiation belt is like a cloud with condensation in it, and when the rocket passed through, it would have clung to the outside, and seeped to the inside, and that yes the astronauts would have recieved a small does of radiation, just not enough to kill them. I will find this information my dear, I just need to sort through the 30 pages I was looking through lastnight (early this morning.)

It is funny when people who do not know a thing about the Van Allen Belt use it as their argument.

radiation behaving like condensation? I spose it could get trapped in the magnetic fields produced by electrical equipment in the capsule, but those fields would be weak and I dont think theyd trap enough to damage anything.
Ive tried to google it myself but none of the key words brought up any promising lines of inquiry so I thought Id better come back to you!:)

maybe the radiation missed....

ramboIII: care to enlighten us knowlessmen?

Not really, I participated in a thread daily that went about 250 pages on this same topic... if I get started again I wont be able to stop, and last time did not go too well.

Just humor my dumbass, where is the proof we did go?
TV & Moonrocks? I need more please.

Aren't rocks which are proven to have come from the moon enough?

Besides which where is the evidence we didn't?

Isn't that only with proper exercise?

Thank you airika dahlink! I was watching a science program on public broadcasting about the first Russian cosmonauts in space. They found that the muscle loss was rather significant after a few days, as you stated, around 30% depending on the individual. This is why they now exercise. I have been trying to find the transcripts to the program to get the specifics.

Rocks are the best answer you can provide? Try again.

There are many unanswered questions, educate yourself on the subject!!!!!!!!

Try these websites, all non-NASA, for independant verification of Apollo:

A geologist's explanation of moon rocks, including the difficulty of faking them:
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Astronomers around the world track Apollo going to and from the moon:
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Several accounts of tracking Apollo radio transmissions, including a Swedish radio ham and the Russians keeping NASA honest:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content...rs/271/03.shtml

One of many sites debunking the hoax claims:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm

I also feel that some of the statements made by Mr. Armstrong himself are a bit contradictory. I would also like to state that the government is not above doing anything to deter us from the truth. I have read a lot of information on Mr. Von Braun, and needless to say, I strongly feel that there could have been some sort of "conspiracy". There are MANY coincidences found surrounding his appearance. The book that he wrote is eerily similar to that of the moon landing, and the book was written in 1952 I believe. (I may be wrong on the year, but it was DEFINATELY written before the moon landing.) Mr. Von Brauns depiction of his lunar module, is almost exact to that of the one used in the "actual mission". I am sure that this one was just a coincidence, but I feel it merits being said. President Kennedy was assinated exactly one week after meeting with Mr. Von Braun about the moon landing. Mr. Von Braun was also on the south pole collecting meteors shortly before the the alleged landing even happened.

How do communication satellites and the satellites for the GPS navigation system survive for years continuously in the Van Allen belts? The Apollos only spent an hour or so in the belts in each direction.

I have stated in this post previously, that today, the satellites and other things in orbit, are protected against the radiation, and they are also turned off when near the belts. I believe that is the answer to your question.

Apart from engineering necessities like legs to land on and rocket power, Von Braun's moon lander didn't really look much like the actual LM:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonander.htm

How did VB know there were lunar meteors in Antarctica when the rest of the scientific community didn't find them until 1979?

Read my post again. Those satellites are permanently in the belts.

Furthermore, they are designed for the known radiation levels in the belts, and the radiation levels experienced by the satellites are consistent with NASA's claimed radiation exposures for the Apollo astronauts. Dozens of countries build and operate these satellites, the radiation levels are hardly secret.

My dear, I would first like to point out that I never once stated that he collected lunar meteors, and we have no proof that what NASA states are lunar meteors, are actually that. The only thing that we have to go by is their word. The government doesn't exactly have a great track record of telling us the truth, and with some of us being like questioning children, asking about the moon landing and our "parents" (the government) refuse to give us straight answers to some of our questions, then yes, people are going to speculate and ask more questions then before. Here is a link from googlescholar that I was refering to. http://www.reformation.org/general-groves.pdf

I recall that the first lunar meteors were actually discovered by a Japanese expedition, and it was they, not NASA who identified them.

There is also the fact that the Russians collected a few very small lunar samples with unmanned missions in the years after Apollo. The three sources of lunar material all have common features that show they have a non-earth origin.

It is also interesting to note that the moon samples don't fit any of the three major theories of the lunar origin that existed pre-Apollo, and a new theory that matched the samples wasn't developed until several years after Apollo. This means that if they were faked, whoever faked them had to make them consistent with this future theory, which you must admit shows remarkable abilities.

In a thread full of wrong this is a pinnacle of wrongness of Everest proportions.

The Lunar samples have been tested around the world by many different scientists from many different universities. The Soviet Union also returned samples from the moon using unmanned spacecraft so we have an alternative source to make comparisons with.

The lunar meteorites have been identified on Earth after comparison with the lunar samples. They were only recognised as having a lunar source AFTER Apollo.

Another point worth noting on the "Von Braun South Pole" explanation of moon rocks:

A lunar meteorite looks pretty much like any other meteorite, with an external surface showing the effects of the heating it received during its passage down through the atmosphere. You need to get it back to a lab and examine the interior composition to identify it as a lunar meteorite.

About 1 in 450 meteorites discovered have been identified as Lunar ones.

NASA has some 380 kg of lunar material. The known lunar meteorites amount to some 50 kg total.

For the Von Braun theory to work, he must have therefore gathered up a couple of hundred tonnes of meteorites in his short holiday to Antartica and practically swept the continent clean for future meteorite hunters.

Well, Waspie and Obviousman and Flyingswan...et. al.

You have done a fine job with this, as usual!


I though I might get into this...( )


airika:

You said,




Might you clarify what you mean by that?
Neil has been very articulate and clear in his statements regarding the mission of Apollo 11...for almost 40 years. I'd like to know what you're talking about.



Coincidence, in the matter of President Kennedy (perhaps you're implying that President kennedy's death had something to do with the fledgling Apollo program?). Besides, he met with Dr. Von Braun because he wanted an update on his Saturn 1 program, which he got. The Apollo block 1 spacecraft wasn't even built yet. In fact, the Gemini Program hadn't even started yet at that time. There was no lunar module, and the moon landing was six years in the future at that time.
Dr. Von Braun was taking a vacation in 1968 in Antarctica. He was an adventurer, and enjoyed doing unusual things. Geniuses tend to be a bit eccentric at times. He went to Antarctica on vacation. It had absolutely nothing to do with meteorites. He explored different places all his life. It all had nothing to do with Apollo. In fact, he was getting away from Apollo when he went to Antarctica...



In fact, it is true, if you knew anything about Apollo.




I think you've probably gotten a reasonable explanation of this.
The van Allen Belts did not provide a harmful dose of radiation to any Apollo crewman, nor to any equipment. The spacecraft were adequately shielded, the duration of exposure was less that 2 hours per mission, and the trajectories designed had the vehicles passing through the narrowest parts of the belts. The van Allen Belt horror is an old, tired, and erroneous thing which was refuted by Dr. Van Allen himself.

As to that camera, it was, as has been pointed out, deployed by the initial egressing astronaut by pulling a lanyard which deployed the MESA. The camera was powerwed up by the LMP who snapped a breaker in the LM to power it up.





I'll tell you what.
If you have doubts about the most scientifically documented accomplishment in human history, something confirmed and substantiated by independent scientific organization the world over, just ask them here.


I guarantee you'll get an answer.


Why do you think Apollo was faked?
This would be the place to ask....

Im gonna agree with MID for once...

Educate yourself on the subject???

He actually said that, didn't he???


Perhaps, Cynical1, you would like to educate me on "the subject"...where did you get your education?
It's sounding suspiciously like it was at the Bart Sibrel school of lunar exploratory fallacy?



Let me give you a clue in this matter.
You seem to be adhereing to an accusation: that being that we did not in fact do what is documented and substantiated more than any single scientific accomplishment in history--land on the Moon.

Thus, you must show us proof that we didn't. Not the other way around.

Since that is going to be mighty difficult (trust me, it will), it would be best if you simply aired your doubts in question form here. Some of the more knowledgable people will be more than happy to explain various things that you may not know about, and erase your doubts through the onlky thing that really can do such a thing: knowledge.


That's what we're about.

So how about we get away from the "dumbass" stuff and approach this from the desire to learn something?
Alot of "dumbasses" have come here intent on causing a stir in the past. None of them are here today...because, they were, as you say, "dumbasses".
It's alot more fun to learn about things. There are several people here who will be more than happy to lend their scientific knowledge and practical experience to that goal.

Be nice. Ask a question. You'll probably find out something you didn't know. That's always a good thing.
After all, you yourself said..."There are many unanswered questions..."


Here is the place to get them answered.

I'm sorry I have to laugh at the "educate yourself on the subject". Did you not know that my good friend MID was labelled THE master NASA disinformationist by our friends from the past

Indeed I was so labeled, dear Gav.

It's rather refreshing NOT to have to deal with that moniker...at least at the moment!

You've let the cat out of the bag, so it may come back...

Well, hello to all the usual faces, and the new ones as well! I thought the moon hoax had dried up on this forum, as it appears to be doing elsewhere.

Just want to pull the otherwise very reliable MID up on an issue with the Von Braun Antarctic excursion. I have in my possession an article from the May 1967 issue of Popular Science entitled "A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica". It details where Von Braun went, why he went, and what he got up to. When I get time I'll scan it, upload it somewhere and post a link to it.

Von Braun wasn't there specifically on holiday, he went with Dr Robert R Gilruth (Director of the Manned Spacecraft Centre in Houston), Dr Maxime Faget (Director of Engineering and Development), and Ernst Stuhlinger (head of the Research Project Lab at the Marshall Spaceflight Centre).

The reason they went?

"Seeking lessons for lunar and planetary missions".

"...to see what we could learn for our space program from man's activities at his last real frontier on earth".

Among other things, they visited 5 or 6 stations (US and New Zealand), used various modes of transport, visited dry valleys to see if they could be useful for trialling equipment for a possible Mars expedition.

Makes one wonder, if the hoax proponents are to be believed, why did NASA's leading rocket expert (Von Braun), an aviation and space pioneer (Gilruth), the designer of the Mercury capsule (Faget), and an electrical and rocket scientist (Stuhlinger) go to Antarctica, to hunt for lunar meteorites, which weren't even known to exist until 1982 (the first ones were found in 1979 but not identified as being of lunar origin until later). Even from a conspiracy point of view, this simply makes no sense.

Firstly, "NASA" went to Antarctica to hunt for lunar meteorites in 1967 that the entire world's geological community wouldn't know existed until 1982.
Secondly, instead of sending someone with a geology background, they sent four people crucial to the technical success of the Apollo hardware itself.
Thirdly, these four "rocket scientists" (loose term) managed to retrieve nearly ten times more lunar material in one week, than has since been found anywhere on earth.
Fourthly, the fact that the meteorites have various important differences to rocks found in situ on the moon has to somehow be explained away.

Yet again, it's another "hoax myth" that unravels itself the closer it's inspected.

MID excels at disinformation on any board..........