NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

originally posted by: uktorah
I'm unsure either way, but if the moon doesn't have an atmosphere and is in a vacuum, dust in a vacuum compacts and the astronauts boots would not leave imprints.

And off we go! Why wouldn't they leave footprints? The dust had electrostatic properties that allowed it to cling.

Just because there is stuff on the moon left by astronauts etc does not mean it was left at the time we are told it was left.
There are theories we went to the moon earlier than we're told and we certainly could have gone there later.
We could have faked the footage in case of encounters or accidents or whatever, played the fake footage as if it were real and the gone to the moon months or years later.

I'm not saying I actually think this just that because there are remains and artefacts on the moon, doesn't mean it happened how and when we are told.

a reply to: centarix

"Mostly" genuine, a lot of air brush monkey tampering and other censorship though and perhaps one or two substituted for state of the then art fake were censorship in the time frame provided was impossible.

What is really on the moon, our own true pre history perhaps and some very dark but forgotten chapters of it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: centarix

Apples and oranges. That's like comparing my exposure in Pennsylvania standing outside to someone at ground zero in Fukushima.

The Orion didn't measure the Apollo trajectory, it stayed in the portions of the belts it would pass through.

Orion radiation data is designed to measure the radiation a human will experience on a voyage through the Van Allen belt on *any* trajectory you specify. The point of the radiation mission was to get more detailed radiation data on the geometry of the belt. It is exactly the Orion data, which you have showed zero interest in, which proves or disproves Apollo missions being able to go through the radiation fields. If you don't like REM then use any measurement that suits your fancy but either show the data or you are GUESSING. I don't go by your guesses. I go by the evidence and the data.

a reply to: centarix

The Van Allen Belt radiation isn't uniform. You can't measure the radiation levels in the deep part of the belt it went into and get a reading on the Apollo trajectory. It didnt fly the Apollo trajectory, it went deep into the belts to see how much radiation the equipment and astronauts would be exposed to. So you're saying that by measuring Fukushima you can tell me how much radiation I'm being exposed to in Pennsylvania. Because that's exactly what you're claiming.

The only way to prove if Apollo could get through is to fly the actually area Apollo went through.

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: centarix

Except the Van Allen belts aren't impossible to go through. Apollo went through the thinnest part of the belts. Any deep space mission, such as going to Mars, will have to go through the main portions of the belts because of the trajectory they're required to take.

Okay, well then what would *Orion* data have to say about the exact radiation levels on the Apollo trajectories? If you say this, then you've got to be able to provide that data.

How many REM (Roentgen equivalent man) would be experienced by someone on the Apollo trajectory according to the latest data as provided by Orion?

You might be missing the point here about Apollo going through a much "thinner" part of the Van Allen belts than Orion. By "thinner", what is meant is that it is less energetic and less dense (less radiation exposure while in the thinner part of the belt) -- NOT only that it is a shorter distance through them.

As Zaphod said, how can the data about exposure to an area of high radiation area give you information about how much exposure you would get in an area of low radiation?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: centarix

The Van Allen Belt radiation isn't uniform. You can't measure the radiation levels in the deep part of the belt it went into and get a reading on the Apollo trajectory. It didnt fly the Apollo trajectory, it went deep into the belts to see how much radiation the equipment and astronauts would be exposed to. So you're saying that by measuring Fukushima you can tell me how much radiation I'm being exposed to in Pennsylvania. Because that's exactly what you're claiming.

The only way to prove if Apollo could get through is to fly the actually area Apollo went through.

Your reasoning is flawed. If this were true that there were such diversity of radiation and so unpredictable, then nobody would claim its safe to travel through saying "it varies widely so who knows if we'll make it alive". It is predictable within a reasonable amount. The old data is a bit vague, but the new data claims to be specific. So, I believe Orion project workers would disagree with you that they don't have a handle on the radiation levels of a given trajectory.

So Apollo took a trajectory to avoid the worst of it, but Orion isn't going to do that? I doubt project Orion data analysts would agree with you on these points. They made it a point to make "the most detailed map yet of the belts". It looks on the website to be a complete and detailed map. It seems like you are discounting their data without even knowing it. I'm confused how this couldn't be a fair comparison. The Orion project was not about going on a specific trajectory, it was about evaluating many good trajectories and deciding which one to take and how best to prepare in terms of shielding. So, what evidence do you have that the Apollo trajectory is any different?

What makes you think only a single probe was measuring a single trajectory? It sounded to me like a single probe went all over outer space collecting many data points, and they compiled a detailed 3D map going out in every single direction they imagine they may take for the Mars missions based on those many points.

a reply to: centarix

Orion is designed for many missions including to deep space so it has top be able to get through the worst of the belts. If it can go through there without problems then it can go through any part of the belt without problems. Apollo was specifically designed to go to the moon and back, and that was it. Orion is planned to go to the moon, land on an asteroid, and other missions they hope to perform.

You can't take an Apollo style trajectory and get to anywhere in space. If they're going on the asteroid mission that NASA has planned they have to take a trajectory that points them towards the asteroid. They can't start out towards the moon and suddenly turn after they're through the belts. They couldn't carry enough fuel to do it.

a reply to: centarix

Think of it this way: the radiation environment in space is a bit like the ocean. In near Earth orbit, you are in the nice warm shallows and can snorkel to your heart's content. Traversing the ERBs is a bit like deep diving: you can spend a little bit of time there with no harm, but the longer you stay the more medical problems you risk (nitrogen narcosis, bends, etc). Interplanetary flight is like descent in a bathyscape; with all the protection of the craft, you would be crushed.

a reply to: centarix

The radiation varies in the belts, but they vary in a predictable manner -- i.e., the less dense parts of the belts are in distinct locations and are generally mapped out.

So we generally know where the thinner parts are, and Apollo's trajectory was specifically designed to fly through the thinner part.

The missions that Orion is being planned to undertake may not always allow for the luxury of using that Apollo trajectory.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: uktorah
I'm unsure either way, but if the moon doesn't have an atmosphere and is in a vacuum, dust in a vacuum compacts and the astronauts boots would not leave imprints.

And off we go! Why wouldn't they leave footprints? The dust had electrostatic properties that allowed it to cling.

(And for EternalSolace as well)

Sounds as if you're one of the people that believes everything your told, shown on tv, read in the news? The whole point of the ATS website is so people can challenge what we're told, shown on tv and read in the news...

NASA only found out about the moon's atmosphere a few years ago. Before that they said there was no atmosphere. Even after we allegedly went there.

A quick google search...
En Route to Mars, The Moon - NASA Science
science.nasa.gov › Science News › Science@NASA Headline News › 2005
18 Mar 2005 - The Moon has no atmosphere; the Martian atmosphere is highly rarefied. ... of their spacesuits," says Masami Nakagawa, associate professor in ...

Ice on the Moon - National Space Science Data Center - Nasa
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
10 Dec 2012 - A Summary of Clementine and Lunar Prospector Results ... The Moon has no atmosphere, any substance on the lunar surface is exposed ...

Why is the Moon so scarred with craters? :: NASA Space Place
spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/
The truth is both the Earth and the Moon have been hit many, many times throughout their ... The Moon has almost no erosion because it has no atmosphere.

Is There an Atmosphere on the Moon? | NASA
www.nasa.gov...
12 Apr 2013 - Until recently, most everyone accepted the conventional wisdom that the moon has virtually no atmosphere.

What doesn't add up is if there was an atmosphere, then the flag would wave about. NASA's (then) 'no atmosphere' stance, meant they had to make stuff up about why the flag waved.
If they really had gone, they'd know there was an atmosphere and wouldn't have to defend themselves at all!
All I can make out from this is they didn't know because they didn't go.

Further to your dust theory...

"If the Moon had only one-sixth of Earth's surface gravity, it could not hold an atmosphere and the surface would be nearly as hard as compacted dirt."
"A vacuum condition on the Moon would also cause dust particles on the surface to behave much differently than on Earth. The nature of the Moon's surface in a vacuum is easily predicted by a simple experiment. The following summary of such an experiment was written from information found in Exploration of the Moon by Franklyn M. Branley.

Fred Whipple of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts contended that dust particles would become tightly packed together without gases to filter in between and separate them. Consequently, Whipple and his supporters maintained that dust is so compacted on the Moon that a strong crust capable of supporting men and their vehicles would exist. An experiment to verify this was conducted by Dwain Bowen of The North American Aviation Company. A steel ball was released into a container of fine dust-like particles and promptly sank. When the ball was dropped under the same conditions in a near vacuum, the ball stopped at the surface. The resulting crust consisted of dust particles so compacted that a semisolid was created capable of supporting the ball. Even Wernher von Braun seemed to agree with the above logic in his 1971 book, Space Frontier! He stated that he and many people had always held that there cannot be very much loose dust on the Moon. Von Braun mentioned that a simple experiment shows that dust in a vacuum, such as on the Moon, becomes hard-packed, and that adjacent dust particles will fuse together into a Moon Atmospheric Theory Prior to the Space Program 85 pumice-like substance. From the information just presented, it is clear that no dust could exist in a near vacuum"

From 'Moongate' by William L Brian II

a reply to: uktorah

While the Moon does have an atmosphere, the molecules that make up that atmosphere is so tenuously sparse that the atmosphere on the Moon is almost non-existent. The very thin atmosphere that IS there is so sparse (so few particles per a given volume) that it is a better vacuum than many laboratory vacuums.

The source of the atmosphere is thought to be from out-gassing of molecules from rocks and soil heated up by the Sun, plus from the capture of particles from the solar wind. Also, impact events can create ultra-fine dust that could remain suspended for a time.

NASA only found out about the moon's atmosphere a few years ago. Before that they said there was no atmosphere. Even after we allegedly went there.

We have known about this atmosphere caused by out-gassing since Apollo 17. Apollo 17 deployed an instrument known as the Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment (LACE), which was specifically designed to detect the type of out-gassing and atmosphere that is now known to be present on the Moon. Apollo17's LACE discovered the Moon's atmosphere to be consisting mainly of neon, helium, and hydrogen, with lesser amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, argon-40, and water.

Obviously at that time, they believed the Moon may have an atmosphere of sorts, considering the name of the experiment.

Summary of Findings by LACE:
Apoll 17 Science Experiments - Lunar Atmospheric Composition

Technical information on LACE:
Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment (LACE)



Even prior to Apollo 17 it was known that the Moon had an atmosphere. Starting with Apollo 12, and continuing with the other Apollo missions, and experiment known as the Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment was deployed by the Apollo astronauts to specifically measure the amount of atmosphere on the Moon. They detected atmosphere, but did not analyze its composition (which is what Apollo 17's LACE instrument was designed to do, as I mentioned above).

The Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment measured the total pressure of the lunar atmosphere. Some of the electronics for this experiment were contained in the Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment, and the two experiments were connected by a short cable. The Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment was deployed on Apollo 12, 14, and 15. The Apollo 12 instrument operated for only a brief time. The Apollo 14 and 15 instruments radioed data back to Earth from 1971 until 1975. The Cold Cathode Gauge did not measure the composition of the atmosphere. Compositional information was obtained by the Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment on Apollo 17.

Summary of the Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment:
Apollo 12 Science Experiments - Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment

A reply to Soylent Green

'While the Moon does have an atmosphere, the molecules that make up that atmosphere is so tenuously sparse that the atmosphere on the Moon is almost non-existent. The very thin atmosphere that IS there is so sparse (so few particles per a given volume) that it is a better vacuum than many laboratory vacuums.

The source of the atmosphere is thought to be from out-gassing of molecules from rocks and soil heated up by the Sun, plus from the capture of particles from the solar wind. Also, impact events can create ultra-fine dust that could remain suspended for a time.



NASA only found out about the moon's atmosphere a few years ago. Before that they said there was no atmosphere. Even after we allegedly went there.


We have known about this atmosphere caused by out-gassing since Apollo 17. Apollo 17 deployed an instrument known as the Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment (LACE), which was specifically designed to detect the type of out-gassing and atmosphere that is now known to be present on the Moon. Apollo17's LACE discovered the Moon's atmosphere to be consisting mainly of neon, helium, and hydrogen, with lesser amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, argon-40, and water.

Obviously at that time, they believed the Moon may have an atmosphere of sorts, considering the name of the experiment.

Summary of Findings by LACE:
Apoll 17 Science Experiments - Lunar Atmospheric Composition

Technical information on LACE:
Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment (LACE)



Even prior to Apollo 17 it was known that the Moon had an atmosphere. Starting with Apollo 12, and continuing with the other Apollo missions, and experiment known as the Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment was deployed by the Apollo astronauts to specifically measure the amount of atmosphere on the Moon. They detected atmosphere, but did not analyze its composition (which is what Apollo 17's LACE instrument was designed to do, as I mentioned above).


The Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment measured the total pressure of the lunar atmosphere. Some of the electronics for this experiment were contained in the Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment, and the two experiments were connected by a short cable. The Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment was deployed on Apollo 12, 14, and 15. The Apollo 12 instrument operated for only a brief time. The Apollo 14 and 15 instruments radioed data back to Earth from 1971 until 1975. The Cold Cathode Gauge did not measure the composition of the atmosphere. Compositional information was obtained by the Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment on Apollo 17.

Summary of the Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment:
Apollo 12 Science Experiments - Cold Cathode Gauge Experiment'

So how does that explain the dates of the NASA pages (2004, 2012), after Apollo 17 (1972), saying there was no atmosphere?

Also if the moon has a better vacuum than many laboratory vacuums, the proven experiments of dust in a vacuum hold up even more than when they were tested on Earth.

"... dust is so compacted on the Moon that a strong crust capable of supporting men and their vehicles would exist. An experiment to verify this was conducted by Dwain Bowen of The North American Aviation Company. A steel ball was released into a container of fine dust-like particles and promptly sank. When the ball was dropped under the same conditions in a near vacuum, the ball stopped at the surface. The resulting crust consisted of dust particles so compacted that a semisolid was created capable of supporting the ball. "

Like I said, make your mind up NASA!

a reply to: uktorah

Because it depends on what you regard as an atmosphere.

The moon does not have an atmosphere as such, but it does have gas on the surface. Technically that counts, but realistically it doesn't.

a reply to: uktorah

You need to brush up on BB code so that we can tell when you are quoting a source and when you are speaking for yourself. Scientists now refer to the molecules, gas. and dust that can be found near the surface of smaller planetary bodies like the Moon as an "exosphere" to avoid the unnecessary confusion.

Also, it is extremely bad form to address someone for the first time with an accusation. I understand something, so I blindly believe what I'm told?

a reply to: nerbot

the question is where were they taken.

On the moon.

a reply to: LABTECH767

What is really on the moon, our own true pre history perhaps and some very dark but forgotten chapters of it.

Nazi's.

a reply to: DJW001
"a reply to: uktorah

You need to brush up on BB code so that we can tell when you are quoting a source and when you are speaking for yourself."

What I need to do is work out which one of my browser plug-ins blocks the quote button now and again, and use these bold replies until I figure out a solution.

"Also, it is extremely bad form to address someone for the first time with an accusation. I understand something, so I blindly believe what I'm told?"

Says the member who replied with
"And off we go! " suggesting the 'people that question the moon landings' are here possibly.
I apologise if you read my question as an accusation.

Just because something can be understood, doesn't make it fact. Many of us come here because we do understand what we've been told, it's just that we often question the 'facts' behind it.

You're probably ok outside of ATS, so let's agree not to keep the petty banter going from now on.

a reply to: nerbot

WE' never went to the moon, someone else allegedly did so you have no first hand evidence to back up a claim like that and there is no question the videos are real, the question is where were they taken.

Here ?
library.nau.edu...
www.theatlantic.com...

originally posted by: uktorah
a reply to: nerbot

WE' never went to the moon, someone else allegedly did so you have no first hand evidence to back up a claim like that and there is no question the videos are real, the question is where were they taken.

Here ?
library.nau.edu...
www.theatlantic.com...

The training areas they created at Cinder Lake are replicas of lunar orbiter photographs of one of the planned landing areas, except they didn't actually land there. There are no pre-Apollo photographs of the moon that show the features you can see in the Apollo photos, 16mm and TV footage.

If you want to do something dangerous and difficult, it's a good idea to train for it.