NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

originally posted by: centarix
a reply to: misterz

You mention specific readings from Orion. I emailed project Orion but they have not gotten back to me about what their data shows would be the radiation levels on the Apollo trajectory. I'm quite certain they do have that data. There are two probes in elliptical orbits that collected extensive radiation data of every part of the Van Allen belt. That data is there, and I really want to know what its saying the radiation levels are on the Apollo trajectory. So far, no luck. I'm surprised nobody has already done this given its by a very far margin the most powerful argument for the moon landings having been a hoax. It wouldn't end my study thought because they still may have faked the data.

I'm on the fence on whether they landed on the moon and believe the video may have been faked for the purpose of keeping any secrets

i wouldnt call your position "on the fence" not when you have collected so much hoax information but ignore everything else..

and the inclination trajectory of Orion was less than that of Apollo meaning it will pass through a more intense area of the VAB than Apollo would have. and not to mention, Orion was in earth orbit whereas Apollo was already on lunar injection trajectory so the velocities are vastly different.

and the radiation levels collected are out there on the web already.

ston.jsc.nasa.gov...
this is the third time you have been spoonfed information.. why is it you can find hoax information so easily but when it comes to actual information it becomes difficult?

a reply to: choos

The problem is not just finding the data, it is understanding it.

a reply to: centarix

You mention specific readings from Orion. I emailed project Orion but they have not gotten back to me about what their data shows would be the radiation levels on the Apollo trajectory. I'm quite certain they do have that data.

Here is the Executive Summary for you:

The BIRD data provided a preview of the radiation environment that the crew will encounter while transiting the trapped radiation belts on future exploration missions. Prior to entering the trapped belts, the undulation of the GCR as a result of the varying intensity of Earth’s geomagnetic field is observed in Figure 12. Upon entering the trapped belts, a region of high absorbed dose rates was encountered, followed by a local minimum, caused by a softening of the trapped proton energy spectrum. The second region of high absorbed dose rates occurred just after the maximum altitude was reached. The maximum absorbed dose rate was found to be about 1 mGy/min, 20 times the alarm level for the ISS-TEPC.

It is important to note that while these absorbed dose rates are very high, the exposure is transient. For nearly 4.5 hours of mission time, the total absorbed dose to the detectors was less than 20 mGy (water). The results for the BIRD detectors compare favorably with the RAM results, as shown in Table 1. Differences on the order of 10%-15% for co-located RAM and ISS-TEPC detectors are common on the ISS. It is also interesting to note that the cumulative absorbed dose as measured by the ISS-TEPC during the EFT-1 mission was about three orders of magnitude, or 1000 times, less than the cumulative absorbed doses measured on the Orion MPCV.

ston.jsc.nasa.gov... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: centarix

You mention specific readings from Orion. I emailed project Orion but they have not gotten back to me about what their data shows would be the radiation levels on the Apollo trajectory. I'm quite certain they do have that data.

Here is the Executive Summary for you:

The BIRD data provided a preview of the radiation environment that the crew will encounter while transiting the trapped radiation belts on future exploration missions. Prior to entering the trapped belts, the undulation of the GCR as a result of the varying intensity of Earth’s geomagnetic field is observed in Figure 12. Upon entering the trapped belts, a region of high absorbed dose rates was encountered, followed by a local minimum, caused by a softening of the trapped proton energy spectrum. The second region of high absorbed dose rates occurred just after the maximum altitude was reached. The maximum absorbed dose rate was found to be about 1 mGy/min, 20 times the alarm level for the ISS-TEPC.

It is important to note that while these absorbed dose rates are very high, the exposure is transient. For nearly 4.5 hours of mission time, the total absorbed dose to the detectors was less than 20 mGy (water). The results for the BIRD detectors compare favorably with the RAM results, as shown in Table 1. Differences on the order of 10%-15% for co-located RAM and ISS-TEPC detectors are common on the ISS. It is also interesting to note that the cumulative absorbed dose as measured by the ISS-TEPC during the EFT-1 mission was about three orders of magnitude, or 1000 times, less than the cumulative absorbed doses measured on the Orion MPCV.

ston.jsc.nasa.gov... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Here is what I would find convincing: A map showing how many hours it would take for an LD50 level of radiation at each point on a 2D map showing a hemispheric slice of Earth using Orion data. Of course as the Orion project has pointed out repeatedly, the dose will change over time. However, an average is good enough to get an idea.

Orion data is in fact this is really only half of the radiation puzzle. The other half is the solar flares. It has been claimed that solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions that would have been quite dangerous to the astronauts. I believe all the data should be out there to do the analysis on those flares and what impact they would have on a lightly shielded astronaut.

a reply to: centarix

And once again, you can't use Orion data for Apollo. Orion went through the thick parts of the Belts and was exposed to a lot more radiation than at the parts that Apollo went through.

originally posted by: centarix
It has been claimed that solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions that would have been quite dangerous to the astronauts.

Except they didn't.

originally posted by: centarix
Here is what I would find convincing: A map showing how many hours it would take for an LD50 level of radiation at each point on a 2D map showing a hemispheric slice of Earth using Orion data. Of course as the Orion project has pointed out repeatedly, the dose will change over time. However, an average is good enough to get an idea.

how about this.

if you alone can work out the LD50/30 for the hottest part of the VAB and you alone find out that the time to reach the LD50/30 would be longer than the entire transit through the belts, maybe you might actually do something for yourself.

a reply to: centarix

THIRD ADDITION TO OP:

The Mythbusters did an episode addressing the most commonly cited evidence of Moon landing hoax material. The episode is not high quality on Youtube so instead I suggest the following link to see the episode:
proxy-009.dc3.dailymotion.com...=c ore

The episode is done by Adam and Jamie of Mythbusters. They are quite biased, with the espisode starting with Adam saying "in your face, conspiracy theorists". But none the less they did do vastly superior original research and testing of high quality than the people who have alleged the moon landing to have never happened.

6:27: The Mythbusters have constructed a fake Apollo moon site similar to a common photo cited with converging shadow angles. The Mythbusters show shadows that are parallel as one would expect and contrast that to the "converging shadow" angles of photos that many people allege are evidence of photo fakery. The photo shows a perfectly flat scene. Of course the Apollo photos show a scene where the ground obviously isn't entirely flat. So, the Mythbusters see what they can to with terrain changes. After some changes to their terrain, they are able to create a near replica of the photo sourced from NASA. The terrain still looks flat, but it isn't. They show that converging shadow angles can occur because of uneven terrain that looks flat but isn't. Whether it addresses all of such photos I don't know and don't have a lot of interest in the shadow angles for the reason that so little information can be gleaned from them.

14:54: This segment I already covered in another post either on this page or the previous one regarding secondary lighting that was not available to the Apollo crew. Their work really does not prove their point because their model astronaut is substantially darker when you adjust the brightness levels so that the background levels of the NASA photo and the Mythbusters photo are comparable. Okay, well that is only one of many changes that are needed. I mentioned myself in that post that at least two other factors may be working to produce a darker model. So, this experiment has to be done over is my answer to that. It was much more important for them to calculate the brightness in terms of maybe lumens per meter on the moon given the time of day they were allegedly there, and replicate that factor than other factors like a second Apollo worker.

While it was a poor job in general, some elements were done very well, and it was the best mock-up done to date to my knowledge. Their use of ground material that reflected 7% of light was excellent, for example. An even more extreme idea would be to use artificial regolith, but I believe that would be an unnecessary expense.

20:47: The segment shows the difference between dropping a feather and metal part at the same time in air vs. a vacuum. The segment is entirely useless, because first of all they didn't use the same feather type as in the NASA video, but more importantly there is no reason to believe if NASA were to fake the video in an atmosphere they would have used a real feather, it could have been made of metal for example. or, it could have even been made in a vacuum chamber though that would be a much bigger challenge. I have heard NASA had a basketball half-court sized vacuum chamber at the time of the moon landing. I believe there is little that can be useful as evidence of anything regarding that media from NASA. Of course if the feather were going very slowly down, that would have been evidence of something, but it didn't happen that way. What I would try doing is filling the hollow feather tube with gelled lead powder to make it fall fast if I wanted to try to fake it.

27:43: The Mythbusters drive a "moon boot" into a patch of a lunar dust analog inside a vacuum chamber. The result is a well defined boot print here:

This is something they want us to compare with an actual NASA photo. NASA provides the following photo as an example of a moon footprint:
www.nasa.gov...
Here is a close-up of the bootprint only, slightly compressed:


The NASA bootprint is not so much clearly defined as perfectly defined. The Mythbusters bootprint is not of the same texture as the NASA bootprint. The NASA bootprint is entirely crisply defined, whereas the Mythbusters bootprint is only well defined. More importantly, the NASA moonprint contains fragmented elements which show an internal cohesion, which I have circled. The Mythbusters bootprint shows no fractured elements. I take this overall as evidence that the moon photos are actually fake. My OP claimed fake video is a good question. However, I am going to say that it is apparent that the moon photos I now call into question given the Mythbusters high quality reproduction of what a moon boot should look like on the moon. I'm not convinced by their evidence entirely, but it pushes me into a direction where I believe the photos are fake.

35:31: The flag waving idea seemed like a stupid waste of time because the flag waving argument is that the flag is moving by air. The flag hangs by a pole from both the side and the top unlike flags on Earth which only hang from the side. Yet, people who claim this as hoax evidence only show the flag waving while it is connected to the workers hands, so shouldn't they point out a clip where the flag is moving but without any astronaut help? This is the least interesting to me of all the evidence.

The Mythbusters provide a "flag-waving test" where they wave a flag in a vacuum. The test was well-done. The vacuum results show a flag that in a vacuum with a similar setup as the Apollo workers had, that the flag actually waves much much more in a vacuum that without a vacuum because the air isn't there to slow it down after initializing a flag wave. Stupidly, they don't show the result. They say "stop" at 35:40. Then they say "still moving" at 35:47. So, apparently when you plant a flag in a vacuum after giving it a good wave, it will be undulating for about seven seconds. Is this what the Apollo videos show? Do they plant the flag and then it undulates for seven seconds before stopping? At some point I'll look at that video, but until that Mythbusters experiment I've never really considered these arguments worth my time.

37:03, 40:37, and 40:49: The Mythbusters show footage of themselves doing an artificial "moon walk" on Earth using slow motion and also a gravity rig. For a third experiment, they use 1/6th gravity equivalent by flying in a plane that sinks at a corresponding rate to that gravity of the moon. For the "gravity rig" they attach a wire to the top of their pack. They then have Adam perform the same physical moves as the Apollo worker does in the footage and compare them to one another. Personally while I did find the 1/6th gravity footage most convincing, I also seemed convinced by the other two methods that were fake. Of course a third option for fakery is a combination of a gravity rig AND slow motion. Yes, the real 1/6th gravity seemed more convincing than the gravity rig and slow motion. But, the gravity rig and slow motion also seemed convincing to me to believe someone was on the moon doing that. I'm no physicist to be able to do the associated calculations.

originally posted by: centarix
It has been claimed that solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions that would have been quite dangerous to the astronauts. I believe all the data should be out there to do the analysis on those flares and what impact they would have on a lightly shielded astronaut.

A major solar flare happening during Apollo and in the direction of the spacecraft could have been bad for the astronauts' health; NASA does not dispute that. However, no major flares did occur.

That's like saying a micro-meteor or high-velocity debris striking a space-walking astronaut outside the International Space Station (ISS) could be lethal-- and that is true (although no such events have happened). However, just because the potential for that happening is real, that doesn't mean that spacewalks outside the ISS are a hoax.

a reply to: centarix

re: Hammer and feather

The experiment has been done in a large vacuum chamber



You need to look at the hammer and feather experiment from Apollo 15, and that context is it being at the end of a very long and continuously broadcast EVA that contains many other examples of material in a low gravity zero atmosphere environment.

re: The bootprint

As well as the famous photograph taken by Buzz (one o a series of 4, with another two showing the boot making a different imprint), the ALSCC took close up images of bootprints in Apollo 12 and 14.

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-57-8448B

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-77-10357A

The Aldrin bootprint is not perfectly defined, there are areas around the boot and within the footprint that vary from a perfect print, and this is because a human being applied the pressure on the soil. The print itself is exactly what you would expect to happen in a very jagged fine matrix of material with no moisture content at all. You could repeat the experiment yourself with a coarse talcum powder.

re: gravity

If you are going to accept that gravity rigs were used, then you need to look for those rigs on the suits in the live Apollo footage - you won't find them, and neither will you see any of the people who would have to have been there to help them move, nor will you see any evidence of the wires getting entangled as the astronauts cross paths in the very very very large area in which the EVAs took place. If you think live TV footage was slowed down, you can tell us how they did this with live TV recorded by large dishes pointed at the moon.

You're right, you are no physicist. You are also not a soil scientist. Why this allows you to be qualified to draw such firm conclusions is a mystery.

originally posted by: ppk55

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: centarix

Apollo went through the thinnest part of the belts.

If Apollo really did go through the 'thinnest' part of the Van Allen radiation belts someone should have told astronaut Alan Bean.

He doesn't seem to know they even exist (edit: doesn't know where they are) Seems a little underprepared for an Apollo astronaut don't you think? (good bit starts at 36 seconds in)

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: ppk55

Dishonest editing when asking him about his Skylab mission.

Source please?

a reply to: ppk55

None whatsoever other than the very obvious edits in the interview that prevent us hearing specifically the question Bean was asked. It's been suggested as the answer in a number of locations and it makes more sense than convicted violent thug Sibrel's version. Having no evidence whatsoever is the perfect proof, it works for conspiracy theorists all the time. sauce for the goose etc. Got any proof he wasn't discussing Skylab?

Bean discussed the VAB in detail with the Gemini 11 crew during their mission, which went through them. He knew what they were and even discusses them later in the interview when we hear what questions are asked (about the cosmic ray flashes astronauts experience).

Perhaps you should be asking felon Sibrel to post the full unedited interview, without the overhyped drama of his VAB clips to give it a false context and with the exact phrasing of his question given in full.

a reply to: centarix

FOURTH ADDITION TO OP

The Apollo 11 moonwalk photos are shown on a number of pages, but are best organized on this NASA page:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin used a "PLSS" (portable life support system) pack as depicted in this NASA image:


Notice the antenna on the top of the pack, in the front left side. The antenna can be seen in the front-left side in this photo of Buzz Aldrin:

Direct link: www.hq.nasa.gov...

Yet, take a look at another picture:

Direct link: www.hq.nasa.gov...

In one image the antenna is a thin wire that is very difficult to see. In the other, its a very prominent and thick piece of work. Both the images have "E Aldrin" on the name tag. So, how is it that the antenna grew so dramatically in thickness? Anyone?

a reply to: centarix

probably got something to do with the bright vs dark background

AS11-40-5872 taken just before it shows it with a dark background and is seen as thick.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

a reply to: choos

Here is another photo showing a thin wire antenna in a dark background:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

With a brightly colored or shiny antenna, a black background would bring it out better. With a dark colored antenna, a white background would bring it out better. The antenna appears dark to me in the photos of the thickest version, so a white background should make it look slightly thicker.

a reply to: centarix

a dakrer material would most likely make it a bit more visible on a white background..

but the reflection from the antenna is already "bright" and the reflection from the background is more bright, the only thing that is happening is that the antenna is getting "washed out".

also a brightly coloured antenna would just reflect more white light making it harder to see on a white background.

regarding that second image.. if you find an image even further away from the astronaut the antenna will look even more thinner, just saying.

a reply to: centarix

The antenna is silver and will reflect what''s around it which will affect how it appears in a photograph. Add in variations of angle, focus and motion blur and you'll get variations in how it appears in a photo.

Seriously what areally you trying to argue here? That there are different antennae? No antenna? What?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: centarix

The antenna is silver and will reflect what''s around it which will affect how it appears in a photograph. Add in variations of angle, focus and motion blur and you'll get variations in how it appears in a photo.

Seriously what areally you trying to argue here? That there are different antennae? No antenna? What?

What basis do you have for the color of the antenna?

The different antenna styles photographed are strong evidence that the photos were taken of two different PLSS units on the same Buzz Adlrin. So, these photo ops were likely taken over the course of multiple days, and for some reason Buzz Aldrin used different PLSS units for the photo ops. I won't bother speculating why this is the case.

The idea that an antenna can appear dull black and 12mm to 14mm in one photo, but a chrome/metalic 2mm to 3mm in another photo is a factor of six difference. While its true antenna can appear different widths based on circumstance, I disagree strongly that antenna can appear six times thicker in one photo, especially where it does not appear glare is involved.

The physics involved are such that if the antenna is going to show up larger in one photo, it should be white and it should be the glare causing it to appear larger than it is. If I photograph a thin chrome rod, it could appear as a large white rod due to the right conditions of glare. However, it is never going to be the case that the antenna will show up as large and black. It could show up as small and black, but not large and black. I think any expert on photography would agree with this assessment, so I'll probably leave it there for the experts to confirm or deny.

originally posted by: centarix
The idea that an antenna can appear dull black and 12mm to 14mm in one photo, but a chrome/metalic 2mm to 3mm in another photo is a factor of six difference. While its true antenna can appear different widths based on circumstance, I disagree strongly that antenna can appear six times thicker in one photo, especially where it does not appear glare is involved.

So is it your contention that, during the studio-fakery filming of the hoaxed moon landing, they kept changing the antenna?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

CORRECTION

I found from the training photos that the antennas on the PLSS were not round, but rather they were flat. So, from a front view they do seem to have a profile of perhaps 2mm to 3mm. But, from a side view, they have a profile of perhaps 15mm. In my defense, I knew lighting and angles could not explain the enormous differences in apparent antenna width.

Front View
www.hq.nasa.gov...
Angled View
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
Side View
www.hq.nasa.gov...