The apollo programme(discussion + analysis of conspiracy theories)

[landeTLS]

if this thread is in violation of the forum rules then im truely sorry i misread the rules. Moderators feel free to close the thread if there is doubt. To be accurate i am not assurting any conspiracy theories. Im only citing my critizisms to their individual points. For example: im not saying: the moon landing was faked. But im saying: some people think the moon landings where faked, whats the counterpoints/evidence it was not faked viewed against the points assurted?

Im sure this has been brought up before but im too lazy to bring up an old thread so ill make a new one.

My main inspiration for this thread was a moon landing hoax documentary i just saw and the huge amount of these theories floating around and ill be discussing some of the points brought up by that video but feel free to bring up other points i may have missed. For the reference i do not believe the moon landing was faked but i will attempt to be objective. Some of these are related points.

Conspiracy theory 1: the video/footage from cameras seem unaffected by solar radiation and particles which are of very high quantity outside the earths van allen belt(ie no distortions/ dots etc.)

My thoughts: there has as iwe seen been no indipendent experiments done on this effect in space outside the van allen belt so no real evidence exists. Also the videos and photos look quite grainy and has artifacts, even for period tech to me so this may be the actual effect seen in action just not as pronounced as the conspiracy theory suggests.

Conspiracy theory 2)

The us government knew that astronauts couldnt survive outside the van allen belt without significant radiation shielding that would have made the saturn v too big and heavy to be practical with 60s tech(ie the apollo capsule is paper thin and should offer no protection from radiation) so they decided to fake the whole thing instead.

My thoughts: while this is a good point, as far as i know humans can survive a moderate radiation environement for a limited period without immediate effects(not concidering cancer risk) the only main risk afaik would come from large solar flares but they are not frequent and i would think the us government would still take this risk.

Conspiracy theory 3)

If the saturn v rocket was so successfully as the us government claimed then why was the system scrapped following the apollo programme in favour of the space shuttle that had a conciderably lower payload tonnage? The reason must be that it was not a good launch system in the first place and could not have enough deltav for the moon transfer.

My thoughts: this is one of the sillier theories in my mind. First of all video images from the time can be seen from the ground of the final orbital stage seperation and as we know from ksp/other sources once youre in orbit youre already 90% of the way there. My thoughts are that even tho the tonnage capability of the saturn V was high it was probably hugely fuel uneconomical because of its top down staging and lack of any recoverable stages as well as reliability concerns. The theories also claim that the huge thrust plume was because cerosene was added for extra effect to the rocket plume because there was such an issue with the thrust plume constraint of the engine.(even if that was a true thing then why in the world would they want to do that for something most ppl wouldnt even notice? A most silly theory)

Edit: as someone pointed out the saturn v was tracked from the ground and could therefore not have remained in orbit /landing without anyone noticing.

Conspiracy theory 4)

The main point of moon landing/apollo hoax theorists is that the footage was faked citing among others these inconsistencies: there is no thrust plume from the lem ascent stage, there is no cratering from the decent stage plume, no/minimal dust is threwn up by the thrust from the lem as its landing decending, multiple light sources etc.

My thoughts: my main answer to all the footage faking theories is to look at the periods special effects in films. There is no way the footage could be faked in any realistic fashion even given a limitless budget with 60s tech (even with todays cgi animations it would be very tricky to achieve an as natural looking effect as the footage even through intentional blurring+adding artifacts). Also i believe the discovery channel show "mythbusters" tested and disproved all of the visual signs of fakery and also that the low gravity movement of the astronauts on the surface could not be faked using cranes/slowing down the footage etc. Most of the thrust effect/dust visuals and lack of cratering from the lem is likely due to the low gravity/vacume.

Edit: conspiracy theory 5)

The us and ussr was in collusion to fake different aspects of both their spaceprogrammes. And also as the ussr was first several times in achievements of spacetravel but why give up when the us made it to the moon? Shouldnt they be close to the us in tech and be almost ready to go there. The conspiracy theorists assurt that this was because both the ussr and the us knew it was not possible to go to land and return from the moon with the tech of the time and agreed not to push the hoax further

My thoughts:

This is ilogical even on the face of it to me.. the ussr and the us was not exactly friends during this period so there is no way they would cooperate. Even tho the two nations would later cooperate on space exploration, this was during the time when they where they where quite bitter twoards one another. I dont know the actual reason the ussr didnt push to land a man on the moon(do anyone have any ideas?)..but im pretty sure it was not because of some cooperation with the us. In addition to the other points this one actually makes things look even worse for the conspiracy theories.

Ill add more if i think of them

Edited March 13, 2014 by landeTLS

[Thiel]

2. Messages

2.1 Definition of message

A message includes any and all means a user has available to communicate with other members. This includes but is not limited to forum posts and private messages, irc chat messages, avatars, signatures, usernames and general profile information.

2.2 Forbidden content

Messages which contain or link to the following are explicitly forbidden:

Piracy or discussion of piracy;

Discussions of a political, ideological or religious nature;

Adult content, such as nudity, sexually suggestive or explicit images, gore and drugs;

Harassment of other users or staff, this includes insulting, threatening, stalking, racism, sexism and impersonation as well as posting private conversations;

Vulgarity and profanity;

Conspiracy theories;

Links to commercial initiatives; and

Roleplaying.

So yeah...

[landeTLS]

So yeah...

These are just analysis of conspiracy theories. Im not assurting any theories to be true. Just explaining my critizisms to them. And dont link to anything. But if the mods find the thread to be in violation of the forum rules then im truely sorry i misread the rules. im sure they will close it for me if thats the case

Edited March 13, 2014 by landeTLS

[78stonewobble]

In regards to one.

Wouldn't the camerahousing itself provide adequate protection against most radiation and particles, since most are of relatively low energy?

[landeTLS]

In regards to one.

Wouldn't the camerahousing itself provide adequate protection against most radiation and particles, since most are of relatively low energy?

Yes you are right. As far as i know the housing was quite heavy duty

[Seret]

Since all these moon hoax conspiracy theories rely on the Russians being in on it I don't think we need to bother going out of our way to debunk them. The whole idea that it was a hoax is highly implausible.

[lajoswinkler]

It's not only highly implausible, it's ridiculous, based on fantastic scientific and technological ignorance and, for the most part, borderline psychotic.

I've yet have to hear a remotely solid argument by those loons.

[Moon Goddess]

This is my favorite video in the world, it goes into vast detail explaining out in the 1960's we literally did not have the video technology to fake it.

Simply faking the television footage would have been one of the most labourious undertakings in the history of mankind even more than the real Apollo program.

[Kilmeister]

I like what he says in the beginning of the video that Moon Goddess posted:

"Nowadays it would be very easy to fake the moon landing,and it seems somehow we've forgotten how to do it for real, but back then it was the other way around"

Everytime I see a moon landing conspiracy I think of this. Its just a comedy sketch but it illustrates a similar point. It would've been much harder to fake the moon landing than to just actually do it.

[78stonewobble]

This is my favorite video in the world, it goes into vast detail explaining out in the 1960's we literally did not have the video technology to fake it.

Haha... Thank you for posting that one. I loved how... down to earth (no pun intended) he was at explaining and with a good sense of humour too.

[possum]

Moon landings could not be a hoax just for the simple reason of people. Every try to get a group of people to keep a secret? It just doesn't work. Some one will slip up leak inadvertently, or screw up the cover story, ect. Furthermore, the Apollo astronauts were globally reminisced and could not be hidden. It would be like hiding Miley Cyrus, it just isn't going to happen. Hiding in orbit would not work either. The Apollo missions were tracked from the ground, look into Apollo guidance for proof of this, and a second launch just to orbit the crew would be noticed. With how well publicized the program was any journalist would have killed to expose Apollo as a hoax. Logistically it would be easier to go to the moon than fake it.

As for some of the more "scientific" hoax evidence, anyone with a few hours of time and the ability to find good information from credible sources can disprove any part of the hoax with real science. Some examples are:

1. "There is too much radiation in the Van Allen Belts."

Do the math. 300 rads in one hour is a lethal dose of radiation. The crews were exposed to radiation doses well below the occupational levels. See this document: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf.

2. Multiple light sources in photos.

Watch Myth busters. They show how the lunar surface reflects light and light angles make it seem as though there are multiple sources of light and shadows cast in more than one direction.

3. The flag is waving.

Oh really. The Lunar flags were engineered to have a full appearance, like being blown by wind. This was done by means of a horizontal bar that supported the flag. The flag had motion in all 3 axis while being planted and with no air there is no resistance to that motion (except for where it is attached to the pole). The flag is going to keep that motion until that motion is stabilized by the pole. Again Myth busters does a better job at explaining it than I do.

[Sillychris]

My first counterpoint: The hoax theories were aired by Fox... so yeah.

Ok, Van Allen radiation belt. This is carried by a lot of pro-conspirasts as a pretty solid piece of evidence. Actually, it's quite a solid piece of evidence that we did go. All of the Apollo astronaughts displayed symptoms of radiation poisoning later in life. Unless they have a tendency to hang out in nuclear reactors, I think this is pretty solid.

In regard to the dust plume, the lack of a dust plume vouches for authenticity. To have a dust floating around in your atmosphere, you need an atmosphere. The moon doesn't have one so every piece of dust disturbed while landing would have been on a strictly parabolic trajectory.

[78stonewobble]

My first counterpoint: The hoax theories were aired by Fox... so yeah.

Ok, Van Allen radiation belt. This is carried by a lot of pro-conspirasts as a pretty solid piece of evidence. Actually, it's quite a solid piece of evidence that we did go. All of the Apollo astronaughts displayed symptoms of radiation poisoning later in life. Unless they have a tendency to hang out in nuclear reactors, I think this is pretty solid.

In regard to the dust plume, the lack of a dust plume vouches for authenticity. To have a dust floating around in your atmosphere, you need an atmosphere. The moon doesn't have one so every piece of dust disturbed while landing would have been on a strictly parabolic trajectory.

A little curious about the Apollo astronauts displaying symptoms of radiation poisoning? Do you have any more information on this?

[Ralathon]

I'm pretty sure you're preaching to the wrong crowd here (Not that the appropriate crowd is likely to listen).

This is a scientific forum within a community of people that play a game centered around launching rockets and understanding the dynamics that drive them. I don't think you'll find a single person here who disagrees with your points

The lunar landing conspiracy, or any of the large conspiracies, just falls apart when you actually examine it from a logical scientific standpoint. But most people in the real world don't care enough, or are too stubborn to do so. That's how those conspiracies stay alive. The core of the conspiracists fabricate some argument that sounds plausible, it then gets repeated so often that the more casual crowd sees it as solid evidence and never delves deep enough to expose the flaws. It's kind of like a giant echo chamber; you only listen to people who think the same thing, therefore reinforcing your own beliefs even further.

It's actually quite fascinating to see this happen. Even here on the KSP forums you can see it. Such as the wide misconception that N body physics would be so difficult to calculate that it requires a supercomputer.

[Ralathon]

A little curious about the Apollo astronauts displaying symptoms of radiation poisoning? Do you have any more information on this?

Most of them developed cataracts.

http://emmrem.unh.edu/papers/cataracts.pdf

[landeTLS]

"Nowadays it would be very easy to fake the moon landing,and it seems somehow we've forgotten how to do it for real, but back then it was the other way around"

Man. I just love that quote. Its so true and funny at the same time

[landeTLS]

I'm pretty sure you're preaching to the wrong crowd here (Not that the appropriate crowd is likely to listen).

This is a scientific forum within a community of people that play a game centered around launching rockets and understanding the dynamics that drive them. I don't think you'll find a single person here who disagrees with your points

The lunar landing conspiracy, or any of the large conspiracies, just falls apart when you actually examine it from a logical scientific standpoint. But most people in the real world don't care enough, or are too stubborn to do so. That's how those conspiracies stay alive. The core of the conspiracists fabricate some argument that sounds plausible, it then gets repeated so often that the more casual crowd sees it as solid evidence and never delves deep enough to expose the flaws. It's kind of like a giant echo chamber; you only listen to people who think the same thing, therefore reinforcing your own beliefs even further.

It's actually quite fascinating to see this happen. Even here on the KSP forums you can see it. Such as the wide misconception that N body physics would be so difficult to calculate that it requires a supercomputer.

I didnt think id find someone who disagrees here eather (at least i hope not:D) i mainly wanna get down to the science of why these alligations are so silly. And also perhaps learn some more things about spacetravel that i didnt already know at the same time.

Since i started playing ksp and reading stuff on the forums here i have probably had my knowledge of orbital mechanics go from basically just knowing that spacecraft orbit a planet because of gravity to having actual knowledge of how orbital mechanics work and basic knowledge of n body physics. The latter especcially from reading the almost scientific article like posts from the guy writing the nbody plugin in the plugin development subforum

Edited March 13, 2014 by landeTLS

[78stonewobble]

Most of them developed cataracts.

http://emmrem.unh.edu/papers/cataracts.pdf

Ah, thank you for the link.

It's a very far gap from ... might develop cataracts 30 years later to... you cannot fly through the van allen belts without dying tho. *lol*

[Simon Ross]

This is my favorite video in the world, it goes into vast detail explaining out in the 1960's we literally did not have the video technology to fake it.

http://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

Simply faking the television footage would have been one of the most labourious undertakings in the history of mankind even more than the real Apollo program.

Loved the video, and actually made one of the real points that debunk the fake moon landing conspiracy.

How in heck would you actually do it ?

Even here in 2014, I'm not sure we could produce a totally believable fake moon landing, even with all our computers, CGI etc...

That we could do it in 1969, simply no way !

[FREEFALL1984]

2. Multiple light sources in photos.

Watch Myth busters. They show how the lunar surface reflects light and light angles make it seem as though there are multiple sources of light and shadows cast in more than one direction.

Would that not produce very diffused shadows rather than the very sharp shadows we see on the photos,

One thing which occurs to be is why is the archived video footage is so terrible, perhaps the original transmitted footage would of been terrible and grainy due to poor data transmission rates, but surely if they're travelling all the way to the moon they would of brought a method of recording the video feed in much higher quality, Even super8 was a better quality than the official archive video, and I'm pretty sure the Nasa engineers could of come up with a way to shield the camera from too much radiation to prevent the tape from becoming corrupt. Also I found it strange that Kennedy promised to get onto the moon by the end of the decade and lo and behold, he made it to the moon with just 6 months to space. Almost sounds as though a politician made a promise.... Strange

Other than that I'm pretty sure they did go to the moon although even with all the doubt floating around. If they did fake it then why did they send so many missions before after the landing? I know we (the general public) are lot smarter and less gullible than we where in 1969 so back then two maybe three launches would of convinced people, I know its not quite the same but I can fly a KSP lander to the moon, land and return home using no calculations other than maneuver nodes, which is the real life equivalent of having a skilled astrophysicist crunching the numbers for me. All you need is a big enough rocket and some guts the actual tech to land on the moon did exist in the 60s so why not

[Elthy]

My favorite arguments that humans were on the moon:

1. The soviets had the tech to disprove the americans, afaik there was even a soviet probe orbiting the moon when Apollo 11 landed. There would be no way they wouldnt have used this chance...

2. Look at the Saturn 5. Its massive! Where else would you go with such a big rocket if not to the moon?

[Nibb31]

Would that not produce very diffused shadows rather than the very sharp shadows we see on the photos,

One thing which occurs to be is why is the archived video footage is so terrible, perhaps the original transmitted footage would of been terrible and grainy due to poor data transmission rates, but surely if they're travelling all the way to the moon they would of brought a method of recording the video feed in much higher quality, Even super8 was a better quality than the official archive video, and I'm pretty sure the Nasa engineers could of come up with a way to shield the camera from too much radiation to prevent the tape from becoming corrupt. Also I found it strange that Kennedy promised to get onto the moon by the end of the decade and lo and behold, he made it to the moon with just 6 months to space. Almost sounds as though a politician made a promise.... Strange

"Video" is a bit of an inappropriate term. There was "TV" footage, which was transmitted live from the LM, and "Film" footage, which was recorded on 16mm film cartridges and brought back.

The reason for the poor quality of the Apollo 11 footage is because of the poor quality of small live TV cameras of the era and the low bandwidth. On later Apollo missions, the quality of the live TV cameras improved.

The cameras are described here:

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm

Other than that I'm pretty sure they did go to the moon although even with all the doubt floating around.

There is zero doubt at all. Not a single pair-reviewed paper and not a single professional astronomer, geologist, biologist, or scientist from any other field related to the Moon landings has ever expressed any doubts about the Moon landings. That includes scientists from the Soviet Union and pretty much everywhere else in the World.

[Vanamonde]

I'm sorry guys, but talking about this sort of thing at all is off-limits for this forum. The problem is that even if start off debunking it, someone else wants to jump and say something like, "But this part isn't really wrong!" and then we're off to the races with some defending and some accusing and hard feelings come up and it gets ugly. So the forum rule is to stop that before it even starts, by declaring some topics off-limits, and closing threads like these. Please continue enjoying the discussions of other threads.