Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Pete
    Guest

    Was the Apollo programme really faked?

    On balance I believe the US went to the Moon but the phots taken there were of such poor quality that they had to be re-shot on Earth. That said and given there are concerns over the levels of radiation to which airline pilots are exposed, how come astronauts in the late 1960's managed to transit the Van Allen belt with [apparently] minimal protection yet survived without harm. The last time I had an x-ray at my local hospital I had to wear a lead coat thingy and everyone else left the room.......am I missing something?

    Pete

  2. #2
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    If I read your message right you are claiming that the photos we have seen from the Apollo missions are faked photos taken on Earth. Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case? How do you support your claim that the moon photos were poor quality?

    It is meaningless to make claims like this without backing them up. In the absence of any real argument we are left with no choice but to assume you just made this up.

    Regarding the radiation question, it is not nearly as black and white as many would have you believe. Moon hoax theorists like to imply that travelling through a radiation belt would result in a fast, messy death. Although some scientists differ on their views of exactly how dangerous the Van Allen belt is, it is generally agreed that the Apollo astronauts would have received around 1% of a fatal radiation dose.

    As I have said many times, this sort of information is not hard to find. A simple Google search can tell you all about the van Allen belt(s), how much radiation is involved and how astronauts are protected against it.

    It seems that it is a lot easier to write a message in a forum making wild claims than it is to actually do some research and learn the facts. I'm sorry to be so blunt but it upsets me that our culture has lost its ability to think rationally. Ironically, in this age when information is so easily available, people seem less inclined than ever to use it.

    Obviously it's more fun to invent facts than to learn facts.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  3. #3
    Someone
    Guest

    Dave Owen Is a Total Moron

    Dave, go for it! Censor this out, you mighty administrator. But before you do, have a look at it.

    (1) You have no right to say anything on the subject of radiation. You don't understand any of it and it would be futile to try to teach you. Therefore, you have right to say that people don't think rationally like you do in your Nazi accusative style.

    (2) You don't know shit about the pix. B O'Leary said it himself that NASA filmed stuff here which they could not film there. Of course, who's B O'Leary, right? Yeah, you find that out! I'm sick of giving ignorant prats like yourself all the answers.

    (3) Kindly do shut your mouth when it comes to matters you have absolutely no knoweldge about.

  4. #4
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Hehe. What a message. Normally I don't answer this sort of rubbish because it's usually posted either by insecure adolescents who hide behind nom de plumes, or hoax theory advocates who have their own agendas and reasons for keeping the theory alive. In this case I'll make an exception, perhaps because you amuse me. Let's look at your "arguments".

    Quote
    Quote: Someone
    Dave, go for it! Censor this out, you mighty administrator. But before you do, have a look at it.
    Straight away we see the classic signs of a hoax conspirator stuck in a corner - resorting to assumptions, personal insults, etc. What's with the censoring accusations? As a rule I don't censor these forums and I'm quite happy for anyone to criticize. Doesn't bother me at all.

    Quote
    Quote: Someone
    (1) You have no right to say anything on the subject of radiation. You don't understand any of it and it would be futile to try to teach you.
    If you don't want to take my word for it, perhaps you might like to listen to Dr. James Van Allen himself (this is the man who discovered the radiation belts and after whom they are named):

    "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

    Perhaps you might like to teach Dr. Van Allen about radiation?

    Quote
    Quote: Someone
    (2) You don't know shit about the pix. B O'Leary said it himself that NASA filmed stuff here which they could not film there. Of course, who's B O'Leary, right? Yeah, you find that out! I'm sick of giving ignorant prats like yourself all the answers.
    You don't have to give me the answers, I know who Brian Todd O'Leary is. He is an astronaut (who never actually flew in space but that doesn't matter). Dr. O'Leary was quoted in the Fox documentary in a typical manipulative question designed to elicit a "yes, it's possible that there was a hoax" answer. I've worked in TV news and I'm very familiar with this tactic. Technically speaking Dr. O'Leary expressed some "residual doubt" about certain aspects of the Apollo missions, but the following quote should clarify his position on the hoax. This quote was sent in an email from Dr. O'Leary to James A. Conrad of the Tampa Bay Skeptics in February 2001.

    "I believe Apollo did happen in its entirety (I was there) .... [I had] a small residual doubt about the landings themselves, because I didn't go ... These things are tricky to phrase right, and of course shows such as these do quote out of context." -- Dr. Brian O'Leary

    Quote
    Quote: Someone
    (3) Kindly do shut your mouth when it comes to matters you have absolutely no knowledge about.
    How do you know how much knowledge I have? It wouldn't be an assumption would it? As it happens, I do have plenty of knowledge about this issue and I'm happy to back it up with facts and references. If you want to be taken seriously, you might like to do the same.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  5. #5
    Oh boy, that sure did shut him up! You can't win against his type Dave, I think they just want to believe that they have been screwed over.
    It seems a shame though that they focus on debunking the great achievements that have been made, rather than speaking against some of the obvious wrongs being committed as we speak (such as US foreign policy perhaps?). If ignorance really is bliss, there must be some extremely happy people out there.

  6. #6
    Sunny
    Guest

    I believe we went but could we film back then?

    This is more of a question to the adminstrators than an opinion. Could you guys enlighten me on the topic of whether NASA really had the "filming/photography technology" to produce those lucid pictures back in 1969?

    It is my belief that we DID land on the moon and were lucky enough to come back alive (what a fluke!). A fluke it may be but I am sure we did it judging by the data coming from the moon rocks analyses (this is in fact the strongest argument of all, in my opinion, you can fake everything else, "silence" as many people as you wish, but you can't just create those rocks with the "moon signatures" here on earth in a short time, not even decades or centuries).

    However, I have my doubt on those pictures taken. The radiation may not kill the astronauts (I agree with you on that) but how did the "films" survive the journey? A few issues that spring into the mind are:
    1. extreme temperature (hot & cold) on Moon
    2. cosmic rays in space
    3. more penetrating radiation from the Sun, and other sources....

    Ok, I am not an expert on films or its related techolongies, and in particular, techologies available back in 1969. However, it seems rather extraodinary that the little camera with apparently very little shielding can sufficiently protect the film (I don't think they used CCD or related technology as in today's digital world back in 1969 eh??) from the freezing cold, melting heat and from overexposure due to the penetrating radiation present.

    So, you think we had the technology to film it? Why or why not? thanx

  7. #7
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Hu Sunny,

    The still photos were mostly taken with Hasselblad cameras (using film), often referred to as the best cameras available. Naturally the astronauts received a lot of training in photographic techniques and technology before the missions. To answer your questions....

    1. extreme temperature (hot & cold) on Moon

    The Apollo missions took place during lunar mornings, when the temperature is relatively moderate. For many reasons they didn't want to land during the scorching lunar day.

    Because there is no air on the moon, there is no ambient temperature, which means no convected heat. Although the direct heat from the sun may be quite hot, anything which isn't in this direct heat will probably be quite cold. All you have to do is make a camera case which reflects light well, and the contents will be kept cool.

    2. cosmic rays in space
    3. more penetrating radiation from the Sun, and other sources....

    I wish I could give you a more definitive answer with some references, but I can't find anything at the moment. My understanding is that the amount of radiation/cosmic rays found on the lunar surface would not have affected the film to any significant degree. One hoax theorist (Dr. David Groves) did conduct an experiment which showed X-Rays damaging film, but the experiment was deeply flawed and did not represent conditions on the moon. I do not know of any other experiment or study which supports the idea that film on the moon would be damaged.

    Remember that photos are routinely taken of the Earth from space, and there are thousands of such photos taken with film. No-one doubts their authenticity.

    A couple of other notes:
    - The cameras were modified to provide extra shielding. A common mistake is to assume that these were standard off-the-shelf Hasselblad cameras - they weren't.
    - It wasn't a fluke that the missions were successful. There certainly was luck involved, but that doesn't make it a fluke. Although the missions were incredibly complicated, the basic principle of space flight is actually fairly straightforward. Get your sums right and there's no reason for it not to work.

    I hope this answers your questions. If not, try searching the Internet for more detailed information and experiments which show how film survives radiation. Just make sure you check out the authenticity of the sources - there are a lot of phonies out there.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  8. #8
    Shayne
    Guest

    Guest

    Alright, I am not the smartest person alive, and I believe that, even though I am only 15, the media is a bunch of bogus. I am young, yes, but they do lie about a lot of things. The Apollo Programme would be part of the media, in many ways, as it grabs at people in society, as the media does. It was huge. And, Dave, I mean no harm in this, but, are you in NASA, have you ever been? Because, I am in the middle on the Apollo Programme being a hoax. I think it was. Notice, that's a thought. That's a thought of a kid, but should my thoughts not be noted? Also, have you ever thought about the other side? Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion, as am I. But, think, we don't know any facts. The internet is not secure, even though we all would like to think so. These are my thoughts, please respond with your input.

  9. #9
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Hi Shayne,

    You are quite right not to trust the media without question. You need to make a big effort to find information from all related points of view. Watching a program like Fox's pro-hoax documentary must be balanced with other sources which present the other side of the argument (like my own moon hoax rebuttal). There are plenty of other websites and a few TV programs which debunk the moon hoax theory.

    Can I ask how much research you've done and what your sources are? Are you confident that you've read and understood enough material from each side of the debate to make an informed decision?
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    On balance I believe the US went to the Moon but the phots taken there were of such poor quality that they had to be re-shot on Earth.

    But the photos we have, allegedly taken on the lunar surface but shot -- according to some -- in a studio on Earth, are of relatively poor quality. There are more than 20,000 still photographs from the Apollo era, but editors routinely only choose from about 100 of the best ones.

    We had taken pictures in space before, aboard Mercury and Gemini missions. And the Soviets managed to get their photographs to work well in space. There's no technical reason why we can't make photography work in space. There would be only the problem of klutzy photographers using manual focus and exposure with no viewfinder. And believe me, there's plenty of evidence of that in the Apollo record.

    That said and given there are concerns over the levels of radiation to which airline pilots are exposed, how come astronauts in the late 1960's managed to transit the Van Allen belt with [apparently] minimal protection yet survived without harm.

    First, a well-engineered spacecraft is not "minimal" protection. The radiation in the Van Allen belts is composed of charged particles. Those are quite easy to shield against. Some of them won't even penetrate a sheet of typing paper!

    Second, when it comes to radiation exposure, a short intense dose is easier to bear than a string of long, drawn-out doses. ISS astronauts get more total radiation than Apollo astronauts because even though they are exposed to less of it, they are exposed more frequently and over a longer period. Airline pilots fly every day. Apollo astronauts each flew only one --or at most two -- missions.

    There's an analogy I like to use. Getting hit by a bucket of water as opposed to standing under one of those crowd-comfort "misters". The latter gives you much less water, but it's constantly there. You never dry out. Getting hit by a bucketful of water gets you instantly, thoroughly wet. But that's it; after that you immediately begin to dry off.

    The last time I had an x-ray at my local hospital I had to wear a lead coat thingy and everyone else left the room.......am I missing something?

    The question here is legally allowed exposure. You as a private citizen are allowed only to receive a very tiny dose of radiation each year from controllable sources (like diagnostic x-rays). Medical workers are allowed to receive only a bit more, since it's their job to work around such things. Those are what the law requires. Since the hospital workers have no idea how many x-rays you got already that year, and obviously have no idea how many more you'll require, it's simply in their best interest (and yours) to make sure that you get zero unnecessary exposure.

    The legal limit is about 1/700 of a fatal dose. It's very, very small. And probably best to be so. But just because you get draped in lead when you're at the hospital doesn't mean you're in danger of your health.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube