Stars are not the only thing missing in the Moon photos. Also conspicuously absent is any indication that the lunar modules actually landed in the locations in which they were photographed. Specifically, there is no crater visible under any of the modules, despite the fact that NASA’s own artist renderings clearly showed the presence of a substantial crater. Also, not a speck of dust appears to have been displaced by the 10,000 lb reverse-thrust engine that powered the alleged descent.
NASA’s artist renderings also depict a considerable quantity of smoke and flames shooting out from the bottom of the modules, though nothing of the sort is visible in the purported video footage of the first landing of a lunar module, allegedly shot from inside the module as it set down on lunar soil. In addition, despite the ridiculously close proximity of the immensely powerful rocket engine, no noise from that engine can be heard on the video.
As can be seen in the photo above, the area directly under what is supposed to be the nozzle of the descent stage engine is completely undisturbed. Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced! And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module’s landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of ‘lunar soil’ settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down.
Your initial response to this may well be, “Well, duh! … why shouldn’t the surface of the Moon be undisturbed?”
Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar modules were not placed upon the Moon by the hand of God. They had to actually land there. And in order for them to land there in one piece, they had to make use of powerful reverse-thrust rockets. If they hadn’t, they would have made landings roughly comparable to a piano falling off the balcony of a high-rise apartment building.
“But,” you say, “isn’t the gravitational pull of the Moon considerably less than that of the Earth?” Of course it is, but that does not render objects weightless. A vehicle with a curb weight of 33,000 pounds here on Earth (what the lunar modules weighed, according to NASA) still weighs close to three tons on the Moon, so it’s not going to make a very soft landing without assistance. And the assistance options were necessarily limited.
NASA could not have used parachutes, such as were used with the returning command modules, because parachutes don’t really work without air, so that would have been a dead giveaway that the landings were faked. They also couldn’t use a helicopter-type rotor, because those also don’t work in an environment devoid of atmosphere. What they allegedly used then to provide the necessary ‘brakes’ was a powerful, reverse-thrust rocket engine.
That is why, in the artist renderings of the landings (the landings obviously couldn’t be filmed, because no one was supposed to be there yet), an enormous blast of flame and hot gas is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force would have served to counteract the effects of the Moon’s gravitational pull, allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust, unharmed and intact. And needless to say, that is kind of important when that very same vehicle is your only ride home.
The ‘debunkers,’ by the way, like to pretend as if the hoax theorists made those artist renderings up themselves, as if to say, “Hey, look over here! I just made up this drawing of what I think the landings should look like and NASA’s landings looked nothing like my drawing!” The reality though is that NASA’s own artists provided those images, based on the way that NASA claimed the modules would perform. What the ‘debunkers’ are telling you, in other words, is that NASA didn’t really understand how their own technology was supposed to work.
Given the manner in which the modules allegedly landed, the problem here is that – unless the landing surface was paved with, say, concrete – an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blast as the module was setting down. As Plait likes to say, you can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a rocket with 10,000 pounds of thrust (there probably are some surviving members of the von Braun clan that can hook you up), and head out to the nearest desert location.
Once you find a suitable spot to conduct this experiment, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part, but it’s up to you) and fire that son-of-a-bitch up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (it might also be a good idea to grab on to a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). Let it rip for whatever you think would be a reasonable amount of time to complete a landing procedure, and then shut it off.
If you’ve done this correctly, the result will be a fairly large crater and a blinding dust storm. That dust will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. If you run the experiment for too long, you may even find that the intense heat has fused the cratered sand into something resembling a large bowl of glass.
The point here, of course, is that nothing of the sort is evident in the pictures allegedly brought back from the Moon. The lunar surface is, as noted, completely undisturbed and the modules are as clean as if they had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though they did not land at all, but were rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the Moon in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.
How then did the modules get there? Could it be that the lunar surface was so compact that even the considerable force of the rocket could not dislodge it? That might be a credible explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves, who with the Moon’s reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 30 pounds apiece (maybe 60 pounds each with the additional alleged weight of their packs), made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground. It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly enough, not a single grain of this soil seems to have been displaced by the landing of the modules.
The ‘debunkers,’ naturally enough, have an explanation for this. According to them, it’s all about throttle control. As Plait explains, “Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn’t need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.”
Plait also notes that originally on his site he had said “that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the Astronauts’ view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion.” The funny thing is though that he voiced that “incorrect assertion” just as forcefully and as arrogantly as he voices all the other assertions on his page – which makes sense, I guess, since everything else on his page is incorrect as well.
Phil has obviously never landed a lunar module. Or given much thought to how you would go about doing so. Actually, that’s probably not true. Phil is most likely just a shameless liar. Not a particularly good one, mind you, but you have to remember that he is working with a handicap – he has to weave all of his ‘debunking’ arguments around NASA’s lies.
Let’s try to inject a little sanity into this discussion, shall we? First of all, no one with an ounce of common sense is going to cut the engine and let their three-ton spaceship simply drop onto the lunar surface. Nor are they going to cruise on in while progressively easing up on the throttle, effortlessly setting the module down, as Plait claims, like “a car pulls into a parking spot,” as if they had been landing lunar modules since the day they were born. Because the reality is that the six astronauts who allegedly landed the six lunar modules hadn’t done it before and they only had one chance to get it right.
And do you know why, Phil? Because that module was their only ride home, and if they damaged it in any way, they weren’t going home. Ever. They weren’t going to do anything except die within days in the most desolate place imaginable. And that is why it is perfectly obvious that, if they had really gone to the Moon, they would not under any circumstances have landed the modules in either of the ways that Plait has suggested.
Has anyone ever seen a helicopter land? That is essentially how you would land a lunar module as well. The basic technique is to line yourself up with your landing site while hovering a fairly short distance above the ground (with the module, I presume, you would hold your position by utilizing those clusters of horns). Then, when you’re stabilized and lined up just where you want to be, you very slowly ease off the throttle so as to very gently set it down. And if you’ve never done it before, you’re definitely going to want to take your time.
And that is why there quite obviously should be blast craters under those lunar modules. That is why NASA itself indicated that there would be blast craters under the lunar modules. And that is also why it is fundamentally impossible for the modules to be as impeccably clean and dust-free as they are in all of NASA’s photos. And no amount of spinning from the ‘debunkers’ will ever explain that away.
As previously mentioned, there was much about the Apollo project to stand in awe of. Every individual phase of the missions was, in and of itself, a breathtaking technological achievement. Just blasting men into Earth orbit is a daunting task – so much so that in the nearly half-century that has passed since the first two nations did it (the US and the USSR), only one other (China) has managed to join that elite club. And China has only done it a few times. In the entire history of space exploration, just over 500 men and women have ever orbited the Earth.
And achieving Earth orbit was just the beginning. Then there was the 234,000-mile journey through the unknown to get to the Moon – on a single tank of gas in an unshielded spaceship. Then there was the main ship giving birth to the lunar module, and that untested lunar module then flying down and making a perfect landing on the surface of the Moon. Then there was that same untested lunar module blasting off from the surface of the Moon without the assistance of any ground grew and ascending 69 miles to attain lunar orbit. Then there was the ever-reliable lunar module finding, catching and docking with another ship while in lunar orbit, utilizing yet more untested technology. Then there was the command module shedding the lunar module and then commencing that 234,000-mile journey back home.
But as remarkable as it was to get the astronauts safely to and from the Moon, their survival while on the Moon was equally remarkable. To say that the Moon is an environment incompatible with the survival of humans would be a considerable understatement – which brings us to our next topic of discussion: those amazing NASA Moonwalking suits.
Those suits were able to provide the astronauts with everything they needed to stay alive in the Moon’s harsh environment. Remember NASA’s elaborate rendering of what a Moon work station protected from space radiation would look like? Neil and Buzz didn’t need any of that fancy stuff because they were wearing the magic suits. And those extreme temperatures of +260° F to -280° F? Not a problem when you’re wearing the magic suit. Not only could they provide the cooling needed to combat the searing temperatures in the sun, but they could also provide the heat to counteract those frigid shadows.
As can be seen in NASA’s photos, the egress side of the lunar modules (the side with the ladder and hatch) was usually in the shade (though almost always well lit). What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye. Awesome!
In addition to providing radiation protection that today’s technology is unable to match, and a climate control system that is beyond anything available in the twenty-first century, the magic suits also provided the astronauts with breathable air, which definitely came in handy. What the suits did, in essence, was provide the astronauts with their own little portable, climate-controlled, radiation-protected atmosphere.
Of course, to actually do that (if we’re pretending that it could be done at all), the suits would have had to have been pressurized. And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.
The magic suits had to perform one other function as well: they had to serve as head-to-toe body armor. Because the Moon, according to NASA, has a serious problem with drive-by shootings from outer space. Seriously. I’m not making that up. I read it on NASA’s own website.
In the very same NASA post that discusses Moon rocks being constantly bombarded with absurdly high levels of radiation, another curious admission can be found: “meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.” Our old friend from NASA, David McKay, explains that “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.” NASA then explains that that “could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere … like the Moon.”
“Meteoroids,” NASA continues, “are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch … The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.”
According to NASA, every square inch of every exposed surface of every rock allegedly gathered from the surface of the Moon shows this pattern. By extension then, we know that every square inch of the lunar surface is peppered with meteoroid craters. There really is no safe place to hang out. There you are minding your own business lining up your golf shot, and the next thing you know a meteoroid is ripping through your spacesuit at 50,000 mph. That has to sting a little bit.
Actually, what it would do is kill you. Almost instantaneously. Not the projectile itself, which probably wouldn’t be lethal after passing through the spacesuit, but ripping or puncturing your magic suit while on the Moon is certainly something that you would want to avoid. You know that old saw about how “nature abhors a vacuum”? How that applies here is that any penetration in your suit would result in all the air being immediately sucked out. And then your blood would begin to boil. And that can be rather unpleasant.
I guess the Apollo crews really, uhmm, dodged a bullet on that one. Not one of the astronauts was hit, nor any of the lunar modules, nor any of the lunar rovers, nor any of the equipment that was used. I have to say here, by the way, that those Apollo guys were studs of the highest magnitude. Did they know what they were signing up for? What did NASA’s ads say?
“Astronauts wanted. No experience necessary. Duties will include taking a trip to the Moon. Return trip cannot be guaranteed. Applicant must be able to withstand levels of radiation higher than anything that can be generated here on Earth. Applicant must also be able to work comfortably in heat in excess of +250° F, as well as in cooler conditions approaching -300° F. A continuous supply of breathable air may or may not be provided by employer. Snacks and water will necessarily be limited to what fits in employee-provided lunchbox. Rest room facilities will not be available. The ability to dodge 50,000 MPH space bullets is not required, but would be helpful. This is a great money-making opportunity! Paychecks can be picked up upon return to Earth.”
The Apollo guys didn’t have to worry about any of that, of course, because they were wearing the magic suits. Apparently those suits were yet another example of NASA digging deep into the well of lost 1960s technology.
A huge shout-out, by the way, is in order here for the guys at NASA for posting that article about the Moon rocks being bombarded with radiation and meteorites. It makes it so much easier for me when NASA has already done so much of the work of debunking the Moon landings.
When President George W. Jetson announced on January 14, 2004 that America was going to be returning to the Moon, we were quickly advised by NASA types and various television talking heads that such a goal would require about fifteen years to achieve. No one in the media thought to ask why it would take fifteen years to do with twenty-first century technology what it took only eight years to accomplish with 1960s technology. Not one voice was raised to ask how with the twin advantages of improved technology and prior experience it would still take twice as long this time around.
It’s not, after all, as if we have to reinvent the wheel here. Not only have we done this before, but we have done it safely and reliably. How could NASA possibly improve upon the record of the Apollo missions? What could they come up with that could outperform those vintage Saturn V rockets that made it to the Moon damn near every time, and made it home safe every time? And how do you improve upon a lunar module that not only performed flawlessly every time, but that was also the very model of lightweight, compact efficiency?
When you have a system that performs flawlessly on six incredibly technologically complex missions, and that delivers your astronauts home safely even on the one occasion that the system runs amok, why in the world would you toss it in the trash and start from scratch the next time around?
According to a Fox News report published the day after Bush’s announcement, “The effort to return to the Moon will require building new spacecraft and sending out robotic craft to provide materials to be used later by human explorers, say experts.” I wonder why they would need to do that? We didn’t have to do shit like that last time. Why does NASA keep insisting on reinventing the wheel here? Why do they seem to have forgotten that we are old hands at this sort of thing?
Other people have forgotten as well. Following Bush’s attempt to wag the Moondoggie, Republican Senator Sam Brownback sternly warned, “You’ve got the Chinese saying they’re interested – we don’t want them to beat us to the moon!” This may seem like a rather bizarre concern, until you realize that not only is China working on developing a Moon rocket, they are also rumored to be close to completing work on a time machine, which will allow them to transport their Moon rocket back to the mid-1960s and thus beat America to the Moon.
On a more serious note, I’m guessing that since China has managed, in the 50+ years of the space race, to put three whole spaceships into low-Earth orbit, there won’t likely be any Chinese flags waving on the Moon anytime soon.
Anyway, doesn’t it seem just a little strange that experts would now suggest that if we get to work right away, we might be able to land men on the Moon by the year 2020? Isn’t that like saying that with a lot of hard work and a little luck, we might be able to develop a video game as technologically advanced as Pong by the year 2025? Or that by 2030, the scientific community might produce a battery-operated calculator small enough to fit into your pocket?
And do you think that, if we do ‘go back,’ the voice actors will be given a better script? Will we be given something to replace Armstrong’s cheesy “One small step” line and Aldrin’s poetic “magnificent desolation” line? Have I mentioned, by the way, that Donald Bowman, who worked at the Houston Space Center, has said that Armstrong was indeed handed a script before embarking on the alleged mission? That obviously does not prove that the Moon landings were faked, merely that Washington was very concerned with how the alleged missions were presented.
A NASA statement released in July of this year contained a rather curious assertion: “Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative.” It is not, of course, NASA that is being asked to prove a negative, but rather those pesky ‘conspiracy theorists.’ NASA is merely being asked to prove a positive, which should be a relatively easy task. All they have to do is produce some actual evidence, beginning with all those reels of tape containing the telemetry data, the biomedical data, all voice communications, and all the original videotape. They could also release the plans and specifications for all that fancy space hardware. And maybe offer some kind of reasonable explanation for why so many of the official photographs are demonstrably fraudulent.
Alternatively, they could just send some guys back there, to prove that it can be done. It’s been thirty-seven years and counting since the last guests on the Moon checked out. NASA allegedly filmed that final lift-off from the Moon, by the way. In case you haven’t seen the historic film footage, you can view it here. It’s a very short clip and it’s actually quite funny, so be sure to check it out.
I can’t be 100% certain of this, of course, but I have a very strong hunch that NASA picked up the footage off the cutting-room floor after Ed Wood had finished editing Plan 9 From Outer Space. Actually, I probably shouldn’t joke about the clip because I do feel kind of bad for the guy that they had to leave behind to operate the camera. I wonder how he’s doing these days?
Actually, NASA claims that the camera was mounted on the abandoned lunar rover (even in space, Americans are arrogant litterbugs), and that the pan and zoom functions were operated remotely by the ground crew back on Earth. You couldn’t control your television from across the living room in those days, but NASA could pan and zoom a camera from 234,000 miles away. Awesome! And there apparently either wasn’t any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.
You really have to hand it to the NASA boys – those guys think of everything.
George W. Jetson’s visionary proposal envisioned the Moon as a steppingstone for manned travel to Mars. How that works though is a bit of a mystery to me. The distance between the Earth and Mars varies depending upon where the planets are in their respective orbits, but the minimum distance astronauts would have to travel to reach Mars from Earth is 36,000,000 miles. And the minimum distance astronauts would have to travel to reach Mars from the Moon is, uhmm, also 36,000,000 miles. So I guess what I’m wondering is: what exactly would be gained by making a pit stop on the Moon?
Are there gas stations there to fill up the tank? Some nice hotels maybe where the astronauts could get some R&R? A couple of hot space hookers? How would making a technologically complex landing on the Moon, followed by a lift-off that would require an excessive amount of additional fuel, help get our boys to Mars?
Let’s take a big bite out of the reality sandwich here, shall we? The human animal is quite simply not equipped for space travel beyond low-Earth orbit. There is virtually no chance that we are going to send men to the Moon anytime soon. Despite what NASA would like you to believe, the combination of lethal space radiation, lethal temperatures, a complete lack of breathable air, and a lower gravitational attraction that produces serious health problems, including rapid tissue and bone degeneration, is simply not compatible with human existence. Neither is getting pelted with “space bullets.”Neither is a lack of food and water.
And as for Mars? A roundtrip ticket there would earn you about 75,000,000 frequent flyer miles. I wouldn’t count on that happening anytime soon.
Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: “Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We’re in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit.” So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969.
Before bidding adieu, I have one final note to add: a certain Dr. Thomas Gold was an early skeptic of the feasibility of landing on the Moon. He made headlines prior to the alleged flight of Apollo 11 when he predicted that any attempt at a Moon landing would be disastrous. NASA, of course, purportedly proved the good doctor wrong.
Longtime readers will remember that Dr. Gold was America’s most prominent proponent of the abiotic theory of oil and gas production, and that he went and dropped dead just before the ‘Peak Oil’ propaganda started to heat up. Dr. Gold was recently proven to be correct on the origins of so-called ‘fossil fuels.’ The article, curiously enough, refers to the research as “revolutionary” – which it is, I suppose, if you ignore the fact that the Soviets and Ukrainians did the same research and drew the same conclusions some fifty years ago.
We all know that that can’t be true, however, because it would be impossible to keep a secret of that magnitude from the entire Western world … right?
Very very very good work!!!
All you have to do to realize we never went to the moon, is watch the Apollo 11 post mission press conference…..looks like a hostage video. It’s beyond clear these three guys were under extreme duress…
I know Dave has left this world (RIP), but I can’t help but ask: If an astronaut was standing out in the open on the moon, wouldn’t the side of his body facing the sun be 250f and the other -260f? If so, would that even out, or bake one side and freeze the other?
Sigh. The lackluster science in this article has mislead you about basic facts. With no atmosphere, energy can move only very slowly through radiation. A large difference in temperature does not always mean a large heat flux. This is the same principal that allows a vacuum insulated thermos to stay hot for hours.
Narish, than you for your explanation. Are there still enormous differences between day and night temperatures on the Moon?
A Thermos vessel works very well because it has a vacuum in its walls, and has a highly reflective coating, which reflects infrared radiation. The glass it is made from is a poor conductor of heat, there is no convection between its walls, and it’s only touching anything at the top and bottom.
Convection transfers heat by molecular motion in a fluid, which doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
So on the surface of the moon, in the sunlight, the radiation is very intense, with no air molecules blocking the radiation from the sun. Energy moves at the speed of light by radiation.
There is no convection, but radiation is most efficient, both ways, with no air molecules.
The spaceman’s dark side will become extremely cold, radiating heat away, with almost no (infrared) heat radiating towards it. Air molecules do not aid radiation!
Conversely, the side facing the sun will receive intense solar radiation, and become very hot.
A shiny foil covered suit would help, but the white tyvek outfit has about the same infrared emissivity as any other material would. Emissivity works both ways, you absorb heat as efficiently as you radiate it.
Thus the gold visors. The gold must be on the outside surface to work.
Heat is transferred 3 ways only: Conduction, convection, and radiation. No atmosphere means more, not less radiation.
Also, the word is misled, not mislead.
I think Narish’ dismissive reply is rather simplistic in using the example of a Thermos Flask on earth as a way of disproving your on-the-moon hypothesis. As everyone knows, the thermos flask isn’t 100% efficient and *does* lose heat – the reflective inner surface of the flask restricts radiated heat loss and the vacuum restricts convected heat loss, however the filler-cap allows heat loss through conduction – the cap having been heated by both radiated and convected heat transference from the contents of the flask e.g. coffee. The vacuum surrounding the moon prevents heat transference through convection and without any atmosphere heat won’t be transferred through conduction, hence the two extremes. Unless the outside of the space-suit material inherently retains heat (which could move around the outer surface of the suit by conduction), the part of the suit sheltered from the radiated heat would, as you quite rightly summise, be at -260F.
Poor Narish is the one with the lackluster science. Whammo is entirely correct, as the temperature differential in non-atmospheric environments would be exactly that extreme. The half of you in the suns rays would be boiling, and the half of you in the shadow would be freezing. This is one of the many issues with space travel added with the unbelievable solar radiation and the micro-meteorites flying all over the place. The thermos example is actually a good proof of this, not the reverse obviously. Heat cannot travel or move without atmosphere so the cold is REALLY cold and the heat from the Sun is completely unfiltered and REALLY dangerous.
To my mind the surface of the moon would be heated to a signricant extent when exposed to sunlight and radiant heat would ensure that the shadowed parts of an astronaut or anything else close to the surface would be much warmer than during lunar night.
Through the process of tidal locking the Moon’s day length is the same as its ‘year’ – namely one month. The average daytime would thus be two Earth weeks, plenty of time for the aurface to get nice and toasty. Unlike Earth rhe Moon’s rotational axis is barely tilted and so there is little in the way of seasonal change in day length. In any case the Sea of Tranquility is only 8 degrees north of the lunar equator so seasons would not really be an issue. I don’t know whether it was possible to measure surface temperatures on the moon from Earth fifty-five years ago. If it was, a theoretical mission might have been timed for a period when the surface of the Moon was expected to be comfortable for humans, perhaps mid-morning.
Despite the above I no longer believe that man has been on the moon and this site was a big help in reaching that conclusion. God be with us all as we face down the effort to make permanent a global tyranny.
Not very different from a steadily cascading avalanche of material that has built up over a very long time by very observant, intelligent, and capable individuals. Their mental processes were creative and disciplined enough to note that many of the unassailable contentions put forth by NASA have scientific holes large enough to drive a Mac truck through. I read it with interest to see if Mr. McGowan could enlighten me about some more things. I actually did find some extra info that I had not encountered before ( this controversy seems to have gone back a very long while – now, thank God, we have the internet where more of this information can come to light ). Many thanks to the author’s humorous manner of stating the obvious. It can be more fun sometimes than wading through the engineering calculations proving, essentially, the same things.
well, sigh again. if cosmic radiation is multidirectional & rocketmans suit rather faceted, a lot of surface will be ‘heated’, & er, if rocketman is not a cardboard cutout in a vaccum there will be a certain amount of mass inside said suit- ie, answer the question- ie yes, the temp extremes on adjacent surfaces ARE a big issue are they not?
I find it funny that we have enough IP addresses that each mm in earth would fit millions of them, and we even have specific IP addresses for low-Earth orbit, but somehow the team forgot to reserve IP addresses for the Moon or the planets in the Solar System.
It would be interesting to know what the power requirements were for the lunar module as it sat on the moon along with the power necessary for those suits. Even for a DC battery system, power (Watts) = Voltage X Current. Fan motors and other heavy duty electronics of that time were not known for their small electrical power requirements.
This a fun read. But author seems to go out of his way with every conspiratorial conjecture possible. Regarding the contention that the surface looks undisturbed, one should think about it as a rocket blast blowing away all loose surface material within a huge radius of the that landing site. One needs to think about the blast starting up from high above and being lowered slowly. So within that cleared area it might look fairly homogeneous. And in the photo provided it does to my eye look as if there is a bit of a soft pit under the nozzle, which does not seem unreasonable. Also author points out temperature on surface of sunny side of moon is scorching already, so why expect a scorch mark?
Narish – what about the radiation issue? How does one survive the radiation in space anywhere? How do you explain the lack of thruster impact on the surface of the moon? How do you explain the lack of return missions if it is so easy and obvious to get to the moon?
How absurd for NASA to even say that “it’s impossible to prove a negative.” Really? Watch this:
Neil Armstrong is not the President of the United States.
Lake Michigan is not located on the Moon.
Richard Nixon did not have 12 fingers and four thumbs.
I do not have brown eyes.
There is no birthmark shaped like Richard Nixon on my face.
I do not have any tattoo of anyone or anything.
There are no men over the age of 60 serving as NFL linebackers. Or quarterbacks. And, amazingly but provably, not one single active roster NFL player appears to be under the age of 12.
Also, the Moon Landing was provably a hoax. After all, look up in the sky. The moon is still there. Therefore, it never landed. (Funny joke, but still true: the Moon has not left our skies Just go look.)
I can prove negatives all day. But NASA can’t prove it doesn’t lie.
Note to website custodian: Paragraph 23, line 5, “grew” should be “crew”.
Well written. The humor helps immensely.
Shouldn’t there be more CIA troll commentators? Something wrong with their budget these days? Get on the ball, guys. This is a brilliant piece that deserves your attention!
: )
“And do you think that, if we do ‘go back,’ the voice actors will be given a better script? Will we be given something to replace Armstrong’s cheesy “One small step” line and Aldrin’s poetic “magnificent desolation” line?”
The line “magnificent desolation” seems to have been influenced by this film from 1950:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_Moon_(film)
In the film the line spoken by the second man on the surface is:
“The first impression is one of utter barrenness and desolation.”
Even if they didn’t have script writers it’s pretty safe to say Aldrin and the others would have seen this film prior to 1969.
It is not “many” Apollo photos & videos that are fraudulent, it’s “all” of them. It doesn’t matter what the content of any of the pictures is, nor how well or poorly arranged.
Mr. McGowan only briefly notes that, in the ’60s & ’70s, photographic film could be damaged even by brief exposure to the relatively soft radiation of security X-rays. The radiation alleged to have been received by the Apollo astronauts would have at least lightly fogged and made grainy every last frame of that film. The brilliant clarity of the pictures is what screams, “This film, at least, never left Earth.”
There is a reason old-style dosimetry (radiation-dose-measuring equipment) were called “film badges”: film really is that sensitive.
Perfectly said, mellyrn.I am old enough to remember that radiation was never (maybe mentioned once or twice) but it was most definitely a topic that was avoided by in the time. Radiation would have, at the least, caused some sort of fogginess. That is really putting it mildly. The reason why no one has gone out beyond our magnetosphere (accept for the alleged Apollo thing) is the lethal radiation. Bad for humans. Bad for photos. Deadly… As Dave mentioned, this hoax has an expiration date.
I love your dad’s humor. President George Jetson. Well we can only hope. Always learn something from your dad. Wish he were still here.
“Do not mind anything that anyone tells you about anyone else.
Judge everyone and everything for yourself.” Quote by Henry James (American Author)
Think for yourself and question everything. You may be right and you may be wrong, but the journey to discovery is worth it – always.
props can’t be used in no atmosphere??? Oh my god how thick are you? Please do basic research before posting such stupid claims. I guess the mars rover and drone are fake too eh?
What on gods green earth are you rambling on about Sean? Where in the article did he say that the mars rover and drones are fake? What does “props can`t be used in no atmosphere” have to do with anything, and where in the article did you read this little nugget.
THIS is what you got from reading the whole article? Really!? Did you even read it. Can you read? What are you smoking, and who is posting stupid claims? So many questions, so little brainpower…and the irony of you calling someone thick…is just too much.
Sean, the answer to your last question is yes.
Buzz Aldrin’s Ph.D. thesis was on “Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous”
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652
There was no one more qualified to pilot the ascent stage of the Eagle LM ascent module.