Apollo Hoax FAQ v. 0.1 beta
Christopher M. Jones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Hoax Frequently Asked Questions.
Version 0.1 beta
Last modified: Feb. 17, 2001
Compiled and maintained by Christopher M Jones. Copyright © 2001
Christopher M Jones. This document may be archived and redistributed
freely electronically provided it is unmodified. It may not be
reproduced or redistributed for profit, without prior written consent
of the author. Any other use requires prior written consent of the
author. All material was written by the author unless specifically
attributed otherwise.
Questions, corrections, suggestions, or additions should be sent to
christ...@qwest.net.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization
Section 1: Photographic Evidence
1.1 Why are there no stars in the photographs from the Apollo
missions?
1.2 Why do the flags flutter in the Apollo films if there isn't any
atmopshere on the Moon?
1.3 Why do the shadows and lighting change and objects appear to be
lit by multiple light sources in the Apollo photos?
Section 2: The Unique Conditions on the Moon
2.1 Why is there no blast crater underneath the LM from the rocket
engine?
Section 3: The Dangers of Space
3.1 Isn't it impossible for a human to travel through the van Allen
radiation belts and live?
3.2 Wouldn't radiation from Solar flares kill the astronauts?
3.3 Aren't the temperature extremes on the Moon too much (too hot
in the Sun, too cold in the shade) for the suits the Apollo
astronauts are shown to use to be enough protection?
3.4 Why haven't any of the Apollo astronauts gotten ill (or died)
from their alleged exposure to large amounts of radiation on the
Moon?
3.5 Wouldn't the radiation and the temperature extremes of the Moon
damage or destroy equipment, especially vulnerable items like
photographic film?
Section 4: The Difficulty of Space Travel
4.1 Isn't it just too difficult to build a rocket that could travel
to the Moon?
Section 5: Coverups
5.1 Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to fake the images, audio, and
television transmissions than to actually go to the Moon?
5.2 Why was the Apollo 1 crew (and others) killed? What was NASA
trying to hide?
Section 6: Conclusive Evidence Apollo Was Real
6.1 Laser ranging retroreflectors.
6.2 Optical Tracking.
6.3 Radar tracking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1: Photographic Evidence
+
1.1 Why are there no stars in the photographs from the Apollo
missions?
Photographic film (and the human eye as well) have a limited "dynamic
range" (range from the minimum "signal intensity" to the maximum signal
intensity). In other words, when you take a photograph you set the
various exposure parameters (f-stop, exposure time) take a picture and
then (depending on the type of film you used) there will be a maximum
and minimum brightness that will be able to be represented on the
photograph. Anything much brighter than the maximum will be overexposed
(bright), and anything much dimmer than the minimum will be underexposed
(dark). In the case of taking pictures on the Moon, the foreground
objects (the lunar surface, the astronauts, the equipment) was very
bright (in direct sunlight totally unfiltered by an atmosphere) and were
much brighter than the background stars. Thus, an attempt to capture
the background stars visible from the Moon would horribly overexpose and
wash out any of the foreground objects (the lunar surface and the
astronauts). The same effect is seen with the space shuttle and space
station(s), when the vehicles are in direct sunlight no stars are
visible because they are too dim for the photographic equipment to pick
up.
+
1.2 Why do the flags flutter in the Apollo films if there isn't any
atmopshere on the Moon?
The flags you see in the Apollo film and television footage are not
"fluttering in a breeze", they are swinging. Most of the flags used in
Apollo had a bar that held the flag up at the top, any small motion
applied to the flag (such as when it is being pounded into the lunar
surface) would cause the flag to swing underneath the support bar, with
no atmosphere and 1/6 of Earth's gravity these swinging motions are not
"damped out" quickly as they would be on Earth so they tend to swing
for a considerable time. The wild swinging of the fabric of the flag
can look somewhat like a flutter, but it is distinctly different.
+
1.3 Why do the shadows and lighting change and objects appear to be
lit by multiple light sources in the Apollo photos?
There are several aspects to this "problem". First, is the distortion
caused by the recording equipment. Many of the photographs taken on
the Moon used wide angle lenses to obtain large field of view for each
image. As any professional or amateur photographer could tell you a
wide angle lense will distort images and directions somewhat because it
is essentially taking a 3D scene and squishing it flat. One effect of
this is that two objects that are parallel in the actual 3D scene can
appear to diverge in an image taken from a camera using a wide angle
lense. Second, is the uneven and rugged lunar terrain. The Moon's
surface is filled to the brim with hills, craters, etc. on just about
every scale. Two astronauts standing in two different places on the
lunar surface (even very close to each other) are likely to be on
slightly different terrain (i.e. one on a flat spot, the other on the
side of a hill). Thus, you will often see shadows of different lengths
from astronauts in different places. The result of the previous two
points is that a picture contain two objects on the Moon may appear to
show two different length shadows pointing in slightly different
directions. Some people contend that this is evidence that the Apollo
missions were filmed on a sound stage and lit with stage lighting, and
that it specifically shows that there are more than one light source on
the scene (i.e. instead of the one Sun). However, the different length
and apparent different direction shadows are simply a result of the
highly varying lunar surface and the wide angle lenses used. Note that
there is only one very sharp shadow for each astronaut or object in the
Apollo photographs. If there were multiple lighting sources, there
would be multiple shadows for each object.
And third, some people claim that there are objects and parts of
objects that should be in shadow but are still quite visible and fairly
bright. This is not surprising and is to be expected. On the Moon
there is one very bright light source (the Sun) but there are other
light sources, namely the Earth and the lunar surface. The Earth is
considerably larger and considerably more reflective than the Moon, so
on the Moon even a partially illuminated Earth is considerably brighter
than a full Moon on the Earth. The Moon has a "visual geometric albedo"
of 0.12 (i.e. it will reflect about 12% of the visual light that falls
on it), whereas the Earth has a visual geometric albedo of 0.37. Also,
the Earth as seen from the Moon is 13.5 times larger in area as the
Moon is as seen from Earth. This means that a "full Earth" as seen
from the Moon is 41.6 times brighter (!) than a full Moon as seen from
the Earth. The Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon near "local
morning" when the Sun was just beginning to rise above the horizon at
the landing site. This was done for several reasons but especially to
elongate the shadows of objects on the Moon so as to make it easier to
spot boulders and visualize the terrain during landing and during later
exploration of the lunar surface. At that time, the Earth would be
nearly half full, and so would be about 20 times brighter than a full
Moon. Additionally, the Moon's surface will reflect light around
locally, without trees and other obstructions, there will be quite a
lot of illumination from the lunar surface directly. Also, don't
forget the photographer. The Apollo astronauts wore very bright
white suits and were in sunlight brighter than the brightest sunlight
on Earth. When an astronaut stands next to an object they will cast
light onto that object from themselves much in the same way as a white
reflector used by a professional photographer will, and it will make
the objects in the shadows much less dark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2: The Unique Conditions on the Moon
+
2.1 Why is there no blast crater underneath the LM from the rocket
engine?
This answer comes from Markus Mehring:
First, the descent engine was throttled down upon landing, it was
actually killed mid-air on several occasions, to be precise. Second,
the landing takes place in 1/6g, so the descent engine doesn't have to
push _that_ hard anyway. Third, there's no point in expecting a "crater"
resulting from a rocket engine - a mildly recessed area is rather what
would have to be found. And this slight depression is actually present,
and well described and documented by the astronauts, there's lots of
photos of this from each mission. Fourth, the characteristics of the
lunar surface don't necessarily allow for much of a depression. The
lunar surface has suffered millions and billions of years of micro-
meteoroid bombardment, which has shattered the upper surface to dust,
and made the lower surface just a few centimeters below _very_ compact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3: The Dangers of Space
+
3.1 Isn't it impossible for a human to travel through the van Allen
radiation belts and live?
The van Allen "belts" are zones of radiation where high speed particles
(such as protons and electrons) that have been trapped from the Solar
wind by the Earth's magnetic fields. The inner van Allen belt extends
from about 1,000 to 5,000 kilometers above Earth's surface, the outer
van Allen belt extends from about 15,000 to 25,000 kilometers above
Earth's surface. The radiation in the van Allen belts was a serious
concern for the Apollo program. The Apollo spacecraft were designed to
provide some protection from the van Allen radiation, but more than that
the mission was designed so that astronauts spent the least possible
amount of time in the van Allen belts. The actual amount of radiation
received by the Apollo astronauts during their passage through the van
Allen belts is difficult to determine but it is estimated to be about
2 rems (or 20 milli-Sieverts).
In comparison, a modern chest X-ray will deliver about 10-20 millirems
to the subject, radiation doses from background radiation (cosmic rays,
radon, uranium deposits, etc.) for the average human living on Earth is
on the order of 100 millirems per year, and annual doses for people
working around radiation (for example, X-ray technicians, nuclear power
plant workers, etc.) can range up to 0.4 rems per year. The "maximum
permissible dose" for radiation workers on Earth is 5 rems per year or
25 rems in a single emergency exposure. A 25-100 rem dose will increase
a person's chance of developing cancer. Around 100-200 rems, a person
will experience nausea several hours after exposure. Above 300 rems,
severe vomiting, and hemorrhaging will result nearly immediately, loss
of hair, and other health effects will result fairly rapidly, greater
than half of the people exposed to this much radiation will die within 2
months. Above 800 rems, diarrhea, dehydration, and problems with
digestive organs will result rapidly, over 90% of people exposed to this
much radiation will die within two weeks. Above several thousand rems,
death results in a few days and convulsions and nervous system failure
occurs almost immediately. So, 2 rems is certainly a lot, but by no
means would it cause instant death or illness. And in fact is most
likely to cause no noticeable immediate or long term effects.
+
3.2 Wouldn't radiation from Solar flares kill the astronauts?
Solar flares are a serious concern for anyone spending any amount of
time outside of Earth's protective magnetic field (and atmosphere). A
"solar flare" is an outburst of material from the Sun. These often
contain large amounts of protons travelling at very high speeds, this
is the predominant radiation danger from solar flares. However, only
the rarest and most powerful solar flares would be of serious concern
to the Apollo astronauts since they spent only a few days outside of
the Earth's magnetosphere. The radiation doses from solar flares
actually received by the Apollo astronauts was only a few rems (much
less than 20). As you can see from the data listed in the answer to
question 3.1, this is a serious dose, but will not cause any noticeable
immediate or long term effects (health or otherwise).
+
3.3 Aren't the temperature extremes on the Moon too much (too hot in
the Sun, too cold in the shade) for the suits the Apollo astronauts
are shown to use to be enough protection?
The Moon has no atmosphere and its days and nights last 2 weeks. This
can lead to extreme temeperatures on the lunar surface. During the day,
the average lunar surface temperature is 110 degrees C (230 F), during
the night the average temperature of the lunar surface dips down to
-150 degrees C (-240 degrees F). So, why aren't the Apollo astronauts
installed fried or frozen solid when they step foot on the Moon? First,
a bit about temperatures and heat exchange. When an object is at a
different temperature than its surroundings certain types of heat
transfer will occur so as to equalize the temperature differential and
bring the object to the same temperature as the surroundings. There are
three mechanisms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and
radiation. Heat conduction occurs when two objects touch directly, for
example, when your soft pallet comes in contact with a very cold sample
of ice cream and heat is conducted out of your sinuses and into the
cold ice cream, lowering the temperature of your sinuses dramatically
and causing an "ice cream headache". Heat convection occurs when a
moving fluid conducts heat to or from an object. For example, a hot
fireplace will warm air near the fire which will rise and be replaced
with cold air. Radiation occurs when the heat from an object is
transformed into electromagnetic radiation due to its temperature. For
example, a very hot piece of iron will radiate heat in visible
wavelengths of EM radiation so it will glow red, or even yellow or
white. Normally objects in our daily lives aren't that hot, so they
radiate in lower energy Infrared radiation.
When speaking of a temperature, it is somewhat meaningless with respect
to how "hot" that object or environment actually is. The "hotness" of
an object or environment is determined by its temperature in combination
with the mechanisms of heat transfer (and efficiency of heat transfer)
possible. For example, air is much less dense and transfers heat much
less easily than water. If a person is in air at a temperature of 50
degrees C (120 F) they will be very hot but they won't be burned.
However, if a person was in water at the same temperature they would be
scalded and injured very rapidly. Similarly, a person in air at a
temperature of 0 degrees C (32 F) would feel cold but would not be in
grave danger, but a person in water at the same temperature would become
hypothermic quite rapidly and would lose conciousness within a few
minutes at most without protection (such as a wet suit). A vacuum (as
exists on the Moon's surface) is a very poor heat conductor and in
fact the only method of heat transfer in a vacuum is radiation. A
vacuum in fact makes a very good insulator. It is a vacuum in between
the outer and inner walls of a thermos bottle that allows the thermos
to keep hot coffee hot and cold iced tea cold for a long time. The
Apollo astronauts on the Moon only had two ways to transfer heat to and
from the lunar environment, radiation from their bodies (suits) and
conduction through their boots. Both of these methods are very
inneficient and transfering heat and with proper insulation and
temperature regulation systems (miniature air conditioners and heaters)
working on the lunar surface can actually be very survivable and quite
comfortable.
+
3.4 Why haven't any of the Apollo astronauts gotten ill (or died)
from their alleged exposure to large amounts of radiation on the
Moon?
This is a good question but it has a good answer. First, see sections
3.1 and 3.2 concerning the actual radiation doses received by the
Apollo astronauts and the dangers of different radiation doses. As you
can see, the radiation doses received by the Apollo astronauts would
not be expected to result in any long or short term ill health effects.
Second, keep in mind that only 24 people went to the Moon (and only 12
of them walked on the surface). Such small numbers make for poor
statistics. Similarly, if you have a friend or relative that smokes
several packs of cigarrettes every day but lives to be very old, that
doesn't say much about the dangers of cigarrettes _on_average_ since
you are dealing with a very small samples size.
+
3.5 Wouldn't the radiation and the temperature extremes of the Moon
damage or destroy equipment, especially vulnerable items like
photographic film?
See section 3.3 about temperature extremes and why they are a non-
issue. Most equipment (including photographic and television cameras)
was designed with special protective measures so as to allow them to
operate properly in the Moon's harsh environment. As for equipment
and photographic film, the radiation on the Moon was not high enough
to damage (or even fog) film to any perceptible degree, and most other
equipment is much more rugged than photographic film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4: The Difficulty of Space Travel
+
4.1 Isn't it just too difficult to build a rocket that could travel
to the Moon?
It is difficult to build a large interplanetary rocket, but it is far
from impossible. Some people claim that the huge Saturn V rockets did
not in fact go to the Moon (although the fact that they were launched
seems hard to dispute considering how many spectators there were).
However, every stage of the Saturn V rockets were tested on the ground.
We know their size, their thrust, and their effeciency. We know how
much fuel was put into them at launch. From this we can determine that
those rockets _could_ in fact send the Apollo astronauts to the Moon.
Thousands (if not tens of thousands) of engineers were witness to these
tests. If the Saturn V rockets did not go to the Moon, then what did
they do? It seems rather unlikely that they went into low Earth orbit
and simply dumped their fuel. It seems even more unlikely that
countless thousands of engineers and contract workers were in on some
massive conspiracy to hide the true capabilities of each stage of the
Saturn V rocket and that _all_ of those people have maintained that
conspiracy for over 3 decades.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5: Coverups
+
5.1 Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to fake the images, audio, and
television transmissions than to actually go to the Moon?
In the 1960s and early 70s the technology to record (let alone
manipulate) images, audio, film, and television was very primitive.
I think it's safe to say that a program to try to attempt to fake
a Moon landing believably would be a much more ambitious and costly
program than the Apollo program was itself.
+
5.2 Why was the Apollo 1 crew (and others) killed? What was NASA
trying to hide?
[note yet complete]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6: Conclusive Evidence Apollo Was Real
+
6.1 Laser ranging retroreflectors.
[note yet complete]
+
6.2 The Lunar Environment is hard to fake.
[note yet complete]
+
6.3 Optical Tracking.
[note yet complete]
+
6.4 Radar tracking.
[note yet complete]
Doug...
news:VAEj6.1475$nZ.4...@news.uswest.net...
> Here's what I have so far, much more soon!
Chris,
Very, very good! You hit all the points with solidly presented facts.
I only have one issue -- it's written in a very professorial style. As a
professional writer, I can tell you that this work will communicate quite
effectively to learned, literate people. Unfortunately, most of the
learned, literate people I know would never buy in to the moon hoax scam.
You need to write more to the level of your expected audience. Even though
some literate people might buy into the moon hoax scam, and this FAQ will
speak well to them, they'll probably be only a few percent of those you want
to reach. A vast majority of your audience will be (to steal from "Blazing
Saddles") your average, salt of the earth types. You know -- morons.
Your work is very well written, but I'd wager it's at something like a 14th
grade reading level. To effectively communicate with the majority of people
who would buy in to the moon hoax, you'd probably need to write at about a
4th grade reading level. (Keep in mind that the armed services spent
millions of dollars to rewrite all of their training manuals to a 4th grade
level, and still found that they were still at too high a level. They then
spent another several millions of dollars rewriting them again to a 2nd
grade level, and found that this was the acceptable level for the
all-volunteer services. I kid you not.)
Maybe you could just finish this FAQ in the same style you're using, for
those to which it will communicate effectively. Then you, or someone else
who wants to take on the task, could proceed to "write it down" to simpler
language that will communicate effectively with the less literate.
Doug
Peter Smith
> Here's what I have so far, much more soon!
>
<ducking>
A couple of typos:
Contrary to popular opinion, lens doesn't have an e at the end.
(Sorry to nitpick your draft, but being an optometrist... ;)
</ducking>
I liked the explanation of heat transfer (3.3), perhaps you should also
address the fact of radiated heat from the sun to the
astronauts/equipment.
Surely this would be more severe than sunbaking in the Sahara.
Great effort CMJ. Keep us posted.
This will of course have to go in the FAQ. Yes?
- Peter
Peter Smith
Doug wrote...
> Christopher M. Jones wrote...
> > Here's what I have so far, much more soon!
>
> Chris,
>
> Very, very good! You hit all the points with solidly presented facts.
> Maybe you could just finish this FAQ in the same style you're using,
for
> those to which it will communicate effectively. Then you, or someone
else
> who wants to take on the task, could proceed to "write it down" to
simpler
> language that will communicate effectively with the less literate.
>
> Doug
FWIW if there are no other takers, I would be happy to give the "Once
more, slowly, for the dummies." version a try. (If it is called for.)
- Peter
Joe Durnavich
> 1.3 Why do the shadows and lighting change and objects appear to be
> lit by multiple light sources in the Apollo photos?
>
>There are several aspects to this "problem". First, is the distortion
>caused by the recording equipment. Many of the photographs taken on
>the Moon used wide angle lenses to obtain large field of view for each
>image. As any professional or amateur photographer could tell you a
>wide angle lense will distort images and directions somewhat because it
>is essentially taking a 3D scene and squishing it flat.
Technically, wide angle lenses do not cause perspective distortion. **
What causes the perspective distortion is moving the camera closer to
the objects being photographed. You tend to do this more with a wide
angle lens. The ratios of image sizes for objects close to the camera
are greater than those further from it. The perspective is stronger
for the closer objects.
At least on Apollo 15, I see they had a 60 mm lens. For medium format
film, this is a normal angle lens.
** - Wide angle lenses, however, do elongate objects near the corners
of the image.
--
Joe Durnavich
Gareth Slee
Approximately 800 pounds of the them.
Never heard a Geologist mention the Hoax theory...
Gareth Slee
--
"Cymru Am Byth"
Spam proofed email
Christopher M. Jones <christ...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:VAEj6.1475$nZ.4...@news.uswest.net...
Gareth Slee
OM
<garet...@nospamntlworld.com> wrote:
>Sorry Guys for not snipping the FAQ
...That's ok. We'd already killfiled you, so nobody saw it :-)
OM
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Les Bonser
"Joe Durnavich" <jo...@mcs.net> wrote in message
news:k6209t84g40e6qa6p...@4ax.com...
>
> At least on Apollo 15, I see they had a 60 mm lens. For medium format
> film, this is a normal angle lens.
No. For medium format film, this is a wide-angle lens. For 35 mm film, this
would be a normal angle lens.
Joe Durnavich
Ok. I can see that. A normal angle lens is one where the focal
length is equal to the diagonal of the image size. The image size in
medium format is around 56 mm x 56 mm, and the diagonal is 80 mm. So,
in retrospect, I can see 60 mm being considered wide-angle.
--
Joe Durnavich
Peter Smith
Markus Mehring wrote...
> Peter Smith wrote:
>
> >FWIW if there are no other takers, I would be happy to give the "Once
> >more, slowly, for the dummies." version a try. (If it is called
for.)
>
>
>
> CU! Markus
OK Ive started, I'll send what I manage direct to CMJ. I don't want to
raise any copyright issues. :)
- Peter
Peter Smith
Copy sent to CMJ.
EG:
The radiation absorbed by the astronauts was equal to about 200 chest
x-rays. This was a risk, but fortunately none of the astronauts have
had serious after-effects. You would need about 1000 chest x-rays would
be enough to be a significant risk for cancer.
10,000 chest x-rays to cause noticable immediate problems.
- Peter
(Crikeys! I replied to myself again... I know, it's the first sign of
madness... %-)
Peter Smith
The radiation absorbed by the astronauts was equal to about 200 chest
x-rays. This was a risk, but fortunately none of the astronauts have
had serious after-effects.
problems.
(thats better)
<note to self: Check post before hitting Send.>