Flags on the Moon

[Tormod]

I think those who think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe are right. But how will we recognize it when we find it? :eek_big:

[Pyrotex]

I think those who think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe are right. But how will we recognize it when we find it? :eek_big:

We will recognize it because somehow, there will, by the most outrageous accident, be one who is attached to the expedition who is intelligent, and their intelligence will have been overlooked and missed by those responsible for designing the expedition.

 

And that one will recognize "himself" in the face of chaos.

 

It takes one to know one.

 

"Sit down before fact as a little child,

be prepared to give up every preconceived notion,

follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads,

or you shall learn nothing."

 

--Thomas Huxley

[Tormod]

It takes one to know one.

 

He said humbly. :eek_big:

[Pyrotex]

He said humbly. :hihi:

Grazzle-Fraggit !!

 

Now you listen here. It takes a lot of hard work for some of us to be humble.

 

I'm doing the best I can!!! :) :evil: :evil:

[silverslith]

I assume you’re referring to video of one of the famous “kangaroo hop” sequences, such as this short (1.8 MB) avi from the Apollo 17 mission.

 

A problem I have with the “slowed film” explanations for moon walk video is that, if the film was slowed down by a factor of 1/6, the men in the suits would have had to move 6 times as fast as they appear to. By my estimation, the figure in the above clip is hopping along at a respectable (for someone in a bulky spacesuit) 4 m/s. 6 times that is 24 m/s, more than twice as fast as the fastest athlete has achieved sprinting on a smooth track wearing running cloths.

 

Another problem I have with moon landing hoax conspiracy explanations is that nearly all of them propose that the alleged fake video was taken as an ordinary movie studio – most often either the MGM-British studio in Borehamwood, UK, where parts of “2001: A Space Odyssey” was filmed, or “a studio in the Nevada (USA) desert”. Yet close examination of video such as the above shows an interesting peculiarity – dust kicked up by the moving person falls back to the surface at almost exactly the same rate as the person. In the presence of Earth surface-normal pressure air, even dense, course dust falls noticeably slower than a human being, and fine dust may stay airborn for minutes. The only technique I can imagine for achieving this effect in a movie studio is to evacuate nearly all of its air so that the actors are in a near vacuum. A large, airtight studio set capable of withstanding an inward pressure of 1 atmosphere, while not technically impossible, would not be within the capabilities of an ordinary studio.

 

Another claim made by moon landing hoax conspiracy advocates is that the space suits shown in the Apollo videos could not have worked in the near vacuum of the Moon’s surface.While I don’t want to lend credence to Apollo hoax theories, and worry that by attempting to debunk them, I might do so, hoax theories do, I think, have some educational value. Dividing the students into 2 teams, one planning a spaceflight mission hoax, the other debunking the imagined resulting audio/video and other data, would, IMHO, provide a good learning experience for a 7-12 grade science class.

 

Actually I was referring to footage of them shuffling around like a swordsman advances, advancing their front foot and then sliding their backfoot forward. The speed at which the footage is played makes it look like there is more Inertia on the moon than earth, and when sped up it looks exactly like it should at earth gravity and Inertia what it should be. The kangaroo hop footage is easy to simulate fairly accurately with wires over a pulley on a flying fox cable and a counterweight of 5/6 the studionauts weight.

Your dust comments are another good one. Footage of the lunar rover spinning its wheels and throwing up dirt clearly shows pebbles flying in parabolic trajectories while light dust stops in the air and drifts slowly to the ground.

I'm a high performance offroad chassis design engineer with world championship race titles to my credit and at the speed they were hooning around in the Rover I'd expect them to be bouncing 2ft in the air over stuff that earth grav causes you to bounce 4 inches. Which was what it looked like. The lunar rover footage was pretty compelling looking evidence for me. They seemed to have far too much power to mass ratio for an electric vehicle thats batteries and motor required so much energy to get there. Especially when the important objective was range not 10 minutes of wheelspinning donuts. Maybe the design objective was to make it bounce as much as possible to look like low grav when footage was slowed down?

 

I make a practice of continually testing my assumptions and If I poke stick its to encorage people to do this because I believe this is a very important thing to do to stay in touch with reality.

 

Close examination of pictures showing tampering artifacts like lens crosshairs behind lander and nauts? Believe me I'd really like to believe that they went there and the only way I can is to assume that radiation ruined the film and they had studio footage as a backup because this was anticipated.

 

Quick estimate on spacesuit pressure issue:

say 40 sqinch cross section at shoulder or elbow. They used oxygen not air (I think?) so probably 3psi (1 atmosphere = 14 psi) ~50% of this overcome to bend joint. 120lbx0.5 = 60lb required to bend joint. Maybe they did lots of 1 arm hanging chinups to get tough enough. I've no problem with that.

 

No stars in any stills or footage: could be to easy for astronomers to prove were in the wrong place? or was the light to much and drowned them out?( probably not since some really famous pictures have the side of the naut facing away from the sun well defined.(shadow side is very dim on the moon because no luminous sky.))

 

Photos mostly blurry and low res but some crystal clear?: maybe film ruined by the radiation drilling them at 350million protons per sqcm per second? (26Joules per sqcm in 5 days) maybe they couldn't afford highres film for all the photos?

 

Shadows in the pics diverging like they are from a close lightsource not one approaching infinity. Any answers?

 

The same scene that had the lunar lander in it also photographed with no lander and no landing stage that was left behind? (maybe those american infotainment producers photoshopped it out cause they are so antipatriotic)

 

No dust disturbed by the rocket motors during landing or takeoff?

 

The leaving sequence for the take off stage not showing acceleration but steady speed upwards starting with a jerk?

 

Radiation: NASA - Fire Away, Sun and Stars! Shields to Protect Future Space Crews

More Than Just Shields

But building a better shield is only half the answer to the problem. If too much shielding material is used, the spacecraft becomes way too heavy to get off the ground. So NASA is also working on medical countermeasures that limit the effects of radiation on space crews. The Space Radiation Health Project at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston involves scientists nationwide at universities and medical centers. They are investigating how space radiation damages cells and tissues such as the eyes, brain and internal organs. This information can be used to develop effective medical treatments that limit damage done by radiation exposure.

 

New Space Shield May Help Make Mars Mission Reality

While adequate shielding can easily be made with existing technology—a few feet of concrete would work admirably—such materials are too heavy to launch into space.

 

Magnetic Radiation Shielding: An Idea Whose Time Has Returned? - G.Landis (1991)

One solution to the problem of shielding crew from particulate radiation in space is to use active electromagnetic shielding. Practical types of shield include the magnetic shield, in which a strong magnetic field diverts charged particles from the crew region, and the magnetic/electrostatic plasma shield, in which an electrostatic field shields the crew from positively charged particles, while a magnetic field confines electrons from the space plasma to provide charge neutrality....The dangerous components in both solar flare and GCR radiation consists of positively charged particles. Neutral radiation (gammas, neutrons) are a negligible component of the radiation ambient; negative particles (electrons), while present, can be easily shielded. The positive particles, however, are extremely penetrating, and require massive shields.

 

Solar Wind

At 1 AU the average speed of the solar wind is about 400 km/s. This speed is by no means constant. The solar wind can reach speeds in excess of 900 km/s and can travel as slowly as 300 km/s. The average density of the solar wind at 1 AU is about 7 protons/cm^3 with large variations.

 

One of those documentaries claimed that there were active solar flare events during at least one of the Lunar missions. Should be easy to confirm/deny, the sun has a regular cycle.

 

Happy to help you guys look at the hoax theories. Just be sure that what you want to believe is not colouring your judgement of your assumptions.:) Lets divy them up and each research one or a couple of the issues.

Looking forward to having my doubts dispelled by the rational explanations. Perhaps the fakehoaxdoco makers need to go to guantanamo for their treacherous lies against their country.:)

[CraigD]

Footage of the lunar rover spinning its wheels and throwing up dirt clearly shows pebbles flying in parabolic trajectories while light dust stops in the air and drifts slowly to the ground.

Silverslith, can you provide a link to such a video?

 

In all of the LRV video I recall seeing, all dust and debris fell at the same rate, as one would expect it to in near vacuum, as seen in this 2 MB .mpg from the Apollo 16 mission.

 

I’m all for skepticism, but before one can acknowledge evidence such as the footage silverslith describes, one must actually see it.

[ronthepon]

No stars in any stills or footage: could be to easy for astronomers to prove were in the wrong place? or was the light to much and drowned them out?( probably not since some really famous pictures have the side of the naut facing away from the sun well defined.(shadow side is very dim on the moon because no luminous sky.))

I haven't been able to photograph stars decently ever, even at a height of 18K feel above sea level.

 

I'd assume that you'd need to make some efforts to capture them.

 

Anyway, I'd believe that the 'other sides' of the naut may be lit up by reflection effects of the lunar surface.

 

Got any picture links you can specefically reference at?

[Boerseun]

Even with the camera pointing away from the sun, the moon surface gives off enough glare to kill any star impressions on the film.

 

...but if you look closely at the black background you can see construction seams... [/x-files soundtrack] :)

[silverslith]

Silverslith, can you provide a link to such a video?

 

In all of the LRV video I recall seeing, all dust and debris fell at the same rate, as one would expect it to in near vacuum, as seen in this 2 MB .mpg from the Apollo 16 mission.

 

I’m all for skepticism, but before one can acknowledge evidence such as the footage silverslith describes, one must actually see it.

 

I'd love to, but since 1meg takes me ~half an hour to download I have no access to webvideo. You can get the Doco's I've mentioned from videostores. Otherwise someone with decent broadband may want to dig for it. Sand will fall near grav acceleration.

 

I'm prepared to accept the glare from reflected surface hypothesis to a degree, but anything not in line of sight of the surface should be completely black. There is a very famous photo of a naut at the bottom of the ladder with the capsule eclipsing light from behind. All of his details are equally lit. The top of his shoulders and head at least should be black.

 

Is it true that simular film to what they were supposed to have used is carried to the ISS in lead lined cases? Even though they are well within the earths mag field? I'm pretty stumped by the radiation question. If feet of concrete are needed as acknowleged by even nasa for months then a week is likely to be lethal with 100x less than this.

1 joule/kilogram is a gray so ~26joule/sqcm=130000 joules for human 1/2sqmeter in cross section and at least 1300 joules/kg = 1300gray

while some of this would have been absorbed by spacesuits or capsule, and some may have gone right through the nauts:

 

A uniform dose of 3 to 5 Gy to the whole body will kill fifty percent of people exposed within one to two months. This is a large unit and the milligray (mGy), which is one thousandth of a gray, is more commonly used.

: Ionising Radiation and Health

[Boerseun]

Because of the brightness of illuminated objects on the moon in the absence of atmosphere, the astronauts used a very fast exposure film, what earthbound journalists would have used for action shots before the onset of charge-couple devices in cameras.

 

Now even with relatively long-exposure film, if you go anywhere on earth where the sky is clean and the viewing is good, and you've got lots of bright stars, it's incredibly difficult to catch stars on film with an exposure of less than ten seconds.

 

The astronauts had to use fast film, because they weren't there for artistic purposes. They were there to take snapshots of themselves grinning on the moon. Damn tourists.

 

There weren't any stars on the photos because of the type of film and the exposure time. This still doesn't explain the candy bar wrappers seen behind the one rock, though.

[silverslith]

I've pretty much convinced myself they didn't go with that dosimetry estimate. At least 100x the quick death dose is pretty telling. And thats just average solar wind. According to NASA they had over 20x that on one trip.

[Pyrotex]

I checked with a friend of mine who works over on site at JSC. He was around for some of the Apollo missions. He says the radiation doses you quoted are way too big. He'll get back to me later with more accurate figures.

 

Later.

[Tormod]

I'm pretty stumped by the radiation question.

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation

 

On that page you'll find answers to most of your other Apollo hoax theories, as well.

[silverslith]

Actually (whew!) I fluffed the calcs on that rough estimate (Forgot to divide by 1000 for kg I think) . So its a little better. There still seems to be questions on the RBE of protons. And the proton density in the Van Allen belts and solar storm that one of the missions was during, and whether the moon or capsule went through the earths magnetail while they were there. All of which are much worse than the Calc below.

I think theres no chance the film could have survived 3.5 million protons per square millimeter per second passing through it as it turns out they ionise every atom they pass near by. Reputably seriously damaging every cell they pass through on the way through the human body. RBE values for protons are not well known but seem likely pretty nasty.

 

500 000m/s x 7P/cucm x 100cm/m = 350 000 000 P/second/sqcm

(average proton V 400000m/s, average kineticE will be more so I used 500000m/s)

50cm x 100cm = 5000sqcm for person

 

P/person/sec = 350 000 000 x 5000 = 1750000000000 = 1.75e+12

 

Mass 1.75e12 protons = 1.75e12 / 6.022e23 = 2.9e-12g = 2.9 e-15 kg

 

Energy per sec = (m x V x V)/2 = (2.9e-15 x 2e11)/2 = 3.63e-4J = 0.000363J

 

5days = 60s x 60m x 24hr x 5 = 432000seconds

 

Energy person 5 days = 157 J

Energy /kg = grays = 1.57 J/kg (100kg person)

Sieverts = grays x Relative Biologic Equivalent = 1.57x10= 15.7sv

 

Radiation Safety Training

1. X-rays RBE = QF = 1

2. gamma rays RBE = QF = 1

3. betas RBE = QF = 1 to 2

4. alphas RBE = QF = 10 to 20

5. protons RBE = QF = 10

6. neutrons (slow) RBE = QF = 4

7. neutrons (fast) RBE = QF = 10

[silverslith]

Not at all impressed by the explanations given on a couple of the "debunk the conspiracy doco" websites I looked at last night. No real logic and lots too much commitment to one sided belief.

[Boerseun]

When we look at the moonshots in the context of the time it took place in, i.e. in the '60s, there was such a race between the US and the USSR that one can make a rather solid case that there was a very good reason to hoax the whole thing to intimidate the USSR and gain a fair lead in the ideology race of the Cold War.

 

There was a very good and strong incentive to hoax it.

 

However, there were so many people (hundreds of thousands) involved in the project, in the supporting industries, the actual scientists, engineers, telemetry people, etc., that if it was indeed a hoax, it would have been patently impossible to effectively shut all of them up, for almost 40 years now.

[Tormod]

Not at all impressed by the explanations given on a couple of the "debunk the conspiracy doco" websites I looked at last night. No real logic and lots too much commitment to one sided belief.

 

Of course. The "wrong side", I guess.