Jump to content
The Education Forum

33 Apollo Questions


Steve Ulman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jack Posted the following on the Jack White's Aulis "Apollo Hoax" Investigation - A Rebuttal, The lost thread returns! in post #Post #186

Here's 33 things that need to be answered!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

Written by Dave Cosnette. Updated September 12th, 2006

I created this new thread, because from long experience, Cosmic Dave discussions tend to eat up a lot of space!

I don't have time right now so I'll leave it to others to post links to the multitude of discussions that have shredded, spindled and mutilated CD's arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's tackle these 'insights' one by one, shall we?

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

Even Wikipedia has this one nailed:

* Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. (This effect can be demonstrated on Earth by attempting to view stars from a brightly lit parking lot. You can only see them if you somehow block out all illuminated objects from your field of view, and then let your eyes adjust for night vision. Otherwise, it is like taking a picture of the night sky with exposure settings for a bright sunny day. Science fiction movies and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions.) Stars were seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13 (they couldn't see the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water vapor created a haze around the spacecraft). Stars were used for navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed. To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewer's field of view. (Plait 2002:158-60).

* Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars (Plait 2002:160). Even with cameras several times more sensitive than the ones used on Apollo, it takes an exposure of several seconds to show up even the brighter stars. [3] Exposure times of the Apollo photographs were a small fraction of a second, typically 1/250 of a second.

* Payload restrictions made the transport of telescope facilities to the Moon unfeasible, and without these ordinary stellar photography would have served no (scientific) purpose. However, even without such facilities, the Moon does offer several advantages as an observation platform. The near-absence of an atmosphere means that stellar imaging is possible at many wavelengths which are not visible from Earth. Such photographs were indeed taken, see for example here (far-UV band, the central object is the Earth). Stellar identification matches what would be expected for position and time as given in the photograph.

* The ability to determine parallax is limited by the angular resolution of the instrument used. The most advanced dedicated experiment carried out to date — the Hipparcos satellite — achieved resolutions in the milliarcsecond range. Using as baseline the diameter of the Earth's orbit about the Sun (by comparing images taken six months apart), this allowed parallax measurements for stars out to a distance of approximately 1,000 parsecs. However, the distance from Earth to Moon is about a thousand times smaller than that baseline, which means that the detection limit is reduced to about 1 parsec. This is less than the distance to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. Considering further that the resolution of an image taken with a conventional camera is many times lower than Hipparcos's, any such determination is entirely ruled out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_o...llo_moon_photos

or here

1) No stars in the photographs.

Well, ask any photographer and he or she will be able to answer that one. Basically the stars being so faint take a lot of time to register on film. This is why if you go have a look at my gallery you'll find the astro photographs will have an exposure of at least several seconds to pick up any stars.

You can test this yourself, take your camera go outside and just try and capture some stars, if the camera is automatic it'll probably try and exposure of may be half a second, may be a quarter, and it will probably pick up zero stars.

Now imagine the camera is set to a really short exposure like 1/125th of a second, because after all the Sun was up and the objects they were imaging like astronauts the lunar surface were all really bright - so they'd have even less time to register on the film. The only thing I could see imaging even at a push would be Venus or may be Jupiter.

There should be no stars in the image. The evidence (tens of thousands of photographs) backs this up. In fact having starry backgrounds would be evidence of the images being fake or doctored. Not the other way around.

http://blogs.dasmirnov.net/paul/2006/06/23...urders_and_nons

or here

Fox’s “Conspiracy Theory” program then goes on to point out what many “Moon Hoax” proponents believe to be their most potent evidence: in photos and TV pictures from the Apollo landings, no stars appear in the Moon’s pitch black sky! Most anyone with any knowledge of photography can debunk this damning evidence quickly enough. It is simply a matter of contrast. On the Moon, the sky is always black, because the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter sunlight. But the Sun is shining in all the Apollo camera shots, so that the astronauts, spacecraft, and even the lunar surface itself are all brightly lit. In order not to overexpose the scenes on the Moon, the cameras had to be set for fast exposure times and small apertures. With these settings, the stars are simply too dim to show up.

If you took a picture of someone here on Earth under similar conditions (subject brightly lit under dark night skies) using those same settings, background stars would not appear in those pictures either. But just suppose that NASA really did spend $30 billion to stage a series of fake Moon landings. Does anyone think they would overlook a simple detail like adding stars to the pictures?

http://www.seattleastro.org/webfoot/feb02/minutes.htm

Etc, etc. Anyone with even the most basic of photographic experience could answer that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

I think what is being refered to here is the leather covering of the Hasselblad. Apparently, 'Dark Moon' makes this claim and Dave has flummoxed it up.

It might be true that leather would 'outgas' (though leather has been used in 100% O2 aviation environments without incident), but this would not apply to Apollo - the cameras did not have any outer covering on the camera body:

hassie5b.jpg

hassel4.jpg

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

I think what is being refered to here is the leather covering of the Hasselblad. Apparently, 'Dark Moon' makes this claim and Dave has flummoxed it up.

It might be true that leather would 'outgas' (though leather has been used in 100% O2 aviation environments without incident), but this would not apply to Apollo - the cameras did not have any outer covering on the camera body:

hassie5b.jpg

hassel4.jpg

Hey Evan, why not just let everyone read Jay Widleys debunking of this drivel and then they can read the forum exchanges with Cosmic Dave. I can't imagine Jack White will have anything else to add to this thread.

http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html

http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php?t-1354.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have warned Jack that any list of questions coming from any conspiracy web site has already been brought before nasa's think tank of professional debunkers and not even worth the bother of posting .

If it weren't for the nasa disinformation sites such as Jay Utah's clavius moon base , and Phil Plaitt's Bad Astronomy site of bad astronomy , none of you would know how to 'refute' these questions so easily ...

You are correct Steve , these questions have been around many times before and so has the nasa's "crap " answers ... I didn't even bother to read these questions and answers , as knew exactly where this thread would be headed ... Right into nasa's team of disinformation agents who's only job is to try to suppress the Apollo hoax conspiracy information which has spread like wildfire across the internet .

Ah - at last - your true colors.

Now the name calling starts - "disinformation agents". What’s next, "Appologists", CIA Agents - or are you going to accuse us of being accessories after the fact.

It is now obvious that the only here for one of two reasons, either Jack recruited you to defend the work he wont, or you simply want your own views verified. (My guess - the former)

I think an apology is in order for lying to me when you said you were really interested in finding out the the truth. its obvious that you had already made up your mind before you joined this forum.

Also- View my BIO – I am not a “professional debunker” – I do this out of the desire to learn new things, a lifelong interest in space exploration and make sure nuts like Cosmic Dave aren’t allowed to spew lies without answer. What’s your excuse for defending garbage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I didn't even bother to read these questions and answers , as knew exactly where this thread would be headed ... Right into nasa's team of disinformation agents who's only job is to try to suppress the Apollo hoax conspiracy information which has spread like wildfire across the internet .

In other words, you are not interested in answers - only support for your own flawed conclusions.

If you have an original claim, I would be more than happy to debate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't come here to make enemies but to discuss Apollo .... and I didn't call anyone's evidence crap , except for nasa's ... Nor was I the first one to use the word crap here , Steve was .... Why is it okay for the nasa defenders to call the conspiracy evidence "crap " but when the tables are turned everyone of you has to get angry and insulting ?

I didn't bother to read these questions because I have seen them all before , plus all of the typical nasa answers which inevitably follow .... and I didn't mean that to be an insult to anyone here .

My opinions are not "flawed" nor have I lied to anyone here about anything , so I owe no one an apology ... I don't know who you people think you are to treat the other members here the way you do just because their opinions disagree with yours .

If anyone can "teach" me something that I don't already know about nasa and the Apollo program , then I am willing to learn ... but so far all I have seen from any of you is the same old tired rhetoric that I have encountered on every other site where the nasa defenders enjoy stomping all over the conspiracy researchers .

If you would like to continue to discuss Apollo in a reasonable and polite manner then fine ... but if not, then I am really not interested in anything either one of you might have to say .

I think I have a good idea why my reaction to these questions have angered the two of you so much , but please remember this ... I didn't write or ask these questions , nor was my post directed to either one of you , but rather to Jack .

I have many ORIGINAL claims to make here but so far everyone's else's claims have kept me busy and I haven't had the time to post them yet .

Duane-

When the same years old “evidence” of a hoax is regurgitated, after being thoroughly debunked numerous times, then it becomes crap all on its own, I merely state the obvious. It is not that I feel put out that your opinions are what they are, its that you came to this board stating you have a open mind yet have shown on numerous occasions that you will only accept as truth those facts that agree with your preconceived notions. I guess I should be more aggravated with myself for allowing you to convince me that you were indeed sincere when my initial read of you turned out to be correct.

I am not a part of a disinformation campaign. Never have been. I am interested in FACTS, not conjecture – see my signature. Consider that maybe the reason all of the debunking of CD’s loaded questions is the same is simply because the facts are against CD.

Part of my aggravation with the Apollo discussion here over that last week is that Jack is continuing to post “analyses” that were answered years ago, many of which he refused to discuss the first time. Also, as I stated, I want to explore and learn new things about Apollo. Rehashing CD’s 33 questions which have been thoroughly debunked, is extremely frustrating.

If you have original questions, then please post them so we may find the answer together. However, before that begins, ground rules should be established. As requested in another thread, please state which sources you won’t accept as evidence and give the reasons for your reluctance for accepting them. This way, we may all be assured of that we are indeed looking for an answer, not just wasting our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose Duane can actually cite evidence to back his allegation that Jay Utah, and Phil Plaitt are professional NASA disinformation agents and has not stooped to Jack's level of making baseless charges and of course if he can't will withdraw these acusations. I suppose also that since he is a reasonable person he will realize that he has stooped to ad hominem attacks and not actually address their points. He should also realize that Cosmic Dave didn't provide any backing for the assumptions upon which his questions are based this in itself makes them meritless.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

I have many ORIGINAL claims to make here but so far everyone's else's claims have kept me busy and I haven't had the time to post them yet .

Duane

I for one would be very interested in hearing some original claims, Cosmic Dave's 33 questions are pretty tiresome, and JW doesn't seem interested in defending his work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...