Slashdot Mirror

and also, this https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We have never put, nor returned, a man, to or from, the moon. And we are not the only ones to have faked space exploration. We did not have the technology to do it then, much like we don't now.

All three videos you posted just regurgigate the same old hoax arguments which have been debunked countless times. For good examples of the debunking, just go to e.g. http://www.clavius.org/index.h... or watch any of the videos (on youtube) by e.g. Phil Plait / astrobrant2 / GreaterSapien (or any of the countless others). Don't even mention Jarrah White, watch the astrobrant2 videos for debunking of his crazy theories.

Also good: Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses (among other stuff) the moon landing hoax with Joe Rogan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Yes, the timing of this scoop is suspicious. NASA had already recovered the tapes but was still processing them using advanced digital manipulation techniques (in partnership with ILM and cinematographer Daniel Mindel). This "reboot" to be titled simply "Moon Landing" and released as a summer blockbuster on July 20, 2009. In this improved version, new fast-paced drama will be introduced and secret relationships revealed, Mission Control looks like the Apple Store, and of course there will be EVEN MORE lens flare...
http://www.clavius.org/lensflare.html

Hilariously the apollo program had some pretty serious pogo oscillation problems. Pogo is shaking the rocket up and down makes the propellant flow increase and decrease making the oscillations worse.

In the apollo era, as per http://www.clavius.org/techsvpogo.html they used plumbing style water hammer chambers to eliminate the fluid surges. Let the vehicle shake but prevent the ability for shaking to cause thrust variations.

The modern solution is apparently dynamic shock absorber technology on the vehicle.

The modern solution eliminates the shaking, the old solution allowed it to shake but patched around it so it didn't have negative effects.

The modern solution is better, which makes the comparisons to Apollo kind of funny to those who know...

IANA Rocket Scientist, but don't you need a *lot* more thrust to hover in earth gravity than lunar gravity? It seems like the lander would have to be significantly over engineered to complete Level 2. For example, the lander legs have to be stronger (and heavier) to support the weight of the vehicle on earth.

Also, this test seems like it would eliminate any possible alternative to standard rocketry. Much the way a solar sail is useful in space, some alternative lower output thrust technology may be practical on the moon, but not on earth. It seems pretty obvious that when you're "testing" against a set of standards that are different than the operating environment, you're limiting yourself and/or overlooking important details.

As far as I can tell, NASA never flight tested the lunar lander, although it tried. All testing (and practice flights) were done on a gantry, yet it worked spectacularly on the moon.

Hey, it might even help out on moon exploration or even to mars. http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Stops bullets and keeps the kiddies from mutating.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.clavius.org/

Those above links seem to cover a lot of the 'evidence' for the Moon Hoax theories.

then read this website. http://www.clavius.org/. Pretty straightforward isnt it? No hoax.

Van Allen belts:

The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

First, the assumption that a given mission must expend all the vehicle's fuel is highly naive. Every rocket is provided with slightly more fuel than its mission requires, as a safety margin. In any event, the rocket is not compelled to burn all of it. The Saturn V was a sophisticated flying machine that was able to shut off its engine when the desired velocity was obtained, regardless of remaining fuel.

By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.

Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.

And perhaps this site will explain why Bart Sibrel is a lying, attention seeking con artist without a clue. When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter takes pictures of the Apollo hardware on the surface I would dearly love to see some documentary crew follow him around and hound him relentlessly like he does to the astronauts. Not that he won't just claim that the new evidence is faked as well.

You need to read this site...

http://www.clavius.org/

I'm glad to see that you too don't know about the Van Allen Belt. If you did you would realize that it is impossible for us now, and forget about back then, for us to leave out planet.

Your arguments sound awfully familiar to those already refuted. In short: Stars aren't usually visible because of the fact that capturing those would need longer exposure, meaning the foreground would be overexposed (hint: Try taking a photograph anywhere with odd lighting conditions, then compare that to what you actually *see* - human eyes have pretty damn amazing dynamic range compared to cameras!) The odd shadows are mostly due to the fact that the surface isn't quite as flat as it seems, and the objects may be in a bit different angle than they immediately seem. Honestly, read the above site (and Clavius too).

Here's an excellent website that's "debunking the moon hoax." Well worth the read!

If you honestly think the moon landings were faked, you are mentally handicapped.

The site http://www.clavius.org/ really belongs in the body of the post. It answers in depth every "reason" why it's impossible to have landed on the Moon.

If you have your doubts, or otherwise find yourself giving credence to the Apollo hoax theories, you owe it to yourself to visit that site. There's nothing wrong with questioning government and understanding that it's possible (possible != probable, and as hard as it was to land on the Moon, imagine how much harder it would be to fake it in an open society where not only would you have to trick hundreds of thousands of engineers and support personnel as well as thousands of scientists, but also the astronauts who are still alive today and have not contradicted the stories, all the while you can't have made a single mistake that would expose the conspiracy!) that the Moon landings were faked, but this is a case where the evidence is fully on the side of the conventional story.

The damage is already done before someone goes over the pix with a fine-tooth comb looking for irregularities - and many will be "explained away" as artefacts of the file format (lossy compression). Compress the shit out of them and your analysis won't stand up.

Just look at how bad the Oswald pictures are - remember them, in the bad old days before photoshop? Obvious fakes here, also demonstrated on TV lots of times, etc.

In the rush to blame someone rather than look for the real perp, they were accepted without question.

The cops aren't going to put 10 minutes into seeing if a picture is fake or not - their attitude is "let the jury sort it out". Remember, judges are there to decide matters of law, juries matters of fact.

But by the time it gets to a jury, the damage is long done. Ruined life. divorce. hatred. lack of trust.

some of the "moon hoaxers" think thats why they could never get to the moon at all.
"though much faster, my pentium can barely run [insert 3d shooter here] at good FPS. how could it fly to the moon? so they never did."

logic?
clavius explanations.

Check out Clavius if you've ever wondered about the many conspiracy theories swirling around the Apollo missions. It addresses each point with facts and science, containing many fascinating descriptions and explanations of how things work up there on the moon.

Except the 'organic substances' that were the astronauts spent only about an hour in these belts, and they were in a shielded spacecraft when they did so. Their exposure and accumulated dose was minimal. http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Found this online: (about the ~2.5Mev):

http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html
but it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb

So the question becomes, how much of this stuff (and how big a "battery") would it take to handle all my energy needs, and does the resulting crap that comes out the other end (when it breaks down) pose an unecessary risk to my health or the health of the environment (ie, is there a way to really "seal" the battery)

The ionosphere is heavily charged, right? Is it like a big capacitor or just a big charged sphere?

The cable would be a series of pairs of wires, heavily insulated

Don't forget your cable will travel through the van Allen belts. This has I think a similar charge to the ionosphere and is exceptionally highly charged during solar flares. Solar flares can disrupt power on Earth (/. geeks with brownout and clean-line UPS are mmmmmkay). This would add (or subtract) to the voltage at the ionosphere, plus the cable will cut the van Allen belts and Earth's magnetic fields, like a long wire (winding) in a gigantic alternator (electric dynamo).

Add to this the magnetic effect. The Earth's magnetic field would be disrupted by a long metal cable as the field would prefer to travel through the cable than the atmosphere, causing a warping in the Earth's magnetic field, and thus a possible weakness for solar radiation penetration. The charge on the cable could ionise the O3 in the ozone layer, damaging it. Ozone is highly corrosive so your cable will degrade in the ozone layer.

If we implement the gradual insulators system you talk about then the cable is still in effect a long power line or a collection of them (scroll down to near lecture 2 on this link), vulnerable to reflections and resonances occuring on the wire, especially if it interacts with the Earth's magnetic field causing a sympathetic resonance. Plus since the ionosphere is a large shell, a resonance could be amplified if the frequency matches the resonant frequency of the charged sphere (the opposite side of the sphere would have an inverse resonant waveform). Introducing more insulators will only change the harmonic frequencies, the resonances may still occur.