The MOON HOAX

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby Critical Mass on Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:44 pm

I don't know about you guys but I certainly smell something with these stories...

The Mysterious Smell of Moondust

I like the bit about how we have no moon dust to study on Earth because...
All of the samples brought back by Apollo astronauts have been in contact with moist, oxygen-rich air. Any smelly chemical reactions (or evaporations) ended long ago.

This wasn't supposed to happen. Astronauts took special "thermos" containers to the moon to hold the samples in vacuum. But the jagged edges of the dust unexpectedly cut the seals of the containers...

This happened every time?

The Moon Smells: Apollo Astronauts Describe Lunar Aroma

"In a nut-shell, I believe that the astronauts all smelled unsatisfied dangling bonds on the lunar dust … which were readily satisfied in a second by the lunar module atmosphere, or nose membrane moisture," Taylor told Space.com.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby lux on Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:07 pm

NASA appears to be trying to cover their ass for the hokey slow-motion hopping Apollo astronaut “moon” footage by stating that modern space suits will allow astro-nots to walk faster and more normally than the Apollo guys did:

Movies of NASA's Apollo astronauts on the moon typically show them hopping instead of walking. However, contrary to popular belief, the astronauts employed this form of movement not because of low lunar gravity, but because spacesuits of the era were not designed for walking.

"The spacesuits worn by the Apollo astronauts weren't designed to optimize mobility — they were designed to optimize life support," said lead study author John De Witt, a senior biomechanist at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.

"The suit designers were not concerned about making the legs move, but were more concerned with things such as oxygen, water and cooling," De Witt told Space.com. "As a result, the Apollo astronauts could not move their legs very much in their spacesuits, and they found it easier to hop all over the place instead of walking."

Story here.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:19 pm

*

" Well, owl be damned ! " :lol: :lol: :lol:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU9G8I91KIU
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6760
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby brianv on Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:19 pm

simonshack wrote:*

" Well, owl be damned ! " :lol: :lol: :lol:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU9G8I91KIU


As they say in Ireland - "There's no fool like an owl fool".
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby lux on Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:53 pm

I wonder how the NASA shills will explain that one.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby brianv on Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:25 pm

lux wrote:I wonder how the NASA shills will explain that one.


Beep...The Eagle er sorry, The Owl has landed! One giant f-owl up for mankind!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby Sukiari on Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:58 am

lux wrote:I wonder how the NASA shills will explain that one.


It was clearly venus reflecting off some lunar swamp gas.

That's a hell of a video.
Sukiari
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby Makkonen on Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:12 am

And speaking of shills, shame on you NVIDIA, shame on you:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82kyfvnfIfQ
Makkonen
Member
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby brianv on Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:42 am

British aviators Alcock and Brown made the first non-stop transatlantic flight in June 1919. They flew a modified World War I Vickers Vimy bomber from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Clifden, Connemara, County Galway, Ireland.

In the years to follow five or six more crossings were made.

There hasn't been another transatlantic flight since.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:41 am

Image

"Ok folks, we are just pissing you off!"
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby Sukiari on Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:54 am

Flabbergasted wrote:Image

"Ok folks, we are just pissing you off!"


Through mathematical and technological trickery that you have no hope of understanding let alone implementing yourself, we will present *PROOF* that this thing is real.

The continued attempts of NASA and friends to prove the moon landing are mighty suspicious in and of themselves. They are getting more desperate as time goes on.

Somebody mentioned way back in this thread that a large chunk of the populace no longer believes in the moon landing. Why should they anyway?

NVIDIA, you just made me an ATI guy for life.
Sukiari
Member
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Hasselblad's claims

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:08 am

Recently I have encountered yet another uncomfortable position, as it sometimes is with these sorts of things, in my close family/friends circle. This circle was delivering to me a solid stream of propaganda about how much I need to appreciate a particular camera that somehow validates NASA's world view (and/or the one they religiously impose on the public). As such, I started doing some research on the official cameras and while I don't know if I can or really want to confront them with this information, I found that one of the major players in the hoax is something called Hasselblad, a big power-touched Swedish company. Like Rockwell Collins's magic motors and communications equipment (the Moon simulators) and Goodyear's amazing Moon Tires (which we should definitely be exploring to totally re-debunk the "Moon Buggie" on top of what has already been said) Hasselblad is another one.

I suspect that Hasselblad, the camera brand that is claimed to have been used on the Moon for the Apollo missions — and also used for some NASA style missions related to Skylab and such — is a military-government sort of industrial "player" with different government and civilian relationships. This much is at least admitted publicly. And in what I wouldn't even call "the details" but just the official language, you can once again read the fine line between Hollywood and NASA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad

I suspect this because of some of the language that has "ended up" in its public history, such as its Wikipedia's entry, which states its first cameras were:

Wikipedia wrote:HK7 and SKa4 military cameras

The HK7 put a 7 cm tall by 9 cm wide image on 80 mm film ...


and

Wikipedia (my emphasis) wrote:Hasselblad's first civilian camera was launched in 1948.


and

Wikipedia (my emphasis) wrote:EL series

In 1964, Hasselblad started production of a motorized camera, the 500 EL. Apart from the housing that incorporates the motor drive and the NiCd batteries, this camera is similar in appearance and operation to the Hasselblad 500 C and uses the same magazines, lenses and viewfinders. This camera and its successors:

500 EL (1964–1970)
500 EL/M (1971–1984, introduced user-interchangeable screen),
500 ELX (1984–1988, introduced TTL-flash sensor and larger non-vignetting mirror),
553 ELX (introduced new internal light-absorbing coating and use of AA-batteries), and
555 ELD (1998–2006, introduced new mirror mechanics and electronic contacts for communication with digital backs)

have been and still are used mainly as workhorses in photo studios. This camera type became also very famous when a heavily modified version of it was used in the U.S. Apollo lunar exploration program. As an outgrowth of the experience with NASA cameras, a photogrammetric version of the Hasselblad 500 EL/M, the Hasselblad MK 70, was constructed with specially calibrated components.


Interesting how a studio camera was allegedly "modified" (though "heavily" could really mean anything) in order to explain what a studio camera was doing in "outer space". They also sort of tip toe around the notion of a special relationship with NASA by minimizing their experience with NASA, so as to be depicted with "NASA cameras" rather than NASA as a whole, as an organization or as any kind of sensitive political/power relationship that the United States would normally have with its propaganda arm.

The NASA things they boast now are in question because of the tenuous way they presently describe their relationship then. It is as if to both boast of and disavow the political situation of the corporation.

I am sure the Hasselblad is a fine camera, with many technical achievements and credits, but it is because of the official story and the fact that it claims to be the best (and sometimes the most expensive) that we can deduce the particular protected nature of its position in the super class.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby icarusinbound on Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:40 am

Hoi, you will no doubt be aware of the TV 'edutainment' programme Mythbusters, in particular their pseudoscientific attempts to debunk Apollo moon mission imagery doubters.

It's worth highlighting (pun intended) the excellent counter research by Russian cinematographers Yuri Elkhov and Leonid Konovalov http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm which methodically disproves the fundamental optical capabilities of the Hasselblad cameras used on the moon within the fundamental official story that no artificial light sources were used. The level of unarguable detail they amass on the colour /reflectivity (and lack thereof, quite aside from simply doing ray traces back multiple sources of artificial studio lights) is very impressive.

Within the main Aulis website I also recommend the collection of Jack White's photo analysis http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html and the overall Apollo section http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm

Hasselblad as a company do sometimes appear to have done a bit of strategic distancing regarding their Apollo contributions (assuming that's not been reactive layered disinfo). Is it in the 'Did We Go to the Moon?' documentary that a company senior executive appears to tacitly acknowledge that the list of challenges (radiation and heat exposure to film and mechanisms, limits of chest mounts, lack of viewfinders, depths of field/focus/aperture) is beyond the company's (or any company) ability to provide?

I'm trying to relocate the work published by an experienced photographic analyst that focuses purely upon the sheer quantity of pictures taken with these unearthly Hasselblads, where the statistical impracticality of churning out hundreds of perfectly composed/exposed/framed pictures is presented in unavoidable detail. Are you familiar with this angle?
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Nov 30, 2014 5:48 am

No, I am yet unfamiliar with that exact angle of looking at things, though the thoughts have crossed many of our minds I am sure. But you make me curious. I appreciate what the Russians have done to test that particular photo's realism. For us, this does not need to be what allows the whole series of alleged pictures and photos to come into question — the videos are so strange, the science behind the rocketry is enormously debatable, the launches are highly suspect, even the shape and science of the cosmos is debated (and this fact is downplayed most of all, seemingly as part of the whole purpose of NASA's lies and omissions) — let alone any photos of some fanciful, successful "Moon Mission".

Here is the conclusion of the Russian researchers, comparing their photo of the test rig (with even more reflectivity than there should have been) with the official NASA fake (NASA fake on the right).

MythBusters18.jpg

And just in case it isn't clear, I flatly, evenly upped the brightness (without upping the contrast!) of the whole comparison image in GIMP. This results in a very clear problem with the official NASA fake. How the astronaut glows!

MythBusters18_B.jpg

But many people will claim that an unknown exposure type, or the "heavily modified" Hasselblad (though — here's another genuine question — is it explained anywhere just how exactly this Hasselblad was modified?) and other things they claim to be unknowns somehow "allow" for the pictures to be taken. Even though the skeptics of NASA are the ones bringing the camera information to the table, and they claim there's a particular 150 ISO film used (never mind, even, what the highly advanced, unshielded radiation said to be "up there" from the Sun and the Moon would do to such film).

However, the AULIS Online site is pretty sad and circumspect because it doesn't seem to process the problems with NASA, it inflates conspiracy theories rather than expressly exploring the forensic problems of the NASA case. So I shouldn't trust it as a source at all.

The whole modern Apollo myth (not a God myth, but just as invented and fanciful perhaps?) is a very precarious story since it rests entirely on the video and photo evidence, much of which is demonstrably faked, doctored and fabricated.

As such, those who believe for whatever personal reasons that the remaining evidence is "real" must believe that such evidence is unquestionable; this, too, despite the fact that the most famous photos, the most challenging photos to blindly believe in the face of the evidence of their fakeness, are the ones of greatest public significance.

It would be interesting to witness/read/see the argument (sorry, I am unfamiliar with this) that there is an absurd number of alleged photos, since that is also what we've found in the case of 9/11 — an absurd number of witnesses with evidence of ridiculous clarity (if contradictory evidence). I am not sure the argument is very strong for the Apollo missions without full explanation, however. The apologists could rightly claim that such a significant event as men physically bouncing around on the (up until 1969) illusive glowing orb in the sky is deserving of countless photos — and more — and if it isn't explained just how the pictures were done (presumably, there is some technobabble style to the numerical categorization/ordering of pictures that will forever go unexplained) they can claim to have thrown out the bad ones. Simon and I browsed the official NASA archives for a while and looked at quite a few funny names of images. Most of the images in question were an utter waste of time and could have been fabricated in a number of ways — from photographing Earth areas and objects, to primitive 3D software to plain old advanced drawing/cartooning. But the names seemed quite bizarre. Random numbers implying hundreds of "missing" or "tossed" ones.

They forever cover up their careful consideration and psychological games with the appearance of ineptitude, wonder and disorganization. But could it be any other way? Aren't those the covers of any liar in the history of humankind?

9/11 does not have the "so important" excuse, because it was meant to be a shocking surprise to the public, yet only clearer and clearer forgeries (superior to the mainstream media, even!) seem to get published about that particular day, which makes very little sense.

Anyway, it's a cool area of research regarding the creepy Apollo business. Let's keep digging. I think we can do better. Hasselblad's bizarre relationship to the thing is just a clue. Is it a big one though? Jack White's bit on the site is quite awesome, so far, from my cursory looks. Is that conspiracy mongering site the only place where his evidence appears? Should we just nab it? I don't think we should necessarily trust his motivations (or handlers?) for posting it, though.

Jack White has a BA in journalism, interests in art and history and a solid career in advertising behind him. Having been a professional photographer for over half a century, Jack White is skilled in all aspects of photography, but his speciality is photo analysis. Indeed, Jack White is an expert on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and has served as photographic consultant to the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during the hearings. White has published two videotapes on his photographic studies of the assassination and was also a consultant on the Oliver Stone film JFK.

Not unnaturally, White has been following the Apollo 'did they, didn't they' debate for many years. But it was in 2001, following the Fox TV documentary Did we land on the Moon? that he decided to undertake an in-depth investigation into the lunar EVA images, and found literally hundreds of them to be anomalous, considering the conditions under which they were alleged to have been taken. In other words, if the photographs were supposed to have been taken on the lunar surface – they were faked.


Hmm. Endorsed by Fetzer. Hollywood consultant. I think the site could be bait, even if it is a juicy compilation of interesting alleged evidence. We might want to do our own back up research while looking at that site.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:41 am

Regardless of who/what this Jack White site really is, some of the arguments should be 'bumped' in the interest of their sound logic. Does the evidence for fakery hold up? It's tempting to go along with them, since some significant thought has been put into them. Until I try to debunk these for myself, I am finding there could be overwhelming evidence for complete fakery of all Apollo missions, besides the logical reasons for it.

Here is the calculation for the absurdity of the time taken to make all the pictures on the Moon, and I must say it is a surprisingly weighty argument.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm wrote:Anyone with even elemental math skills and common sense can look at the facts, do the calculations, and come to their own conclusions about the alleged MASSIVE VOLUME of lunar surface photography in such a LIMITED TIME.

Here is my conclusion: IT COULD NOT BE DONE.

It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery, though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three years (and discovered many fakes). Very simply, it amounts to a study known to many businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY. The elementary question is: was it possible to take the known number of photos (from NASA records) in the amount of time available (from NASA records)? But before you read my study, to understand it you need to know some basic information about the Apollo missions:

1. Of seven Apollo missions to put "men on the Moon", six were claimed to be "successful". (Apollo 13 was "aborted".)

2. Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with spectacular "success" on Apollo missions 11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once even landing within 200 feet of a pre-selected target.

3. Two astronauts rode each LEM to the Moon surface while one remained in the orbiting Command and Service Module (CSM) awaiting their return.

4. During their Extra-Vehicular Activity (lunar surface exploration) each of the two wore a bulky inflated spacesuit with clumsy gloves, greatly limiting mobility. On their backs they wore a huge and heavy Life Support System (PLSS) backpack containing an oxygen tank and circulating water air conditioning system which pumped refrigerated water throughout the suit to counteract the 200+/- degree heat (and cold) of lunar conditions. Pumps circulated both refrigerated air and water to the liquid cooling undergarment, as well as dehumidifying, removing carbon dioxide, and providing all other functions needed to survive harsh conditions in the confining suits.

5. The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH projects to be carried out by the two astronauts. Most of the projects, which numbered about a half dozen each mission, were remarkably similar on all six missions. All of these science experiments involved unpacking equipment from stowage bays, assembling it, transporting it to its location, setting it up, and then doing the experiments. As you might imagine, each of these research projects would require a major portion of the TIME of the two men for each experiment.

6. Another major project besides operation of the packaged experiments was the Geological Study, which involved searching for different specimens of rocks and soils in various locations, documenting and collecting samples to return to earth. This obviously occupied much of their TIME.

7. Considerable TIME was needed for "housekeeping chores". After landing, the LEM had to be inspected to make sure it had not been damaged. Communications equipment to put them in contact with Earth had to be set up and operated, including radio and television antennas and TV cameras. The US flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done before any experiments were initiated. Oh, and don't forget the "ceremonial" chat with President Nixon during Apollo 11.

8. The first three missions required the astronauts to walk to each experiment location. The last three missions were supplied with a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) to travel to distant locations miles away from the LEM. The partially pre-assembled LRV was attached to the outside of the LEM. The rover floor served as a pallet which was hinged to the outside of the LEM. The wheels were folded under. The "pallet" was lowered by hand to the lunar surface, and the wheels rotated into position. After the wheels were down, the vehicle had to be outfitted with all of its considerable equipment from various storage bins of the LEM. Oddly, not a single photo exists in the public domain (at least that I could find to date) of the astronauts assembling and equipping the LRVs. The battery-powered rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography. Also, the time taken in assembling the rover was not used for any photography. Though I could find no time given by NASA, surely it is reasonable to guess that it took at least an hour to unload, assemble and equip and test a rover?

9. Almost incidental to the main astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each astronaut had his own camera. (Apart from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to see the controls. The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed. Each camera had a bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (mainly Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required PERFECT aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the cameras did not have automatic exposure capability.

10. It is important to know that although each man had his own camera, they ALMOST NEVER USED THEM AT THE SAME TIME. Usually one of them was photographing the other doing some task. Therefore having two cameras DID NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might surmise. Now that you understand the missions, here is my discovery of NASA overzealousness, which has been successfully hidden till now.

A TIME AND MOTION STUDY

For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I had thousands!

I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 16....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 17....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11...subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos
Apollo 12...subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos
Apollo 14...subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos
Apollo 15...subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos
Apollo 16...subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos
Apollo 17...subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11.....121 photos in 031 minutes........3.90 photos per minute
Apollo 12.....504 photos in 230 minutes........2.19 photos per minute
Apollo 14.....374 photos in 385 minutes........0.97 photos per minute
Apollo 15...1021 photos in 750 minutes........1.36 photos per minute
Apollo 16...1765 photos in 854 minutes .......2.06 photos per minute
Apollo 17...1986 photos in 844 minutes .......2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon – that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?


-http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

The editor's notes (from the same page) also contain some good points:

Editor's Notes: *According to Andrew Chaikin, author of A Man on the Moon the LRV averaged only 5 to 7 miles per hour, which would reduce even further the time available for photography.

Timing Out
Taking the Apollo 11 mission as his example, and the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal (1) consulted by Jack White in this Skeleton article, an 'apollogist' or critic, has posted a long refutation of the above time and motion study. This critic asserts that a shot rate per mission calculated on time available over number of photos taken is inappropriate, since some pictures took longer than others, and that the pictures were taken during the tasks over the whole EVA period.
This is not a point that Jack White is disputing.

Taking the Apollo 11 EVA of 151 minutes, the critic would prefer that the photos are evaluated according to his own calculations which split the EVA into 9 segments of 'about 15 minutes each' (2). Working from the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal, this critic has estimated the number of photos taken for each segment.

According to these criteria there are variable averages of 7.5 minutes (segment two) to 2.5 minutes (segment six) or 31 seconds (segment seven). However, when studying the actual mission elapsed time line we can see that this is not a reflection of the time allowed for photography at all. Nor is the approximate 15 minute segment a true reflection of the time taken by each bundle of tasks that this critic has allocated per segment. Further, while taking Jack White to task for not listing the EVA tasks in the correct order, the critic splits single EVA tasks (such as the flag ceremony) across two separate 'segments' and also splits multiple panorama shots across 'segments'. As it turns out, this critic's method simply demonstrates that at some points in the mission fewer shots were taken than at others.
Not a point Jack White is disputing either.

Nor is the critic's argument the same. He proposes that there was plenty of time for photography since it was spread across the mission. Jack White proposes that given the workload, the number of photographs to be taken, and the conditions under which they were taken, there was not enough time to achieve the standard of photography revealed within the official Apollo record. Not to mention the anomalies!

Workload
Jack White's critic demonstrates that he is in a muddle about what he is trying to prove by recommending the ideal method for ascertaining accurately the time available for photography. While not doing it himself, due to the amount of time it would take, he thinks is necessary to note each shot relative to the mission elapsed timings. Taking this advice to heart and also checking the tasks of each astronaut against their individual EVA timings (3) does indeed take hours.
It also produces the following result:

The Apollo 11 EVA workload was ............2hrs 03 minutes
The time allocated to photography was........... 28 minutes
The average time to point-and-shoot .......121 photos was 13.88 seconds
The average time to point-and-shoot .......122 photos (2) 13.77 seconds

These figures demonstrate two things:

a) The role of astronaut photography in this mission was minimal, and most of it was of the point-and-shoot variety. Which begs the question regarding those carefully composed shots.

b) There is a difference between a time and motion study as per Jack White, demonstrating the time available for photography within a mission, and the dissenter's demonstration of the moment within that mission during which that photography took place.

Using the second demonstration as a response to the first is to merely demonstrate these differences, and saying that "White suggests in his study that the work load was such that there should have been two hours with no photography" is a false premise. Yet this statement turns out to be virtually correct when it comes to evaluating the amount of time required for the EVA workload. It would appear that this critic may have done all these calculations and then muddled his paperwork.

As a result of the foregoing, it is clear that Jack White's conclusion of a reserved time of 31 minutes for the Hasselblad still photography across the Apollo 11 EVA, was virtually spot on. We are down to 28 minutes.

In any event, the crux of the matter is that on average across all missions, one photograph had to have been taken every 50 seconds even if Apollo astronauts were doing nothing but photography while allegedly on the Moon.

NOTES:
(1) Lunar Surface Journal reference: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html used by White, critic and Aulis editor in this matter of the Apollo 11 EVA.
(2) Critic's posting: 'Bad Apprentice': Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:28 pm on badastronomy.com. His segments are 'approx. 15 mins', his total photos is 122:
1. 0 photos; 2. 20 photos; 3. 2 photos; 4. 4 photos; 5. 17 photos; 6. 25 photos; 7. 29 photos; 8. 19 photos, 9. 6 photos.
(3) The Apollo 11, NASA Mission Report volume 3 (complied from the NASA archives, Edited by Robert Godwin) pp 145/174.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest