1. CLAIM: The moon landing was faked on a movie set. Proof: there are clearly two sources of light in the movies and stills taken on the moon. Since there is only one source of light in the sky (the sun) how can we explain the fact that even in shadows there is obvious "fill" light that illuminates various objects that, back lit from the sun, should be in near total darkness. Much
of the show was spent on this point as they showed photo after photo, film after film, of "filled in" photos. Fill light is exactly what you would see on a studio set.
ANSWER: Even granting that NASA's rocket scientists were too dumb to have thought of this and thus tipped their conspiracy hand to the no-moonies who, apparently, are smarter than rocket scientists, there were actually three sources of light on the moon: the sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.
I hope this will help the "non believers" change their mind
2. CLAIM: The American flag was "waving" in the allegedly airless environment of the moon. How can this be? Proof: film footage showing the astronauts planting the flag, with the flag clearly waving.
ANSWER: Of course the flag was "waving" while the astronaut was fiddling with it back and forth as he jammed it into the hole. But the moment he let go of the flag, it mysteriously stopped waving. Umm, coincidence? I don't think so.
3. CLAIM: There was no blast crator beneath the LEM lander. Proof: photographs of the LEM with no blast crator and a NASA painting made before the first landing, showing what a NASA artist thought might happen when the LEM landed (big blast crator).
ANSWER: (1) The LEM engine was variable--the astronauts could control the thrust and, of course, as they eased their way down to the surface they throttled back on the engine. (2) There was only a couple of inches of moon dust on the surface, beneath which was a solid surface that would not be effected by the blast of the LEM engine. Before Apollo 11 landed, there was much debate among scientists about the amount of moon dust that would have accumulated over billions of years. Some speculated that there could be several feet of dust, into which the LEM and the astronauts would sink. Others said just a few inches. The latter were right.
4. After the blast crator from the LEM engine was created, all the lunar dust around the LEM should have been displaced, yet there's Armstrong's footprint clearly imprinted into the lunar dust just a foot away from the LEM's landing pad. What gives?
ANSWER: Again, the moon is airless, so the LEM engine blast did indeed send dust flying, after which it came back down because there is no wind to scatter it. The blast of dust happened mainly directly underneath the LEM engine.
5. If there was so much moon dust all over the place, being kicked up by the LEM engine, by the rover, by the astronauts, why is everything so clean?
ANSWER: It wasn't. Moon dust was a problem because, in fact, it got all over everything and the astronauts spents hours after their moon walks cleaning their suits so as not to get the dust all over the interior of the LEM.
6. CLAIM: When the top half of the LEM took off to return the astronauts to the command module, leaving the lower half sitting there on the moon's surface, there was no "blast" flame like we see on earth. The LEM just seems to leap off the base like it was yanked up by cables.
ANSWER: First of all, you can clearly see in the film footage of the launch, that there IS quite a blast as dust and other particles go flying, even one piece right toward the camera. Second, there is no air on the moon, so there can be no blast "flame" like there is on earth. This is why rocket engines in space have to carry their own oxygen (in liquid form). Unlike jet engines
that suck in air, rockets carry all the chemicals they need and mix them at the time the "burn" is required. And "burn" is not quite the right term, since it implies a "flame" should be present. In space there can be no flame because there is no oxygen to fuel a flame tail coming out of the rocket nozzle. All that is happening is that chemicals being stored in separate containers are being released together to cause a reaction, the energy from which flows out rapidly through a nozzle, after which Newton's law of "equal and opposite reaction" takes over.
7. On earth, the LEM lander simulator used by the astronauts for practice was obviously unstable. In fact, shortly before the Apollo 11 flight Neil Armstrong barely escaped with his life as his simulator crashed and he ejected just seconds before impact. Imagine how tricky it would have been to land the actual LEM, with two astronauts shifting around inside and all that
additional weight. Fox even managed to find a physicist named Ralph Rene who proclaimed that it would have been impossible to land the LEM because of its inherent instability.
ANSWER: Armstrong did indeed barely escape with his life in the simulator. But practice makes perfect, and these guys practiced, and practiced, and practiced until they got it down. A bicycle is also inherently unstable. The damn thing just falls over standing still, and even moving it topples over after a few meters of pedaling, UNTIL YOU LEARN HOW TO RIDE IT! Plus, and these no-moonies never seem to get this, what happens on earth is not the same as what happens on the moon. Air on earth, no air on the moon. Lots of gravity on the earth, a lot less gravity on the moon. Things big and heavy on earth will be big and light on the moon. And we can even calculate exactly how much different! These NASA scientists were so good they even calculated the effects of the gravitational pull from large and irregular moon masses as the LEM flew closely over them.
8. There are no stars in the moon sky, yet when you look up at night from earth you see lots of stars.
ANSWER: How many stars do you see in photographs taken at night, on earth, of terrestrial objects? That's right. None. Well, okay, MAYBE you'll see Venus, but that's not a star. If you want to shoot stars in the night sky you have to aim your camera and leave the shutter open for at least several seconds. The astronauts were not there to take pictures of the sky. Also, since it is very bright on the moon (no air to scatter the sunlight) and the astronauts were wearing white space suits, the camera F-stop would have been set way down, and the shutter speed quite fast. Stars are too faint to appear on the film emulsion.
9. If you run the moon film footage at double speed it looks like it was filmed on earth, ergo it WAS filmed on earth.
ANSWER: Balderdash! Double speed doesn't look at all like it was filmed on earth. I might have missed their explanation for this because I was laughing so hard, but that's what they said.
10. Why are the photographs so nicely framed and in focus, etc.
ANSWER: Because these are the few photographs that we get to see from the thousands of photographs taken. There is a beautiful book released last year with some of the very best moon photographs. It is magnificant. One glance through it makes it clear that these photographs were indeed taken on the moon which was aptly described by Buzz Aldrin as "magnificant desolation."
11. The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth would have fried the astronauts with a lethal dose of radiation.
ANSWER: Wrong. If you blast right through the Van Allen belts it is no problem, which is what the Apollo astronauts did. X-rays would be lethal too, if you sat there soaking in them long enough. A very real problem, however, are cosmic rays. They are not a problem on a short flight like to the moon, but in long flights that might last years, like to Mars, they could be a
serious problem. 🙂
Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
i should stop reading books who are sayin moon is a spaceship of aliens... shouldn't i?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wlangy/moongate/spaceship-moon.htm
😄