"One Small Step", but how big was the Leap?

[capt waffoo]

Those first historic words from the Moon are generally held to be, "That's one small step for a man, but one giant leap for mankind".

There seem to be claims that the actual words Buzz Aldrin uttered were "...one BIG leap..." and that NASA subsequently edited out the "big" and substituted "giant.

Is there any truth in this? Are there any "first edition" recordings that could prove this either way? And if it is true, why on earth (or on the moon) would NASA have wanted to amend the record?

[Eff Oh]

I think you will find that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon!! :) Buzz was second. :)

[Hew Jampton]

Never mind "first edition" recordings, I watched it live; Neil Armstrong's words were as history records, he said "giant", he did not say "but". There was no editing. Whether he said "man" or "a man" is open to conjecture, however.

[This message has been edited by Hew Jampton (edited 12 October 2000).]

[mach78]

Hew, I too remember watching it as a very young boy.
It should have been Buzz who went first,but I believe Armstrong pulled rank.

Personally speaking,it is a great pity that the best man for the job didn't do it-John Watts Young, best astronaut and ambassador NASA ever had and still has,the most experienced man in space- dating back to Gemini, Apollo,first to fly Shuttle -and is still working at the Johnston Space Centre, still eligible to go back in space -age 70.

[Slasher]

The actual words spoken by Armstrong were "thats one small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind".
He meant to say "for a man" but it didnt come out that way.

[Wiley]

Sorry Slash, I have to disagree. The first words spoken after the Lunar Lander alighted on the lunar surface were actually Aldrin’s – and true to form, they were not some soul-stirring epithet, but some boring, mundane checklist.

And Armstrong’s first words as he stepped off the ladder onto the lunar surface had nothing to do with giant leaps for mankind. They were… “Good luck Mr Gronsky.”

Anyone not familiar with this tale can go to the Pprune Home Page, click on ‘Humour’ and read the article “Good luck Mr Gronsky” for a full explanation.

[Groundloop]

I see that the old story that Neil Armstrong pulled rank over Buzz to be first has surfaced again. This is not true. The design of the lunar module and the way that the hatch opened meant that Armstrong HAD to go out first, then Aldrin could close the hatch, move over the other side of the module (Armstrong's position) reopen the hatch and exit. Similarly Aldrin had to be first back up the ladder, close the hatch, move over and reopen the hatch. There was not a lot of excess room in there!

[Self Loading Freight]

It's a never-ending saga, this! Just goes to show: you can have an event watched by quarter of the world with every detail in the public domain, and such a simple question is still capable of multiple interpretations. Historic truth? No such animal...

Buzz Aldrin is fond of saying that he said the first words on the Moon -- "Contact light" -- when the detectors on the legs of the LEM touched the surface.

You can find a complete annotated transcript of the landing at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html

R

[neil armstrong]

OK people,
Here is the story.
I did say , " Thats on small step for man ,but one giant leap for mankind.
And i didnt know any Mr. Gronsky
:) :) ;)

Neil

[This message has been edited by neil armstrong (edited 13 October 2000).]

[Mycroft]

Neil did say "one small step for man, One giant leap for mankind", but according to NASA he wasn't supposed to. They had a sppech worked out for him, and had given the text for what he was to say to the TV companies in case the audio quallity was not good enough. Unfortunately Neil said the wrong thing and that has of course gone down in history - his first communication to Earth from the Moon (Tranquility base here; the Eagle has landed) was also unscripted and was subject to bets from the other astronauts at mission control (the 'voice of Houston', Capcom changed with each mission, and was the commander of the next-but-one mission).
NASA transcriptions prove that Neil never mentioned Mr Gronsky, or anything similar

[mach78]

Groundloop,
I didn't mean that on the day of the landing, Armstrong said Buzz off to Buzz.
No,long before that, in training ,Armstrong realised which seat he needed to be in and made sure he got it.That was what I heard from someone who worked at Cape Canaverel.

[willbav8r]

I believe as Neil had handled a potentially lethal situation with a stuck thruster on a Gemini mission some years before, he was "chosen" by Chris Kraft and other NASA hierarchy to be the first man to walk on the moon. Rank must have only helped.

As strange a chap as he may be, in many eyes he was the most suitable for the job, having flown more X15 missions than any other astronaut. (I think). It was the closest thing to spaceflight and truly a job for god like test pilots.

No way a chimp could have been trained for that!

[stagger]

Neil,

You might not know a Mr Gronsky but what about a Mr Gorsky?
http://www.pprune.org/pub/fun/mrgorsky.html

[mach78]

I believe subsequent events show that he may not have been the best man for the job.He left the space program with undue haste, began drinking, then turned to Islam- but who would like to deride a man of such talent too much.

However, contrast that with JY, who outpermformed his colleagues, did not complain of anything he was asked to do, stuck with the Space program from Gemini, through Apollo, the Space Shuttle and is still there, still travelling world wide to promote the Space Program,still flying T-34 jet fighters at the age of seventy.

Most other of his peers thought him the best.I for one don't disagree.
Certainly as far as NASA is concerned, John would have been the better man for the job.
Why is he not so well known as he he might have been?-this is one of his biggest testaments-he is so modest, so self -effacing, that he never pushed himself to the fore,never liked publicity.
Yet there he is,the most experienced Astronaut ever, still doing his bit, and BTW , still eligible to go into space.

[Case One]

What is this doing in rumours and news?

Some reading for beginners:

"Deke!" D.Slayton & M. Cassutt P.233-4
"Men From Earth" E.Aldrin & M. McConnell P.214-6 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ Apollo 11 at 102:45:40, 109:15:45, 109:24:48
"Apollo Spacecraft News Reference" Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation P.CD-3
"Apollo 11 Lunar Landing Mission Press Kit" N.A.S.A. P.33-4, 38-41.
"Apollo Lunar Descent and Ascent Trajectories" F.Bennett
"The Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing" N.A.S.A. Sections 9.2.23-28
"Carrying The Fire" M. Collins P.470-1
"A Man on the Moon" A. Chaikin P.568-70
"At the Edge of Space" M. Thompson P.14-16

Not too exciting to have to wade through facts I know, but otherwise one may as well be a C4 journalist. Nuff said.

[This message has been edited by Case One (edited 14 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Case One (edited 14 October 2000).]

[buck-rogers]

I still think "Weeeehhhheeeeeyyyy, B*ll*cks! I'm on the moooon, 'Ello Mum, can you see me!!" would have been more radical.

What were the last words said on the moon? "C'mon, there's nothing here, lets go home."

Sorry, I've added nothing useful to this thread.

[This message has been edited by buck-rogers (edited 17 October 2000).]

[fweeeeep]

That was one big jump for a small guy of my kind

[HugMonster]

One of the stories not much told about the first moon landing (or rather the departure from the moon) is that, but for Buzz Aldrin, the whole thing would have ended in tragedy. Aldrin is generally credited with being the finest mathematical brain to go into space.

As they were docking with the command module, they were receiving readout on the closing distance. You'll appreciate that, with nothing behind but blackness, it's very difficult to judge distance. Aldrin didn't believe the computer readout, thought the actual distance was much less, and asked Houston for confirmation. They gave it, but Aldrin still didn't believe what he was seeing.

He carried out a 3-dimensional Pythagoras calculation in his head using the angles from the lunar module's windows, and came out with a figure for the distance about a third of the computer's figure, and he effectively slammed the brakes on.

He was right and the computer was wrong - same program running on Houston's machine. But for his swift action, the two modules would have slammed into each other, and that would have been all she wrote.

[Feathers McGraw]

HugMonster, can you provide a reference or URL for that story about Aldrin and the Columbia/Eagle RV?

[HugMonster]

Sorry, nope

[enginefailure]

It's so easy.

Every day at work, when i solve a problem,
i say to myself:

"THIS WAS A GIANT LEAP FOR ME, BUT A
SMALL STEP FOR MANKIND"

hope, that helps !

BTW: Man on the moon - what was this
message about "Santa claus is there" ????

cheers
ef

[Moon Man]

So we're sure there was a moon landing then?

Check this out:-
http://www.homestead.com/dolphinocean/moonlanding.html

;)

[buck-rogers]

Cor, Spooky malooky!

Its almost like this happened on a different planet or something...

[Groundloop]

Well, I don't know who created dolphinocean but most of his comments show a complete ignorance of photography - lens flare, bright objects bleeding over dark objects. etc. Most of his points raised are absolute rubbish - though the 3rd astronaut is interesting. I'll have to have another look at that!

Just had another look. That is the only photograph that has been faked. Would anyone really believe that NASA would be so stupid as to have THREE astonauts walking around their "set"?!!!

[This message has been edited by Groundloop (edited 18 October 2000).]

[pax domina]

I would at least like to assure mach78 that John Young is very well known and certainly not forgotten in his home town. Both the Orlando Science Center and a major road (John Young Parkway) are named after him.

A few streets north of where I sit typing this, the city has placed a plaque in front of the house where he grew up. (A few houses away, there is no plaque in front of the house where Jack Kerouac wrote The Dharma Bums, and was living On The Road was published - but one may be forthcoming.)

Okay, so it's not history drenched Europe, but quite something for Attractionland on the Aquifer.

I'll descend back to the bargain basement now. :)

[enginefailure]

Hey Groundloop!

The third one is an alien !!!!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The Apollo 11 crew held a reunion at a restaurant recently. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin went in and had a slap-up meal; Mike Collins just drove around and around in the car park.....

SSD

[mach78]

Pax Domina,
I was talking in relative terms, i.e. compared to Armstrong, Aldrin, Glen-but then again it will I suppose it will always be Neil Armstrong who is first remembered.

I have driven down the parkway, and been to the Center.
Of course not many alive can say they have a "museum" named after them!
Reference problem solving in space, John has previously explained how big a part of being an astronaut this is.
In the Apollo 16 landing, they had around 100 problems which they solved in "real time",any one of which could have aborted the mission.

John is very much alive and is speaking athe Johnson Space Centre, Texas on 1st Nov

[This message has been edited by mach78 (edited 18 October 2000).]

[buck-rogers]

Hey Moonman...

Dolphinocean is probably right, as the Sunday Sport has a photo of a WW2 Bomber on the moon, and that doesn't feature on any of the shots on their site, so those astronauts couldn't have gone there.

[Blacksheep]

Just above, my shaggy supervisor mentioned Mike Collins. This reminded me of an interview with him that I saw on TV. After Armstrong and Aldrin left for the lunar surface, Collins went round the far side of the moon on his own and immediately became more alone than any other human being had ever been before. Totally out of contact with planet Earth and his colleagues.

The intervewer asked what thoughts went through his mind at this time. Mike Collins responded that he reflected on the fact that he was there, not in the BEST spacecraft that his country could have sent, but the cheapest. (Grumman won the command module contract by quoting the lowest price) I believe that command module pilots were selected on a psychological ability to handle this very special situation.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Weary]

Hey Groundloop - nothing funny about a third astronaut. Clearly it was one of the later moon missions and the commander was getting a routine checkride.......
Which also explains why the moonshots ended so quickly - exceeding the flight and duty time limitations. Dodgy operator that NASA.

[Jim lovell]

i have to agree with Groundloop. Most of the pics taken in Dolphenocean prove nothing. As far as the picture with the 3 astronauts is concerned it's a fake. Could this fake have been created by one of the conspiracy theorists perhaps? i think so

[swashplate]

Blacksheep:

I think you'll find is was North American (now part of Boeing) who won the contract for the Command Module. Grummam did the LM.
CM must have been more $$$$$$ after the post fire mods.

As to the 'fake landing' BS, see my thread in 'Non Transport issues' on this. The Guvnor started the topic.

[Captain Ed]

There are 3 benchmarks on the moons surface. They are used as radar reflectors for research. They were made in the USA, and put in place by our astronauts.

Check it out.

[Jim lovell]

Another seldom heard about event of the Apollo program was the near failure of the Apollo 14 mission. First trouble came when enroute to the moon the CSM docking latch became stuck and didn't latch onto the LM. After the 5th and last attempt they got it-it was later determined to be a bit of debris lodged in the docking latch. Then the real emergency came when the LM(Antares) seperated from the CSM and was on descent to the moon. At about 50,000 or so feet above the lunar surface the radar altimeter just dropped out. The LM was in effect descending blindly and it was only the split second decision making of the NASA team that saved the mission-they reprogrammed the LM'S radar altimeter and beamed the data over-the LM being down to about 20,000 ft when this occured(another minute or so would have meant the mission would have to be aborted and that would have been th end of the Apollo program)An excellent book called Moon Shot tells the inside story of the American space program, and much of it is even written by the astronauts themselves

[Ace Rimmer]

Some data for the mix:
Spacecraft layout followed aircraft convention ie the Captain sits/stands/floats on the left. It would have been possible for Aldrin to have gone out first but impractical. Armstrong had seniority (why he was CDR I suppose (selected in the second group of astronauts Arlrin was in the third). The first words were Aldrin's "contact light". At the time the Apollo 11 crew was selected there was no guarantee that it would make the first landing (Apollos 8,9 and 10 had to work (and 10 jolly nearly didn't. Stafford and Cernan got within 20,000 ft of the surface when their LM went out of control thanks to programming problem). Apollo 12's Pete Conrad (the shortest of a virtically challenged bunch) was heard to say "well that may have been a small step for Neil but it was a big jump for me"

27 men made the trip to the vicinity of the moon (ie as far as orbit), 12 walked on the surface and three (Lovell 8&13, Young 10&16 and Cernan 10&17) went twice. According to Cernan's book "The last man on the moon" the last words spoken from the surface of the moon were his: "OK Jack (Schmidt LM pilot) let's get this mutha outta here."

[Jim lovell]

yeah on the Apollo 10 mission the LM ascent stage went into rondezvous mode at 20,000ft for some reason. The LM starting gyrating wildy searching for the CM. NASA estimates another 5 second delay in aborting would have put the LM into an uncontrolled spin resulting into a crash on the surface of the moon.I think one of the astronauts actually swore(understandable in the situation) on air

[Jim lovell]

check out this site: http://www.nasa.edu/apollo/
it's an excellent NASA apollo site containing facts,pics, mission profiles and biographies of the crew

[FatEric]

At one stage on Apollo 17 Jack Schmidt almost fell off the lunar rover and on to one of the wheels. Cernan transmitted "houston houston, the schmidt's hit the fan".

[MTOW]

Thought to put a new slant on the whole ‘first words’ debate with this email I received a day or two ago. Here’s a conspiracy theory that leaves JFK and the grassy knoll deeply in the shade. The conspiracy theorists would say it explains Armstrong’s almost total reclusion from public life since 1969.
If it’s true, why haven’t they employed the same people to come up with at least the facade of a decent US presidential candidate?

Has anyone read the book mentioned here?

Oliver Stone, where are you?
---------------------------
Cover Story ----Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne?

The greater lunar lie In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.
"How can the flag be fluttering," the 47 year old American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere free moon?"

That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for The self- taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake. It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories.

But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.
And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born.

Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway - Being the only casualties.

But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film "man's greatest achievement" from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it. By contrast, the still photos were stunning.

Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that's not all:
- The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.
-Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.
- They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Passer is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:
- The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
- The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.
- Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
- The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil".

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried," says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing.
"The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin - "the second man on the Moon" - was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene.

Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo programme, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it's likely to be me." Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co- pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive.

In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking for."

NASA won't respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape.

It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon".

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. "It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead," he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step - project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

Space oddities
- Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shephard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
- A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
- One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
- The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
- The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares. Text from pictures in the article, Only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
- The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering? How can the flag be brightly lit when its side on to the light?
-And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
-The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

[ColdWaterSurf]

Hello MTOW,

I'm no expert, but even I can tell this is absolute rubbish.

>>But with the exception of the known rocks, which could easily have been mocked up in the lab...

Emm, how?

>>The TV footage was hopeless.... (whilst) the still pictures were perfect.

TV was pretty much in it's infant stages back then, and these images were transmitted from a long way off (the moon). The still pictures didn't suffer from this transmission degradation.

>>Part of the reason was that ... NASA provided no direct link up.

I haven't been able to find any info on this in my half hour 'net search, but it sounds a little doubtful. Where is the author's proof/references for this fact?

>>>The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused...

Good for them. I learned to do this in high school photography classes, but I suppose those astronaut dudes wouldn't have had photographic abilities even nearly comparable to mine.

>>The cameras had no white meters or view ponders...

Well, I've never even seen a camera with a 'white meter' or a 'view ponderer'. What are they? The only relationship I can discover to camera's is that they sound vaugely like 'light meter' and 'view finder', both of which were present on the Hasselblad cameras used on the moon. http://www.hasselblad.se/the_company/space_camera.html

>>Their film stock was unaffected by the... cosmic radiation on the moon...

Well gee, d'ya think maybe the film was PROTECTED? I wouldn't put it past those sneaky NASA guys.

>>It should have been impossible to bend their fingers.
http://www.hsssi.com/Applications/SpaceSuits/Gloves.html
Note the lines "The gloves are the active interface between the crew member and the work being performed. As such, they must perform a variety of functions while preserving an effective degree of tactility."

This from the actual manufacturers. Could it be, is it possible, that they included the ability to 'bend the fingers' in the design specs of the gloves?

D'ya think.

The ideas presented in association with 'award winning photographer, David Persey' are hardly worth discussing. The non-parallel shadows can easily be explained by the shape of the ground they are cast on (the moon is not smooth as a billiard ball), and in the cases of reflected images in the astronauts visors by the shape of the visors themselves. http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax


>>The American flag is always brightly lit...

Later, the author discusses the apparent lack of use of cold war propoganda related to the moon landings. Is it not possible that the lunar module had lights directed onto the flag for this very purpose? Lots of pictures of the US flag on the moon. I haven't found any references that indicate the lunar module had such lights, but it really wouldn't surprise me. Even Capt. Kirks Enterprise had such lights.


>>Outer space is awash with deadly radiation...

Ah, finally... correct. The astronauts even reported symptoms of being in this radiation (seeing flashing spots when they closed their eyes for example), and close study of their suits revealed microscopic holes which had been caused by this radiation.

In this case the author seems to be counting on the popular misconception that exposure to radiation will immediately 'fry' a person, or will automatically lead to cancer.


>>NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their moon mission (except Apollo 13).

Well, I suppose it depends what you classify as a 'major' problem. Apollo 14, for one, suffered problems which almost saw the mission aborted after the lunar module had begun it's descent to the moon.

How many Boeing's fly every day without experiencing 'major' problems?


The next few paragraphs are clearly conspiracy theorist guff. That men died because the US prioritised getting to the moon before the USSR above lives is unfortunate and sad, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether the moon landings were faked.

>>Alan Shephard was teased by mission control for slicing his golf ball.

Does teasing automatically equate to the fact that he did slice it? How many smart arse controllers have you encountered in your career? Why should NASA controllers be any different?


>>A camera panned up... who did the filming?

Two words: Remote control
Two more: Pre Programmed
Another two: Automatic tracking


>>The photographer must have been lying on the planet(sic) surface.

No, all this means is that the camera must have been near the MOONS surface. As to who took the picture...

Two words: Remote control
Two more (yeah I know): Pre Programmed


>>...puffed up like a balloon.... shouldn't have been able to bend their joints...
http://www.hsssi.com/Applications/SpaceSuits/

Non-expanding joints.


>>Flares on the moon... phenomenal PR.

Whatever.


>>Where in all these shots are the stars?

The author has stated that the only source of light used in these pictures is the sun. If you can see the sun outside right now, how many stars can you also see?

The assumption made here is that because the "sky" is black, stars should be visible.

This is nonsense.

Firstly: The sky on the moon is black because of lack of atmosphere. The atmosphere on the Earth scatters sunlight (Raleigh (?) scattering) and it is this that gives us our blue daytime sky. The intensity of the sun's light during the day is what obscures star light, whether an atmosphere is present or not. Yet the only source of light present (according to the author) was the Sun, meaning the picture were taken during the day on the moon.

Secondly: Even if the photo's were taken during night with artificial sources of lighting, you still wouldn't see the stars. Or rather you could, but you would have to expose the film for so long that all the foreground images (astronauts, modules, lunar surface-- all those things that NASA wanted photo's of) would be hopelessly over-exposed.

Try it yourself. Use your camera to take a photgraph of a well lit area at night. See if you get any stars.


>>Why is the flag fluttering?

The flag was designed with a rigid rod across the top so that it looked like it was held out by a breeze. This was so the flag could actually be seen. The only time it "fluterred" was when the blast from the lunar module taking off hit it. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/reference/flag/flag.html Under the heading Technical Aspects - Design and Engineering Constraints, about quarter way down the page.


>>The Lander weighed(sic) 17 tons...

No, the lander had a mass of 15065 kilograms ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1969-059C.html ), which, in the roughly one sixth g (from memory) of the moon would equate to two and a half tons.


>>It left no tracings of blast on the dust beneath.

Rubbish again. Look at the pics. There is no dust beneath. The module landed in an area of approx 6 to 9 inches of dust covering a solid rock base. The blast cleared all the dust away directly under the lander, which landed on solid rock.


Hmm is that all?


Unless you wrote this, MTOW, which I doubt becasue I've seen it in a number of places now, please don't take offense. I'm not criticising you personally, just the original author and the text itself.

Also, as I said, I'm no expert. I believe most of what I've said is accurate (and unlike the original article I've tried to include a few online references to back me up), but I will happily take any corrections on minor or even major mistakes.

Later...

[Jim lovell]

Coldwatersurf i absolutely agree with every single one of your statements regarding photography, lighting, radiation, camerawork etc etc. All of this "hoax" talk is nothing but a combination of unfounded allegations- which if you look at every point these conspiracy theorists make there is always a logical answer. Me thinks this Ralph Ranee character should get his facts straight before accusing anyone of anything.