Man on the moon


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Man on the moon

  1. 1. The conspiracy of the Moonlanding.Sciences of the contemporary world26/11/20101º BachIago Montero Vizoso
  2. 2. The moon landing. Was it real or a joke? Different Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements ofthe Apollo Project and the associated Moon landings were falsifications staged byNASA. Some people say that the Apollo astronauts did not set foot on the Moon. The cold war and the special race against Russia, the Vietnam fail, the death of JFKand Martin Luther King… The United States was in a time of defects. If the USA becomesthe first country in the Moon, it will be an important victory in the cold war, like victoriesof URSS: They were the first nation to put a satellite into orbit and they put the firstliving creature (Everybody knows the history of Laika), first man in the space (YuriGagarin). So this victory would be key in the space race.What’s the public opinion? About the 6% of the people in the USA thinks that the doubted that the Moonlandings had occurred. The 5% had no opinion about this. Let’s go to Britain, in 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering &Technology magazine found that 25% of British people do not believe that humanshave walked on the Moon.The conspiracy.The Moonstones. The astronauts of all the Apollo’s mission collected about 382kg of moonstonesthat have been used by geologists of tens of scientific institutions to advanceknowledge of the geology of the Moon. Some of the features of this stones can’t bereproduced from terrestrial stones. Moonstones haven’t got water; the terrestrial stonesare composed of water and minerals. So this test is 100% accurate. Well, we land in the Moon, but... We put a feet in his ground? The moonstones that Neil Armstrong and his crew collected, were exactly thatsamples collected by the automatic lunar probes of the URSS. Here we have anotherproblem with the theory.Manipulated photographs? We have hundreds of photos to be discussed. Then I will show the most popularand famous “hoaxes assumptions” of the NASA.That’s the “fake” (or not) photographs. Judge by yourself... 2
  3. 3. 1. The most popular photo and the most commented. The flag waving without atmosphere.The question is why the flag was waving? And the answer was simpler: it has ahorizontal post in the corner of the flag. The flag was folded inside the ship. At thecrease, was in the photo that false sense of movement. 2. The absence of stars in the pictures. Hasselblad cameras that took these images were prepared to reduce the intense glare of the lunar day. The surface of the Moon is very illuminated by sunlight. To take a picture in a landscape quite bright, you need to set the camera a short exposure time. Failure to do so, you run the risk of blur the image, due to the passage of excessive light from the lunar surface (which reflects the 7% of the light it receives). For example: For the same reason explained above, the photographs taken from the shuttle, Mir, the ISS or other spacecraft 3
  4. 4. (manned or not) does not show stars on theblack background of space. (The ISS in orbit without stars). 3. The shadows. In some pictures you can see two shadows are not parallel, when the only source of light is the sun. This effect would be created with 2 lights on Earth. In thispicture you can see this effect.Given the different slope of the land, the shadows from the stones (which simulate the lunarsurface) point to different directions; it does not entail the falsity of the image.Heres the explanation with a simple drawing: 4
  5. 5. * Aldrin and Armstrong shadows placing the American flag.In this picture, if the Sun was the only source of light in the Moon, the shadows should beidentical. Aldrin shadow (A) shouldn’t be longer than Armstrong’s shadow.That’s a big lie, the surface of the moon is not flat in any way, judging by the brightness of thetop left of the photograph, the upper end of the shadow of the astronaut on the left is locatedon a small slope and therefore, the shadow appears shortened.Here is an experiment to test it.So in the Moon has one DIRECT point of light, (The Sun) they weren’t in a studio. 4. The crater.Where is the crater in the photographs? The immense power of the engine (providing 1,360 kgof thrust) should have created a huge hole under the ship, however, the images (zone E), thesite remains intact. They also say it is impossible for a machine as heavy as the lunar moduledoes not sink further into the surface, as it weighs over 15 tons.The answer is very simple... In part... 5
  6. 6. Supporters of the conspiracy at any time consider that the gravity on the lunar surface isabout six times lower than on Earth, and that much of the fuel load that module was usedduring the descent to the moon (in particular , about 8 tons).When the module reaches the surface, its weight on the Moon was about 1,200 kg because ofthe lower lunar gravity. This explains why the module, which may at first seem so heavy, onlysinking a few inches into the lunar surface. In addition, each leg is 90 cm in diameter, whichoffers a weight capacity of distribution.Secondly, we must bear in mind that the descent engine of the lunar module had a maximumthrust of about 4,500 kg. But the module engine was running at less than 25% of its maximumpower as it approached the surface (against the 1,200kg weight). And even completely left offsometimes before touchdown to prevent gases could damage the module.Lunar module landed on the Moon not vertically, but was falling sideways until the astronautsfound a flat and relatively free of rocks in the landing on the moon it easierNeither the gases emitted by the lunar module exercising the necessary pressure, and itremained a significant amount of time on the surface to produce something like a crater.Below this layer lies a hard layer of rock that has a depth of between 2 and 8 meters in theseas, and up to 15 meters in the highlands, thus preventing the formation of a crater as aresult of the lunar landing module mole.As the jet engine, many pictures show a slight alteration of lunar ground under and near thelunar module. 6
  7. 7. The conspirators of the Anti Moon theory have many more assumptions, but all are based onanswers already given above like shadows. So here we have another question. 5. If there was no one outside the ship or in the moon... Who filmed and photographed Armstrong descending the ladder?The camera recorded the black and whiteimages of Armstrong descending, waslocated in the Modular EquipmentStowage Assembly (MESA), acompartment located on the side of thelunar module. Armstrong simply had topull a cable located slightly on the stepsto be opened.(This is the famous photo of the landing) 6. Our last question: The famous letter C. In the rock marked with an R, will see a letter C carved in the rock. It is proof that the rock was part of a scene, in which each element was assigned a different number or letter. Explanation: Actually, the "letter C" seems to be on the stone is a product of the negative scan taken this picture. As shown in the picture below, with several increases, the "C" is actually a hair or a fibre. A secondtrace that can be shaded from the top of it is clearlyvisible. The hair (or fibre) was probably introduced byaccident in the scan process.The hair didn’t appear in the original photograph. 7
  8. 8. The images containing the "C" probably belong to the 3rd or 4th generation from the image. (The original was carefully stored) That’s my own compilation of the most commented photos of the moon landing.So, lets start with other "problems" of the moon landing. • The lunar module, with is weight, could not escape the gravity of the moon, and didn’t contains enough fuel to do this.The lunar module into orbit needed only because the drive to finally escape the lunar gravityand return to Earth was provided by the command module after reattachment.It should be noted again that the gravity on the moon is one sixth that of Earth. • Instead of being able to jump 3 feet in one-sixth gravity of Earth, the highest jump of the astronauts was 50 cm.To be a risk of rupture of the suit by a bad fall, astronauts avoided making exaggeratedmovements. Isn’t true that the highest jump was 50 cm. Neil Armstrong reported, was a jumpof 1.5 and 1.8 meters respectively, but stopped trying because of the risk of breaking hisspacesuit. 8
  9. 9. • The traces are the result of weight displacing air or moisture between the particles of dust or sand. The astronauts left their mark everywhere.It is not necessary to trace moisture in a field. Lunar ground has the same composition as theearth and sand is much easier to make a difference in the void as shown by the TV seriesMythbusters. • Why most of the pictures of the Apollo have clear lines of definition between the foreground and background?There, in the absence of atmosphere, distant objects (mountains, etc...) Aren’t blurry as can behere on Earth. • The replacement rolls were not affected by intense cosmic radiation on the Moon.Many of the photographs have defects, or are unfocused or eveningsThe cameras were modified at the request of the manufacturer, Hasselblad, so they could meetthe conditions of vacuum and radiation. 9
  10. 10. Finally, my personal opinion is that, at the beginning of this work was not sure if the manland on the moon, but now I’m sure because of NASA arguments and scientificdocumentaries convinced me that the Apollo Project was true.Links and more information about the moon landing:TV Serie: Mythbusters. A scientific and funny TV serie. The myth of landing. (Part 1) [Spanish]COULD THE LUNAR MODULE HAVE MADE IT TO ORBIT? [English]Goodbye conspiration theory.[Spanish] 10