Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

C

cbsharp1

Guest
did China fake their spacewalk?

First off, I'm a long time lurker on these boards and absolutely love this site. It has helped to feed my interest in outer space and greatly increased my knowledge and I'm grateful to all the regular posters here who are so willing to share their obviously hard-earned knowledge base.

My question is what is your opinion of these fairly convincing Youtube videos claiming China faked their spacewalk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1 ... popt00us03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tri2l7OHpGw

On the other hand, I've seen the excellent shows on Discovery Channel and Nat Geo that debunked all the claims that have been made by people who think the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Some of those claims were pretty convincing on the surface, for example the flag waving when there's no atmosphere - but they were all easily debunked scientifically. So I'm wondering, assuming this is the unaltered video/audio footage of the Chinese spacewalk, what do you make of these claims?

The most convincing points in my opinion are the bubbles and the clear audio of their astronaut's radio transmissions. I had always assumed that the background buzz you hear in any audio transmission from space is from all the electromagnetic inferference and that there is no way around that (short of editing the audio after the fact).
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

cbsharp1":247aopmo said:
First off, I'm a long time lurker on these boards and absolutely love this site. It has helped to feed my interest in outer space and greatly increased my knowledge and I'm grateful to all the regular posters here who are so willing to share their obviously hard-earned knowledge base.

My question is what is your opinion of these fairly convincing Youtube videos claiming China faked their spacewalk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1 ... popt00us03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tri2l7OHpGw

On the other hand, I've seen the excellent shows on Discovery Channel and Nat Geo that debunked all the claims that have been made by people who think the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Some of those claims were pretty convincing on the surface, for example the flag waving when there's no atmosphere - but they were all easily debunked scientifically. So I'm wondering, assuming this is the unaltered video/audio footage of the Chinese spacewalk, what do you make of these claims?

The most convincing points in my opinion are the bubbles and the clear audio of their astronaut's radio transmissions. I had always assumed that the background buzz you hear in any audio transmission from space is from all the electromagnetic inferference and that there is no way around that (short of editing the audio after the fact).

That's not a bubble. That's debris. Could be a paint chip from the exterior of the spacecraft, or a bit of insulation, or lint, or any of a number of things. It moves not because it is floating up but because of the initial momentum applied to it when it broke away from whatever it was previously attached to.

The audio quality actually sounds pretty similar to what you hear from American and Russian air-to-ground communications (apart from the echos, which sound like an artifact of the recording device). It's not suspiciously good.

A lot of the other claims are just plain silly.

"Bubble" speeds up as it flies away -- no it doesn't. It's just not flying exactly perpendicular to the camera.

"How does the spacecraft stay aligned with Earth for hours" and "clouds are moving too quickly". Obviously, this person has never actually seen much footage of American or Russian spacecraft. They stay oriented towards the Earth intentionally. And the clouds go by so quickly because the spacecraft is traveling at 17,500 MPH.

"This light source isn't Earth" (objecting to the side away from Earth being lit) -- the light source is the Sun

"They never free float like in USA or Russian spacewalks -- if they did they'd be pulled away by the water." WTF? First off, why would they be "pulled away" by water? Secondly, what spacewalks has this guy been seeing? American and Russian spacewalkers do not free float if they can at all avoid it -- it's extremely dangerous to do so, and they've only done it in the context of testing devices for flying independently of a spacecraft.

"Why is the video and audio so clear?" Because they're using decent hardware. It's very similar to American stuff.

"Compare to American underwater training." What he's claiming? That American preflight training is effective because it simulates microgravity so well?

"Flag looks like it's underwater" -- no it doesn't.

It finishes off with shots of documentation which includes the string "1994". No context is given, but presumably he means this must be a date, and must refer to events during the allegedly fake spacewalk. But why would they create fake documentation with the wrong date? And can't the date mean anything else?

The second video is also silly.

The "shot changes" but I can't see the change he's objecting to -- the quality is so poor that the differences could easily be JPG artifacts. He then objects to Shenzhou 1 showing a different arc of Earth than in Shenzhou 7, apparently believing that one can only launch into one altitude.

He also makes the bubble claim, objecting to debris coming out at other instances than hatch opening, apparently considering the taikonauts' movements to be unimportant. While on the subject of movements, his claim that you can make underwater footage look normal by speeding it up is absurd, but could make a nice sequel to the Mythbusters special on the Apollo hoax claims, in which they debunked several other variants of the "speeding up footage to make it look right" concept. Suffice it to say, it doesn't stand up. If it was sped up, it wouldn't just conceal underwater work. It would look sped up.

He refers to a "bubble" that gets bigger and seems to change direction. But this is not true. It's obviously flat and tumbling -- you can even see that it's not round like a bubble. This is another guy who has trouble understanding three dimensions.

He also includes some claims along with the actual explanation for them, but rejects them with hand-waving.

"How do a craft change its spin in space?" Um, ever hear of thrusters?

All in all, both of these videos demonstrate that their producers don't watch a whole lot of NASA TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YetAnotherBob
C

cbsharp1

Guest
Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

Thanks for taking the time to respond Calli! This is why I love SDC so much, a video like that is convincing enough to amateurs like myself, but after looking at it again with your analysis I can see the flaws in their argument. Thanks again :D
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

I finally had a few minutes to waste looking at these videos. The lack of understanding of scince was profound. SOme were so funny, I spit beer on my keyboard. SInce Calli answered most of the questions, I won't bother adding more. I fine laugh on the first day of spring!!
 
B

Bbenbb

Guest
A comment from the author of the videos

Since this is space.com, I think it's worthy of my reply. I am the author of these two videos. The whole thing started off as a hobby in between classes at college. As you can see on my youtube page (username Bbenbb) I have been interested in Chinese fakery for some time. In between studying for my masters in a design and physics related field, I studied the spacelaunch videos and followed various conjectures to explain what I saw.

I am pleased that my exploration has been such a hit. Well, kinda a hit I guess. My videos have been stolen and popped up all over the place, but my name Bbenbb always appears at the end. I am no genius in space exploration. I admit I don't know much. I was just a college kid at the time. But I research things and I know things. I know China, I know basic physics, and I know fauxtography.

Here is my entire finalized video that I will reference in my rebuttal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA

That's not a bubble. That's debris.
Why is debris flying down towards the spacecraft immediately after debris flies upward, apparently changing velocity? It seems pretty evident this is the same debris and it looks like a bubble to me. In my quick clip of a russian spacewalk, you can see a piece of actual debris flying up. It looks much different- it is obviously debris. Why do the clouds change speeds so rapidly right before the bubble, and why does the bubble itself change speed and expand?

The audio quality actually sounds pretty similar to what you hear from American and Russian air-to-ground communications
I provided examples of American and Russian communications to compare with. Furthermore, I researched Chinese claims that the background noise is so loud that the astronauts need earplugs.

"Bubble" speeds up as it flies away -- no it doesn't.
You can see the freakin bubble rolling on the helmet. It ought to be reflecting in the helmet if that weren't the case. It gets sizably larger and speeds up, indicating buoyancy. And again, it changes directions and flies downward. And again, the earth's clouds change speeds considerably. They move slowly for a while, and then move very quickly.

Obviously, this person has never actually seen much footage of American or Russian spacecraft. They stay oriented towards the Earth intentionally.
Try to wrap your head around my explanation of the craft's spin around the earth and the sun angle changes. There should be a 120 degree sun angle change, but I show that the top of the craft is in sun, in shadow, then in sun again. If the craft stays stationary facing earth, with the sun panels turning like they do, that can't happen.

"Why is the video and audio so clear?" Because they're using decent hardware.
As someone noted, there is electromagnetic inferference and that there is no way around that. And again, I cited Chinese claims that the background noise is so loud they need earplugs.

What he's claiming? That American preflight training is effective because it simulates microgravity so well?
I'm simply showing that underwater training simulates microfgravity very well. Not everyone is as smart and educated as you, chief!

"Flag looks like it's underwater" -- no it doesn't.
Does to me, and the air cords especially tend to float up.

the quality is so poor that the differences could easily be JPG artifacts.
Oh BS... The letters are obviously different. And why are there no videos or images of the launch but this one video?

showing a different arc of Earth than in Shenzhou 7, apparently believing that one can only launch into one altitude.
Uhhh no. You missed my point completely. The different earth arc indicates that the photo taken from the satellite was closer to the craft than the photo taken from the craft itself. The two photos are both of the Shenzou 7. The photo from the satellite could have been manipulated to make this happen, but why would they do that?

his claim that you can make underwater footage look normal by speeding it up is absurd, but could make a nice sequel to the Mythbusters special on the Apollo hoax claims
[/color] Okay, so I'm guessing people said they slowed down video to make it look like the Apollo astronauts were on the moon jumping. I'm claiming the opposite here, my friend, I'm saying they sped up the video. Try this. Try taking the footage and slowing it down. Does it look underwater? Try taking American test footage underwater and speeding it up. And again, the change in cloud speed correlates with the apparent change in footage speed.

I would like to see someone address the rest of my host of claims. Specifically the earth halo argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Y

yevaud

Guest
Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

Welcome to actually posting then, CB. :)

cbsharp1":76k9k8ff said:
On the other hand, I've seen the excellent shows on Discovery Channel and Nat Geo that debunked all the claims that have been made by people who think the Apollo moon landings were a hoax

My stock answers to THAT particular line of reasoning are:

1. The entire world was watching us, and we were in the middle of a very tense Cold War. The Russians would have called us on it in an instant.

2. Perhaps 250,000 people in all were involved in the Apollo project. A quarter of a million people keeping their mouths shut for 40 years? Extremely doubtful, you know what I mean? Hell, three people with a mundane secret can't keep their mouths shut for a week.

3. And we're not talking just Apollo 11, we're talking all the way through Apollo 17, so multiply Russia saying nothing, and all those people keeping quiet for some long by seven missions. It's just absurd to believe.
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Re: A comment from the author of the videos

Bbenbb":3hldkoir said:
Since this is space.com, I think it's worthy of my reply. I am the author of these two videos. The whole thing started off as a hobby in between classes at college. As you can see on my youtube page (username Bbenbb) I have been interested in Chinese fakery for some time. In between studying for my masters in a design and physics related field, I studied the spacelaunch videos and followed various conjectures to explain what I saw.

I would like to see someone address the rest of my host of claims. Specifically the earth halo argument.

Your claims aside, do you not think the Shenzhou was not tracked by several nations from launch to orbit? And then from de-orbit to landing? Or are you claiming they inserted an unmanned capsule into orbit? Further, is a Shenzhou 1 capable of boosting a capsule into LEO?

Since this is a Space site and not a videography site, you may well not get a whole lot of challenge to your video challenges. I know I don't have the knowledge or expertise to know if your claims are valid or not, and the preponderance of your case lies on the shoulders of your video evidence.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Re: A comment from the author of the videos

Hi, Bbenbb! I'm glad you came over! You've clarified some of the claims I didn't quite understand. However, I still disagree with you that you have evidence of fakery.

Why is debris flying down towards the spacecraft immediately after debris flies upward, apparently changing velocity? It seems pretty evident this is the same debris and it looks like a bubble to me. In my quick clip of a russian spacewalk, you can see a piece of actual debris flying up. It looks much different- it is obviously debris. Why do the clouds change speeds so rapidly right before the bubble, and why does the bubble itself change speed and expand?

I've seen a LOT of NASA TV through the years, and debris rarely passes conveniently perpendicular to the camera, and it doesn't all look exactly the same. You've got a clip of debris in a Russian spacewalk -- well, I've seen other debris, and it doesn't always look like that. I remember one particularly large chunk of something that drifted out of the docking assembly when one of the Orbiters undocked from the ISS several years ago; it did not look like your Russian debris, nor what you claim to be a bubble.

I guess my point is that this could plausibly be debris. If you want to convince me that it's a bubble, you're making an extraordinary claim and will need to give me more reason to believe than just "well, it *might* be a bubble, and it doesn't look like this one other piece of debris I saw."

I provided examples of American and Russian communications to compare with. Furthermore, I researched Chinese claims that the background noise is so loud that the astronauts need earplugs.

Did you know that ISS crews sometimes wear earplugs as well? They do. And yet, you don't hear that noise during spacewalks and such. Why? Well, first of all, because they're not inside the noisy spaceship during the spacewalk. But you don't hear it when they're on board either, and this is because they use microphones that are designed to filter out everything more than a few inches away. It's the same sort of equipment used on airplanes, and quite common throughout the world. I would be shocked if China didn't use this sort of equipment themselves. Heck, they probably *make* most of the mikes used in aviation. (Not the ones NASA uses, of course; NASA is a government agency and consequently has to operate under the "buy American" order.)

You can see the freakin bubble rolling on the helmet. It ought to be reflecting in the helmet if that weren't the case. It gets sizably larger and speeds up, indicating buoyancy. And again, it changes directions and flies downward. And again, the earth's clouds change speeds considerably. They move slowly for a while, and then move very quickly.

Why should debris be reflected, but bubbles not? This is debris. It only appears to be changing direction. The changing of the clouds suggests a more plausible explanation for its apparent movement -- the spacecraft has fired an attitude control thruster.

That's one of the tricky things about space footage -- don't forget that the camera is not on a fixed platform, and what you are seeing is *relative* motion. That can be confusing, especially when the background is so far away.

Try to wrap your head around my explanation of the craft's spin around the earth and the sun angle changes. There should be a 120 degree sun angle change, but I show that the top of the craft is in sun, in shadow, then in sun again. If the craft stays stationary facing earth, with the sun panels turning like they do, that can't happen.

Oh, I get what you're saying. You seem to be assuming that the Shenzhou 7 can only possibly be choosing one particular attitude for the entirety of its flight. Why make that assumption? There's no reason for it. Different spacecraft do things differently, usually intentionally, though it depends on what they're trying to do.

For instance, on a Shuttle mission (excluding time docked to the ISS), things are set up such that, with very little need for using the RCS system, the Orbiter will keep its tail forward and its belly out to space. Basically, it completes a 360 pitch each revolution. Now, it's large enough that it's gravity gradient becomes significant, so it can't just start the spin and then let it go; the autopilot does have to periodically correct it. (Crews have reported the difficulty of sleeping when every now and again, with no warning, they'd hear -- and feel -- the thump of an RCS thruster firing. Shuttle RCS thrusters are hypergolic, not cold gas, so they've got some oomph.) ISS does the same thing, but for the most part is gravitationally stable in this orientation -- and can use its massive gyros for orientation instead of thrusters. Apollo used a different strategy -- the so-called "barbecue roll" in which the vehicle would be set gently spinning along its long axis. This provided even heating and also some stabilization, but they had to stop the roll before performing any burns. Soyuz has used a number of different strategies, depending on the mission. One early Soyuz experimented with end-over-end rotation (much, much faster than once per revolution), but this resulted in some motion sick cosmonauts and was abandoned.

What he's claiming? That American preflight training is effective because it simulates microgravity so well?
I'm simply showing that underwater training simulates microfgravity very well. Not everyone is as smart and educated as you, chief!

I'm not so smart, since I guess I still don't understand what you're getting at with this claim.

"Flag looks like it's underwater" -- no it doesn't.
Does to me, and the air cords especially tend to float up.

Have you ever put a flag underwater? Swimming is one of my passions, so I know this flag simply is not underwater. Water tends to put a lot of drag on cloth; it shouldn't flutter so easily underwater.

the quality is so poor that the differences could easily be JPG artifacts.
Oh BS... The letters are obviously different. And why are there no videos or images of the launch but this one video?

I'll have to watch it again when I get YouTube access to see what you're talking about.

Did you know that the first video of a Soyuz launch available to the public wasn't released until 1975? That was because NASA had a policy of taking lots of pictures of everything they were involved in, and in 1975, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project occurred. The Soviet Union was very secretive ,and although videos were taken, they were never released to the public until the days of perestroika. (Many still haven't been released.) Is this evidence that the Russian part of Apollo-Soyuz was faked? Of course not. It just means the USSR was paranoid. China's clearly less paranoid, since they did release launch footage.

Is it weird that only one bit of footage is available? Not really. Until the Soviet Union fell, the same thing was true for Russian flights, and you seem to be convinced that those really happened.

showing a different arc of Earth than in Shenzhou 7, apparently believing that one can only launch into one altitude.
Uhhh no. You missed my point completely. The different earth arc indicates that the photo taken from the satellite was closer to the craft than the photo taken from the craft itself. The two photos are both of the Shenzou 7. The photo from the satellite could have been manipulated to make this happen, but why would they do that?

Okay, now I'm even more confused as to what you're claiming. "The photo from the satellite was closer to the craft." What satellite are you talking about?

his claim that you can make underwater footage look normal by speeding it up is absurd, but could make a nice sequel to the Mythbusters special on the Apollo hoax claims
[/color] Okay, so I'm guessing people said they slowed down video to make it look like the Apollo astronauts were on the moon jumping. I'm claiming the opposite here, my friend, I'm saying they sped up the video. Try this. Try taking the footage and slowing it down. Does it look underwater? Try taking American test footage underwater and speeding it up. And again, the change in cloud speed correlates with the apparent change in footage speed.[/quote]

You are correct about the Mythbusters thing. And no, I don't think speeding up underwater footage makes it look like this. I've seen underwater footage and outer space footage -- they look like they're moving at pretty much the same speed.

I'll take a look at your earth halo argument when I get a chance to look at the video again; I don't recall what the claim was off the top of my head.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

It makes no sense what so ever for China to fake a space walk.

What is going to advance their national capability more, a real space walk or a fake one?

Since China had already orbited a manned spacecraft (Sz-5), carried out a multi-man mission (Sz-6), and has the stated goal of a space station, a three man mission with a spacewalk is a logical and neccessary intermediate step. Furthermore it was step long announced and anticipated.

The Chinese broadcast much of the mission live, including the spacewalk. Wjhy would they have done this if it was going to be faked?

There are probably a dozen nations with some degree of space tracking capability, many amateurs who listen in on space broadcasts, and a dozen more who would have a close interest in Chinese space capabilities. Why would China risk the embarassment and major loss of credibility as a nation with advanced technological capabilities that would entail if caught out trying to fake a space walk? Which they would have been if they had, and quickly.

That disposes of the motive and the opportunity. There is no motive to fake and every motive to carry out a real space work. With the eyes of the world watching there was no opportunity, even if they had wanted to.

Means? Faking a real space walk is very hard, all theatrical "space walks" can be quickly picked, it is only suspension of disbelief that allows us to believe they are real, temporarily.

I would rather question the motives of those who are promulgating the story that the spacewalk was faked. What is their agenda? Is there an anti-Chinese bent, like the cold war claims that USSR's first spacewalk, not to mention Luna 1, 2, and 3 were faked? Or is it part of a general hostility towards the reality of spaceflight in general?

Jon
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Re: did China fake their spacewalk?

Yay! I found some spare time! I watched both of the videos again, and would like to address a bunch of claims that I missed last time, including the "halo" claim:

First video:

"Clouds don't move that quickly."

Sure they do. Just watch some NASA TV sometime, and you'll see what I mean. To fly in low Earth orbit, you have to be travelling somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,500 MPH. It takes only 90 minutes to make a complete revolution of the Earth. In short, if you're in orbit, you're bookin'. Watch a satellite go by overhead sometime; they cross the sky surprisingly quickly.

"China was sloppy enough to leave proof that their gymnasts are underage."

This is not relevant. Just because they fake some stuff doesn't mean they fake everything. Or, to put it another way, just because Watergate happened doesn't mean that Apollo 11 was faked, even though the same President was in charge both times.


Second video:

Side-by-side comparison of the rocket: they still don't look like different letters to me, though at such poor resolution, it's impossible to be sure. Sure, it doesn't look precisely the same, but that's becuase they're filmed in different lighting conditions, and the rocket is slightly rotated in one of the images. (Note the position of the checkerboard roll pattern.) I fail to see what evidence you have of your assertion that the first image is a model and the second image is Shenzhou 1. All you say is that the two heavily compressed images are not identical (which is to be expected with a lossy compression algorithm like JPEG), and Shenzhou 7 and Shenzhou 1 look an awful lot alike. I wonder if you feel that Apollo 11 was faked, since the rocket looked so much like Apollo 8's rocket (i.e. practically identical)?

Satellite photos of Shenzhou 7: on rewatching, now I understand your claim better. You are asserting that the Shenzhou satellite isn't really Shenzhou 7. This is possible; there's no way to be sure they didn't just recycle Shenzhou 1 footage. I have no idea why they'd bother. But there is more to an image than just placement of the camera. THe nature of the camera is significant too, and without knowing the details of the cameras that took each picture (which China is not likely to divulge, since one of them is an acknowledged reconnaissance satellite), it's impossible to support your conclusion. This is probably your best piece of evidence, and at best, it is curious. It is not persuasive.

The "entire Earth becomes covered in clouds in no more than two seconds". I think you are claiming that the video of the background has been spliced, while the video of the foreground hasn't. First off, I have to wonder what could provoke a hoaxer to screw up so deliberately. Secondly, I am interested in you claim that the entire Earth becomes covered in clouds, given the substantial amount of clear sky still visible. It's clear to me that what's really happening is the camera is having some brief difficulty adjusting brightness. I don't see more clouds -- I just see the Earth getting whiter. This is really not unusual; the Earth is very bright. I've seen this sort of thing happen in NASA videos too. Of course, it looks weirder when you're seeing a video as low-quality as this clip, rather than the HD that runs on NASA TV. (Mind you, even HD TV can look this bad when viewed over the Internet, depending on one's connection.)

"Floating" power cords -- you think the umbilical cable is filled with air, causing it to float. There's no reason to assume that. It's a pretty heavy-duty cable if it's anything like the ones that are used to recharge Russian Orlan suits. (The Chinese suits, like much to do with the Chinese space program, are derivatives of Russian technology. Indeed, only one of the suits seen in the video is Chinese; the other is an actual Orlan suit, purchased on the open market directly from the Russian manufacturer.) This cable is not like a piece of string; it's stiff, and without gravity pulling it down, it will tend to resist being shoved in various directions. Try taking the thickest power cord you've got and stuffing it into a narrow box. It will probably try to pop back out. That's because of the inherent stiffness of the cord. Take gravity out of the equation, and it may resist being laid neatly down. You may notice that it doesn't float up beyond a certain point. Now, if it were neutrally bouyant, it would float in water much like this. But that's not what you're claiming. You're claiming that it's positively bouyant, and hence floating upwards due to gravity. (Yep, you float in water because of gravity. Slightly counter-intuitive, but true.)

Now we come to the "halo" claim. I missed this on the first viewing, but on the second viewing, I see you are claiming that the Earth's atmosphere is not visible in the Chinese footage, but you show American pictures in which it *is* visible. But this is a strange claim indeed, because the Earth's limb appears fuzzy in the Chinese footage too; it's not like they forgot to draw in the atmosphere. You can't see a delicate blue glow, but this is a consequence of the low resolution of the footage combined with the Earth being rather overexposed. Colors get washed out when you overexpose them. It's a little silly to compare high-resolution digital and film stills taken by NASA with motion TV footage that has been reduced and compressed for Internet transmission.

You also make the rather interesting claim that the reason the "halo" isn't there is because of the camera's color gain being adjusted to remove the look of blue water. That's a pretty weird claim, frankly. You're arguing that the Chinese built a fake, rotating Earth in their water tank, rather than digitally compositing it in afterwards? Look, if you're gonna claim they faked it, at least claim they faked it in a plausible way.

"Sun angle doesn't change" followed by evidence that you narrated of the sun angle changing. First of all, your footage doesn't back your claim that the Sun never moves. What it really shows is that the Sun doesn't move the way you think it should, since you apparently think all orbits have to be half in sunlight, half in darkness. Let's discuss that a little more. The Space Shuttle tends to go for a half-sunlight orbit. It doesn't use solar panels, but it does have to radiate a considerable amount of heat, so it actually performs better in darkness. For this very reason, there are times when the Shuttle is not allowed to fly to the ISS. (One of those times is coming up soon; if NASA can't launch Endeavour within a few days of its window in a couple of weeks, the ISS will be in too much sunlight for the Shuttle to safely operate; the Shuttle would get too hot.) If you're planning a spaceflight to showcase your country's awesome new spacecraft with EVA capabilities, you're going to want as much sunlight as you can get. As it turns out, this can be acheived with just a little bit of planning. In your diagram for this portion of the video, you depict an orbit which is parallel to an imaginary line drawn between the Sun and the Earth, or perpendicular to the Earth's day/night terminator. But not all orbits have to be like that. Imagine if the orbit is rotated 90 degrees about the Earth's axis. Suddenly, it is nearly always in sunlight. This sort of orbit poses heat dissipation challenges (which are not insurmountable) but is awesome for solar powered spacecraft. Indeed, a fair number of unmanned spacecraft use such orbits routinely. NASA's TRACE spacecraft is in such an orbit, allowing it a nearly constant view of the Sun. If Shenzhou 7 was in this sort of an orbit, you'd expect to see the shadows do exactly what they do in this footage.

"News media discovered a fourth voice" -- c'mon, if there was something this groundbreaking, you'd think it'd show up someplace more serious than the Epoch Times. In any case, I don't speak Chinese; I can't evaluate this claim properly, and I'm disinclined to take the Epoch Times' word for it.

Going back to the sound quality claim, I'm not sure why you say it's so good. It's really not. It's not identical to Russian or American sounds, but this could be for any number of reasons, including the way it gets transmitted to Earth and the way it has been prepared for broadcast. (For instance, one of the reasons the Russian sound quality is so poor is because it's been deliberately reduced in volume so it's easier to hear the translator.)

"Earplugs" -- you are confusing things. They've claimed it's too loud *in the capsule*, but the footage you show is all of spacewalk footage. That's a completely different environment.


I really do encourage you to go watch more NASA TV. It's fascinating, beautiful, and probably the closest most of us will ever get to actual spaceflight. The other really big piece of advice I have for you is to remember that spaceflight is messier than it looks in Hollywood and in high school physics textbooks. A great deal about it is very counter-intuitive.
 
J

jim48

Guest
I'm shocked when I talk about the Apollo program with young people today. I should say shocked by how many of them say "I've heard that was faked," or "My dad says that was all faked." !!!!!!!!!!!! Remember the 1978 movie Capricorn One, in which they faked a Mars landing? That one was so bad it was good! Okay. Anyone out here believe that the moon landings were faked, and if so, why?

{Edit- I have had to expand the subject matter- MW 8/21/10}
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Jim, there are dozens of threads on this subject in The Unexplained. This is for serious discussion of the Apollo 11 Anniversery, so I am going to move this thread there and probably merge it with one of the existing ones.

I'll leave a link here for a day or two.

Wayne
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

That's an amazing site, which I highly recommend. If anyone is serious about the issue, there's a few good hours to be spent there.

Anyone who is not willing to spend the time reading all that is there is not serious.
 
3

3488

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Hi SpeedFreek, thanks for the link that debunks the woo woo conspiracy nonsense. Great one. :mrgreen: :lol: :mrgreen:

MeteorWayne":33h8zl82 said:
That's an amazing site, which I highly recommend. If anyone is serious about the issue, there's a few good hours to be spent there.

Anyone who is not willing to spend the time reading all that is there is not serious.

I agree totally Wayne & I'm so fed up with this that I will not even comment, but Speedfreek's link is very, very good at giving the woo woos a good hammering. :mrgreen:

I agree that this does not belong in the Apollo 11 dedication thread.

Andrew Brown.
 
J

jim48

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

MeteorWayne":1b9crh78 said:
Jim, there are dozens of threads on this subject in The Unexplained. This is for serious discussion of the Apollo 11 Anniversery, so I am going to move this thread there and probably merge it with one of the existing ones.

I'll leave a link here for a day or two.

Wayne

I agree. Apologies, apologies.
 
K

krash

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

It is silly to think the moon landings were faked.

I have very little tolerance for people that even suggest it...
 
C

Cpickens89

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

my god i wanna say stuff that would get ejected from the site to people that say it was faked especially when all they are is ignorent and run there mouths about what the heard from others

PATHETIC



its not faked how many times does it gotta be proven...
 
J

jim48

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

In my own defense, it cannot be denied that there's a whole generation out there that has some serious doubts about the reality of our moon landings. I think that sucks. The Apollo astronauts have been asked over the years about that as well and I think that sucks, too. This is not about woo-woo, it's about perception. There are really a lot of folks out there who think it was all made up. Wayne, you might want to hang on to this thread because it is relevant, like it or not.
 
J

JasonChapman

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Not this old chestnut again, every time an apollo anniverssary comes around this conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

This again. Why would we fake it SIX TIMES! For all the trouble that would've been, we may as well've really gone at least ONCE! An estimated 400,000 engineers, technicians, and even janitors were involved in the Apollo program. Jesus-nightlight-Christ! Two people can't keep a secret-if it's three, it's no longer a secret- much less hundreds of thousands.

And if we faked the SIX LUNAR LANDINGS, then the Soviets would have had to be in on the conspiracy as well.

Balderdash!!!
 
O

OmegaOm

Guest
Nasa Beter Prove The moon Landing

I am in the middle on the belief of Americans men on the moon. There is good evidence both ways. But what really gets me is why we have not seen proof. Japan postponed their moon probe for many years, it even originally had a camera that could resolve the artifacts left by the Apollo astronauts, then they changed it. Now Nasa has a moon probe that supposedly can resolve 1 meter. I seen the striking images a few days ago. Why are they not proving that they were on the moon with this satellite. I am sure they could of modified the flight path somehow.
It is Nasa's arrogance, that they do not have to offer more proof of the moon landing, that makes them look guilty.

Either way, within 10 years we should know for sure if Americans were the first to land on the moon. If they did not, the secret can not last forever. If they did, then end this conspiracy theory soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
O

onesmallstep

Guest
Re: Nasa Beter Prove The moon Landing

OmegaOm":3uq21a0m said:
I am in the middle on the belief of Americans men on the moon. There is good evidence both ways. But what really gets me is why we have not seen proof. Japan postponed their moon probe for many years, it even originally had a camera that could resolve the artifacts left by the Apollo astronauts, then they changed it. Now Nasa has a moon probe that supposedly can resolve 1 meter. I seen the striking images a few days ago. Why are they not proving that they were on the moon with this satellite. I am sure they could of modified the flight path somehow.
It is Nasa's arrogance, that they do not have to offer more proof of the moon landing, that makes them look guilty.

Either way, within 10 years we should know for sure if Americans were the first to land on the moon. If they did not, the secret can not last forever. If they did, then end this conspiracy theory soon.

When the photographs come of the landers sitting on the surface, will you believe it?
 
B

BoJangles2

Guest
Re: Nasa Beter Prove The moon Landing

If you don’t believe in the moon landings you might as well put your tin foil hat on now. There is plenty of evidence all over the internet, instead of wasting your time reading conspiracy sites or listening to your conspiracy friends why don’t you proactively search for the proof yourself and tell us about your findings, I know there have been many threads on here dealign wth the moon landings and countless sites dedicated to it.

If you’re still not convinced, maybe you shouldn’t worry about such complex things, and start with something a little easier, like a high school education.

In fact I'm surprised I’ve let you off so lightly, I must be in a good mood. :)
 
S

Smersh

Guest
Re: Nasa Beter Prove The moon Landing

Thanks to Speedfreek for posting this link in other threads - the most comprehensive, well organised and easy to follow site I've ever seen explaining why the Apollo missions were not faked is this one: http://www.clavius.org/

Regarding proof from orbiters with images showing the landers and flags etc, I agree that will be good when that happens but sadly, I suspect that many hoax believers will still not believe it. In fact, I'm sure that with some HBs even if they were flown to the Moon themselves and landed right next to one of the Apollo sites they still wouldn't believe it ... :|
 

Latest posts