Did you check the link I provided? ;_D

I realized after posting that I might be giving the HB’s more ammunition for their arguments. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that this rig was used for anything other than to develop a physiological “feel” for walking in 1/6 g. The cables were, as you said, not thin. Not only were they visible, but the multiple suspension points on the trainee’s body had wide padded slings to support their weight. This was definitely NOT a stealth rig that would fool anyone.

- Jack

Jack, great additional comment about the multiple shadows. At one point it crossed my mind, but got lost in the shuffle. The key point in my mind was to explain the differing shadow directions in the linked picture, but it is also useful to understand what is missing for the picture to be a hoax as claimed.

As for the training rig, yes they did several gimmicks to try to train for low gravity. Vomit Comet runs gave short bursts of low g, and water tank immersion was also used, which is the backbone of spacewalk testing even today. You are correct, they did rig up a harness system with a sloped wall. However, I would hardly call the cables supporting them “wires”, and that left them stuck on one side, not able to turn around. Hardly anything like the freedom of motion shown above.

What seems to be suggested above (and elsewhere) is the idea that the astronauts are upright in a studio hanging from some catwalk/framework above. It would have to be a complicated rig that moved freely in various directions, allowed for the astronaut to piroutte in place without tangling, and allow them to circle each other, get in close proximity to exchange hardware, etc. And it would have to do so while being seemlessly recorded. Plus, since it is on Earth, the support cables would have to support minimum 200 – 250 lbs while being so thin as to be invisible.

James, that’s a great point that I neglected to consider at all. Human performance is not entirely a factor purely of gravity. Leverage, response time, inertia, etc all play a role. Additionally, as you say, high jump is not just about vertical jump height. Clearing the bar is accomplished by contortionist moves to go over the bar higher than the cg ever gets. Thus the “Fosbury Flop”, as it’s called. (Spelling?)

Lots of factors affect the reality instead of the simplistic expectation of 6x performance.

I’ve only seen one good article on this: astonomer Robert S. Richardson’s “Space Technology of a Track Meet”

Richardson analyzed how athletes’ bodies actually work in various events and tried to work out how differing gravity would effect the impulse from their muscles, the leverage of their limbs, interaction with the ground, and all the other things that might be different between here, the Moon, and the other planets.

Turns out that for jumpers, the important factor is not how high the feet get off the ground, but how much the center of gravity is raised. The hight of a bar that can be cleared on the moon works out to significantly lower than six times what the same person could clear on Earth.

Lots of other neat things in it about how athletes might have to vary their techniques to achieve optimum performance on light and heavy planets. The astonauts hopping instead of striding is a case in point.

I was applauding, but I was too busy to respond at the time. The TV signals from the moon were even weirder than that, though. Except for Apollo 11, all of the TV cameras on the landing missions were color, but they couldn’t manage a true NTSC color signal in that small of a box with mid-60′s technology. The cameras were actually opto-mechanical with a filter wheel spinning in front of a single B&W vidicon tube. The wheel was synchronized to the scan speed so that the image frames were sent in sequential red-blue-green sets. There was a fairly major amount of signal processing done at the receiving end to convert it to NTSC so that it could be broadcast by the networks. That’s why the images seem to stream colors whenever something moves quickly through the frame.

Irishman – Bravo on doing a great condensation of several debunking sites into a couple of posts! One thing you left out about the “multiple light sources” argument, though, is that multiple sources will create multiple shadows on EACH object, not just different angles on different objects.

And, finally, for those who talked about the wires, the astronauts actually were trained on a wire rig. They had a large wall, like a rock-climbing wall, tilted back about 20°. This created a gravity vector towards the wall of 1/6 g. The trainee was suspended horizontally by a very sophisticated wire rig that supported the other 5/6 of their weight allowing them to bounce around the wall realistically.

- Jack

I guess if it’s on the net, it must be true!

Pete

Moon Hoax

GAry 7

Reality: There are several arguments here.
1. The astronauts jump 2 – 3 feet high wearing bulky space suits and heavy backpacks. The best atheletes on Earth jump 3 feet high wearing tennis shoes and loose shorts.

2. There is video of astronauts jumping, such as the salute shown, or Armstrong on the LM climbing the ladder. Such video shows remarkable agility and lightness for jumping. That video shows the astronaut leap over 1 foot high without bending his knees. You try that. Armstrong leaps from the LM footpad to the first rung on the ladder – ~ 3 ft. In Armstrong’s case, wire support is exceedingly unlikely because he immediately crawls into the LM and closes the hatch. How does he do that wearing wires? When does he disconnect the wires without being seen to do so?

3. Spacesuits are a bit constricting, even if they don’t weigh as much. They are bulky, which you can see when the astronauts fall down and have to get up, or try to reach to the ground. See Charlie Duke pushing a core sampler into the ground, then squating to pull the core sample out. He has to do some bizarre body contortions to put one knee down to get low enough to pull the tool out of the ground. That is not an outfit designed for moon gymnastics, calesthenics, and track and field.

4. While the space suits are fairly damage resistant, ultimately those pressure suits where the life-preservation of the astronauts. It would not be good to get a puncture through the pressure restraint layer, or a crack in the helmet. The astronauts wisely limited their antics to lower speeds and smaller jumps.

5. Also consider they felt awkward with the light weight but normal inertia effects. This made their center of gravity different, and made their reactions unnatural. Thus they were hesitant to over do because their motion reacted different than their reflexes expected. Witness them falling over such as in that video, where the astronaut is bouncing along and gets off balance and falls sideways.

Reality: No, it does not look normal. The astronauts still look light and effortless. Their hand and arm motions become fast and furious. They look like sped up film motions from the silent film era. They do not look like normal fast hand motions. They are too jerky, start and stop to instantaneously. People’s arms don’t react that quickly. The astronauts effortlessly jump high or bounce around, and even stand up from knees without effort. Dust and dirt are kicked up and fall parabolically, not floating in the air like light powdery dust does in air. The dirt flys long distances from light kicks.

Claim: The light, effortless motion is because the suits are fake, and therefore actually light weight.

Reality: Difficult if the suits actually have to protect against pressure. See dirt arguments. If dirt is also faked, the suits still look bulky. Tried running around in three layers of snowsuit? Not very effortless, is it?

Claim: The light, effortless motion is because the “astronauts” are on wires. You can even see a wire glint in the light.

Reality: The astronauts move around in circles and tumble a lot without interfering with wires. Wire technology at the time could not fake it. What you see glinting in the light is the antenna on top of the PLSS, which is flat and narrow, not round. The cross-section perpendicular to the line of sight changes, which is why it is only rarely visible glinting.

Claim: The dirt/dust could be faked by using wet dirt instead of dust, or pebbles.

Reality: Wet dirt might eliminate the dust clouds, but it would be difficult to kick wet dirt lightly and have it move as far as it does in those videos. Try kicking dirt and see how far you can get it to fly, and what kind of effort it takes. Then look at how lightly the astronauts kick the dirt.

Claim: That panorama picture linked above shows multiple light sources. The shadows fall in different directions.

Reality: The shadows fall in different directions because it is a panorama. That photo is a composite photo of an astronaut taking pictures as he turns around in a circle, then the photos are digitally stitched together to show one long picture. The first picture is down sun, shadows falling away. Turn 45 deg clockwise, then turn 45 deg clockwise. The astronaut picture is 1/4 turn CW from down sun, and his shadow falls to the left. Continue process as you go around, and at 180 deg, shadows fall toward the camera. Continue, and the shadows of the rover fall right, which is also down sun. The surroundings circle the camera, but the view is cut and opened up and layed out flat. Therefore, the light direction appears inconsistent.

Claim: Short video clips could be faked and strung together like the movies. See Apollo 13, etc.

Reality: Get the Spacecraft Films DVDs. They show continuous video from the Moon running for hours at a time. Camera on and running, left running while astronauts do their thing.

BTW I’m also German and I can assure you most of us aren’t anti-American but many are anti-Bush.

BA: Please make a list of any upcoming speaking engagements. I have kept up with you since I first heard you on Coast years ago and you have taught me so much. Thanks for all you do.

Welcome to the First State!

Did You Know…
St Andrews School was used as the set for Dead Poets Society.
Many of the space suits used today were made in Dover,De.

BTW Delaware does have a observatory…Mt Cuba in New Castle County.

Ger

This is merely a formality, you understand, since it’s a public forum and I’m using it with full attribution, but I thought I’d check. I may be able to swing you a grade-school science textbook as a honorarium – I try to find gifts that people need.

Thanks, looking forward to hearing from you