O NationalKid, como ele mesmo explicou, tem know how para desmascarar essa farça da guerra fria que nos tentou fazer engolir um teatro que não aconteceu. Eu sempre digo e repito: NÃO HAVIA TECNOLOGIA PARA VIAGEM À LUA NAQUELA ÉPOCA.
Não vou continuar esta discussão por um motiv simples. Estou usando apenas especulações e vc está vindo com fatos concretos que não tenho base para contra-argumentar.
Não mudo o que eu acredito, mas stou interessado nas suas idéias, se tiver mais argumentos pra postar va em frente, estou curioso.
Veja os filmes que foram transmitidos para todo o planeta, da suposta conquista da Lua. Perceba que os astronautas transmitiam, em tempo real, vídeo e som para a base nos Estados Unidos. A conversa entre a base e os astronautas ocorria em tempo real naquela época!
Hoje em dia as Redes de TV com toda rede de satelites , transmissão digital, quando um ancora de jornalismo pergunta ao vivo a um reporter que está no outro lado do mundo demora cerca de 3 segundos para o reporter ouvir a pergunta e até a resposta voltar são mais 3 segundos, isso por que são menos de 20 000 KM de distancia, e os astronautas falavam ao vivo EM TEMPO REAL com a NASA como se estivessem cara a cara.
Texto a seguir retirado deste Site :
Outro dado conflitante é o de que o Sol emite uma radiação, na Terra, de cerca de 0,36 rem/ano. REM é abreviatura de Roentgen Equivalent for Man. Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen é o nome do físico alemão inventor dos raios X. DENTRO DA ESTAÇÃO ESPACIAL, astronautas costumam receber radiações de cerca de 6 rem/ano. E, na Lua, esta radiação pode chegar a até 7000 rem/minuto! Tendo em vista que a população do nosso planeta está acostumada a receber entre 0,1 e 2 rem/ano, e o ser humano consegue resistir a um máximo de 4,5 rem/mês, a radiação de 7000 rem/minuto torna-se letal para qualquer indivíduo! Esses dados podem ser conferidos em estudos realizados pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, publicados no site http://astro.if.ufrgs.br/esol/esol.htm, no subtítulo Tempestades de 1999 a 2003; e também em estudos realizados pela Universidade Estadual Paulista no endereço http://inorgan221.iq.unesp.br/quimgeral … lear8.html. Além das referências brasileiras, no último parágrafo do endereço http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education … apt.2.html, que contém um estudo feito pela própria NASA sobre as propriedades físicas do espaço, conseguimos encontrar uma informação de que, normalmente, um ser adulto consegue suportar até 5 rem/ano, embora hajam casos de exposição a 50 rem/ano, que se aproxima bem dos 4,5 rem/mês especificados acima.
E a respeito da reflexão de luz citada anteriormente a UFRGS tirou a explanação de um site da NASA tambem, basta acessar endereço no link anterior.
Que roupas eram aquelas utilizadas pelos astronautas que resistiam a uma radiação solar tão absurda? Resistia também a altíssimas e baixíssimas temperaturas? E ainda suportavam a extrema falta da pressão atmosférica? Quanto mais próximo um corpo está do nosso planeta (no fundo do mar, por exemplo) maior é a pressão, que tende a comprimir o corpo humano. Com a ausência da pressão, o corpo humano tende a dilatar e a explodir! Fato semelhante pode acontecer até mesmo dentro do nosso próprio planeta. Imagine a seguinte situação: você está numa cidade litorânea, no nível do mar, e o grau de ebulição da água é cerca de 100º Celsius. Então, você resolve fazer uma viagem de avião, que está, agora, a 30 mil metros de altitude. Tendo em vista que a temperatura do nosso corpo fica em cerca de 36ºC, se alguma parte da fuselagem da aeronave rompesse e anulasse a pressurização na aeronave, o seu sangue ferveria dentro do seu próprio corpo! Lembre-se que a água ferve a 100ºC no nível do mar porque, numa altitude 0, a pressão atmosférica é de 100.000 Pascal. Quando a altitude atinge os 18.900 metros, a pressão atmosférica reduz para apenas 6.180 Pascal e a temperatura necessária para ebulição da água passa a ser a mesma temperatura no nosso corpo humano. É morte, na certa! E, mesmo se o sangue não fervesse, você morreria congelado, sendo que, em média, a cada acréscimo de mil metros de altitude, a temperatura cai cerca de 2 graus Celsius. Portanto, se a temperatura na tal cidade litorânea estivesse em 20ºC, a 30 mil metros de altitude, estariam fazendo cerca de 40ºC negativos! Com a redução drástica da pressão, seu corpo também tenderia a dilatar ou até mesmo explodir!
Dentro da estação espacial os astronautas recebem radição, imagine naquela roupa macia, talvez se fosse como uma armadura minimizaria o efeito.
Voltando ao assunto da sombra do nosso Planeta na Lua, nas quase 3 horas que eles ficaram no solo Lunar a sombra não se moveu 1 milimetro se quer e ela estava se movendo a 3 METROS POR SEGUNDO!!!, não acredita faça as contas .
Somente durante a descida de Armstrong da nave a sombra deveria ter movido uns 20 METROS.
Segundo o Site da Nasa ao descer no solo Lunar a nave tinha combustivel apenas para mais 30 segundos de propulsão e com esse combustivel ela decolou e conseguiu ficar na orbita da Capsula para retorno a Terra.
A velocidade mínima necessaria para vencer a gravidade Lunar e sair dela é de no minímo 2,3 Km por segundo
Tem mais para outro dia
Nossa nunca tinha ouvido argumentos tao convincentes!, essa da sombra e da velocidad na comunicacao lua/terra sao argumentos realmente preocupantes, nao boto minha mao no fogo pelos americanos por nada do mundo e nao descarto a possibilidade de realmente essa facanha ter sido uma grande armacao…gostaria de saber se a comunidade cientifica ja se manifestou a respeito (national geografic, e outras revistas cientificas serias) pois isso nao poderia ter passado levemente pelos entendidos e respeitados cientificos da comunidade internacional…
National Geographic, Jul 20, 2004. Titulo : WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON?, além da TV BBC de Londres, a FOX cujo Link do Programa está neste Forum, todos os principais jornais do mundo publicaram algo a respeito.
E agora vai mais uma questão:
20 de julho de 1969 , Lua Crescente no início.
Portanto o Planeta Terra está obstruindo parcialmente o Sol que por isso projeta uma sombra parcial na Lua , motivo pelo qual falta " um pedaço da Lua " , é assim que ocorrem as fases Lunares.
Na foto mostrada pela Nasa " a Terra vista da Lua " é visivel o solo Lunar e a Terra ao fundo com uma sombra cobrindo metade dela.
Então como é possivel aparecer a Lua em primeiro plano e a Terra pequenina ao fundo e ter a iluminação do Sol vindo de trás do fotografo?
O Sol deveria aparecer atrás da Terra, e aparecer apenas a silhueta dela.
A foto da Nasa ilustra uma Eclipse Solar, que é quando a Lua entra na frente do Sol e projeta sua sombra na Terra. E nesse dia não ocorreu tal fenomemo.
Por enquanto é só
Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax
(February 13, 2001)
©2006 Phil Plait. All Rights Reserved
On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?’’, hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program’s conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.
Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk.
From the very first moment to the very last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science. I was able to get a copy of the show in advance, and although I was expecting it to be bad, I was still surprised and how awful it was. I took four pages of notes. I won’t subject you to all of that here; it would take hours to write. I’ll only go over some of the major points of the show, and explain briefly why they are wrong. In the near future, hopefully by the end of the summer, I will have a much more detailed series of pages taking on each of the points made by the Hoax Believers (whom I will call HBs).
So let’s take a look at the ``evidence’’ brought out by the show. To make this easier, below is a table with links to the specific arguments.
Disclaimer 20% believe in the hoax? The Capricorn 1 tie-in
No stars in pictures No blast crater Dust around the lander
Deep, dark shadows Non-parallel shadows Identical backgrounds
More identical backgrounds Lander unable to balance itself No flames from lunar launch
Astronauts footage shot in slow-motion The waving flag Why was every picture perfect?
Missing crosshairs in photos The deadly radiation of space Did NASA murder its astronauts?
CONCLUSION LINKS FALLOUT
Bad: Right at the beginning, they have a disclaimer:
The following program deals with a controversial subject. The theories expressed are not the only possible explanation. Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.
Good: The last thing the writers of this program want the viewers to do is make an informed decision. If they did, they would have given equal time to both sides of this controversy. Instead, the vast majority of the time is given to the HBs, with only scattered (and very vague) dismissive statements by skeptics. So the available information is really only what they tell you. Of course, there are a lot of websites talking about this. I have a list of them on my own site.
Bad: The show claims that 20% of Americans have doubts that we went to the Moon.
Good: That number is a bit misleading. A 1999 Gallup poll showed it was more like 6%, a number which agrees with a poll taken in 1995 by Time/CNN. The Gallup website also says:
Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals, it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them – so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread.
It also depends on what you mean by ``doubts’’. Does that mean someone who truly doesn’t believe man ever went to the Moon, or just that it’s remotely possible that NASA faked it? Those are very different things. Not only does the program not say, but they don’t say where they found the statistic they quote either.
Bad: The program talks about the movie
Capricorn 1'', an entertaining if ultimately silly movie about how NASA must fake a manned Mars expedition. The program says The Apollo footage [from the surface of the Moon] is strikingly similar to the scenes in ``Capricorn 1’’.
Good: Is it just an amazing coincidence that the actual Moon images look like the movie, or is it evidence of conspiracy? Neither! The movie was filmed in 1978, many years after the last man walked on the Moon. The movie was made to look like the real thing! This statement by the program is particularly ludicrous, and indicates just how far the producers were willing to go to make a sensational program.
Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
Good: The stars are there! They’re just too faint to be seen.
This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it’s the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.
I’ll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.
The Moon’s surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That’s why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
So why aren’t they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that’s like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it’s just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won’t see any stars!
It’s that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.
Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn’t need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.
Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That’s not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That’s why there’s no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.
[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts’ view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.]
Bad: The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts’ footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.
Good: Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.
That’s the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn’t reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn’t nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.
I can’t resist: another Hoax Believer argument bites the dust.
Bad: The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, the HBs say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.
Good: This is one of my favorite HB claims. They give you the answer in the claim itself: “…if the Sun is the only source of light…” It isn’t. Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?
The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.
Now think about the sunlight. Let’s say the sun is off to the right in a picture. It is illuminating the right side of the lander, and the left is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the left is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the right and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.
This effect is called heiligenschein (the German word for halo). You can find some neat images of it at here, for example. This also explains another HB claim, that many times the astronauts appear to be standing in a spotlight. This is a natural effect of heiligenschein. You can reproduce this effect yourself; wet grass on a cool morning will do it. Face away from the Sun and look at the shadow of your head. There will be a halo around it. The effect is also very strong in fine, disturbed dust like that in a baseball diamond infield. Or, of course, on the Moon.
[Note added June 29, 2001: A nifty demonstration of the shadow filling was done by Ian Goddard and can be found here. His demos are great, and really drive the point home.
Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.
Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let’s assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.
Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You’ll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don’t take my word for it, go out and try!
Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you’ll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.
[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, check out Ian Goddard’s work for more about this.
Bad: The program has two segments dealing with what they call ``identical backgrounds’’. In one, they show the lunar lander with a mountain in the background. They then show another picture of the same mountain, but no lander in the foreground at all. The astronauts could not have taken either picture before landing, of course, and after it lifts off the lander leaves the bottom section behind. Therefore, there would have been something in the second image no matter what, and the foreground could not be empty. Obviously, the mountain background is a fake set, and was reused by NASA for another shot.
Good: Actually, the pictures are real, of course. As always, repeat after me: the Moon is not the Earth. On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can’t tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!
That’s what’s going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you’ll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you’d expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It’s not fraud, it’s parallax!
Another example of the difficulty in estimating distance is due to the shapes of the rocks on the Moon. A rock small enough to sit down on doesn’t look fundamentally different from one bigger than your house. Humans also judge distance by using the relative sizes of objects. We know how big a person is, or a tree, so the apparent size of the object can be used to estimate the distance. If we don’t know how big the object is, we can be fooled about its distance.
For an outstanding example of this, take a look at video taken during Apollo 16. There is a boulder in the background that looks to be about 3 or 4 meters (10-13 feet) high. About 3/4 of the way through the segment the astronauts walk over to it. Amazingly, that boulder is the size of a large house! Without knowing how big the rock was when we first see it, we have no way to judge distances. That huge rock looks like a medium sized one until we have some way to directly judge its size; in this case, by looking at the tiny astronauts next to it. [My thanks to Bad Reader Martin Michalak for bringing this video to my attention. My very special thanks goes to Charlie Duke (yes, the Charlie Duke, Apollo astronaut and lunar lander pilot) who emailed me (!) about the difficulty in judging distances due to not knowing the sizes of rocks.]
I will admit the Fox program had me for a while on this one; I couldn’t figure it out. But then I got a note from Bad Reader David Bailey, who set me straight. However, the producers of the show should have talked to some real experts before saying such a silly thing as this. If they had checked with the folks who run the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, for example, they would have been set straight too.
NEW! (February 19, 2001): I found a site that has an animation where the two images of the mountain are superimposed. You need Flash for it, but it’s a great animation. The beauty of it is that you can see changes in the mountain range due to parallax!. In other words, this animation is support that the images are real and are not using a fake backdrop. The real beauty of this animation is that the person who put it together is an HB. I like the irony of linking to that animation and using it to show that it is indeed evidence that Apollo did go to the Moon. I love the web!
Bad: The other ``identical background’’ segment shows an astronaut on a hilltop. A second video shows two astronauts on the same hill (and this time it really is the same hill), and claims that NASA itself says these two videos were taken on two different hills separated by many kilometers. How can this be? They are obviously the same hill, so NASA must be lying!
Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden…’’ released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error. I asked Eric Jones, who is the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and he told me those two clips were taken about three minutes apart. Eric’s assistant, Ken Glover, uncovered this problem. He sent me this transcript (which I edited a bit to make links to the video clips) of the Fox show with his comments, which I will highlight in red:
Narrator: Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video.
[Video showing John Young at Station 4 on EVA-2, with Fox caption “Day One”. Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]
Narrator: This shot was taped in what was purported to be the first of Apollo 16’s lunar excursions.
[Audio of John Young dubbed over clip: “Well, I couldn’t pick a better spot”, actual MET of 123:58:46]
[Next, video of John Young and Charlie Duke at Station 4, EVA-2. In reality, about three minutes after the first clip. Fox caption “Day Two”. Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]
Narrator: And this video was from the next day, at a different location.
[Audio of Charlie Duke dubbed over clip: “That is the most beautiful sight!”, actual MET of 124:03:01]
Narrator: NASA claims the second location was two-and-a-half miles away, but when one video was superimposed over the other the locations appear identical.
[Audio of John Young dubbed over “Day Two” video: " It’s absolutely unreal!", actual MET 144:16:30]
Narrator: Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggest evidence of doctoring.
That last line is pretty funny. The audio you hear of the astronauts in those clips was actually all from different times than the video!
So that’s why the hill looks the same. It’s the same hill, and the two clips were not taken a day apart, but from three minutes apart or so. Again, had the program producers bothered to check their sources, they would have received a prompt answer. That’s all I did: I emailed the editor of the ALSJ. It was pretty easy to do, and he answered me in minutes.
Bad: Ralph Rene, a self-proclaimed physicist, claims that the astronauts shifting in the cabin would change the center of mass, throwing the lunar lander off balance. They couldn’t compensate for this, which would have crashed the lander. Thus, the landing was faked.
Good: Rene is wrong. Evidently he doesn’t know how the internet works either, because there is a website which describes how the attitude control was maintained on the lander during descent and ascent; it’s the Apollo Saturn Reference page. There was a feedback control system on board the lander which determined if the axis were shifting. During descent, the engine nozzle could shift direction slightly to compensate for changes in the center of gravity of the lander (the technical term for this is gimbaling the nozzle). During ascent, the engine nozzle was fixed in position, so there was a series of smaller rockets which was used to maintain the proper attitude. Incidentally, every rocket needs to do this since fuel shifts the center of gravity as it is burned up by the rocket, yet Rene and the other HBs don’t seem to doubt that rockets themselves work! So we have a case of selective thinking on the part of the HBs.
[Note (July 20, 2001): My thanks again to Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke for correcting a technical error in a previous version of this section. After describing the above scenario to me, he said the ascent stage of the lander was “a sporty ride”.]
Bad: The program claims that when the top half of the lander took off from the Moon to bring the astronauts back into orbit, there was no flame from the rocket. Obviously, every rocket has a visible flame, so the takeoff was faked.
Good: There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. That’s why you cannot see the flame. We expect to see a flame because of the usual drama of liftoff from the Earth; the flame and smoke we see from the Shuttle, for example, is because the solid rocket boosters do actually produce them, while the lunar lander did not. Here is a brief webpage describing this. Note too that fuels like this are still used today, and indeed rockets in space produce little or no visible flame.
I heard an account that the cameras used for the ascent of the lander were fairly primitive, even for that era (this is usually the case in space travel, where it takes extensive testing to make sure things work properly; during that time the state of the art advances). Even if it were visible, the flash of the exhaust may have easily been missed by those cameras.
[Note added April 9, 2001: My original assertion about not seeing the flame was because the Moon has no air, and we see flame from rockets on Earth because we have an atmosphere. This does have some effect (the pressure of air constrains the rocket exhaust and helps produce the effect we see) but the larger reason the flame is invisible is due to the fuel used. I gratefully thank the dozens of people who sent me email about this.]
Bad: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.
Good: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it’s funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn’t look like they were filmed in Earth’s gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts’ gait could be simulated.
However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn’t the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It’s actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don’t have this technology today!
This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.
Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn’t wave in a vacuum.
Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave’’, since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn’t air that is moving the flag, it’s the cloth itself.
New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?
The answer is, it isn’t waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn’t get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn’t get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn’t fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.
This explanation comes from NASA’s wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn’t help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don’t you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!
Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don’t we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs’ argument gets weaker the more you think about it.
Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts’ spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn’t have taken perfect pictures every time!
Good … and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong’s head, you probably won’t see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. “Sure,” he replied, “I had practiced it thousands of times!”
The program goes farther than this, though: they actually contacted the man who designed the cameras for the astronauts. When they asked him why the pictures were always perfect, he hemmed and hawed, and finally admitted he had no answer for that. This is hardly evidence that NASA must have faked the missions. All it means is that he couldn’t think of anything while sitting on camera! I think this is pretty evil of the program producers to do this; a bit of editing on their part makes it looks like they completely baffled an expert.
Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts’ cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked.
Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That’s ridiculous! Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?
What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That’s all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in’’ the black crosshair. It’s a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.
[Note (added February 18, 2001): I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions’’, which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one’s emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]
[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, Ian Goddard’s work has more about this, including images that show how crosshairs can fade out in a bright background.
Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.
Good: Kaysing’s exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.’’
This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth’s surface where the Earth’s magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn’t enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!
It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.
Very, very Bad: Kaysing says that the Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was no accident. Grissom was ready to talk to the press about the Moon hoax, so NASA killed him. Kaysing says NASA also killed other people who were about to blow the whistle as well.
This is so disgusting I have a hard time writing a coherent reply. Kaysing has no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, but he accuses NASA of killing people to shut them up. That is a particularly loathsome accusation.
The utter bilge pumped out in this program goes on and on, and indeed, if you go to the HBs websites you can read more than any brain can handle. I have read literally dozens of things that ``prove’’ the landings were faked, and each one is rather easily shown to be wrong by anyone with experience in such things. I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories, and this one is a whopper. Also, the evidence is presented in such a way that, if you are unfamiliar with the odd nature of the vacuum of space and of space travel, it sounds reasonable.
But it isn’t reasonable. Their evidence is actually as tenuous as the vacuum of space itself. I find it amazing that they are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them. Fox television and the producers of this program should be ashamed of themselves. Even worse, the Fox Family Channel broadcast a show just last year that was skeptical and even handed about the Moon Hoax! Amazingly, Mitch Pileggi hosted that program as well.
I’ll end this on one more bit the HBs don’t talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing’s claims, Lovell called him a kook. Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.
There’s still hope.
There are many websites about the Moon Hoax where you can read both the theories by the HBs themselves or what reality is like as told by people debunking the theory. I have a list of them on my Bad Misconceptions page.
[Note added February 23, 2001: the link for the USA Today article is now gone, so I have removed it.] Dan Vergano of USA Today had an article (with an interview of me) about the TV show on the USA Today website. The print version was in the Friday, February 16th 2001 edition.
Conspiracy Theorist Clyde Lewis has a website ready to believe you! But I wouldn’t believe him.
FALLOUT FROM THE SHOW
February 17, 2001:
Well, the Fox Apollo show has struck a chord, it appears. I am receiving a lot of email from people, both for and against. The most noteworthy support was quite a surprise: NASA itself! That explains why I am getting tens of thousands of hits to this site. Another site linking here is Ground Zero, a rather typical hoax and conspiracy site that calls me
an annoyed scientist'' (true enough) and says that people call me a weapon for science’’. I kinda like the sound of that one!
What’s funny though is how that site pulls out the same tired arguments that are easy to show wrong, yet stands by them dogmatically. For example, Clyde Lewis, the webmaster of the site, shows a photo of the flag waving and asks how it can be waving; I already showed how it can appear to wave on this page earlier. In his image, the bottom corner of the flag is not flat, which is most likely simply residual rippling from the astronaut’s twisting the pole. Remember, without air, there is nothing to dampen the rippling, so the flag actually can appear to wave as if from a breeze for a few moments.
This is hardly evidence of a hoax. Lewis goes on and on, bringing out the radiation arguments, the no stars arguments, on and on, like these are either new or damning, when they are neither.
Of course, I am trying to debunk the conspiracy theorists, but unlike them, I want people to look at their evidence rationally and critically, and not swallow it whole. It’ll choke you if you do.
Finally, one last note: If I weren’t a hard-headed scientist, I’d wonder if some cosmic force were at work sometimes. I went to a website that creates anagrams, that is, rearranges letters in a word to spell other words. I put in “The Bad Astronomer”, and one of the anagrams was MOON TRASH DEBATER. I think that’s pretty cool.
Note added June 17, 2004: a Bad Reader informed me that another anagram would be NOTED SHAM ABORTER. I think that’s appropriate too.
Cometi um grace erro em relação as fases da lua, a Terra não faz sombra na Lua.
Portanto seria tecnicamente possivel tirar a foto da Terra naquele angulo, contesto o tamanho do planeta deveria ser bem maior, para estar na "escala " correta.
Mas não dá para negar o seguinte fato:
A lua estava em Quarto Crescente naquele dia.
Quando observamos as fases da Lua ( Nova, Quarto Crescente, Cheia, Quarto Minguante ), daqui da Terra vemos que a cada dia a sombra está maior ou menor de acordo com a fase do dia.
A velocidade do movimento dessa sombra na Lua de é de aprox. 3 metros por segundo isso é matemático.
Exemplo : da Lua Nova a Cheia , podemos observar nesse periodo a Lua totalmente na sombra até ficar totalmente iluminada aprox. em 14 dias.
Portanto 3500 KM ( diametro da Lua ) dividido por 14 dias igual a :
250 KM por dia é o que essa sombra se move.
250KM divido por 24 horas: 10,4 KM por hora.
10400 metros dividido por 60 : 173 M por minuto
173 000 metros dividido por 60 : 3 M por segundo.
E como lá na Lua a sombra das fases lunares são bem distintas a sombra arredondada que vemos nas imagens são dela, o movimento dessa sombra seria notada com certeza, o movimento é continuo e como não tem atsmosfera, não tem penumbra lá para atrapalhar essa visão como acontece aqui na Terra.
amanhã tem mais, vou ler detalhadamente a resposta americana .
250KM divido por 24 horas: 10,4 KM por hora.
essa é a velocidade… ?
se for ela eh super lenta… alguem andando…
nao entendi o problema…
as outras divisoes que tao malucas…
em vez de multiplicar se divide…
a lua gira em torno da terra em 1 dia…
a sombra dela continua la…
a sombra na lua depende da rotacao da lua… nao tem nada haver com 1 dia…
e se vc for notar… demora 1 mes pra sombra passar de um lado ao outro da lua, e nao um dia.
eh o contrario.
a sombra na terra anda em 24hs…
da lua eu nao sei - depende da rotacao dela em relacao ao sol ( que gera a sombra)_
e a terra tambem…
como a lua nao gira sempre no mesmo eixo em relacao a terra
as sombras nao sao previsiveis no ponto que eh colcoado…
ela poderia ser paralela ao eixo da terra em relacao ao sol
e assim a “sombra” da terra olhando da lua, sempre seria “meia terra”
só um exemplo…
colcoam que poderia tirtar uma foto se fosse eclipse…
meu ! eclipse da lua , vc teria que estar na parte detras ( em relacao ao sol) da lua, ( no total escuro) e qdo fosse tirar foto da terra, ela tb estaria escura pela sombra da lua…
entao nao tem nada haver dizer que era eclipse e que nao teve eclipse aquele dia… pq se fosse eclipse tava tudo escuro, e ou nao tinha como ver a terra, ou a terra estaria escura hahah
se nao me engano a lua gira no proprio eixo mais devagar…
nao eh a sombra que anda, eh o planeta que gira.
a terra gira 1 volta em 24hs, logo a sombra so sol anda a 1 terra em 24hs,
e nem por isso vc vem a sombra do sol andando na rua
a comparacao terra/lua eh complciada pq coisas que a gente ve aqui e tem como natural nao sao assim la
alias como todas as coisas citadas no filme,
ou eh uma inducao errada de ideia, alguams vezes ate comparando com coisas vistas aqui que nao acontecem la…
ou eh informação falsa mesmo…
o texto em ingles expoe acho que a maioria dos pontos…
ate o filme que foi pura alienacao e influencia de raciocinio
como que as fotos sao parecidas com o filme
o filme que foi feito artificialmente…
porra o filme no final das contas foi feito depois das fotos da lua… hahaha
logico que ia ser parecido, o filme buscou imitar a realidade
e a realidade ja era conhecida… mas isso nao falam no filme…
eh disso pra pior… soh pra pegar audiencia…
soh vc parar pra pensar de verdade em cada coisa, e buscar nao acreditar soh pq eh algo fantastico… pensa que vc vai ver cada furada que nem ta ali no texto
veja o texto em ingles
sobre escalas da terra etc etc…
alem de existir lentes, onde vc pode aumentar ( nao eh zoom) ou diminuir,
e ainda como os planetas sendo qse redondos - nao ha distorcao perceptivel, pois a lente tb eh arredondada e aumenta ou diminui fracoes da imagem que justamente sao arredondadas…
se fosse uma pessoa ficaria distorcido…
um exemplo so … nao sei direito de que parte vc comentou novamente heheheheheh
tudo eh super convincente antes de vc ver os dados reais e analisar novamente…
tem coisas que sao absurdas de cara…
o que o filme faz eh criar um ambiente fantastico
e nos como humanos temos uma tendencia a acreditar no fantastico…
e a partir desse momento, qdo se cria raciocinios e logicas em cima do fantastico, temos aquilo como real…
nao nos preocupamos se o raciocinio tem ou nao haver, parece algo pensado com causas e efeitos, aceitamos… sem pensar…
enfim… soh pensar sobre cada argumento que basicamente todos sao invalidos ou todo raciocinio baseado numa coisa que no começo ja nao eh real…
Não tive tempo de ler o Site Americano inteiro até agora, estou trabalhando muito nesse momento minhas férias foram adiadas.
Mas li a primeira parte que fala a respeito do obturador e diafragma da maquina HASSELBLAD que foi usada na Lua.
Lá eles dizem que não aparecem estrelas nas fotos por que na Lua a iluminação é tão forte por causa da ausencia da atmosfera por isso é necessario usar obturador em alta velocidade e diafragma bem fechado.
Nisso concordo em genero numero e grau.
Aqui na Terra quando tiramos foto na areia da praia por exemplo é necessario aprox 250 de obturador e 11 de diafragma com filme de ASA 100, mas isso devido ao reflexo da areia que é muito forte.
Na Lua o reflexo é muito baixo , segundo a NASA a superficie reflete apenas 7 % da luz recebida. como já citado anteriormente.
Mas então como explicar a foto do astronauta na escada na nave ? Link mais abaixo.
Na Lua é realmente necessario obturador com velocidade alta e/ou diafragma bem fechado , mas para fotos em ambiente aberto, EX: a Nave, os astronautas caminhando pela superficie em local aberto.
Mas numa sombra seria necessario abrir diafragma e / ou diminuir velocidade.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo … s/5869.jpg
Na foto do astronauta na escada temos as 2 condições de luz na mesma foto, mas as 2 partes da imagem ( primeiro e segundo plano ) iluminados corretamente!!!
PRESTE ATENÇÃO NAS BOTAS, INCRIVEL RESOLUÇÃO NÃO É ???
ISSO É IMPOSSIVEL ,SÓ COM A MAQUINA FOTOGRAFICA, MESMO ELA
SENDO UMA HASSELBLAD.
Pois necessitamos de obturador em velocidade mais baixa e/ ou diafragma mais aberto para fotografar o primeiro plano.
E obturador mais rapido e / ou diafragma mais fechado para fotografar o segundo plano ( fundo ).
SEM AUXILIO DE UM FLASH, ILUMINAÇÃO OU REBATEDOR DE LUZ NÃO É POSSIVEL OBTER FOTO COM TANTOS DETALHES NA SOMBRA E NA PARTE ILUMINADA DIRETAMENTE PELA LUZ SOLAR.
AINDA MAIS NA LUA ONDE O CONTRASTE DE LUZ E SOMBRA É MUITO GRANDE POIS NÃO HÁ PENUMBRA POR CAUSA DA AUSENCIA DE ATMOSFERA.
Quem tirou a foto só teria uma opção ao tirar essa essa foto, PRIORIZAR O PRIMEIRO OU SEGUNDO PLANO, IMPOSSIVEL PRIORIZAR OS 2 PLANOS.
PERGUNTE A UM FOTOGRAFO.
Sou fotografo profissional, a 30 anos e Repórter Cinematográfico a 9 anos.
No Link abaixo, compare estas fotos do SIte da NASA e pode como voce pode ver os 2 links são da missão APOLLO 11, qual planeta TERRA está na proporção real ?
Como é possivel diminuir ou aumentar o tamanho do nosso planeta com a maquina Hasselblad se ela não tinha ZOOM ?
A CAPSULA ’ CHEGOU MAIS PERTO ??? " he,he,he
CADE A SOMBRA DO MASTRO E DA BANDEIRA ? , Link mais abaixo.
NÃO VÁ DIZER QUE O MASTRO E A BANDEIRA SÃO TÃO FINOS QUE NÃO FAZ SOMBRA
POR QUE TEM UM FIO NO CHÃO MAIS A FRENTE QUE É MUITO MAIS FINO QUE O MASTRO E FAZ SOMBRA.
E DIGAMOS QUE ESSE FIO SEJA O DA CAMERA DE VIDEO, MAS MESMO HOJE NÃO USAMOS FIO TÃO FINO PARA ISSO E ONDE ESTARIA O CABO DE ALIMENTAÇÃO DA CAMERA?
EU NÃO NÃO ESTOU CERTO MAS PARECE QUE ESSE FIO ESTÁ PARTIDO.
UM DESAFIO :
TENTE TIRAR UMA FOTO PARECIDA A ESSA DO LINK ABAIXO , CONTRA O SOL E LEMBRE- SE QUE NA LUA NÃO TEM ATMOSFERA E O CONTRASTE DE ENTRE LUZ E SOMBRA É MUIIIIIIITO MAIOR.
MAS A FOTO TEM QUE TER O MESMO NIVEL EM DETALHES , PRIMEIRO E SEGUNDO PLANO COM EXPOSIÇÃO CORRETA E O MAIS INCRIVEL!!!
NA SOMBRA TAMBEM!!! OLHE OS DETALHES DA NAVE, DA PEDRA NO CHÃO E A BANDEIRA AMERICANA ENTÃO QUE DESTAQUE NÃO ?
ESTA FOTO FOI TIRADA DO QUASE LADO OPOSTO , LINK ABAIXO
REPARE NAS PEGADAS DOS ASTRONAUTAS NO CHÃO, SÃO FUNDAS. E PORQUE OS PÉS DESSA NAVE NÃO AFUNDARAM NEM UM POUCO DURANTE O POUSO ? SERÁ A ALUNISAGEM FOI MAIS SUAVE QUE OS PASSOS DOS ASTRONAUTAS?
E OS DETALHES NA SOMBRA ? ATÉ AS PARTES MAIS ESCURAS APARECEM, CONTRADIZENDO TUDO QUE SE SABE ATÉ HOJE SOBRE FOTOGRAFIA E AINDA ESTRATÉGICAMENTE SEMPRE TEM UMA BANDEIRA AMERICANA.
E O HORIZONTE NÃO IMPORTA SE CONTRA O SOL OU A FAVOR NUNCA PASSA DE UNS 50 METROS, ISSO SE NÃO FOR MENOS.
POR ENQUANTO É SÓ
Vou trabalhar até Quinta Feira e só na Sexta voltarei ao Site.
UM ABRAÇO ATÉ LÁ.
Com a exposição que o NationalKid fez, cheguei a duas importantes conclusões:
- O módulo lunar era de papel celofane.
- Até que para fotos tiradas em estúdio, ficaram muito boas.