0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 18:40:26Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident? Are you saying that you think that the Apollo 13 astronauts may have erroneously believed that the astronauts of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 reached the moon, while despite the close nit community that is the world the astronouts live in (one of the crew of Apollo 13 was backup for Apollo 11), none of the crew of Apollo 11 or Apollo 12 enlightened the crew of Apollo 13 that they would never get to the moon?In any case, why sabotage only Apollo 13, and not any of the other 5 Apollo missions that claim to have successfully landed on the moon after the Apollo 11 mission.
Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?
Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.
Quote from: lightarrow on 16/07/2007 08:15:09Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.That, at very least, means that one would have to acknowledge that the statement "We never landed on the moon" is incorrect, and at most, the claim is only that Apollo 11 never landed on the moon.
Nonetheless, I think it improbable that the astronauts on Apollo 13, one of whom was a backup astronaut for Apollo 11, were not aware of the success or failure of the preceding missions (some of which returned data that allowed improvements to future missions).
I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post "Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.This picture:http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpgshows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?"
I know very few people who seriously doubt that the wtc collapse was due to some **** crashing an aircraft full of fuel into it.
I also know no people who can reliably judge colour temperature from a video recording without a lot of complex calibration. I also know that a burning candle-wax flame can reach well over 1000C.
As far as I'm aware there are no real questions about the WTC collapse and no real questions about the manned moon missions.On the related matter of do governments lie?- Yes they certainly do.For example the combined "sexed up dossier" that led to the war in Iraq (anyone seen any WMDs?) was certainly cooked up by those high up in the government and/ or security services. It was found out as nonsense in a matter of weeks.Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it. The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there.
Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it.
The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there."
You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room.
No ISO 400 film can survive the REMS in direct sunlight on the Moon - thats a fact.
No glass can survive going into direct sunlight on the Moon of 200 degrees then be subject to a 400 degree temp change going into the shade.
BOROFLOAT® 33Borosilicate GlassSpecial Properties High temperature load capacity:- up to 450°C permanent load- up to 500°C temporarily (< 10h) Low thermal coefficient of expansion Thermal coefficient matches silicon (anodic bonding) High thermal shock resistance Clear practically colorless appearance Low fluorescence High UV-Transmission High chemical resistance against acids, bases and organic substances Low alkali content in the glass composition Low specific weight
Quote from: maff on 17/07/2007 21:04:49You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room.You are missing all the people responsible for creating the sophisticated hardware for it all.What about the families of these people. People who are trained in intelligence may be good at lying to their families, but these people were not from the intelligence community, and did not necessarily have the psyche to be able to lie to their waves and family about their experiences.Personally, if I was going to generate such an illusion, I would not have had anyone leave the Earth at all - it just creates complexities and risks. So why have astronauts involved at all?Ofcourse, if we had no space missions, then we would never have had the Apollo 13 incident.Quote from: maff on 17/07/2007 21:04:49No ISO 400 film can survive the REMS in direct sunlight on the Moon - thats a fact.So you use ISO 25 film, and add ND filters as needed - it is not rocket science<g>.Quote from: maff on 17/07/2007 21:04:49No glass can survive going into direct sunlight on the Moon of 200 degrees then be subject to a 400 degree temp change going into the shade.http://www.pgo-online.com/intl/katalog/borofloat.html [nofollow]QuoteBOROFLOAT® 33Borosilicate GlassSpecial Properties High temperature load capacity:- up to 450°C permanent load- up to 500°C temporarily (< 10h) Low thermal coefficient of expansion Thermal coefficient matches silicon (anodic bonding) High thermal shock resistance Clear practically colorless appearance Low fluorescence High UV-Transmission High chemical resistance against acids, bases and organic substances Low alkali content in the glass composition Low specific weight
They used ISO 400-bog standard. Cannot possibly withstand the microwave radiation on the Moon. If you don't believe this stick your ISO 400 film on defrost in a microwave oven -about the same as the Moon, then try to develop it.
Your having a laugh buddy.The glass in the camera's they used was bog standard lens glass - again your having a laugh buddy.Cannot withstand the temp variation on the moon - no possible and variable way of doing so.Don't try and kid us with modern glass specs, it don't workI know - your doing it for a laugh...maff
The Data Camera, like the other two 500ELs, was a modified standard 500EL camera but differed from the others in several ways:(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.(2) The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially. Careful calibration tests were performed with the lens fitted in the camera in order to ensure high-quality, low-distortion images. Furthermore, the lens of the camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached.(3) The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes. Each was fitted with a tether ring so that a cord could be attached when the Lunar Module Pilot lowered the mated magazine and camera from the lunar module to the Commander standing on the lunar surface. The exposed magazines were hoisted the same way.(4) The Data Camera was modified to prevent accumulation of static electricity. When film is wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. Normally, this electricity is dispersed by the metal rims and rollers that guide the film, and by the humidity of the air. In a camera fitted with a Reseau plate, however, the film is guided by the raised edges of the plate. As glass is a non-conductor, the electric charge that builds up at the glass surface can become so heavy that sparks can occur between plate and film - especially if the camera is used in a very dry environment or in vacuum. Sparks cause unpleasant patterns to appear on the film and can be a hazard if the camera is used in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. To conduct the static electricity away from the Reseau plate in the Data Camera, the side of the plate facing the film is coated with an extremely thin conductive layer which is led to the metallic parts of the camera body by two contact springs. Contact is effected by two projecting silver deposits on the conductive layer. The Reseau plate, or register glass, is not a new development in photography. What is most remarkable, however, is that the group of Hasselblad staff working on NASA camera projects in collaboration with Carl Zeiss was successful in applying the idea to a small camera - like the Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera. This camera is not only useful in space photography, it is particularly suitable for all kinds of aerial photography. The special cameras produced in the past for aerial photography were large and intended for a large negative-format - frequently meaning high prices. The Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera with its Reseau plate produced a small and comparatively low-cost camera which gave satisfactory results in aerial photographic work.
I suggest you read up on the amount of Solar radiation on the Moon. I also suggest you read up on the amount of radiation the Space Shuttle can withstand while it is within the protective belts known as Van Allen. If the Space Shuttle ever left the protection of those belts it would face dire consequences and NASA simply won't allow it.
Do you think that the NASA spacesuit they had on, through a little reflective colouring and a controlled pressure could stop radiation that will microwave you alive?
Maff you are talking total rubbish. As you always do. so much rubbish that it is just not worth the effort of pointing this out to you in detail. Your entire aim is to start and create arguments about fatuous and irrelevant subjects. I would reccommend other users to ignore it and put some effort into more interesting and relevant topics.
The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is1 perfectly well known2 not very complicated3 that the crash blasted the asbestos fire proofing off the structural steelwork and also dammaged other fire retarding structures. Drywall (gypsum sheet or plasterboard on this side of the pond) was not really chosen for impact resistance.
Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.