Did we land on the moon?

  • 436 Replies
  • 204193 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #50 on: 15/07/2007 13:34:50 »
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?

The intelligence services don't really like their masters letting the other side know what information they have access to, lest it cause that source of information to dry up (I suspect the US intelligence community were less than happy when President Reagan went public on the Korean airliner downed by the Russians, since it alerted the Russians to the monitoring they were undertaking of their airforce.

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #51 on: 15/07/2007 13:39:53 »
I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.

It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.

The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).

If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there?  The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #52 on: 15/07/2007 14:03:55 »
To 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #53 on: 15/07/2007 14:21:23 »
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.


I have to say, this is my own personal answer too. Do you really think all of those at mission control, plus the Astronauts, ground crew...and not to mention the wives could have kept silent all those years?

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #54 on: 15/07/2007 17:34:54 »
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #55 on: 15/07/2007 18:40:26 »
I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.
It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.
The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).
If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there?  The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?

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?

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #56 on: 15/07/2007 18:57:07 »
To 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.jpg
shows 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?

*

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #57 on: 15/07/2007 20:16:39 »
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.
So how did the Apollo missions avoid the cosmic particles?

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #58 on: 15/07/2007 21:13:01 »
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.
So how did the Apollo missions avoid the cosmic particles?


They didnt , at the time they were just a theory. It wasnt until the astronauts reported that they were seeing flashes when they closed their eyes that someone realised what was causing them.

When they then looked at thier helmets under a electron microsocpe they saw the hole's they made as they passed through. pic below

[attachment=462]
« Last Edit: 15/07/2007 21:15:56 by ukmicky »

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #59 on: 16/07/2007 01:52:17 »
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?

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.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #60 on: 16/07/2007 08:15:09 »
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?

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.
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.

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #61 on: 16/07/2007 10:01:57 »
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.

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).

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #62 on: 16/07/2007 15:35:15 »
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.
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.
And Apollo 12.
Quote
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).
Maybe only the astronaut you have cited, was aware of that.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #63 on: 16/07/2007 20:34:42 »
I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post
"Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55
To 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.jpg
shows 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?"
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #64 on: 17/07/2007 18:40:24 »
I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post
"Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55
To 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.jpg
shows 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?"
Yes, I can become cryptic sometimes. I often prefer to go directly to a question, instead of making a lot of reasonings. The relation from the two things is: do American government or CIA or others high-level american institutions always say the truth? Let's take WTC collapse. What was its real origin? There are no mysteries about it? If we can have the doubt the someone could have put explosive charges on the buildings and the government or CIA ecc have covered it, then we can, with much more reasons, have a lot of doubts on many other claims, as to have gone to the Moon with Apollo 11.
« Last Edit: 17/07/2007 18:45:29 by lightarrow »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #65 on: 17/07/2007 19:10:34 »
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."
They didn't need to admit to any military stuff at all and the farce it would have made of America would have been priceless.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #66 on: 17/07/2007 20:21:54 »
I know very few people who seriously doubt that the wtc collapse was due to some **** crashing an aircraft full of fuel into it.
These skyscrapers didn't collapse:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html
And what about WTC building 7? Why did it collapse? It was just hit in small parts from the collapsing towers and there was a little fire inside. Why did it (as the towers) collapse in a perfect vertical line? Why during its collapse the smoke "puffs" comes out of the windows from down up and not the opposite?
Quote
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.
When there is enough oxygen for a complete cobustion, not the case of the WTC fire (black smoke).
Quote
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.
They could have launched signals from outside the Moon.

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #67 on: 17/07/2007 20:30:02 »
Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it.

This is a nonsense statement.  Lies that governments get away with are the one's you don't know about, so how can you possibly judge how good or bad they are at getting away with lies.  You can certainly say they have been caught out with lots of misinformation, and a good few lies (some other cases which we cannot show if it is a lie or just blatant stupidity), but there is absolutely no way you can say how many lies they have got away with.

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."

I think it very unlikely that the Russians would taken such an overt action on the matter.  If they were going to act at all, then they would probably have someone else release the information on their behalf, without tracing its origin.

Nonetheless, I do agree, that for any lie to succeed, its primary requirement is that the number of people who know it is a lie must be absolutely minimal; and all the suggestions so far is for a conspiracy of such massive proportions as to make it wholly untennable.

*

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #68 on: 17/07/2007 21:04:49 »
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. People in the control room respond to what they see and hear. You feed them data they want to see and they'll respond positive. Time delay for the transmissions is easy, the Lunar spacecraft was in orbit all the time it was supposed to be on the moon. Bounce the signal around a few Earth stations then to the control room and you've cracked it.
Or just build an electronic delay device for that matter.
The Hubble is capable of seeing the stuff left on the Moon but do they show us? - No.
They would have had egg on their face if Kennedy's promise of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade hadn't materialized especially after letting the Ruskies win the first round.
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. Thats the helmets and camera lenses smashed. Jesus you can't give a Pyrex dish 80 degrees instant temp variation without shattering it here on Earth never mind 400 degrees.
It's absolute utter hogwash. Use your loaf.
..maff

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #69 on: 17/07/2007 22:55:25 »
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.

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.

No 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>.

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.

http://www.pgo-online.com/intl/katalog/borofloat.html
Quote
BOROFLOAT® 33
Borosilicate Glass
Special 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
« Last Edit: 17/07/2007 22:57:51 by another_someone »

*

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #70 on: 17/07/2007 23:34:30 »
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.

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.

No 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>.

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.

http://www.pgo-online.com/intl/katalog/borofloat.html
Quote
BOROFLOAT® 33
Borosilicate Glass
Special 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 work
I know - your doing it for a laugh.
..maff

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #71 on: 18/07/2007 00:18:04 »
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.

Where do you get these microwaves powers from?

It you put your hand in a microwave oven, it would not do it much good either?

In fact, since they were using modified Hasselblad 500EL cameras, with solid metal bodies, I doubt that much microwave would have reached the film, even if it was in a microwave filled environment.

The film they were using was 70mm (twice the standard 35mm that we would normally use).

There was nothing bog standard about the camera or the film, although it was based on a bog standard camera, if you would ever consider a Hasselblad to be bog standard (I wish I could afford something like that as bog standard).

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 work
I know - your doing it for a laugh.
..maff

OK - I was trying to work out what it was you were exactly referring to.

Firstly, the temperature differences on the moon are no different from temperature differences in space, so that in the wider context, that same temperature differences have to be tolerated in space too.

Secondly, the temperatures you are talking about are due to radiation, and not convection or conduction.  As such, although you are correct that if left indefinitely in that environment, the temperatures will reach equilibrium at those temperatures, but it will be a very slow process to do so (the camera bodies will not give off much radiation, and so will take a very long time to cool down to those temperatures).

In any case, as I said above, the cameras were modified, and simply painting them white would have helped protect against radiation (although what I have seen of cameras purporting to be replicas of said cameras, they were not white, so I can only imagine that they felt radiation (light and infra-red) was not considered such a serious problem - although it seems that the data camera was painted silver for just such a reason.



http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2007 00:22:05 by another_someone »

*

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #72 on: 18/07/2007 00:46:54 »
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.
Let me tell you something. If you stood on the Moon in direct sunlight you wouldn't live to tell the tale buddy.
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?
Behave sunshine.
You can be burned to hell in 20 minutes here on Earth in the hottest climate and thats with the atmosphere protecting you. The Moon has hundreds of times more microwave, untraviolet, gamma and alpha particles attacking you than here on earth with no atmosphere to protect you. You wouldn't last 5 minutes before you would be cremated and all your suit totally superheated like an oven.
Who are you trying to kid my friend?
You need to stop posting written data and specs then think about what your implying with suggestions of going to the Moon.
..maff

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #73 on: 18/07/2007 01:11:10 »
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.


Are you suggesting that no space vehicle has ever left the protection of the Van Allen belts?

In any case, what problems exist with regard to Van Allen belts is more so about passing through the belts rather than what is beyond them.  In any case, the Van Allen belts only effect charged particles, and make zero difference to electromagnetic radiation.

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?

I am still waiting for you to provide some data to support this suggestion?

In fact, even the Earth's atmosphere provides very little protection against microwave radiation, which is why we can actually measure the cosmic background microwave radiation here on Earth (through the atmosphere), and do lots of other radio astronomy in the microwave region.  If there were such intense natural microwave radiation coming in, then all our radio telescopes would be blinded by it (and we would be fried by it here on Earth).

BTW, it is only a thin conductive coating and metal grill that protects you from the microwaves within a microwave oven - it is sufficient.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2007 01:14:31 by another_someone »

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #74 on: 18/07/2007 11:38:45 »
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.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #75 on: 18/07/2007 16:09:37 »
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.

Ok God.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #76 on: 18/07/2007 20:11:52 »
The earth's atmosphere is fairly transparent to microwaves- a lot of radioastronomy is done with them. The microwave radiation levels on the moon are, therfore, comparable with those on earth.
Similarly the atmosphere is fairly transparent to visible radiation so the light levels here (whereI can use 400 ASA film without any problems) are not that different from those on the moon. The UV levels are much higher but UV filters are easy to make (a piece of glass wil do).
The problem with sudden heating and cooling is a bit of a red herring too. The stuff is all insulated by a good vacuum so there's not much to change the temperature rapidly.

The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is
1 perfectly well known
2 not very complicated
3 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.
If there is really any call for a yet another thread on the web discussing the conspiracy theories about WTC then start one rather than muddling this one.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #77 on: 19/07/2007 12:55:23 »
The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is
1 perfectly well known
2 not very complicated
3 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.
And do you think Al Quaeda knew this? I don't think so. But CIA (or FBI or both) did. They knew there would have been such an attack, and they put charges on the buildings to be sure of the collapse and exploit that to justify the subsequent wars, especially the war against Iraq, since the American government weren't able to convince anyone about the presence of mass-destruction weapons there.
Quote
Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.
Excepting me, you mean?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #78 on: 19/07/2007 19:14:53 »
I think AQ may have known it- OBL is in the building trade, but I think it's more likely they just got lucky. Even if the buildings had stood I think the justification for the war would have been just as good (or bad) so the CIA (or...) wouldn't have needed to plant charges. Just the people on the aircraft would have been enough victims to provoke outrage (quite rightly) and the desire for revenge (less helpfully). The folks who died in the builings were, I think, pretty much a bonus for AQ.

"Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.

Excepting me, you mean?"
I don't actually know you do I? For all I know you are just posting this as a joke.
For all anyone else reading this knows we might be the same person posting under 2 names just to try to gain publicity for the conspiracy. Not only that, but this is still in the wrong thread.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline G-1 Theory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 231
    • View Profile
    • http://edward-e-kerls.com
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #79 on: 19/07/2007 19:25:35 »
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  “WE”  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed

"Learn the facts and go on from there, and never stop asking questions."

Admiral Rickover

If it disagrees with experiments it is wrong!"

Dr. Feymann

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #80 on: 20/07/2007 13:37:55 »
To the poster BP
Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?
NO  “WE”  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!
Of course we landed on the Moon!
Yes, not before Apollo 14, however.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #81 on: 23/07/2007 05:25:54 »
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  ?WE?  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed


You are right, Ed  Astronauts landed on the Moon and returned samples that provided totally unexpected information on the Sun.

 I analyzed some of those Moon samples.

We found that material coming from the surface of the Sun is highly enriched in the lightweight atoms (isotopes) of each element.  Here are the results:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

Here is the elemental composition of the surface of the Sun:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm

After correcting the surface composition for the mass-separation seen across isotopes of solar-wind implanted elements in the Moon, this is the unexpected composition of the interior of the Sun:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm

The surface of the Sun is 91% Hydrogen and 9% Helium because those are the lightest and the next lightest elements, and the Sun selectively moves lightweight atoms to its surface .

Inside the Sun, the most abundant elements are the same ones that are most abundant in rocky planets and ordinary meteorites:

Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel and Sulfur

NASA did not fake the Moon landing, because the results of analysis on the Moon sample disproved one of NASA's most cherished illusions:

The Sun and all the other stars are balls of Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of heavier elements.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com


*

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #82 on: 23/07/2007 07:36:49 »
Welcome to the forum, Oliver.  I shall look at your links when I have a few moments, but it sounds like you will lot of interesting stuff to contribute to the forum, so I hope we shall see you around a while.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #83 on: 23/07/2007 12:57:05 »
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  ?WE?  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed


You are right, Ed  Astronauts landed on the Moon and returned samples that provided totally unexpected information on the Sun.

 I analyzed some of those Moon samples.
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #84 on: 23/07/2007 19:25:15 »
Someone asked before why NASA didn't point the hubble 'scope at the moon and take pictures of the debris left behind. Well, the answer is simple. The same peopel who claim the original fil is a fake would say the hubble images were a fake. In the same way I'm afraid that Om's contribution won't help. the claim will be something like "He's only saying that because he's paid to" or"He may have analysed some rocks but they were fakes." (of course the bit about the expected nature of the sun was a clever fake too- double bluff)
For many questions and sources of information like these the matter is more one of theology than science. "Everything you say that proves the point is a fake" works perfectly- just like "proof denies faith".
However, would someone please tell me who put the retroreflectors on the moon if nobody went there and how did they fake the radio signals that the Russians picked up? (Or roughly as difficult, how did they persuade the Russians to keep quiet?)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #85 on: 23/07/2007 20:24:47 »
Someone asked before why NASA didn't point the hubble 'scope at the moon and take pictures of the debris left behind. Well, the answer is simple. The same peopel who claim the original fil is a fake would say the hubble images were a fake. In the same way I'm afraid that Om's contribution won't help. the claim will be something like "He's only saying that because he's paid to" or"He may have analysed some rocks but they were fakes." (of course the bit about the expected nature of the sun was a clever fake too- double bluff)
For many questions and sources of information like these the matter is more one of theology than science. "Everything you say that proves the point is a fake" works perfectly- just like "proof denies faith".
However, would someone please tell me who put the retroreflectors on the moon if nobody went there and how did they fake the radio signals that the Russians picked up? (Or roughly as difficult, how did they persuade the Russians to keep quiet?)
If your questions were asked to me, as I wrote, I think they landed on the Moon, but not in the first and second mission as they claimed.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #86 on: 24/07/2007 00:10:28 »
Quote
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

Good question, Lightarrow.

I did not receive Moon samples until 1971, after becoming suspicious about a report that strange nuclear reactions in the Moon produced the light isotopes (atoms) of Krypton.

Our analysis revealed mass separated isotopes of Krypton and other elements coming from the Sun, as shown here for Krypton and Xenon:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

Isotope data from samples returned by earlier missions showed the same mass separation of isotopes in material from the Sun.

For example, isotope data from the 1969 Apollo 11 mission showed a common mass fractionation across the isotopes of Neon and Xenon:

"Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in Neon and Xenon," Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html

With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com


*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #87 on: 24/07/2007 19:50:51 »
Quote
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

Good question, Lightarrow.

I did not receive Moon samples until 1971, after becoming suspicious about a report that strange nuclear reactions in the Moon produced the light isotopes (atoms) of Krypton.

Our analysis revealed mass separated isotopes of Krypton and other elements coming from the Sun, as shown here for Krypton and Xenon:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

Isotope data from samples returned by earlier missions showed the same mass separation of isotopes in material from the Sun.

For example, isotope data from the 1969 Apollo 11 mission showed a common mass fractionation across the isotopes of Neon and Xenon:

"Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in Neon and Xenon," Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html

With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com



What exactly is "mass fractionation"?

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #88 on: 24/07/2007 21:07:21 »
Hi lightarrow,

Mass fractionation means sorted by mass.

In diffusive mass fractionation, each stage* enriches the abundance of the lighter atoms of mass L relative to that of the the heavier atoms of mass H by a factor, f, where f equals the square root of H/L.

f =(H/L)^0.5

Each stage of mass fractionation enriches the abundance of Xe-130 relative to that of Xe-131 by a factor,

f = (131/130)^0.5 = (1.0076923)^0.5 = 1.0038388 = 0.388388%

To enrich Xe-130 relative to Xe-131 by 3.5% -- as is observed in the Sun -- requires nine (9) stages of mass fractionation.

(131/130)^4.5 = 1.035

During World War II, U-235 was separated from U-238 by diffusion.  The plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee had over 100 theoretical stages of mass separation.

The Sun, by comparison, has only about nine (9) theoretical stages of mass separation.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com

*For an example of one theoretical stage of mass fraction, imagine a balloon filled with equal number of atoms of He-4 and Ar-36.

Inside the balloon, He-4/Ar-36 = 1.00

A pin-hole in the balloon would cause one theoretical stage of mass fractionation.  The gas that would start leaking out of the hole would be enriched in Helium by a factor, f

f = (36/4)^0.5 = 9^0.5 = 3

So leaking from the balloon, He-4/Ar-36 = 3 x 1.00 = 3.00

ASSIGNMENT:  By what factor (f) would nine (9) theoretical stages of mass fractionation increase the Hydrogen/Iron ratio at the surface of the Sun?

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #89 on: 26/07/2007 02:18:10 »
ANSWER: Nine (9) theoretical stages of mass fractionation increase the Hydrogen/Iron ratio at the surface of the Sun by a factor, f, where

f = (56/1)^4.5 =

f = 73,600,000

So inside the bulk Sun, the Hydrogen/Iron ratio -- the (H/Fe) ratio is

(H/Fe)sun = [(H/Fe)photosphere]/73,600,000

These two figures show how mass separation increases light elements in the photosphere, making the surface of the Sun look like a ball of Hydrogen and Helium:

a.) Photosphere abundances
www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm

b.) Bulk Sun abundances
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm

Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel and Sulfur are the most abundant element in the Sun, in the Earth, and in ordinary meteorites.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
« Last Edit: 26/07/2007 05:52:34 by om »

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #90 on: 26/07/2007 12:33:20 »
Thank you, Oliver.

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #91 on: 15/12/2007 21:15:53 »
There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #92 on: 15/12/2007 21:57:29 »
Did any of the 'unbelievers' actually see and follow the action as it happened when it happened?
I have been watching science fiction films before and since the Moon Landings. The Hollywood versions are always full of actual holes. I watched the Moon Landings in the company of about a dozen highly competent research engineers. Nothing about the 'show' was flaky.
Could just one of you unbelievers just explain how the radio reception at stations around the Earth fitted the scenario if
1. The Apollo craft were in orbit around the Earth.
2. The Apollo craft were in orbit around the Moon.
3. The mission never left the Earth?

In all other cases than the genuine one, the RUSSIANS (who really wanted it to be a fake) would have spotted that anomaly and publicised it.
Go on - answer that one.

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #93 on: 15/12/2007 22:28:33 »
Quote
In all other cases than the genuine one, the RUSSIANS (who really wanted it to be a fake) would have spotted that anomaly and publicised it.
Go on - answer that one.
You're just assuming what we read in the newspapers reflects what's really happening.

Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s01.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html

This can't be ruled out.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #94 on: 15/12/2007 22:31:20 »
Here's some more evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Why don't you post something that you consider to be conclusive proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Some people say the moon rocks prove we went to the moon.
There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real. If we aren't geologists in a laboratory looking at the rocks, we have no way of verifying that what we read is reflects reality.
There may be a lot of scientists who have sold out and are lying about the rocks and we only read what they say.
If there is video evidence that some of the footage was faked, it was probably all faked. Video evidence trumps what some documents or journals say as people can write lies.
Here are some possible scenarios for the rocks.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #95 on: 16/12/2007 00:36:13 »
If you don't believe the News and your Government, why should I believe You?
What actual evidence do you have that is more believable than theirs?
I suppose you'll say that TV satellites don't exist and that the Internet is a figment of our imagination too.
Do you really believe what you see on Utube?
Do you know anything about Physics,Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology?
We all got it wrong but your conspiracy theories are all correct?
Grow up.

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #96 on: 16/12/2007 12:10:04 »
Quote
If you don't believe the News and your Government, why should I believe You?
Lot's of data have been offered as proof that the moon missions were real. It has been said that several countries tracked the craft to and from the moon. It has been said that most geologists agree that the rocks really came from the moon. It has been said that all of the data learned from Apollo have been used by scientists since then, etc. I don't see any reason to believe any of this. It's possible to manufacture bogus data and publish it on a large scale. It's possible for the press and textbooks to lie about what other governments say about Apollo. It's possible that other governments aren't saying what they really believe about Apollo. There are lots of alternative scenarios so none of this data constitutes proof that the moon missions really happened. It's mere evidence that may be proven wrong later.

There are lots of cases of the official version of things being contested by reputable people in the alternative press.

Look at what this report on DU by RAND says.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
There were probably a few PH.D's working on it.

This woman has a PH.D.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-5109486402266517406
She holds the opposite view.

Look at what this person says about "Genetically modified foods".
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#11

Look at this.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/051204FT.html

This woman talks about how a lot of the science community has sold out.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643
(around the 30 minute mark)

GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7451332617120640846

The press and the school system is always drumming into us that we defend freedom and democracy in the world.
Look at the truth.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

Enter "Death squads" and "Torture" in this search engine.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

There are all kinds of examples of mass dishonesty by the media and the school system in the US. Why should Apollo be any different?

Quote
What actual evidence do you have that is more believable than theirs?
The stuff I posted above--analyze it and say why you think it doesn't debunk the idea that the moon missions were faked.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #97 on: 16/12/2007 12:41:02 »
OK; explain Satelite TV. Come to think of it, explain the iridium flashes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_flare
We can clearly put stuff in space now. Why assume that we couldn't do it before?
And, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, who put the retroreflectors there?
Until there's a reasonable answer to that, this conspiracy theory clearly doesn't make sense and should be dropped.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2007 12:45:17 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #98 on: 16/12/2007 17:16:11 »
There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.

I cant believe this topic is still going. Dont you think the russians and the satelite recieving stations placed at different locations around the world that were not being run by USA would have noticed that the transmitions were coming from somewhere a bit closer than the moon. Or maybe you believe that was a bit beyond our science.



(SHAKES HIS HEAD IN DIS-BELIEF AND GOES BACK TO WATCH THE FOOTBALL)

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #99 on: 16/12/2007 17:22:37 »
"There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon. "

No, there are lots of ...ermmmm..people...that are foolish enough to believe what they read on the net, and those that like to sell books to those same people.

"(SHAKES HIS HEAD IN DIS-BELIEF AND GOES BACK TO WATCH THE FOOTBALL)"
we are seriously missing Drogba