Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

What about the windows? They don't protect anyone from anything, except UV and temperature differences.

Tell us about the construction of the windows, please.

They use tempered and annealed glass, that's what NASA says, its just the difference in the control in temperature that's different and how each one is cooled.... SEARCH IT UP.

"Tempered and annealed" doesn't say anything about the construction of the windows. Do you think that more than 1" of glass has no radiation shielding capabilities?

None at all, except for UV, particles of other origin would cut straight through it. They did studies and still do to this day, even solar panels receive radiation damage on the ISS, so they (nasa) says, and that's well below the ''danger'' altitude of being exposed to much higher charged particles. Tempered and annealed is the term for different ways of making glass, and that's what they used.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Have you got some sort of debilitating allergic reaction to posting evidence?

No, but you might have an allergy to using a search engine, i named the parts, the crafts layout and design is online available to the public, radiation studies in the belts is still ongoing and they have pages and pages of reading.

Many land based radiation studies have been are being conducted land based, it's available to us equally.

How do probes survive it?

They don't, or by today's standard of space so far, they shouldn't. But considering military technology in the 50's, i assume and only assume they use none disclosed methods to do so.

Ludicrous.

Explain the Zond 5 mission from U.S.S.R. please.
All kinds of living things survived that trip.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Have you got some sort of debilitating allergic reaction to posting evidence?

No, but you might have an allergy to using a search engine, i named the parts, the crafts layout and design is online available to the public, radiation studies in the belts is still ongoing and they have pages and pages of reading.

Many land based radiation studies have been are being conducted land based, it's available to us equally.

How do probes survive it?

They don't, or by today's standard of space so far, they shouldn't. But considering military technology in the 50's, i assume and only assume they use none disclosed methods to do so.

Ludicrous.

Explain the Zond 5 mission from U.S.S.R. please.
All kinds of living things survived that trip.

So they say, but Russians have their own space conspiracy. Were talking about the design of the Apollo craft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do realize that radiation affects older computers a lot differently than it does modern computers right?

What? You do know that the guidance system of Apollo used the same technology as today we have in cell phones and computers, it was just bigger, today its compressed, makes no difference. It's made out of the same stuff.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do know that the guidance system of Apollo used the same technology as today we have in cell phones and computers

False.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do realize that radiation affects older computers a lot differently than it does modern computers right?

What? You do know that the guidance system of Apollo used the same technology as today we have in cell phones and computers, it was just bigger, today its compressed, makes no difference. It's made out of the same stuff.

You are joking, aren't you? I mean, I hope you're joking.

Computer technology 30 years ago isn't even made from the "same stuff" than it is today so how would technology from almost 50 years ago be the same?

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

There's a huge difference between Apollo's guidance system and what's in our phones and computers today. Just because you see the words "Integrated Circuit" doesn't mean they're "the same only bigger". Integrated circuits are completely different now than they were then.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do realize that radiation affects older computers a lot differently than it does modern computers right?

What? You do know that the guidance system of Apollo used the same technology as today we have in cell phones and computers, it was just bigger, today its compressed, makes no difference. It's made out of the same stuff.

My mobile phone doesn't use rope core memory.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do realize that radiation affects older computers a lot differently than it does modern computers right?

What? You do know that the guidance system of Apollo used the same technology as today we have in cell phones and computers, it was just bigger, today its compressed, makes no difference. It's made out of the same stuff.

My mobile phone doesn't use rope core memory.

Or resistor-transistor logic.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
a reply to: Phage

The image of the ''earth'' rotates, but the clouds remain quite still for a long period of time considering mission times were days not hours, looking at Apollo 11 missions, the photos taken during the trip to the moon around and back, not low earth orbit, show the same weather pattern. Again, not including obviously low earth orbit photos.

False. Completely false.

You complain about people not doing research - did you bother to read the stuff on the link I sent?

They do not show the same weather patterns, they can be seen to change even over relatively short periods of time. To save you the bother of stretching your attention span, here's just one page looking at data used in 1969's BOMEX study:

onebigmonkey.com...

You can see examples of exactly what I'm talking about.

Provide with me two pictures taken at different times where the weather systems are exactly the same - let's see how good your research skills are.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Provide with me two pictures taken at different times where the weather systems are exactly the same - let's see how good your research skills are.

Sorry, no dice.
That's not his job.

I already made that request.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do realize that radiation affects older computers a lot differently than it does modern computers right?

What? You do know that the guidance system of Apollo used the same technology as today we have in cell phones and computers, it was just bigger, today its compressed, makes no difference. It's made out of the same stuff.

My mobile phone doesn't use rope core memory.

Obviously, but it does use the same wire bonding. Moores Law, the number of transistors increases within the integrated circuit system, hence the cell phones, and radiation does do damage to rope core memory, also changes magnetic properties in ferrite. Which would disable telemetry data, and memory, docking systems and such.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

The docking systems were not computer controlled.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

and radiation does do damage to rope core memory,

Evidence?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

and radiation does do damage to rope core memory,

Evidence?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess the answer will be something like "Search engine. Do your own research."

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

and radiation does do damage to rope core memory,

Evidence?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess the answer will be something like "Search engine. Do your own research."

Why? you don't have time you could use reading for at least 30 minutes? You just say no to this and that, but i am just relaying what scientific research up to date tells us about radiation effects on all kinds of materials, and you deny it based on one simple thing, you don't want to actually search, or read even watch anything, even if it comes from NASA it self. And again, the crafts have windows.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87

but i am just relaying what scientific research

No. You are making very specific claims while providing no support whatsoever.

BTW, what's the deal with that nonsense about the X-35?

How about some examples of identical cloud patterns?

a reply to: Phage

The x-15, no there is support if your willing to investigate, this is not my thread, this is a thread about ''why i believe the landings were faked'' and i mentioned the data that i find contradictory, above that i am not entitled to do anything, you came here of your own choosing, i spoke my mind and you question it by waiting for answers instead of investigating, i cant help you.

a reply to: SerpentMoon87
You said X-35.

You also said:

i am not even going to start on about earth looking exactly the same in every photo. Not going to even mention the X-35 high altitude tests, i mean what in the world do they need rockets for if they had that tech in the 50's.

The X-15 had a rocket engine. Rudimentary compared to those of the Saturn V.

i spoke my mind and you question it by waiting for answers instead of investigating,

I've done plenty of investigating. I see no evidence that you have.

You make claims and provide nothing to support them.

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
and i mentioned the data that i find contradictory,

complete BS.. you have shown time and again that your level of research amounts to barely nothing at all, its more along the lines of you heard a friend talk about a youtube video about the moon landing hoax..

case in point
you pointing about the Apollo Guidance Computers having no redundancy needing someone else to point out there were two main guidance computers per lunar mission (apart from Apollo 8)

you pointing out that there was only ONE DSKY system needing someone to point out there were two in the command module.

and now you trying to suggest that mobile phones today use core rope memory and are made of resistor-transistor logic integrated circuits.