originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
What I believe or do not believe is of little importance. Their are a few anomalies that need to be addressed.
Take the VA belts, they protect the Earth from radiation, so just saying you get through the belts and land on the moon, you are now getting
lethal doses of radiation
The Apollo missions took a circuitous trajectory upon leaving orbit in order to fly thought the thinnest (least dense) part of the VAB that they
possibly could, which was above the northern latitudes. They also went through very quickly. They intentionally chose this path -- even though it
was out of the way and required more of a fuel drain -- expressly because it was the trajectory that would give them a dose of radiation that was
within allowable risk limits.
your camera is just composed of ordinary film which has to operate out of its heat range.
The film magazines were painted a white-silver color in order to reflect sunlight. On earth, heat is transferred through the air by conduction and
some convection. On the Moon, there is virtually no atmosphere, so the heat from the sun does not conduct through the air (because there is no air
through which heat could conduct). Therefore, shielding the film from the Sun is enough to keep it from heating up. Convection though the film
magazine parts was also limited by thermal stops.
In addition, the Apollo missions took place in locations of lunar morning, which would be slightly cooler that the maximum temps on the Moon, which
are during Lunar Noon.
Your batteries on the LEM have to operate outside of their heat range.
Similar answer as above. The batteries were never exposed to direct sunlight; they wad a cover that would reflect away the sunlight, and thus the
heat. Some heat conduction through the physical parts did occur but not enough to overheat the battery.
However, heat on the moon (or in space) is no the same as heat hear on Earth. There is not enough atmospheric molecules on the moon to conduct the
heat pf the sun through the atmosphere. So even though the sun can heat a object up when the sunlight falls upon it, the space around those objects
would not heat up.
Their were supposedly two separate lunar excursions to different locations, but the locations turned out to be the same place.
You're going to have to give me more detail about this one; I'm not sure what you mean.
If you mean the Apollo 15 LRV traverse in which Mount Hadley could be seen twice in two different traverses, then that is an easy one to explain. One
way we discern that things are in the far off distance here on Earth is by noticing that far off objects are a bit hazier and undefined. That's
because we are looking at far-away object (such as a mountain) though more atmosphere than closer objects, and our brains automatically perceive that
haze as meaning an object is fart away.
However, there is virtually no atmosphere on the Moon, so mountains that are several miles away look just as sharp, clear, and bright as mountains
that are closer...
...So during Apollo 15 there were at least two traverses in which Mount Hadley could be seen off to the right side of the LRV. In one traverse, it
was a couple more miles away than in the other traverse (because the two traverses were a distance away from each other)but because there is no
atmosphere, both views of mount Hadley were sharp and not hazy -- fooling the brain into thinking Mount Hadley was close in both instances, but it was
really a few miles away in both instances.
The type of fuel used should have produced hydrocarbons, (black smoke)
If you mean for the LM, it used hypergolic hydrazine -- and hydrazine burns relatively clean in space. Not all hydrocarbon fuels produce a visible
black soot upon combustion. For example natural gas (LP gas) ins a hydrocarbon that burns relatively cleanly and smokelessly.
the landing should have produced a blast crater.
The LM's main descent engine was fully throttleable; it could be throttled back to 10 % thrust. Upon landing, they of course had it throttled back
(or else they would be going up instead of down).
The LM also had 4-foot long contact probes sticking out the bottom of the foot pads. These contact probes told the astronauts when they were 4 feet
from the surface, at which point they shut down that engines. They did this to prevent the risk of the engine bell being blocked by the surface while
it was still thrusting.
So the last few feet of descent was with no power at all (engines off)
In addition, the surface of the moon at the landing sites had only an inch or two (maybe a bit more in some places) of loose dust on the top, but
under that was hard-packed surface. The thrust might push dust away (and in some Apollo photos you can see the radial lines left by the dust being
pushed away) , but the surface under that would be too hard for the engines to blast a crater, especially considering the throttled-down thrust used
The samples brought back , have totally different element readings than the latest Chinese mission.
All that means is that the moon is made out of more than just one kind of rock.
That's not surprising at all. Rocks I find in one place on Earth may not match rocks found in another place -- even places that are very close to
each other. However, me finding different kinds of rocks on Earth with differing mineral make-ups does not mean I've never been to Earth.
They may have gone to the moon, but the stuff we saw looks like it was a mocked upped in a studio.
You say that, but you haven't provided any evidence to support it. All you have done here is repeat what other hoax believers have said -- but you
obviously have not tried to understand the science or logic behind what the people are calling a hoax.
You simply blindly believe what you read or hear, probably because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Instead of blindly believing, try to do
some real research into the real science behind these issues. And when I say research, I don't mean watching a YouTube video made by a hoax
I don't even want you to believe me blindly; I'm just some guy on the internet. However, you could read what I wrote then do some investigation of
the science behind what I wrote in an attempt to confirm it for yourself....
...And that's something you should always do with any information someone gives you. There's nothing wrong with accepting the information with an
open mind, but take the time to confirm that information. It seems to me that you did not do that with all of your hoax questions above.