An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
No wheel tracks, antenna again and again...

Dear jfj123,

my new argument is that at 2,500°C reentry capsule aluminum alloy would have boiled.

Answer about this argumentation, please.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...
Your kitchen oven reaches temperatures up to 250 degrees [ the element is actually far hotter ] but the plastic knobs on the outside do not melt - is it magic ??
...

You have not understood well. Here we are reasoning about 2,500°C not 250°C.

I understand just fine. I am burying the last arguments first. Don't worry, we'll get to yours eventually. Please be patient.

Also, just because you moved on to another topic doesn't mean I can't discuss something else as long as it's relevant to the thread.

Someone wanted to know about the tire tracks and why there weren't any in some photos. I found the information and posted it.

Sorry if my factual posts upset you

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
No wheel tracks, antenna again and again...

Dear jfj123,

my new argument is that at 2,500°C reentry capsule aluminum alloy would have boiled.

Answer about this argumentation, please.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...
Your kitchen oven reaches temperatures up to 250 degrees [ the element is actually far hotter ] but the plastic knobs on the outside do not melt - is it magic ??
...

You have not understood well. Here we are reasoning about 2,500°C not 250°C.

Capsules are formed in a rounded shape called a blunt body instead of a pointed one, as this forms a shock wave that doesn't touch the capsule, and the heat is deflected away rather than melting the vehicle.

As the space capsule slows down, the compression of the air molecules hitting the capsules surface creates a lot of heat. The surface of a capsule can get to 1480 °C (2700 F) as it goes down through the Earth’s atmosphere. All this heat has to be directed away. Space capsules are typically coated with a material that melts then vaporized ("ablation"). It may seem counterproductive, but the vaporization takes heat away from the capsule. This keeps the reentry heat from getting inside the capsule. Capsules see a more intense heating regime than spaceplanes and ceramics such as used on the Space Shuttle are usually less suitable, and all capsules have used ablation.

The type of heat shield that best protects against high heat flux is the ablative heat shield. The ablative heat shield functions by lifting the hot shock layer gas away from the heat shield's outer wall (creating a cooler boundary layer) through blowing. The overall process of reducing the heat flux experienced by the heat shield's outer wall is called blockage. Ablation causes the TPS layer to char, melt, and sublime through the process of pyrolysis. The gas produced by pyrolysis is what drives blowing and causes blockage of convective and catalytic heat flux.

Information source: Wikipedia

jfj123 what you are doing is not debunking on either side, you simply offer explenations that do not fit, you are just forcing your arguments, I can't see where your articles are debunking the traks issue, you just told me what the wheels can do and how the rover was built but nothing that would debunk the traks.


On the other side with the aluminium going to boiling point again you insist that the capsule had conical shape and that the shield on the bottom of the capsule took care of everything but you seem to fail to see that it's not about the shield reaching those temperatures but it's about the "HULL" of the ship meaning the actual walls of the capsule reaching those temperatures, you don't expect aluminium to stop those temepratures do you? since were not talking about the heat shield.

You also fail to see what the heat shield is for and why the craft was designed in a conical shape.
This design was not done to protect the astronauts form heat in space, but to protect them on reentry, temeratures in the atmosefere do not reach critical point, it only gets hot under the hit sheld because of the particles hiting the heat shield, so while the heat shield get's really hot the other part of the ship stays cool, because the heat comes from the bottom and it's easy to block.
However when you got temperatures of that sort on the hull of the ship, hull meaning the walls of the ship, and the heat comes from all directions then the heat shield and the conical shape of the ship won't help you, they would be rendered usless.

Now I don't know what skepting is talking about, if he is talking about while they are in space or about reentry, because if he is talking about reentry he does not have a point, if he is talking about other space then he has a very good point.


By the way how were they able to pass the radiation belts with that kind of windows mounted on the capsule, since they were near the window on aproach it would of been lethal, there is no way they can do this, those windows do not offer protection from the van alan belts.



[edit on 21-10-2007 by pepsi78]

Skeptic if you are talking about reentry, how do you explain the soiuz capsules being able to re-enter, they all come from ISS space station, and they always are able to get back on earth with out incident.

reply to post by pepsi78



Obviously you haven't read my posts as my posts have the answers to the questions you are asking My posts do not point out anything regarding the windows. I have a bit of pure speculation for you regarding said windows.... How about leaded glass?

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Jbird]

Originally posted by pepsi78
By the way how were they able to pass the radiation belts with that kind of windows mounted on the capsule, since they were near the window on aproach it would of been lethal, there is no way they can do this, those windows do not offer protection from the van alan belts.
[edit on 21-10-2007 by pepsi78]

Again, please do a little research. The entire spacecraft (including the windows) was shielded, and even so, the radiation levels outside the ship during the traverse through the belt were NOT lethal...

The Lunar Command Module had two panes of glass -- one strucural tempered glass pane, plus one specially-designed outer pane. The sole purpose of this outer pane was to protect against radiation and micrometeoroids.

The Command Module passed through the Van Allen Belts rather quickly -- less than 30 minutes each way. The total radiation outside the spacecraft was 13 RADS, which is very, very far below lethal levels (but - I admit - still quite a bit.)

BUT inside the shielded spacecraft, the astronauts only received a small fraction of that radiation. Apollo 14 was the only mission during which astronauts received a TOTAL of over 1 RAD. All of the other missions were about a 1/2 RAD or less. That's like getting a few x-rays images taken.

Here's a site that explained the radiation that the astronauts encountered:
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 10/22/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by websurfer
I watched "In The Shadow of The Moon,"(twice) and it supplements the evidence that the moon landings occured. In the words of Buzz Aldrin, "Why would we fake it 9 times."

good point ! I think it would be more difficult to carry out the hoax over and over, than to actually just do it !

The sad part is when a commercial or chinese lander takes images of the apollo artifatcs, the HB's will just say the images are fake, or were brought up there and planted there to make it look good

HA, HA, HA



en.wikipedia.org...

Space physics (SCIENCE FICTION PHYSICS)

In space physics, ablation occurs to heat shields that are used to protect payloads from heat, such as the heat shields used by the Apollo Command Module on atmospheric reentry. In a basic sense, ablative material is designed to slowly burn away in a controlled manner, so that heat can be carried away from the spacecraft by the generated gases; while the remaining solid material insulates the craft from superheated gases. There is an entire branch of space physics research involving the search for new fireproofing materials to achieve the best ablative performance; this function is critical to protect the spacecraft occupants and payload from otherwise excessive heat loading. The same technology is used in some passive fire protection applications, in some cases by the same vendors, who offer different versions of these fireproofing products, some for aerospace and some for structural fire protection.

And Jesus said: this material will become ABLATIVE and will resist at 2,800°C (Matthew 15:29)

reply to post by skeptic-friend


Fair enough, if you think this information is wrong, please provide scientific evidence to the contrary. Actual scientific data. Thank you.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Jbird]

Again, please do a little research. The entire spacecraft (including the windows) was shielded, and even so, the radiation levels outside the ship during the traverse through the belt were NOT lethal...

Wait let me laugh

the radiation levels outside the ship during the traverse through the belt were NOT lethal?

Van Allen Belt far exceed the 200 300 RADs inside the belts, and this at minimum when things are calm.

The Lunar Command Module had two panes of glass -- one strucural tempered glass pane, plus one specially-designed outer pane. The sole purpose of this outer pane was to protect against radiation and micrometeoroids.

You don't seem to understand, you can't fight charged particles especialy with glass, what ever it is covered with, you need not only led, but a very heavy pice of lead to stop that
They would of puked their liver before the died of course, at 20 rads you begin to vomit.

The Command Module passed through the Van Allen Belts rather quickly -- less than 30 minutes each way. The total radiation outside the spacecraft was 13 RADS, which is very, very far below lethal levels (but - I admit - still quite a bit.)

13 rads outside , read some science books, you really need to.

BUT inside the shielded spacecraft, the astronauts only received a small fraction of that radiation. Apollo 14 was the only mission during which astronauts received a TOTAL of over 1 RAD. All of the other missions were about a 1/2 RAD or less. That's like getting a few x-rays images taken.

Yes because the apollo reports were bogus, pilots flying over north pole recive what you state and they are not even out in space.





[edit on 22-10-2007 by pepsi78]

Van Allen Belt info











Here is the link where you can read the entire article. There are many other sources available with the same information if you use a simple GOOGLE search.

www.clavius.org...

Originally posted by jfj123
Van Allen Belt info

Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This does not contain any data, shielding specifications, type of materials, it just states that they magicly went





This does not provide the diameter of the belt in that area, it does not provide any figures and numbers.they spent over half an hour in the belts, really it's included in the report






How about windows do those shield, and can you please mention another maned flight beiond the belts except apollo, just one please, there are none.



Cosmic particles are in diferent forms and it is hard to shield against them, they contain various elements , there are gamma particles known also as cosmic particles, they leave and emmit gamma radiation, in fact the moon is bombarded by them.


Dude you have no clue about particles, your are just stating what a link tells you, I had this discusion long time ago here and elsewere, don't get me started on particles, maybe you should review this thread from top to bottom

Here is your nice moon


It's so red it hurt my eyes, when I look at the picture, because the moon it's self is radio active, and they had an exposure of 1 rad, this is a joke.
In fact rays are highly charged particles, were not talking about UV

Incoming cosmic rays--some of the highest-energy particles--collide with the nucleus of atoms in the soil. When nuclei are hit with such energy, ...

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Ray_Spectrometer
The report is a joke.



[edit on 23-10-2007 by Jbird]

[edit on 22-10-2007 by syrinx high priest]

.


here's some info the HB's really hate, because the little unmanned probe theory doesn't fly due to the immense size of "Big Muley", and they have to accept men walked on the moon 6 times, or roll out the usual lame defense


link to source

The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense. Evidence that the Apollo program really happened is compelling: A dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience. They didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth.

"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.

"For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks."

"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"



Right: A glass spherule (about 0.6 mm in diameter) produced by a meteorite impact into lunar soil. Features on the surface are glass splashes, welded mineral fragments, and microcraters produced by space weathering processes at the surface of the moon. SEM image by D. S. McKay (NASA Photo S71-48109).

Fortunately not all of the evidence needs a degree in chemistry or geology to appreciate. An average person holding a Moon rock in his or her hand can plainly see that the specimen came from another world.

"Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere... like the Moon.

Meteoroids are nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch, but they're also extremely fragile. Meteoroids that strike Earth's atmosphere disintegrate in the rarefied air above our stratosphere. (Every now and then on a dark night you can see one -- they're called meteors.) But the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it. The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.

"There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says McKay. "You can see the little meteoroid craters for yourself."

Right: Nick-named "Big Muley,"

this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." Below right: A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock.

 

Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.

Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.

And therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax.

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples --

not a single paper challenges their origin!

And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

"Fox should stick to making cartoons," agreed Marc Norman. "I'm a big fan of The Simpsons!"

so what's it going to be for this one, HB's ?

1) Attack the messenger ?
2) Change the subject and ignore it ?
3) Just say it's all lies and use a smiley like this one ?????

what is your response to Big Muley ?

If you really want to go with the old probe theory, YOU need to provide independently verified evidence of the probe that brought Big Muley back to the US

I want;
dates of the launches
photos of the US probe
engineering specs of the US probe showing it can handle an 11.7 kg rock

are you up to the challenge ?

you've been called out

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by jfj123
Van Allen Belt info

Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This does not contain any data, shielding specifications, type of materials, it just states that they magicly went

I didn't say there was any data. This information was presented as a primer. I assumed that since this information didn't contain data, you would understand that. My bad

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This does not provide the diameter of the belt in that area, it does not provide any figures and numbers.they spent over half an hour in the belts, really it's included in the report

No the information doesn't provide the diameter. I didn't realize I was REQUIRED to provide it ??? If you would like me to provide additional information to what is posted here, simply RESPECTFULLY ask me to provide any additional information you would like.

Which reports? Are your referring to NASA's reports which you are claiming have been faked?? If they are fake, you cannot use them as proof for your argument. The reports are real or fake, not both at your convenience.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

How about windows do those shield, and can you please mention another maned flight beiond the belts except apollo, just one please, there are none.

Someone else already answered the window question.

shielding against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the principles of radiation shielding

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Cosmic particles are in diferent forms and it is hard to shield against them, they contain various elements , there are gamma particles known also as cosmic particles, they leave and emmit gamma radiation, in fact the moon is bombarded by them.

Dude you have no clue about particles, your are just stating what a link tells you, I had this discusion long time ago here and elsewere, don't get me started on particles, maybe you should review this thread from top to bottom

Since you are so familiar with particles, please provide scientific information describing how said particles cannot be shielded against and why. Again, since you are so familiar with them, this should be very easy for you to do.

Here is your nice moon


It's so red it hurt my eyes, when I look at the picture, because the moon it's self is radio active, and they had an exposure of 1 rad, this is a joke.
In fact rays are highly charged particles, were not talking about UV

Sorry it hurts your eyes. Maybe you should look at the moon through a standard optical telescope as opposed to an I.R.
Here's a nice picture for you to look at

en.wikipedia.org...:Full_Moon_Luc_Viatour.jpg

Incoming cosmic rays--some of the highest-energy particles--collide with the nucleus of atoms in the soil. When nuclei are hit with such energy, ...

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Ray_Spectrometer
The report is a joke.

Which report is a joke and why. Again, since you are so well educated, you should be able to easily explain why everyone is wrong and you are correct. Please use scientifically obtained data as your evidence. Thank you

Syrinx, it goes something like this :

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
1) Attack the messenger ?

I don't like the color of your banner, therefore nothing you say is legitimate.

2) Change the subject and ignore it ?

I don't care about your moon rock evidence...what about the LEM? It can't land backwards.

3) Just say it's all lies and use a smiley like this one

I believe in the Moon Hoax, therefore NASA must be lying.
And since NASA must be liars, that proves the Moon Hoax.



****Syrinx, of course you know I'm only kidding, and not attacking you.****

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Syrinx, it goes something like this

:

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
1) Attack the messenger ?

I don't like the color of your banner, therefore nothing you say is legitimate.

how can you say that, you just, oh wait

I bet they come back with the flag is waving or there are no stars or the russians helped the US fake.

as I was looking for the moon rocks, I saw a funny quote, "if it was so easy to fake it, why didn't the russians think of that and do it first ?"

I guess we'll have to wait and see how they explain big muley

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
...
as I was looking for the moon rocks, I saw a funny quote, "if it was so easy to fake it, why didn't the russians think of that and do it first ?"
...

en.wikipedia.org...:_A_Space_Odyssey

Kubrick spent five years developing his next film, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), which was photographed in Super Panavision 70. Kubrick co-wrote the screenplay with science fiction writer Sir Arthur C. Clarke, expanding on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel". The screenplay and the novel were written simultaneously. The screenplay is credited to Kubrick and Clarke, while the novel, published in tandem with the film's release, is credited only to Clarke. The novel and the film deviate substantially from each other, with the novel explaining a great deal of what the film leaves deliberately ambiguous. Clarke and Kubrick later spoke highly of one another. Incidentally, Clarke's follow up, 2010: Odyssey Two, follows the events of the movie version of 2001, as opposed to the novel version. This is likely due to the cultural impact of Kubrick's film.

The film's special effects, overseen by Kubrick and engineered by special effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull (Silent Running, Blade Runner), proved ground-breaking and inspired many of the special effects-driven films which were to follow the success of 2001. Manufacturing companies were consulted as to what the design of both special-purpose and everyday objects would look like in the future. At the time of the movie's release, Arthur C. Clarke predicted that a generation of engineers would design real spacecraft based upon 2001 "even if it isn't the best way to do it". Despite nominations in the directing, writing, and producing categories, the only Academy Award Kubrick ever received was for supervising the special effects of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Russians didn't have kubrick and the great special effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull.

Abhout moon rocks

BIG MULEY


A GRANITE STONE BALL

Is more interesting your Big Muley or my GSBS (Granite stone ball system)?

reply to post by skeptic-friend


Prove it's not a real moon rock. Go ahead and prove it. Prove that it is made of granite. Prove that all the moon rocks we have, are faked. Please present factual data that proves the moon rocks are fake and what they are really made of. If you can't, then you obviously just don't know what you're talking about. If you can't back up your statements with actual, real, facts, why bother even making them???

Your comments are worthless without proof

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Jbird]

OK, we have our first result. The HB's have countered with option 3

I was hoping for more of a fight, this is actually very disappointing

oh well