An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by Halfofone
resistance
en.wikipedia.org...

read the above for some related info about radiant heat transfer and barriers to it.

Think of it this way,
The sun exists in a vacuum right?
So how is it that we feel that heat, if things cannot dissipate heat in a vacuum?
The sun does not heat air, then the air heats the earth (mostly because ther is no air), and the sun does not directly touch the earth. So the heat must get here through radiant heat transfer.
If the sun can do it, then it stands to reason that other objects can, and it has been scientificly proven that they can.

Exactly. A vacuum is neither not nor cold. To get heat, the sun's rays must strike something. Then you will get heat. Here on earth, we are shielded from a lot of the sun's rays by our atmosphere, and our earth turns once each 24 hours, so the earath is only in the sun for 12 hours. But the moon has no atmosphere to shield it and it faces the sun for 14 DAYS (each part of the moon is in the sun's light continuously for 14 days. I think the moon must get very, very hot.

Originally posted by resistance

My understanding is they used Haselblad cameras. And did they keep running back in the spaceship every half hour to change the film? (that's how many pictures they took)

The film was kept in a separate film magazine. The Apollo 11 mission carried a camera with two extra magazines to the surface of the moon.

Finally, The film used on Apollo-11 was the same type carried on the other flights - a Kodak special thin-based and thin emulsion double-perforated 70 mm film - which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black/white in each loading.

www.hq.nasa.gov...




[edit on 29-9-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by resistance
Yeah, there's evidence. They used the same backdrop in some of their pics that were supposed to represent different moon expeditions. That's how arrogant they are.

Please show me some examples. I've looked at lots of Apollo photos and I haven't noticed things like that.

It's obvious also that there was all kind of stage lighting set up (since it was all done in the Disney studios). How is it obvious? Because if there was one source of light, the sun, all the shadows would be pointing the same directions.

Disney studios? And Halfofone showed an example of shadows bending off in differnt directions with one light source. They do that because of the uneven surface. Multiple lights will create multiple shadows off one object. All the objects have ONE shadow, thus ONE light. You will also get the appearance of shadows going in differnt directions in panoramic photos that consist of multiple photos taking from one spot and put together.

sometimes you can see the astroNOT standing in a pitchblack shadow all lit up.

The sunlight reflects off the surface and illuminates the Astronaut. He's not being illuminated directly by the sun, just by the reflected light. Why is this hard to figure out?

Yes but you are saying that the objects, (like the camera) do not give off heat in a vacuum. And I'm saying that they DO. If they bring the camera out of the sun then it would not be hard to think that it would cool down. If things could not dissipate heat in a vacume then the moon would stay hot even in the lunar night periods, and continue to get hotter untill it is a ball of molten rock lava. Also the film is not directly exposed to the sun's radiant heat.

then you say. "You know how good a vacuum works as insulation? So the heat from the sun, 250 degrees, hits the moon, and as the moon goes through its phases it faces the sun for two weeks "

well if the vacuum is such a great insulator (which it is when you talk about convection and conductive heat transfer), then how does the sun heat anything in the first place? through radiant heat.

Look I'll gladly belive that the government WOULD do this thing but I have not seen any proof that cannot be sufficiantly de-bunked. I think that this is a red herring, and distracts us from the earth-bound consperacy

Someone needs to read up on blackbody radiation

Originally posted by Halfofone
Yes but you are saying that the objects, (like the camera) do not give off heat in a vacuum. And I'm saying that they DO. If they bring the camera out of the sun then it would not be hard to think that it would cool down. If things could not dissipate heat in a vacume then the moon would stay hot even in the lunar night periods, and continue to get hotter untill it is a ball of molten rock lava. Also the film is not directly exposed to the sun's radiant heat.
By resistance:
My point is that any point on the moon stays in the direct sun for 14 days straight without any atmosphere to shield it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is actually molton.



By Halofane:
then you say. "You know how good a vacuum works as insulation? So the heat from the sun, 250 degrees, hits the moon, and as the moon goes through its phases it faces the sun for two weeks "

well if the vacuum is such a great insulator (which it is when you talk about convection and conductive heat transfer), then how does the sun heat anything in the first place? through radiant heat.

Look I'll gladly belive that the government WOULD do this thing but I have not seen any proof that cannot be sufficiantly de-bunked. I think that this is a red herring, and distracts us from the earth-bound consperacy

Okay, I'll give you that. You seem to know much more about the physics of heat than I do. Would you be willing to take the time to look at Bart Slibel's website and tell me what you think? www.moonmovie.com. He's got excerpts put up of all four of his videos. It takes about 20 minutes to listen to and read the entire site. He's kind of got his whole case boiled down in preview.
Thanks.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]

resistance says:
jra -- I will have to go searching the Net to pull up the stuff saw on the duplicative backgrounds. Then I guess I just put up the link here, hey? I've not figured out how to do much more than post my messages and only started posting yesterday.

It's obvious also that there was all kind of stage lighting set up (since it was all done in the Disney studios). How is it obvious? Because if there was one source of light, the sun, all the shadows would be pointing the same directions.

Disney studios?

And Halfofone showed an example of shadows bending off in differnt directions with one light source. They do that because of the uneven surface. Multiple lights will create multiple shadows off one object. All the objects have ONE shadow, thus ONE light. You will also get the appearance of shadows going in differnt directions in panoramic photos that consist of multiple photos taking from one spot and put together.

sometimes you can see the astroNOT standing in a pitchblack shadow all lit up.

The sunlight reflects off the surface and illuminates the Astronaut. He's not being illuminated directly by the sun, just by the reflected light. Why is this hard to figure out?

Sounds logical. It's not hard to figure out. Maybe I'll give you this one.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]

Bart Sibrel is a con artist.
He sells half truths, and fuzzy logic for $30 bucks.
All his accusations are re-hashed and as far as I have seen have been de-bunked by multiple sources. He sells video's of footage that has been publicly available UNEDITED for years, and his new "unseen footage" shows nothing conclusive IMO. Come on selling a press confrence video for 30 bucks?

he says(and so did you) that Neil Armstrong is so nuts from keeping the secret, but on the NASA site you can a video hosted by Neil, called moon, mars, and beyond



just google his name and read the first few hits, (the first one is his site so skip it.)
here;
www.google.ca...





[edit on 29-9-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by Halfofone


well if the vacuum is such a great insulator (which it is when you talk about convection and conductive heat transfer), then how does the sun heat anything in the first place? through radiant heat.

Look I'll gladly belive that the government WOULD do this thing but I have not seen any proof that cannot be sufficiantly de-bunked. I think that this is a red herring, and distracts us from the earth-bound consperacy

As a matter of fact, NASA's quoted as saying they're sending a Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter in 2008. "It will sample the Moon's radiation environment, search for patches of frozen water, make laser maps of lunar terrain and, using LROC, photograph the Moon's entire surface. By the time astronauts return, they'll know the best places to land and much of what awaits them."

www.defensetech.org...


So if you're correct that this is the only way to diffuse heat on the moon is through radiation, then it must be extremely radioactive there. I'm surprised they are doing their homework on this rahter important question at this late date. How were they supposed to protect themselves? You think the face shield could keep out that much radiation? How come they don't already know about this? Why do they have to do all these studies, and it's going to take them three years just to do the studies, and then another 15 years after that assuming the studies tell them it's even possible?




[edit on 30-9-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 30-9-2005 by resistance]

Well first there is a difference between thermal radiaion and radioactivity, however it is quite radioactive there being that there is no Ozone layer to protect us.

I can't explain it all here but this might help.
www.clavius.org...

What I've been telling you is only part of the reason that you are wrong. There are a few more critical reasons; the temperatures that NASA gives are the temperatures measured from the surface of the moon, and do not represent the temperature of all objects on the moon. It takes time for things to reach maximum temperature, and that maximum is different depending upon the material and it's radiative nautre. Also, in order for thouse things to reach max temperature they would need to be exposed to sunlight for quite a whlie, which we know is not the case, because they would have been moving around faceing the sun one minute and away the next, moving in and out of the shadows ect.
read THIS for a more detailed explanation.
And I would read the entire site, www.clavius.org...
There is a ton more info than your moonmovie website and IT'S ALL FREE!


[edit on 1-10-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by Halfofone

What I've been telling you is only part of the reason that you are wrong. There are a few more critical reasons; the temperatures that NASA gives are the temperatures measured from the surface of the moon, and do not represent the temperature of all objects on the moon. It takes time for things to reach maximum temperature, and that maximum is different depending upon the material and it's radiative nautre.

Right. That's what I figure. The maximum heat is MORE than 250 degrees. I know my flagstones heat up real quick and get a lot hotter than the 80 or 90 degree heat of the summer day. The stones are hotter than the air, and that means the air is dissipating some of that heat, but the stones are still sucking up the sun's heat, getting hotter and hotter. So on the moon where there's NO ATMOSPHERE to dissipate the heat into, and in contrast only a vacuum to keep the heat in, those rocks must get REALLY, REALLY HOT.



Hal says:

Also, in order for thouse things to reach max temperature they would need to be exposed to sunlight for quite a whlie, which we know is not the case, because they would have been moving around faceing the sun one minute and away the next, moving in and out of the shadows ect.

Thanks Hal, for trying to help. But what do you mean the moon isn't exposed to the sun very long? It's exposed continuously for 14 days at the equator, and longer at the north pole (NASA says almost 24 hours continous). So if the moon's surface is taking in 250 degrees from the sun and just absorbing it and there's no place for the heat to go because it's surrounded by a vaccum -- how can you tell me that it's not incredibly, incredibly hot on the moon, sizzling hot.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by resistance]

You know it's funny because if you check back to page 8 of this very thread, you can read my post about the 2008 NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter , where I say that it will accually finally put to rest all this hoax buisness because they will map the entire surface including the apollo landing sites to a half meter resolution. (see the photo postes on page 8 for an exampl of the detail)

You are wrong!!! 250 is the MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE THAT THE ROCKS WILL REACH. That is the temperature of equilibruim!!! read the links.

and i mean that the CAMERA is not exposed to the sun for very long. They didn't spend 2 weeks on the moon...

A more complicated version of this example would be a concrete highway on a still day. The sun warms the pavement to perhaps 150 F (52 C). It would be hotter, but some of the heat is drawn away by the air on top of it. The air may be cooler because it's less dense than the pavement -- say only 80 F (21 C). But very close to the pavement it's significantly hotter. As long as the wind doesn't stir things up this system will be at equilibrium even though we can observe several different temperatures at different places in the system.

In space our ability to get rid of heat is limited. Since an object can only use radiative heat transfer and not conductive heat transfer, it will absorb heat faster than it can radiate it. That means equilibrium temperatures will be significantly higher for objects in a vacuum. The same concrete highway in a vacuum may be heated to 250 F (121 C).

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 2-10-2005 by sanctum]

Originally posted by Halfofone
You know it's funny because if you check back to page 8 of this very thread, you can read my post about the 2008 NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter , where I say that it will accually finally put to rest all this hoax buisness because they will map the entire surface including the apollo landing sites to a half meter resolution. (see the photo postes on page 8 for an exampl of the detail)

You are wrong!!! 250 is the MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE THAT THE ROCKS WILL REACH. That is the temperature of equilibruim!!! read the F'in links.

and i mean that the CAMERA is not exposed to the sun for very long. They didn't spend 2 weeks on the moon...

A more complicated version of this example would be a concrete highway on a still day. The sun warms the pavement to perhaps 150 F (52 C). It would be hotter, but some of the heat is drawn away by the air on top of it. The air may be cooler because it's less dense than the pavement -- say only 80 F (21 C). But very close to the pavement it's significantly hotter. As long as the wind doesn't stir things up this system will be at equilibrium even though we can observe several different temperatures at different places in the system.

In space our ability to get rid of heat is limited. Since an object can only use radiative heat transfer and not conductive heat transfer, it will absorb heat faster than it can radiate it. That means equilibrium temperatures will be significantly higher for objects in a vacuum. The same concrete highway in a vacuum may be heated to 250 F (121 C).

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Halfofone]

Thanks for the link to Clavius, Hal. It had good information on the physics of heat, very helpful. But I still don't see where anybody is getting this figure of 250 F on the moon. Just because something is shiny and white doesn't mean it can't be heated up, that it's going to reflect all the heat -- especially in a vacuum. The astroNOTs were out in the sunlight for many hours, and the heat that was not radiated had no place to go really. The moon buggy wasn't made of white reflective material. Neither was the silly flag.

This still isn't convincing me. A vacuum is not going to permit stones to max out at 250 degrees F IMO. I think we're getting some bad information here. I'd like to know who first came up with this figure and where they got it. Are we just accepting this figure or is there some source we can check to find out where it came from?

Thanks again, Hal.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by resistance]

Frankly weather you are convinced or not does not change reality. Type moon surface temerature in Google and see what you get. I mean even Bart Sibrel doesn't deny it...

The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they ....

moonmovie.com

Anyway you can belive what you want to, all that I ask is that you be just as skeptical about the alternitive perspectives as you are of the accepted ones. Being "awake" isn't about blindly parroting an alternative view point, it's about finding ALL the information you can, considering ALL the view points, and forming YOUR opinion.

For me I look at Mr. Sibrel's site and I can pick apart each and every argument with rational scientific reasoning, or just plain common sence. Also I do not respect his whole "swear on the bible thing" first of all what does that proove if the astronaught is an athiest? Nothing. Second apperantly Edgar Mitchell (the one who knees bart in the butt) says he did swear on the bible yet Sibrel doesn't mention that in his film or website.

Originally posted by Halfofone
Frankly weather you are convinced or not does not change reality. Type moon surface temerature in Google and see what you get. I mean even Bart Sibrel doesn't deny it...

The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they ....

moonmovie.com

Anyway you can belive what you want to, all that I ask is that you be just as skeptical about the alternitive perspectives as you are of the accepted ones. Being "awake" isn't about blindly parroting an alternative view point, it's about finding ALL the information you can, considering ALL the view points, and forming YOUR opinion.

For me I look at Mr. Sibrel's site and I can pick apart each and every argument with rational scientific reasoning, or just plain common sence. Also I do not respect his whole "swear on the bible thing" first of all what does that proove if the astronaught is an athiest? Nothing. Second apperantly Edgar Mitchell (the one who knees bart in the butt) says he did swear on the bible yet Sibrel doesn't mention that in his film or website.

Halfo, you make some good points. You may be right about the temperature on the moon and I'm still looking for answers on that.

As to the swearing on the Bible thing, from the short exerpts Sibrel put up, those astroNOTs looked pretty darned guilty to me, and did not behave in any way as people who had been to the moon. That much was painfully obvious. And if Mitchell did, well so what? It just means he's willing to lie some more. And I agree -- it's silly. If this wasn't such a fraud, the question would be ludicrous and insulting. The press conference showed me what guilty scoundrels they are.

How come you never see any of these guys on Letterman or Johnny Carson (before when he had his show) or any interviews on the Science channel or the Discovery channel? If these guys really did go to the moon there would be books and books and books out about their "adventures on the moon."

My gut, my common sense tells me, no. There was no moon landing. If there were, we'd have gone back many more times. Instead, we're talking about an exploratory mission for 2008 to find out what the radiation is on the moon and try to locate some good landing sites.

Originally posted by resistance
My gut, my common sense tells me, no. There was no moon landing. If there were, we'd have gone back many more times. Instead, we're talking about an exploratory mission for 2008 to find out what the radiation is on the moon and try to locate some good landing sites.

Here's the simple answer. They didn't have the money to go back. It's not hard to figure out. A quick overview of NASA's history after the Apollo mission shows this.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by resistance
My gut, my common sense tells me, no. There was no moon landing. If there were, we'd have gone back many more times. Instead, we're talking about an exploratory mission for 2008 to find out what the radiation is on the moon and try to locate some good landing sites.

Here's the simple answer. They didn't have the money to go back. It's not hard to figure out. A quick overview of NASA's history after the Apollo mission shows this.

I guess if it was as easy to get there as the astroNOTs made it seem to be that not only would we have gone back there dozens of times and then on to Mars and beyond, but private cmpanies and other countries would have gone there as well. But NOBODY has gone in 40 years.

If lack of money works as an explaination for you, it certainly doesn't for me.

It's not just lack of money. Look at the Apollo 13 mission. They didn't even broadcast the little show that they did from the ship, because by then it was so routine to be boring. There was no interest in space by then, UNTIL Apollo 13s accident. Even by 13, there was already an attitude of "Why should we be in space, when we have problems here on Earth to deal with."

Private companies were heavily restricted from even going INTO space until recently. NASA was THE only way to get into space in the US, and other countries didn't have the interest or technology, with the exception of the Soviet Union, and they didn't HAVE private companies.

Originally posted by resistance
If lack of money works as an explaination for you, it certainly doesn't for me.

Well. Then write a check. Go to Mr. Moon.

I dare yah.

I double dog dare yah.

Originally posted by resistance
I guess if it was as easy to get there as the astroNOTs made it seem to be that not only would we have gone back there dozens of times and then on to Mars and beyond, but private cmpanies and other countries would have gone there as well. But NOBODY has gone in 40 years.

Who said it was easy? I don't think NASA or the Astronauts ever claimed it was, nor tried to make it seem as such. It defiantely wasn't easy. It was very risky and challenging.

No other countries or companies have gone because it's hard and it's expencive. The former USSR had some big plans for going to the Moon, plans that would have dwarfed the Apollo missions if they were to have happened, but budget cuts affected it and then eventually the USSR collaps and they never got a chance to go to the Moon.

If lack of money works as an explaination for you, it certainly doesn't for me.

Why doesn't it work for you? If NASA had all the money they needed, we'd probably have the Space Station Freedom and have it completed by now and not the incomplete ISS. The shuttle wouldn't have had cutbacks in it's development and would have been better than it is now. And we'd probably have completely new shuttles by now, since they were only ment to be used for a 100 launches or 10-years (which ever came first). NASA did have plans for Moon bases and even going to Mars after the Apollo missions, but again, there budget was cut down and there was no way they could do it.

Just take a look at this chart.


[edit on 5-10-2005 by jra]