It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 40
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:59 PM
Here to make my claime more legitimate.

It would of blinded them let's be serios

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:07 PM
Again... Do you have direct links to those images as they are on NASA websites? I doubt it...

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by jra
Well I skimmed through all the surface pics from Apollo 17. I didn't see it in there (all though I could have missed it). But I think that pic is croped out from some video footage and not from a still photo.

Yeah, I checked out the A17 videologs.. and most of the files aren't working.

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:27 PM
If this images are from the moon it is clear that they are standing in the sun
, you can see that by the shadows .
I will try to obtain a legitimate source for them that will clear suspicions on the pics
and it will show thei are oficial

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by pepsi78
If this images are from the moon

I thought you were trying to argue that they never went?

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:25 PM
Yes steve from the paper moon or what ever you want to call that studio.
What i ment of course from oficial footage.
But than again maybe from the moon.
That's why we are here to find out.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:33 PM
I found an interesting sight on this isee that does kinda prove that the astornauts did go EVA on the moon with the visors down

The face of the man on the moon

THo we fiorget that humans have a two remarkable things called EYELIDS that have a reflex close when the light gets too bright to protect the eyes. Thus preventing any blindness.

[edit on 11/13/2005 by Jehosephat]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:52 PM
Ultraviolet glas shield does not look like a regular glass it is in a darker color and you cant see from out side inside , ultraviolets on the moon will blind you.

Remember the colorful glasse you take at the beach?that will block ultraviolet, not the transparet type see thru like in that pics.
The picture you have provided has a ultra violete shield and it is the firs visor(dark one).

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:55 PM
Ultraviolet light will blind you? that is a new one.. of course you might want to add that ANY light can blind you if in sufficant quanitiy

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:57 PM
no in fact if you leave earth atmosfere ultra violets it will burn u'r eyes not only blind you.
Go study the facts.

What am i a science teacher?
Ultraviolets on bad days may cause skin cancer and burns(on bad days)
here on earth.
Earth atmosfere reduces them
When you leave earth atmosfere you are no longer protected a peak at the sun and you go blind with out protection(the dark glass visor)
The only thing we are tring to figure here is if the images are real.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:21 AM
This should answer your questions:

Note: Lexan is a brand name of a type of Polycarbonate

The LEVA was an elegant design, consisting in one assembly of a thermal cover, 2 visors, and 3 eyeshades.
The 2 visors were layered over each other. The inner "protective visor" was made of ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate plastic and filtered ultraviolet rays, rejected infrared and, in combination with the sun visor and pressure helmet, formed an effective thermal barrier. The outer "sun visor" was made of high-temperature polysulfone plastic and filtered visible light and most ultraviolet and infrared rays.

The protective visor is an ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate shield which affords impact, micrometeoroid, and ultraviolet ray protection. It can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions and requires a force of 2 to 4 pounds for movement. A coating is added to the inner surface of this assembly. The elastomer seal on the upper surface of the stiffener prevents light passage between the two visors. The protective visor can be lowered independently of the sun visor, but cannot be raised independently with the sun visor in the Down position.

The inner surface of the polysulfone sun visor has a gold coating which provides protection against light and reduces heat gain within the helmet. The visor can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions by exerting a force of 2 to 4 pounds on the pull tabs. The sun visor cannot be independently lowered unless the protective visor is in the Down position, but it can be raised or lowered independently when the center eyeshade is in the full-Up position and the protective visor is in the Down position.

One of the major considerations in flight was the amount of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to which the crewmen would be subjected during extravehicular activity. Prior to Apollo missions, the UV threshold of the eye was unknown. Over a three-year period, NASA-sponsored research determined these levels. The problem was, however, subsequently resolved with the development and use of Lexan in the extravehicular visor assembly, since Lexan was opaque to UV radiation. A minimum of 2000 hours of exposure would be required to produce a corneal "burn" through this plastic.

The astronaut wore two helmets. The transparent "fishbowl" helmet was worn underneath, and the LEVA "hardhat" with the visors attached was placed over this helmet for lunar EVA activities. The LEVA had the gold visor, which could be rotated upward if necessary.

Both the "fishbowl" and the visor were made of Lexan, a polycarbonate which is almost perfectly opaque to ultraviolet. Even with the gold visor up, the astronaut would be subject to very little ultraviolet.

I'm not sure what other forms of radiation people believe are out there. The visor will not stop cosmic rays, but they aren't that plentiful. The Lexan will stop a good portion of ambient x-rays, but they aren't that plentiful either. The particle flux isn't much to worry about either.

The gold on the visor was simply to dim the glare to improve the astronaut's vision. If he worked for prolonged time in the shade, he raised the visor to get a better view of details.

Home Depot sells plastic sheets of Lexan (poly-carbonate) which are printed with claims of blocking UV. Try this stuff. You might find it blocks only 90%, depending on your UV meter. I do not think it depends on thickness, though. I think they take a
clear plastic that transmits most UV, then they soak into one face a "UV dye" that absorbs only UV, just like the PABA or other active chemical in sun-screen lotions. Even says on the cover sheet: "this side towards the sun". This is the side with the
UV-blocking dye, less than 0.1mm deep.

This suit for children which suffer from a rare disorder which makes them highly sensitive to the Sun's UV light features a clear polycarbonate visor.
These kids have to be protected completely from UV.

These children suffer from a rare genetic disorder (called Xeroderma Pigmentosum) that puts their lives at risk when they are exposed to the Sun. Their bodies are extremely sensitive to the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays. This means they cannot go outside in daylight, except with special protection. Unless all UV is blocked, their skin and eyes may be severely damaged, eventually leading to cancer.......
There are two parts to the suit. The headgear, designed to look 'cool' for children, covers the head and face. It includes a large see-through, polycarbonate visor, an adjustable plastic headband and a fabric hood.

Any shooting glasses lens rating less than 99% or 400nm probably won't provide adequate UV protection. It should be noted that even clear Polycarbonate lens will block or absorb UV rays, so don't become focused on the tint as playing a role in the level of protection.

Better quality coated lenses, most "high index" (thinner and lighter-weight materials) and all polycarbonate lenses block virtually 100% of the UV.

Uh.. go study the facts...

You should wait a few years and learn things before trying to be a smart-alec, you're just making yourself look stupid!
I should hope your not a science teacher, otherwise give it a couple of generations and we'll have to invent the wheel again and it would probably be best to leave the sarcasm to the professionals and the people that know what they are talking about while you're at it.....

It is also does not happen straight away, someone gave me a ballpark figure of about 20 minutes before burning would occur. Apparantly it is still a problem now even on shuttle missions with the guys being caught with their visor's up when they should be down. It's basically just much easier to see with them up. The Sun will not burn your eyes out in an instant like some people believe, not unless you look straight at it which is the same here on Earth. There is no time scale of how long their visors were up in those photos, it was probably only a few minutes if that but it's irrelevent because most of the UV protection was from the transparent polycarbonate visor anyway.

I know it's an easy mistake to make after watching movies like 'Deep Impact' to think that it's instant blindness, burning and death - but it's simply exaggerated.

By now you’re probably wondering why there is an answer for everything…
There’s an obvious explanation for that..

[edit on 14-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:14 AM
Sorry pepsi, you accually had me going there for a sec.
Few things caught my attention, first, there is nothing that says that UV light will cause the damage in a matter of minutes, I assume it takes some time.
I found a few apollo 17 mission entries about the visors.

CDR Okay.

LMP Nice day for an EVA, Ron. Go out and have a good time.

CMP Yes, it ought to be pretty good out there. I ... - -

CDR Okay, we're coming off the ...

CMP I just need that one visor down, don't I?

CDR No, you need your Sun visor down, too. Bring it - one is protective, and the other is the Sun.

CMP It is? Well, it looks dark out there. Can't even see.

CDR Well, use your own judgment. If - if you're in the shade, you won't need it. But if you're in the Sun, you ought to have it down.

CMP Okay.

CMP Man, that Sun is bright. Whoooo!

CDR Pull down that visor, Ron. You're going to need it.

CMP Yes.

CDR Not the metal one, unless you really need it.

CMP No, I don't want the metal one.

CDR No, just get the gold one. That's all you need.

Looks like they are pretty conserned about having it down, but nothing like life or sight threatining, not imediate anyway. I mean 'use your own judgement'? If it was a big deal then I think they would have stressed it a little harder.

They have it up for a few mins at the most, probably the reason that there are only a few pictures with the visors up.
I do not think that the short time wiht the visors down would blind them.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Halfofone]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:20 AM
The gold visor is more to stop them being dazzled by the bright Sun and it's reflection from the lunar surface more than anything else, it's a bit like 'snow blindness' I imagine.
Obviously they would only have their visors up when they deem it beneficial to their view.

I'm not even sure the picture at the top of this page shows him with the visor up anyway, not that it matters either way, as the pinkish smear that looks like his face spreads further out. I think it may be an optical illusion caused by the film or the digital processing after.

But as I said, it doesn't matter even if it is up, the point is that a lot of the protection is done by the transparent visor anyway and not the gold one as people assume, and they would not suffer any immediate or long term ill effects with that little exposure..

[edit on 14-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:47 AM
I think it is up smith, you can see the 'snoppy cap' the black and white cap

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:53 AM
Quite possibly, but if the pink smear is just a flaw then you might get that illusion from the way the Sun is reflecting on it.
But anyway, as I said, it doesn't matter if it is up, so it's not something we have to concern ourselves with.

Next question please!

[edit on 14-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:18 AM
Well agent smith i have to agree with you what is fact is fact never the less ultra violets will cause damage if you look directly to the sun from the moon.
It is just that i have never seen a see thru ultraviolete shield, but if it was mentioned that the iner visor blocked them than yes it must ofer protection , i dont know if the second visor will offer that much protection but i cant argue with the facts.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:20 AM
Actually I think it's not just the Moon, I think if you look directly at the Sun from Earth pretty much the same thing happens! LOL
Sorry I was a bit harsh in some of my remarks though, I keep forgetting you're not the other one- you actually appear to have learning and reasoning abilities!

[edit on 14-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:32 AM
Agent smith i agree with you on the fact that they where protected by that
but no ultraviolets on the moon will do more damage simply cause they are many many times stronger.
But the iner visor did ofer protection.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:36 AM
OK, I think. You realise though that the inner, clear, visor was adequate protection against the Suns Rays for at least short periods of time? As the article said it offered at least 2000 hours continuous protection against eye damage (unless you stare into the sun obviously).
So the pictures of them with the visors up are in fact meaningless and not incriminating in any way.

Sorry I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you're getting at.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:44 AM
Pepsi, I am curious.

So far, all of your arguments to support the theory that the moon landings were a hoax have been refuted.

What will it take before you finally say: “you know, you are right, we really did go there?”

Have you allowed yourself the option that you are wrong on this one?

new topics

top topics

<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in