An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Has anybody mentioned the lack of tracks behind, or in front of, the lunar rover. It looks as if it was just placed there.

Also, I question whether the shielding was up to scratch on the Hasselblad cameras that the astronauts used. I think Solar radiation would have exposed the film, through the camera body.

Also, framing and focus. The only cameras employed by the astronauts when moon-walking were chest mounted Hasselblad medium format cameras. With NO viewfinder. And yet many of the photos appear to have been taken from eye-level. Unless one of the astronauts was a giant.

Just my pen'orth.

Personally, I believe that the moon-landings took place. The on-board footage obtained proves this. I think the astronauts cameras couldn't cope with the radiation and they ended up with rolls and rolls of fogged, fuzzy shots. Rather than admit their failure to the public (and put at risk future funding) NASA staged the landing back on Earth to get the 'money' shots.

Originally posted by bigbrain

Originally posted by swimmer
...
You just do not want to accept the fact that the political, historical and scientific knowledge we have is often based on obvious, horrible lies.
...

THANK YOU, SWIMMER, FOR THESE WORDS VERY VERY RIGHT.

DEAR GULLIBLE PEOPLE,

DO YOU THINK POSSIBLE THAT ONE BOEING OF 150 TONS CAN RAZE TO THE GROUND A POWERFUL SKYSCRAPER OF 500,000 TONS MAKING IT TO FALL DOWN LIKE IT WAS MADE OF BUTTER?

Birdbrain

THe subject of the thread is the 1969 Apollo moon landing, not 9/11; either stay on topic or find somewhere else to highjack threads, hopefully on another web site altogether.

P.S. I did mean to address the post Bigbrain but you can understand my confusion.



[edit on 4/28/2007 by Stormrider]

Originally posted by Karilla
Has anybody mentioned the lack of tracks behind, or in front of, the lunar rover. It looks as if it was just placed there.

It's been discussed, but I don't remember how long ago. Some times the tracks can get covered up from the astronauts walking around to rover. Other times it's a combination of the uneven surface and the camera angle that makes the tracks harder to see.

Are there any photos in particular that you've noticed a lack of tracks in?

Also, I question whether the shielding was up to scratch on the Hasselblad cameras that the astronauts used. I think Solar radiation would have exposed the film, through the camera body.

What would Solar radiation do to the film? How strong was it during the Apollo missions? What kind of shielding is needed to block it sufficiently? If you could provide some data to support your claim that would be great, thanks.

Also, framing and focus. The only cameras employed by the astronauts when moon-walking were chest mounted Hasselblad medium format cameras. With NO viewfinder. And yet many of the photos appear to have been taken from eye-level. Unless one of the astronauts was a giant.

Or the astronaut with the camera was standing on higher ground. Plus the change in perspective from ones upper chest to ones eye would be very minor. And you don't need a viewfinder to take photos, if you practice a little bit.

all you need to do is ask any of the thousands of scientists around the world who examined the moon rocks brought back by apollo.

you cant fake moon rock, the russians conducted a sample return mission in the late 70s, the rocks were identical to nasas.

yeti..read the topic. I am not an expert, but I have not seen a credible confirmation from scientists that those rocks are from the Moon.

But, more importantly, it is possible that UNMANNED vehicle went to the Moon and picked up rocks. I am not sure if that happened, but I think that that is possible.

Again, I am not going back to the detailed disucussion, since everything has been said, and people with much better technical background than mine have explained all the details. There is no point in going back and discussing same things over and over.

Why aren't there any sattelite orbiting the Moon?
And as anybody heard a conspiracy about the Moon blowing up
right before an alien invasion, so they can harvest our spirit rapture style once everyone has died on Earth before 2012?

[edit on 29-4-2007 by Desmond]

swimmer, what would it take to convince you they landed on the moon multiple times?

Why aren't there any sattelite orbiting the Moon?

there has been many probes/satelites sent to the moon, the most recent crashed there last september. news.bbc.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 29-4-2007 by yeti101]

Hey, gullible people,

you are getting tedious.

filer.case.edu...
...
"Blunt end first (the command module was shaped like a round pyramid), the command module reached an outside hull temperature of 5,000 °F (2,800 °C)while heat shields kept the inside at livable temperatures (THANKS TO DAIKIN CONDOTIONING AIR").
...

THIS IS THE MOST INCREDIBLE LIE I HAVE NEVER HEARD.

Let's go and see:

en.wikipedia.org...
...
"The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet".

www.key-to-metals.com...
...
"Pure aluminum has a melting point of 660°C whereas the fusion range of the aluminum alloys is between 520-660°C and because there is no visible color change it becomes difficult to judge when the metal approaches its melting point.
The high thermal conductivity of pure aluminum is about five times that of steel, while the aluminum alloys range from three to five times that of steel"
...

THE BOILING POINT IS 2,519°C

AT 2,519°C ALUMINUM ALLOYS BOIL

AT 2,800°C THIS MOUSE-TRAP



WOULD HAVE BOILED









[edit on 30-4-2007 by bigbrain]

hes talking about the temperature on the heat shield.

[Mod Edit: If in future you feel you are unable to contribute to a particular debate for whatever reason please refrain from posting. Thank you - Jak]


[edit on 2/5/07 by JAK]

Originally posted by bigbrain
[Mod Edit: If in future you feel you are unable to contribute to a particular debate for whatever reason please refrain from posting. Thank you - Jak]


[edit on 2/5/07 by JAK]

I wrote: CONCLUSION?




Hey, my contribute is great, in fact no one knows what to say to confute my reasonings.

Hi, Jak

I positively KNEW that moderator would start to remove posts from bigbrain...with whatever exuse.

I just knew it.

Moderator, you act like that other character that accused me of being antisemitic because I believe that no "Moon landing" ever happened.

In communist times, this would be a standard.

the entire worldwide scientific community does not dispute the moon landings took place but a few oddball conspiracy theorists who flunked physics in high school say its fake.

who do you think im going to believe?

[edit on 3-5-2007 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
...
who do you think im going to believe?

You can believe what you want, but reason with your head:

look at this image again





that mouse-trap had glass windows too.

hypertextbook.com...

AT 2,800°C ALSO GLASS WINDOWS WOULD HAVE MELTED.

THOSE 3 POOR MEN WOULD HAVE COME BACK WITH THEIR ARSE ON FIRE.

It doesn't get as hot on the sides, just the bottom takes the most heat. That's why the capsule has that cone shape, so that the sides stay cooler. Don't you think other engineers scientists and other professionals would raise questions about this stuff if there was an issue with the design? Or if something didn't add up? Clearly it is you who has a huge misunderstanding about all this.

I watched the missions on TV with my family and totally believed what I was watching was actually happening. I continued to believe this for 40 years, that was until someone questioned the lunar lander. Where is the landing burn, dust, disturbance in the sand????



Any answers??

I have watched lots of evidence...it would seem that the images were produced.
I do believe we have been to the moon...not the way they said.

Originally posted by Rhain
Where is the landing burn, dust, disturbance in the sand????

There are plenty of high res photos that show the lunar surface under the LM engine bell. And in some of those you can see that the dust has been blown out radially from the center of the thrust. I don't believe the thrust from the LM would burn the soil, but there does seem to be some subtle discolouration in this photo for example. In this one you can see a bit of the radial pattern streaking out from the center. I've seen some better ones, but I can't seem to find them at the moment. Their are also videos of the LM's landing and you can see the dust blowing out from under it as it touches down.

Here's one from Apollo 16, it's a 4mb .mov. www.hq.nasa.gov...

This picutre makes me wonder, notice the lunar rover tracks, yet the rover is still unpacked on the pallete.

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Raffles
This picutre makes me wonder, notice the lunar rover tracks, yet the rover is still unpacked on the pallete.

history.nasa.gov...

Let me guess, you've been reading the works of Jack White?

That photo was taken during EVA 3 on Apollo 17. The Rover was unpacked at the beginning of EVA 1. The photo you linked to is part of a panoramic series, and just look at the previous picture here, as you can see, the Rover is right there. What you're seeing on the side of the LM is the MESA (modular equipment storage assembly).