Moon Hoax- Astor-nots don't care About UV!

well, I stumbled across this lil' jewel and thought I throw this out there for debunkers to debunk; well, if you can. Please read the explanation in the side bar.

YouTube Link

The EMU visor assembly consisted of several layers. The gold visor was the outer most transparent layer. The inner visor provided protection from ultraviolet radiation.

Deep Impact, science fact? That's hilarious. Pretty idiotic that their visors didn't have UV protection.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]

double post


[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Komodo

---

please go to a camera shop and look at UV filters for lenses - they are transparent - but they still work - explain that

as for the claim thaty deep impact , the movie is based on science fact - ROFLMAO you are joking .............right ?

Take a look at an F-16C canopy. It has a layer of gold on it to protect pilots from radiation among other things. It also has the minor effect of making a canopy cost over $100,000 per canopy.

F-16C:

Come on now I was hoping for a real Moon clip and you put some Hollywood up? Waste of a click really but now that I'm here.

The astronauts did have UV protection for the record. That is one of the biggest concerns when entering space because you are no longer protected by our atmosphere. Solar storms also occur on a pretty steady basis.

thanks for the replies all and appreciate the comments. However, some might have only watch the video instead of reading the side bar on youtube itself; If you have, GREAT!

Here's the just what I'm getting at.

Is the sidebar comment in youtube scientifically correct or not? *need some hard data*

Are the Movie facts in the beginning fact or just hyped? *need hard data here not comments*

Here is the entire sidebar comments from the very same youtube presented in this thread for you reading pleasure.

I'm looking forward to hopefully seeing some great posts and some civilized 'agree to dis-agree' comments.

I can't not explain that because I have NO knowledge of photography or camera lenses and would leave it that up to the experts, which is the whole reason i posted this thread; in hopes to get some data concerning the youtube video.

well, yes we know they did have UV, that's not the question. The whole just of the vid is ....

Why did NASA have to TELL the astronaut to put his visor DOWN because of the sun?? anyways.. I digress..

teslaandlyne (4 seconds ago)
Another UV anecdote: Welders had low birthrates.
For UFO pilots, apparently at high speed the corona appears inside the craft
and the UV affects the male pilots. Guess from 1945 to 1975 the birthrate
dropped for saucer pilots. Imagine, she saucer pilots are among us.

ED: The gold visor was to disguise the astronautics.
If they went outside the Disney-NASA-? Moon Studios they would have
seen stars like everyone else, even in the skys.


[edit on 12/16/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

Mattingly never walked on the moon, he was command module pilot and stayed with the command module while the others landed. The CM windows would have provided plenty of uv protection.

Deep impact severely exaggerated the rate UV would burn you. It's sad that hollywood has left people confused about the matter. Furthermore, the moon only reflects about a third of the sunlight that hits it, it's really no worse than high altitude snow blindness, which takes hours to really cause damage, not seconds. In fact, snow can reflect up to 85% of UV light. The moon reflects about 4% far uv and maintains that albedo up through at least 1800 angstroms (mid uv)
henry.pha.jhu.edu...
It's not healthy for the astronaut to leave his visor up for extended periods in sunlight, but unless he's looking directly at the sun he'll be ok in the short term.

because it is the job of the people in mission control to make sure the astronauts do things safely, and since keeping the visor up for extended periods of time is not safe, they told the stronaut to put it down. Astronauts are by nature risk-takers, but the people in mission control usually engineers who by nature are usually not risk-takers, and were required to keep the mission going "by the book".

The fact remains that keeping the visor up would not result in real damage unless it is done for extended periods of time. The argument raised in the video is not a valid one and is meaningless.

Here's the thing with the whole Moon thing.

Obama just mentioned the we went to the Moon in a speech on how
great America is in doing things.

What the government said we did, stays with the government.

reply to post by Komodo

---

Did anyone here the him say "Gravity"? Is that when they want the slack taken off the teather?
Great stuff.
Cheers,
Kitos

Yeah, so why the gold visors?
UV protection is transparent and lifting the gold visor did not open
the helmet.
Sounds like a way to substitute astronauts.

Radiation must be a killer if we didn't go to the Moon.
That would be the only reason except for risky navigation
and controls.

I we did go to the Moon, then radiation on the Moon and on the
way to the Moon is low.

Deep space radiation may be even greater and thus eliminate any
living thing from a Star Trek mode.

The gold visor reflected heat as well as UV light, so it served a dual purpose of temperature regulation as well. It's definately necessary for the long hours of sun exposure during the EVAs, but it's not "fatal" or "dangerous" to go without it for a few seconds just because some hollywood movie says so.

Incidently, if you think the gold visors serve some nefarious purpose, do you also think NASA is "substituting astronauts" on ISS construction missions, or does this prove there's nothing nefarious about it?:

img.dailymail.co.uk...
www.arrl.org...

It's not an either or situation, it's a range of risk. Astronauts received as much radiation as about three years spent at sea level. Not healthy if done repeatedly, but not dangerous either (as long as there are no major flares). It does affect your long term health though when you get older. 33 of the 36 astronauts to break earth orbit have early stage cataracts, consistent with radiation exposure. That very high percentage of occurance within this particular group is proof that they went to the moon just as they claim.
www.jstor.org...

[edit on 1-1-2009 by ngchunter]

I would say substitute for the Moon mission is of interest to
the Lunar Conspiracy and not so much the orbit missions.
Just think getting credit for Moon walking and some actor
did it. I don't see that line from the conspiracy side and
most seem to take lame objections that are easily discounted.
So if an act, the astronauts are good actors and I don't think
that is going to hold water. The substitute behind the mask
was never in a conspiracy theory as far as I am aware.
But it is another unverifiable facet.

I haven't seen many conspiracies asking if orbital missions are faked.

Now with more Mars and interplanetary mission talk among
the peanut gallery of faithful followers of NASA, the exposure
of even deadlier radiation is perhaps being suppressed.
For those assuming the radiation dangers cancel such efforts,
think Von Braun finally realized whether by rocket or by the
suppressed UFO, the exploration of space would never happen.

Perhaps some day a celebrity would want a deep space
round about. No landing just a good dose non lethal cosmic rays
(or partials perhaps according to Tesla). We can let the
dumber levels of the Illuminati expose the lies of the higher up.

Astronaut id and radiation dosage perhaps a small part of the
so called Lunar Landing Lies of an Illuminati staged event on
mankind.

Is Vegas taking any bets with a reasonable time frame, I might
have to name some beneficiaries.
Better than ponzi or sub prime or bailouts perhaps.

How do you explain images where you can see the face through the gold plate:
www.history.nasa.gov...
Why continue to use gold plates in orbital missions if its purpose is to "substitute" astronauts? Your logic is inconsistent. The real reason, of course, is that the gold visor is not for substituting fake astronauts.

That's because it's much easier to disprove such a conspiracy. If orbital missions are faked, why are there so many amateur images of orbital missions? Technology easily accessible to the average amateur has drastically improved since apollo, and orbital missions are much closer and easier to photograph:
www.cloudynights.com...

If it's all lies, why are nearly all of the apollo astronauts getting cataracts practically simultaneously?

[edit on 2-1-2009 by ngchunter]