Recent Moon Hoax Ideas

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
jra

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Gosh what were those problems ? The Lab, The Station, The Shuttle etc.etc.?


No. What Zaphod meant was problems down on Earth. Many people thought the Apollo missions were a waste of money and would rather see that money spent on other things.


Did you mean transferred or switched to orbital missions?
NASA'S budget has been huge since it's inception.


NASA's budget isn't huge at all. It was bigger during the Apollo era, but it dropped significantly afterwards. Last year NASA received $17.3 billion. The DoD received $481.4 billion for comparison. Take look at this pie chart for the 2008 US Federal budget. NASA is that tiny little sliver that has "0.6%" written above it.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by jra]




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


The average person doesn't have a lot of interest in space. They think that the money is better spent on problems down here. Why do you think that the shuttle launches have gone from being broadcast an hour or two ahead of time, to barely getting mentioned on the evening news? I usually try to follow when they go up, but the last few times I've barely been able to find anything about the missions, and nothing about what happens during them.

NASA has made space flight TOO routine, which is what happened during Apollo. By Apollo 13, they weren't even broadcasting the astronauts shows anymore. They would tape them and they might get some air time on the news.

While Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia were tragedies the loss of life in context with the entire manned space program is negligible. When you look at how many flights went to the moon and back, and how many shuttle flights have gone up and come back, the space program has been amazingly successful.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I agree.

We are not going anywhere anymore.

For the price of the Neocon's War in the Middle-East, we could have easily landed 1000 colonists on Mars, fed the hungry, cured the sick, and so forth and so on. We could have done so much.

*We have to get colonists to the moon or mars before any global conflagration occurs. The cooperation required in such a venture would go a long way to strengthen relationships between the nations, and may even help prevent such a war from ever occurring.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Phage
 


But! Take this into consideration----- How did they collect the moon rocks from off the surface.

Tools.



Also notice where the camera is mounted on the suit.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]




Oh my whats that shadows not all pointing same way must be fake


If half the guys on here who talk about photographic errors ACTUALLY knew about photography it would save a whole lot of trouble what do you think Phage.

Exposure time on Moon SAME as bright sunny day on earth (thats why stars dont show exposure time is short)because its the same bright sun that lights the Moon.
Astronauts did not even need to focus the cameras by using a simple trick that any good amatuer photographer knows re depth of field.
The real sad thing is that even if one day hi-res sat images are taken of the landing sites no doubt they will be said to be fake.
We went there just accept it and give Phage's fingers a rest!!



[edit on 13-3-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Can you read Zaphods mind?
I know I am pretty rough when it comes to NASA but I think we are all after what we consider facts.
I have a sneaky suspicion you and Phage are NASA shills and most likely the same person.
Good cop bad cop.
My mission here on the blog is not to disrespect anything or anybody. I am a HUGE advocate of space travel and humbled that it seems that all bloggers here pro or con are willing to share their ideas and knowledge. It can only promote the return of man into deep space where in my opinion he belongs.

Ok what you say about the budget means that the us government is no longer interested in manned outer space.
Bushes' plans were a joke and I don't even remember Obama ever mentioning space.
Do not blame it on the people.
We all know the Gov. does what it wants.
Iraq war, Huge deficit, Billions for crooked bankers and crummy auto manufacturers and on and on.
All against the will of the people.
They have just changed the modos operandi by which they rip us off.

Can you answer this question? Phage as yet, has not.
True or false---- Was it possible to photograph the face of a man with the Earth in the background?
Thanks to all for sharing
PS maybe you are Zaphod too and that's how you know what he thinks. LOL



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Or maybe we've all been around and around and around with moon hoax threads. We already had one that went somewhere around 100 pages, that most people gave up on.

As for reading my mind, he understood exactly what I meant.


jra

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Can you read Zaphods mind?


It's not hard to know what he meant.


Was it possible to photograph the face of a man with the Earth in the background?


Of course it's possible, but the guys in mission control probably wouldn't be keen on the idea. Nor do I think any astronaut would want to risk themselves for a photo.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I! liked your last post!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You are right. I have been here for just a page or two and my head is spinning. Bare with me I am spsnkin new at this sort of thing,



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You are right. I have been here for just a page or two and my head is spinning. Bare with me I am spsnkin new at this sort of thing,

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Sweet. And thanks. I am not crazy about your reasoning but I wasn't there and can't dispute that.
Let me see what I can find on the size the earth should be when photographed from the moon. Accepting any help from anywhere.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Hey wmd.
Thanks for worrying about Page's fingers. He probably has staff to do the typing for him though.
He wouldn't have had to type so much if he had not tried so hard to oppose the point I was trying to make.
The photos I thought should exist, do not,
But they are possible if you concur with jra's post on the matter.
It should be settled that a person on the moon, in a space suit, could have been photographed with at least his face showing, through the lens of his helmet, with of course, his visor up.
That alone, as far as I know is a new idea.
Throw in a good picture of the Earth in the background and it is another good idea and possible.
The best thing to come from this exercise, is experiencing how much trouble some members will go to nix an idea. Although I am sure with good intentions.


jra

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
The photos I thought should exist, do not,
But they are possible if you concur with jra's post on the matter.


While I think it's possible. I'd just like to clarify that I don't think it would be a good thing to do for the reasons I've told you before. The Astronaut taking the photo has to get down low to the ground to get both the Earth and the Astronaut in frame. He risks damaging his suit on a sharp rock or possibly falling onto the ground. And the Astronaut raising the gold visor risks damage to his eyes.

The photo you'd like to see is not worth the effort or risk in my opinion.


Let me see what I can find on the size the earth should be when photographed from the moon. Accepting any help from anywhere.


I did some digging on this today. Those photos that I showed you from Apollo 17 that had both an Astronaut and the Earth in the background (here's one of them) were taken with a 60mm lens. On a 70mm film Hasselblad camera that makes it a bit of a wide angle lens. This means that the Earth will look a bit smaller than what it would normally. Now compare that with a photo from Apollo 8 (here) taken with a 250mm telephoto lens from Lunar orbit. Notice how much bigger the Earth looks. The type of lens plays a huge role. There is no one particular size that the Earth should be, when photographed from the Moon.

Here are some threads on some other forums discussing this subject. here and here and they show how to calculate how big it should appear depending on the type of lens and all that.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I did some home work myself.
First I lined up the stills AS17 13420382 through 87 from the Apollo Gallery. It is interesting when viewed in sequence what they suggest. First an Astronaut with the LM, Rover and flag.
I know you would agree that the earth could be in this one easily. 83 and 84 not much help except to bolster your argument. A thought just occurred to me, Schmidt was the better photographer.
85 again could have the earth in it as well. 86 not so much.
87, bam a good one with the guy, the earth and the horizon.
IT looks like the earth just materializes and I thought I had something.
Now, here is the hard part. Not so much technically but from a pride standpoint.
The earth is moon x 4 in diameter. So at arms length the moon is pea or aspirin size, about 7/16 of an inch.
That would make the earth at arms length about ! 3/4 inches across. My camera most likely is 50 mm.
I photographed the end of a 1 3/4 vitamin container at arms length. I then set a bucket 12 inches across,a number of inches below the container, (astronauts head) stepped back six feet or so and took another pic.
I super imposed the two photos to find out that the earth is the correct size in the NASA photos.
I also measured the moon to horizon as close as I could and found that the earth was just out of frame on NASA's AS 17 134203 86.
Conclusion-- This insight, and your audio link of the sequence may be making a convert of me.
There is always a little room for skepticism. Your links are always worthwhile.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Astronauts have not (and are never going to) pass the Van Allen Belts without divine help.


Have you ever heard of a person, who has passed the Van Allen Belts? You won't find anybody like that from NASA (a.k.a. LIARS)

Watch a few or all of these videos at:
www.youtube.com...

Here's the title of the playlist at that address (above):
Top 10 Reasons to Believe in the Moon Landing Hoax

[edit on 25-3-2009 by News And History]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by News And History
 


That's funny, because the person that they're named after has said that it's entirely possible, and relatively easy to pass through them safely.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

A lot of technological fields made big jumps due to the space program.


Right. Tang and memory foam and heat tiles (that fall off).



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


www.thespaceplace.com...

Just to name a few:

Water purification systems.
Scratch-resistant lenses.
Flat panel tv.
Solar energy.
Fire resistant materials.
Radiation protection.
Breast Cancer detection systems.
Laser angioplasty.
Human tissue stimulator.
Programmable pacemaker.

Those are just SOME of the things we got out of the space program.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
So if we went to the moon in the 60s then why is it that in the news and the MSM and the discovery channel etc they are telling you that for future astronauts to make it to the moon they have to think about the radiation levels and have to do some rethinking because they haven't the ability to go there now. Does that mean they lost the knowledge they had in the 60s or that they never went? I think if you follow Von Braun and some of his statements about the atmosphere and the radiation belt etc you will find that NASA knew the problem in the 60s and they still do. They can't go to the moon and that's why we have all the proof of the forged landings and the coverups of various pictures etc. One and one make two...

I saw one of their space suits in a technology museum and got to actually look at the thing and see the layers... It is pure rubbish that these things would protect them from any radiation outside in space... I bet they wouldn't even have worked within a radiation field on earth like Chernobyl's accident. I'm only going the proof that's available to the masses... Not taking into account they may have had help or ETs giving them rides to the moon etc... The proof is out there... use it...



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


As I have said in about three threads now, Apollo stayed on the moon between 21 hours and 3 days. Orion will take them to the moon starting at 7 days, and eventually going up to 6 MONTHS. The exposure that they got in Apollo is nothing compared to what they'll get on a 6 month stay.

As to the radiation and the space suit protection, you're right that it wouldn't work in Chernobyl. Chernobyl released a ton of Gamma rays, what's in the Van Allen Belt and space is mostly Alpha and Beta rays with some Gamma rays mixed in. The space suits are perfect for stopping Alpha and Beta radiation, and the amount of Gamma they were exposed to wasn't immediately harmful.





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join