It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 31
377
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
Every aspect of World War II can be duplicated on a sound stage, therefore World War II didn't happen. Brilliant.

thats a weak sauce comment and you know it.
I dont even know why you bothered to reply.


It's a good reply because both claims are weak, DJW001's was in jest at least.

Claiming that the Apollo missions could have been duplicated in a studio means that it was is just as weak an argument if not more so.

 


Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Tomblvd
How could the unique properties of the lunar regolith be simulated here?

You honestly cannot think of any ways to simulate lunar regolith for the cameras?


I'm talking about both the cameras and the microscope.

I think there is some confusion between the images of the Moon's terrain and returned samples. The Moon's surface could have been simulated to a point but I think the evidence in favor of a landing is way beyond that point.

As for the returned samples, I fail to see how these could be simulated.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Devino]




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Let's begin at the beginning:


Originally posted by FoosM
Because every aspect of Apollo could be simulated on Earth.

they had simulated regolith & moondust




How could the unique properties of the lunar regolith be simulated here?

Remember, it wasn't just NASA that had samples of regolith, the soviets also returned two small samples. So they could be compared.



ok



A Lunar regolith simulant is a Terrestrial material, synthesized in order to approximate the chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties of, and the mineralogy and particle size distributions of, lunar regolith.[1] Lunar regolith simulants are used by researchers who wish to research the materials handling, excavation, transportation, and uses of lunar regolith. Samples of actual lunar regolith are too scarce, and too small, for such research.


How could they have gotten the compositions?



Soil Mechanics Surface Sampler
Conducted by Surveyor 3 and 7 was the seventh and last lunar lander of the Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon.
Launched January 7, 1968; landed January 10, 1968
The soil mechanics surface sampler was designed to pick up, dig, scrape, and trench the lunar surface, and transport lunar surface material while being photographed so that the properties of the lunar surface could be determined.


Speaking of Suveyor... how come NASA doesnt release all the photos from those missions?
You can barely find any photos on the net. And they made hundreds if not thousands of photos right? Anyway, once they had those samples they went ahead and:



Early in the Apollo program a team of soils engineers and geologists had
been appointed to evaluate lunar soil data and develop criteria which would allow the manufacture of lunar soil simulants on earth using terrestial materials which
would most closely duplicate lunar soils. They established five such lunar soil simulants. The LSS which most closely duplicated expected soil conditions at
the Apollo 15 site was LSS-4. In Table 1 of this report will be found the characteristics of LSS-4.


One of the tests they used the simulant for was the Lunar Rover. But who knows what else it has been used for, lol.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Let's begin at the beginning:


Originally posted by FoosM
Because every aspect of Apollo could be simulated on Earth.

they had simulated regolith & moondust




How could the unique properties of the lunar regolith be simulated here?

Remember, it wasn't just NASA that had samples of regolith, the soviets also returned two small samples. So they could be compared.



ok



A Lunar regolith simulant is a Terrestrial material, synthesized in order to approximate the chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties of, and the mineralogy and particle size distributions of, lunar regolith.[1] Lunar regolith simulants are used by researchers who wish to research the materials handling, excavation, transportation, and uses of lunar regolith. Samples of actual lunar regolith are too scarce, and too small, for such research.


How could they have gotten the compositions?



Soil Mechanics Surface Sampler
Conducted by Surveyor 3 and 7 was the seventh and last lunar lander of the Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon.
Launched January 7, 1968; landed January 10, 1968
The soil mechanics surface sampler was designed to pick up, dig, scrape, and trench the lunar surface, and transport lunar surface material while being photographed so that the properties of the lunar surface could be determined.


Speaking of Suveyor... how come NASA doesnt release all the photos from those missions?
You can barely find any photos on the net. And they made hundreds if not thousands of photos right? Anyway, once they had those samples they went ahead and:



Early in the Apollo program a team of soils engineers and geologists had
been appointed to evaluate lunar soil data and develop criteria which would allow the manufacture of lunar soil simulants on earth using terrestial materials which
would most closely duplicate lunar soils. They established five such lunar soil simulants. The LSS which most closely duplicated expected soil conditions at
the Apollo 15 site was LSS-4. In Table 1 of this report will be found the characteristics of LSS-4.


One of the tests they used the simulant for was the Lunar Rover. But who knows what else it has been used for, lol.


I'll repost the relevant statement:

"A Lunar regolith simulant is a Terrestrial material, synthesized in order to approximate the chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties of, and the mineralogy and particle size distributions of, lunar regolith."


ap·prox·i·mate:  /adj. əˈprɒksəmɪt; v. əˈprɒksəˌmeɪt/
–adjective
1.near or approaching a certain state, condition, goal, or standard.
2.nearly exact; not perfectly accurate or correct: The approximate time was 10 o'clock.
3.near; close together.
4. very similar

There is no geologist worth his salt who couldn't look under a microscope and tell you the difference between actual lunar regolith and "regolith simulant".



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Firstly, the landings were conducted at what is best described as Lunar "morning", or just shortly afterr sunrise.

Several reasons, one was the shadows cast by the Sun, when low in the sky, aided in perspective and depth perception, for the landings.

Two, it was IN ORDER to avoid the heat of the Sun, even for the few hours the Astronauts were on the surface.

(Did I fail to mention that one "day" --and therefore, one 'night" -- on the Moon equals roughly 14 earth days?)

14 X 24 = 336 hours. Note, please the actual duration of the Lunar stays.

But, again....Sun was fairly low in the sky, when ON the Moon, so full infrared effects weren't a problem. Ya know, they DID think all of this through, before embarking on these missions.....




And which planet did they take off from?



LOL,

Back to your theory.
So you think because the Sun is low in the sky on the moon it is less intense? So tell me, what is blocking or reducing its intensity?



There's another problem. The moon takes 27 days to rotate once on its axis. So any place on the surface of the Moon experiences about 13 days of sunlight, followed by 13 days of darkness. So if you were standing on the surface of the Moon in sunlight, the temperature would be hot enough to boil water. And then the Sun would go down, and the temperature would drop 250 degrees in just a matter of moments.


So you see, as long as the Sun is out, its hot, when its not out, its cold.
And the changes happen in moments. Not like here on Earth... a cool lunar morning, Lol.
So it doesn't matter if the Sun near the horizon unless a mountain is blocking its going to be hot.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino

I think there is some confusion between the images of the Moon's terrain and returned samples. The Moon's surface could have been simulated to a point but I think the evidence in favor of a landing is way beyond that point.

As for the returned samples, I fail to see how these could be simulated.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Devino]


I recall a lot of discussions years ago on some Apollo boards postulating what the best material would be to simulate the lunar regolith would be. Like you said, there are many that would come close, but no one material would perform perfectly.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


My point was to differentiate between images of the Lunar surface and actual returned samples. I got the impression that there was some confusion here.

It is apparent that the Lunar surface was simulated here on Earth so more accurate tests could be done. I suppose this simulated Lunar regolith and/or soil could have been used to "fake" some of the images but I find this very hard to believe.

As per your point, though, the returned samples could not be faked. To make the assumption that these samples could have been faked would be to accuse the decades of test performed on said samples by scientists around the world.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Thanks for bringing Jarrah White to my attention. This kid is a one stop shop for Moon debunking!

I like to do my truth researching buffet style and guys and gals with forte's like Jarrah's allow me an opportunity to get up to speed on a topic real quick.

His explanations and tests are simple, well thought out and his conclusions come across quite solid.

I look forward to exploring his work and learning more.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   


There is no geologist worth his salt who couldn't look under a microscope and tell you the difference between actual lunar regolith and "regolith simulant".



Oh really?

What did they have to compare it to?
How many geologists do you think actually got to touch the "real" stuff!
And how much of that real stuff they they get to play with ?

And lets not forget the fake moon rock in Holland fiasco.

But lets take it further, ever hear of the Giant impact hypothesis?




the currently favored[1] scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon, which is thought to have formed as a result of a collision between the young Earth and a Mars-sized body that is sometimes called Theia (or Orpheus) for the mythical Greek Titan who ruled the Sun.[2][3] Evidence for this hypothesis includes Moon samples which indicate the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's apparently relatively small iron core, and evidence of similar collisions in other star systems.
There remain several unanswered issues surrounding this hypothesis. Lunar oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to Earth's, with no evidence of a contribution from another solar body.[4] Also, lunar samples do not have expected ratios of volatile elements, iron oxide, or siderophilic elements, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Earth ever had the magma ocean implied by this hypothesis... indirect evidence for this impact scenario comes from rocks collected during the Apollo Moon landings, which show oxygen isotope ratios identical to those of Earth. The highly anorthositic composition of the lunar crust, as well as the existence of KREEP-rich samples (K (the atomic symbol for potassium), REE (Rare Earth Elements) and P (for phosphorus)


So what makes the moon so special? It looks like its composition is so similar to Earth that it gave rise to this theory. And too bad for science if Apollo happens to be a scam.




In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts.





posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIStory Indeed
Thanks for bringing Jarrah White to my attention. This kid is a one stop shop for Moon debunking!

I like to do my truth researching buffet style and guys and gals with forte's like Jarrah's allow me an opportunity to get up to speed on a topic real quick.

His explanations and tests are simple, well thought out and his conclusions come across quite solid.

I look forward to exploring his work and learning more.






Well learn from this post below some on here think he is s*&t hot at what he does after looking at this you will see he is just S*&T.

Check out the video


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


What did they have to compare it to?


Similar material on earth, lunar metorites, later the returned regolith of the Soviets. The regolith showed properties that it could have only had if it came from a place without water, oxygen and constantly bombarded with cosmic radiation. Those traits are impossible to fake in a lab (even one with that mythical "radiation furnace").


How many geologists do you think actually got to touch the "real" stuff!


As many as wanted it. All you need to do is write a proposal and if NASA accepts it, they will send a sample to be examined. To date, samples have been sent all over the world. (A warning though, proposals in crayon are automatically rejected).


And how much of that real stuff they they get to play with ?


As much as they ask for.







So what makes the moon so special? It looks like its composition is so similar to Earth that it gave rise to this theory. And too bad for science if Apollo happens to be a scam.


Having formed in the vacuum of space, without much of an atmosphere, or water, or protective magnetic field, the moon has developed under very, very different circumstances than did the earth. The material returned from the moon is easily distinguished from that of the earth. That is, if you know what to look for.

www.asi.org...

web.ics.purdue.edu...

www.cas.usf.edu...




In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts.


Source for this please? It isn't out of the question, seeing as how there are different rocks in areas the Apollo missions never got to, (i.e. the highlands).

(added in an edit)

Oh, this won't help you either:


U.S. astronauts explored parts of the moon's surface during the Apollo missions, but SMART-1 was able to scan the entire surface. It flew over the Apollo landing sites so scientists could use the astronauts' findings from three decades ago to verify that the information from SMART-1's instruments was indeed accurate.


www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Now your just making up stuff, to support your claim.

Contrary to your FALSE claim, the Moon doesn't just instantly heat all the way up as soon as the merest sliver of Sunlight hits it. It takes time to heat up. Apollo had plenty of cooler Lunar morning in which to work.

From the moment the Sun begins to rise, it takes 7 Earth days to go from -150 Celsius nighttime temperature to +280 Celsius at Lunar Noon. And the longest Apollo mission, left after only 3 days.

LUNAR SURFACE TEMPERATURES:
www.asi.org...

reply to post by FoosM
 


The Moon and Earth's "similar composition" as you put it, is actually proof against the Giant Impact Hypothesis. The similarities did not "give rise" to the Giant Impact theory, as you claim.

FYI, I know why you keep hiding and failing to link the sources of your quotes.


Originally posted by FoosM



In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts.





I plugged this quote into Google, and this quote only exists two places on the internet. Here at ATS in this topic, and....

MOONMOVIE.COM affiliated with Jarrah White:
www.moonmovie.com...

So, this claim means NOTHING. Until you can corroborate it with a site that doesn't have an obvious anti-Apollo agenda.

BTW, you forgot the rest of it.



In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts. If I go to the moon and bring a rock back for analysis, and then send an unmanned probe up to analyze the same material, I would expect to get the exact same results.


I would only expect the similar results, if the probe hit an Apollo sight.

It didn't.

IMO, you purposely left out this last sentence. In order to make the text seem like it comes from a credible scientific source.

I expect no better from Apollo-deniers though, you guys have proven time and again. That you have no shame, and will use any dirty trick to try and prove your failing point.

What's next?

Gonna claim that you have a convenient Russian astrophysicist friend too?








[edit on 5-5-2010 by Byteman]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


Excellent post.....and !BOOM! goes the dynamite!

I am constantly amused (and intrigued, as well) by the various members' "Registered" dates, on ATS, when these topics come up.....

[edit on 5 May 2010 by weedwhacker]


jra

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So you think because the Sun is low in the sky on the moon it is less intense? So tell me, what is blocking or reducing its intensity?


Have you heard of the term "angle of incidence"? If not I suggest you give it a read. There is a reason why it's cold at the poles and hot at the equator.

en.wikipedia.org...


So you see, as long as the Sun is out, its hot, when its not out, its cold. And the changes happen in moments. Not like here on Earth... a cool lunar morning, Lol.
So it doesn't matter if the Sun near the horizon unless a mountain is blocking its going to be hot.


Nope, if the Sun is low in the Lunar sky, the Lunar surface temperature will be low, due to the angle of incidence. And the type and colour of materials plays a roll on how fast or slow it will warm up and cool off. Something shiny and reflective or white will reflect a lot of the Suns energy and warm up rather slowly. It will also radiate that heat away just as slowly once in the shade. Something matte black like cast iron will heat up much faster, but will radiate that heat just as fast once in the shade.

Do you see how that works? The colour and type of material plays a huge roll on temperature, as does the angle at which the Sun hits it.

And on subject of the Van Allen belts. Here are a couple videos showing how the Apollo missions went through them. It's a really good illustration. I thought I'd toss them into this thread since it was being discussed a page or so back.




[edit on 5-5-2010 by jra]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I dont recall the LM being rotated on the moon for the three days it was sitting there baking in the Sun. Nor did I see Astronots pirouetting. So how did they keep cool on the surface of the moon, with its primary and secondary radiation sources?
And how does rotating a craft keep it cool, wouldn't the inside just cook the same?

Sigh. So we can add thermodynamics and heat transfer to the stuff you don't understand? (And common sense - even if they needed to 'pirouette' - and they *didn't* - what the heck do you think was happening as they walked around, turned back, went to different locations for experiments... Sheeeeesh).


Yes, lack of knowledge (esp. when combined with poor logic and observational skills), makes it so EASY to 'challenge' stuff!!



Why don't you start on your long road to understanding by thinking about why we use VACUUM flasks to keep stuff hot or cold...? That will give you a *big* hint. Then, move on to the really tricky part - understanding the difference between 'heat' and 'temperature'.


By the way, being caught out over the MOONMOVIE quote was a *corker*. Nice one, FoosM. BUSTED!!!!!

I will give you a tiny bit of credit for the attempt at raising a "why-is-the-sun-at-a-low-angle-less intense" argument. It almost works. But you should have ASKED, rather than posted another indication that you don't think things through.

Yes, there is no significant atmosphere to attenuate the Sun, as here on earth. However, there are several other factors - you really need to do a course in logic and LATERAL thinking (and maybe plain old geometry..).

1. OBVIOUSLY, the fact that is was 'morning' sun meant the surface had previously been in darkness and had cooled right down. IN A VACUUM, it takes a *long* time for objects to cool down or warm up - no convection... So the surface remained quite cool, only gradually warming up as the mission progressed. There are graphs of actual measurements taken on the Moon to prove this, and not just from NASA.

2. At low angles, the sun 'glances' across horizontal surfaces - like the ground, the upper parts of their helmets, their shoulders, outstretched arms. This is pretty basic geometry - draw yourself a picture. Any surfaces not facing the sun directly will get no, or very little radiated heat load.

3. As per 2, half of everything was in shadow - the astronauts backs, the rear part of the LM, etc. You will notice that the LM was EXTREMELY well protected where required with the beautiful (but flimsy looking - no atmosphere, so it didn't need to be all that tough) insulative foil. Do you know what that foil was, and how many layers were used in areas? Do you know WHY it was crumpled like that? And what was between each layer?

NO, you clearly don't. (Although there's a slim chance you might be able to work out that last question...)


That's not all, but I just wanted to show HOW LITTLE THOUGHT, let alone research, you have put in.

Shame on you.


[edit on 6-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I have to say, that my opinion of "moon hoax" advocates is moving towards the end of the spectrum where "birthers" and "GFL supporters" reside.

I have enjoyed your many posts, along with weed, phage etc. Thanks. This thread is now like a companions guide to understanding the moon landings, regardless of the "hoax" arguments thrown around.

If the OP and his supporters are typical of this "moon hoax" CT, no wonder the guy in the video's looks like a genius.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh really?

What did they have to compare it to?
How many geologists do you think actually got to touch the "real" stuff!
And how much of that real stuff they they get to play with ?

And lets not forget the fake moon rock in Holland fiasco.


You accept that the Holland rock was determined to be fake, but you dont believe that information on lunar rock and regolith composition is widely known.

Hundreds of kilograms of samples have been returned from the moon by NASA. This is almost all from Apollo missions. You also have hundreds of lunar meteorites that have been collected around the world. How do you know its a lunar meteorite? By its composition.

Obviously the information on lunar rock and regolith composition is widely known to enable the comparisons to be made, its not just one lab doing it all. The samples have been widely distributed to many countries by NASA. Papers on the samples have been published in journals. If they werent genuine, why isnt anyone speaking up? The entire geological community has the data.

Lastly, just to round off the discussion, Soviet Luna probes gathered data directly from the moon rather than returned samples. You can find papers online from Soviet scientists that compared and reconciled Luna and Apollo data. Yes, even the Soviets had the data from Apollo missions because it was published. As were the comparions between the two, and obviously the Soviet data.

A bit of research, join the dots, and the picture becomes much clearer. There is a hell of a lot more evidence out there for man walking on the moon than most believers in the moon hoax theory are aware of. Youtube videos dont cut it, look deeper for yourselves. Deny ignorance!

EDIT: I was going to add that SMART-1 actually confirmed that the lunar samples were geniune but its been covered. Should have read more closely, was a bit late to the party this time


[edit on 6-5-2010 by zvezdar]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Derised Emanresu
... I have enjoyed your many posts, along with weed, phage etc. Thanks. This thread is now like a companions guide to understanding the moon landings, regardless of the "hoax" arguments thrown around.

If the OP and his supporters are typical of this "moon hoax" CT, no wonder the guy in the video's looks like a genius.


(shuffles feet awkwardly..)
Thanks muchly, DE. Coming from you, that means a lot! OK, I confess I haven't seen all that many of your posts, but when I saw that *excellent* one of yours talking about the various types of fallacies, I thought - why doesn't this guy post more often!?!


Anyway, better not get over-complimentary.. back to the topic.

FoosM, can you please explain to me how it is that you would post this, about the lunar regolith, rock and core samples returned by Apollo:
"What did they have to compare it to?"
"How many geologists do you think actually got to touch the "real" stuff!"

Wow. Did you really come to this thread without knowing a THING about how much *other* lunar material is on Earth? I mean, lunar material that which was NOT brought back from Apollo (or NASA)?

Did you really not know how many geologists have had access to lunar regolith?

Did you really not know what distinguishes lunar 'dirt' from ANYTHING found on Earth?

(And just for the record, guess how many lunar samples go out to geologists and related researchers each year? 5? 10? 50? 100? Getting close - it's about 400. That's not a total, that's EACH YEAR. There used to be a site around that listed just some of the geological institutions and experts that have examined the regolith samples - if anyone else asks, I'll try to dig it up.)


Now FoosM, clearly you either:

- DIDN'T know, which tells us that you are not willing (or able?) to research even the most basic stuff.

- DID know... and I'll just let the reader draw the obvious conclusion.

Either way, it's not looking good...

[edit on 6-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Please note the section about the radiation hazard and Dr. James Van Allen's comments on it.

The SIX manned moon landings weren't faked. 400,000 people were involved in making the Apollo 11 moon landing happen. The Apollo Moon landings were among the most completely documented and observed events in history. The conspiracy "theories" that claim otherwise are a bunch of nonsense without even a single compelling piece of evidence. Most of the questions raised are based on ignorance of basic physics and optics.

Video special effects were in their infancy in the late 60's so that faking a landing on the Moon would probably have been more difficult than actually going there, and it seems highly unlikely that the hundreds or even thousands of people who would have had to be involved in such a conspiracy would have kept it a secret for so long. Ultimately you'll have to decide for yourself if the marginal evidence offered to show this was all a hoax is compelling enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence that it actually occurred, but make sure you check the facts carefully, you need to be a little skeptical of the skeptics, too. For more detailed debunking of this ill-conceived notion, see sources.

Flag Waving
The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

Shadows Not Parallel
the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!

Who Filmed Neil Armstrong
A Lunar Module camera provided live television coverage of Armstrong setting foot on the lunar surface at 10:56 p.m. EDT.

Radiation Hazard
The time on the moon was limited to avoid radiation effects. Armstrong and Aldrin spent less than 3 hours on the Moon.

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."-- Dr. James Van Allen
Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.


I've also heard other hoaxers claim that Van Allen was forced by NASA to retract earlier statements he made in the late 50's regarding the transversing of the radiation belts. However, the reading of a Time Magazine article found here www.time.com... from May 1958 confirms Van Allen didn't doubt from even early on in space exploration man's ability to pass safely through the belts.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterToker42088
People who don't believe in the moon landing's. What idiots you are. You would rather believe a kid, then scientists.

Hahahahahaha you must be getting desperate now, if you consider this rubbish as proof. We landed on the moon get over it.

now let me ask you a question. If we didnt land why did soviet Russia not speak up ?


"WE" didn't do anything but watch Television and sign a blank check.

When will "WE" see that the leaders of countries don't fight each other in bloody conflict, "WE" do at their bidding which they rap up with a pretty little signature and a stately ball.

Russia didn't out us because we would of outed them then both regimes would of had a much bigger problem then getting to the moon or "space" for that matter. Angry hoards wanting the heads of state....literally.

12 men allegedly walked on the moon. Is it easier to get 12 men to lie or 3 Billion to believe having only one source to reference (which just happens to be their own).

Again, "WE" didn't do anything but believe and trust, because a sucker really is born every minute.....you just haven't pulled your lips from the nipple yet and I understand why, I cried the moment my "baba" got taken away too. The only advice I can give you is your own...."Get over it".

People who believe......Great
People who don't believe......Great

Either way, we pay pay pay....Believe it...............OR NOT....(insert jack palance snarl)

Peaces



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
This Time article you posted is excellent:

www.time.com...

It gives van Allen's expected radiation exposure at 0.06 roentgens per hour.

Actual radiation was observed at around 10 roentgens per hour in a typically shielded craft. Lead shielding would reduce it to less than 0.5 roentgens per hour.

That gives some perspective as to how much radiation astronauts would actually be exposed to.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by zvezdar]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join