Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

"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


Yeah, they got him to do a 180. You should have read his original work on the subject. There were no doubts then. He was quite histrionic, in fact, about the danger to astronauts.

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

"...Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (www.hq.nasa.gov...)..."

(I'm just sayin)

As I thought, the wiki page on Van Allen doesn't cite his original published work (remarkable, since that is primarily why he is famous). Down the memory hole, as best they can, anyway. They did, however, make sure to cite where he did the complete turnaround.
Don't worry, though, I'll find it.




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FutureThinker
 


I think all aspects of this are very interesting.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Wow, just wow. Did anyone ACTUALLY read the ENTIRE article? From linked article in OP:


In fact, it had happened on Apollo 12, that 55 minutes before liftoff, part of their procedure was to test-fire the thrusters on the lunar module," he said."That's basically a pretty big rocket engine — just above where the flag is located — and when they did that, it blew over the antenna that was communicating with the Earth and it rotated the flag about 120 degrees."


The author of the book satisfied his own concerns. Talk about "cherry picking." Geez.


BTW, I'm a FORMER moon hoax believer. Let's strive to Deny Ignorance shall we? Or at the very least, read the article before posting fantastic claims. :shk:
edit on 3-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



That's basically a pretty big rocket engine — just above where the flag is located — and when they did that, it blew over the antenna that was communicating with the Earth and it rotated the flag about 120 degrees."


ok .. hmmm.. yea.. well.. here's one that will definately cook your noodle........out of the mouths of those that made the above statement....which I find VERY VERY LAUGHABLE ...

yea.. ok .. see the bold type i put in the ex cont?? .. right .. so here we go ..

1) How in the universe can a flag NOT be blown over by the MASSIVE thrust THAT close to lift off & the antenna, which is heavier DOES.. the flag only flips 120??? LOL..

riiiiiiiight ... the answer is in the math everyone.. just do the math on the thrusters that were used, vs, the weigh of the antenna & the flag pole ..

anways.. yea.. do the math as well on BREATHABLE oxygen & the amount it would take for a full round trip .. LOL ..

logic and physics apply everywhere BUT the moon.. awesome .. i wanna go ~!!!!!
oh and don't forget the dust cloud it SHOULD HAVE MADE
edit on 4-4-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-4-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
And here we go, even better than Van Allen's original article. Ha ha ha ha...ha ha ha.

www.buzzcreek.com...

"ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997

THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier

...Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.

That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles. The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation.....

...Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.

Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.....

...Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays....

.... It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.

Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article in 1959 was merely "popular science."

"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal? ..."



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I posted this on the other 2 moon landings thread going on but i think its also fits
here equally well.



www.cluesforum.info...




www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.cluesforum.info...

Fakery has been and is rife and pervades almost everything we have unquestioning
taken for real and for granted.
Question everything.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

You don't need a coronal mass ejection for it to be deadly.
If these space suits are resistant to this type of radiation, why didn't they send some to Chernobyl for the cleanup workers to wear, or to Fukushima? In fact, the head of the British division of Nexus magazine contacted the manufacturer of the space suits and asked just that question, about their possible use in radiation cleanup. He was told that it would not be advisable, and that the suits offered no protection against radiation.


i have to say...i've always been kinda skeptical about the original moon landings...but this is a great point you make grizzle....if these suits are infact radiation proof,or at the very least a small protection from radiation..

and with the present situation in japan,it only adds to the point...surely we should use these space suits,in a major world crisis.



"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."



EDIT: it also begs the question that even in today tech,we still don't have the know how to protect ourselfs from deadly space radiation....??? because to be fair ,fukushima could really do with them at this present time....just sayin
edit on 4-4-2011 by snapperski because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
www.universetoday.com...

Apollo 15 was on the moon


on the left: selene simulation of Hight Data - right: nasa photo


....
This are 2 pics from Apollo 15, Some said the forderground is shopped, take a look. Different perspective:



Test Sites Rare Stuff:






I have 100's of them. Case reclosed?
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)


Same Thread MODERATORS!? -> www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Does anyone think its possible that both camps are correct?
The Apollo progam may have sent the first one, and because of what was discovered (ie pissed off aliens) they faked the rest so they never went back.......
It seems to be a pretty compellig C on that rock.Not just some random hair, but a printed regular C that has symetry.
What its doing on a moon rock is anyones guess......Im ambivalent...
But the concept of there being perhaps one or two rteal, and the rest faked trips is a more likely possibility than no real journey at all.
What if they found ruins on the moon the first trip?
Then had to create a sterile moon landing to keep this secret hidden.....???

Its not my pet theory but it accounts for conflicting evidence and lots of confusion because researchers dont have a clue whih trip was real, and which was faked....



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Wouldn't it depend on the angle of where the picture was taken? The first image the camera is looking at the lander in front of the flag, the second image the camera is looking at the flag from the lander.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
moon landing was fake
edit on 4-4-2011 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow

moon landing was fake
edit on 4-4-2011 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)


because I posted the proof you are wrong or why?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Does anyone think its possible that both camps are correct?
The Apollo progam may have sent the first one, and because of what was discovered (ie pissed off aliens) they faked the rest so they never went back.......
It seems to be a pretty compellig C on that rock.Not just some random hair, but a printed regular C that has symetry.
What its doing on a moon rock is anyones guess......Im ambivalent...
But the concept of there being perhaps one or two rteal, and the rest faked trips is a more likely possibility than no real journey at all.
What if they found ruins on the moon the first trip?
Then had to create a sterile moon landing to keep this secret hidden.....???

Its not my pet theory but it accounts for conflicting evidence and lots of confusion because researchers dont have a clue whih trip was real, and which was faked....


The "C" was for sure an eyelash.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I don't know if the moon landing was faked or not. I will say that there is some pretty interesting evidence to suggest that it may have been, but IMHO the two pictures of the flag in the OP aren't part of that proof. study the pictures for a minute and look at the perspective from the landing craft. The position of the flag and its shadow is consistent. The flag is pointing in the same direction in both pictures, but the flag appears backwards in the second picture because you are seeing the flag from the other side than the view in the first picture.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Nasa astronauts have never been there because of this -

Run for your life - NAZI UFO moon base



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Sometimes, they say, the obvious answer is the correct answer...

Couldn't it just be the simple fact that the astronaught just turned the flag around for a better picture? And wouldn't the blast of the capsule taking off turn it the other way?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux

The "C" was for sure an eyelash.


or a pubic hair...?? ...OR colonel mustard's mustache hair...

but in all honesty it is the radiation theory that grizzle mentions...that kinda convinceing me it could well of been staged...to beat the russians in a public propaganda war.

you only have to see the american public's reaction to the russian satellite sputnik at the time,to see the pressure there were under to get a moon landing.

American reaction to sputnik satellite



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Actually, looking at the "C" picture again, isn't that a footprint in the lower right corner? Now scale that "eyelash" to the scale of the footprint....

That's somekind of massive eyelash!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Actually, looking at the "C" picture again, isn't that a footprint in the lower right corner? Now scale that "eyelash" to the scale of the footprint....

That's somekind of massive eyelash!


OHHH MAN! IT IS ON THE FILM NOT ON THE STONE!
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FutureThinker
 



Originally posted by FutureThinker
Did anybody read the story at the OPs link, From what I read, Godwin says he has explanations for the anomolies in the Moon Landings. ...


Hmmmmmm. Did YOU? I posted this on page 1:


Originally posted by kinda kurious
Wow, just wow. Did anyone ACTUALLY read the ENTIRE article? From linked article in OP:


In fact, it had happened on Apollo 12, that 55 minutes before liftoff, part of their procedure was to test-fire the thrusters on the lunar module," he said."That's basically a pretty big rocket engine — just above where the flag is located — and when they did that, it blew over the antenna that was communicating with the Earth and it rotated the flag about 120 degrees."


The author of the book satisfied his own concerns.


Pot, meet kettle. :shk:




edit on 4-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Actually, looking at the "C" picture again, isn't that a footprint in the lower right corner? Now scale that "eyelash" to the scale of the footprint....

That's somekind of massive eyelash!


OHHH MAN! IT IS ON THE FILM NOT ON THE STONE!
edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)


How can it be on the film???? How did the film survive the radiation and take perfect pictures?? Look at pics from Chernobyl....all grainy because the radiation messed with the film....yet on the surface of the moon where radiation is many times more extreme the film stayed perfect. The manufactures of the camera said the ONLY modification on the camera was that it had a cartridge fed film. There was nothing added to stop radiation. Even the buttons were standard....yet the pics were perfect...bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll&*&%

Its Bull without a doubt. Theres NO way we ever went to the moon.

Think about this.....the shuttle goes 400 miles and requires SRB and 1.7 million KG of fuel.....how far is the moon? 240,000 miles or so.....how did a rocket get there and back with so little fuel??

How did the astronaut's dock the lander with the rocket travelling at 4000mph, with the computing power of a calculator??

How did the space suits cool the astronaut's in the 250c sunlight? And warm them in the -150c shade??
They allegedly used batteries....to power their life support for 3 days along as all the other equipment they took. hmmmm what kind of batteries were available in 69 that could achieve this? How did they get round the fact they were in a vacuum and normal thermal dynamics dont work?

Im a firm believer it was faked because russia had managed to launch a satellite and the US wanted to show that it was more technologically advanced....whereas it was an elaborate hoax that has/had fooled billions of people.






top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join