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.

 

Caution: They know much more!!

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
If I remember correctly when I signed on to ATS. One of the rules of posting is to supply links or evidence of you claims. So are harak/kangaxx breaking the rules?

nuff said




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The proof that we did land on the moon is velcro. And that matress they have on commercials. I guess those were developed for space travel in general, but why not land some velcro on the moon, just as long as you're up there?

I've read stuff, I've watched that Fox special, but I still believe we landed on the moon. If we didn't, it doesn't make a difference, as long as we don't know. We can just assume they spent all the money on diplomacy with our alien buddies!



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
We landed on the Moon; I've read lots and lots of sites that went into some very specific detail debunking all of the "proof" that the Moon landing was a hoax.


E_T

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
...but I don't take it as gospel. I do however, look forward to your posts in the future though.
But before that you must look history/backwards first...


Originally posted by Shai
To date no one has been able to refute what is cited here...nor the fact that the moon indeed is prone to ring like a bell when struck, comprising only 60% of the density that it should for its size and being largely hollow [and hugely magnetic]
So because meteorite consisting from solid iron "pings" it must be hollow?

Earth did same thing after 1964 earthquake in Alaska.
apsn.awcable.com...
neic.usgs.gov...

And before you claim earth is hollow you have to explain how observed propagation of (different type) seismic waves would be possible in that case.

Moon's density is lower because it's material is different from Earth's. (in fact there's one planet which would even float in water if you would find big enough bucket)
Neither moon has magnetic field, there's only small residual magnetism in rocks propably from time when they cooled under Curie point.



Originally posted by Termite197
If I remember correctly when I signed on to ATS. One of the rules of posting is to supply links or evidence of you claims. So are harak/kangaxx breaking the rules?
You remember it correctly.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
"Moon's density is lower because it's material is different from Earth's. (in fact there's one planet which would even float in water if you would find big enough bucket) "

Please show me the theory which posits the moon to be made of different stuff than earth. Perhaps I am laboring under false assumptions but as far as I'm aware the currently accepted theory of the moon is that it resulted from a piece of earth being torn off by impact with another celestial body..meaning it would be made of the same stuff earth is.
As for sites debunking the moon-landing sceptics...I don't seem to recall having rseen this particular link quoted..nor has anyone debunked it in the time I've been monitoring it.

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


Perhaps you would be so kind as to debunk it for me?

-Sincerely
-Shai


E_T

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
I'm aware the currently accepted theory of the moon is that it resulted from a piece of earth being torn off by impact with another celestial body..meaning it would be made of the same stuff earth is.
Yep, that's currently most propable theory.
But I see you didn't read it so thoroughly, althought elements are same in general their distribution is very different... matter blown to orbit by impact would be composed from earth's crust and upper parts which are much lighter than inner iron/metal rich parts of our planet.

www.solarviews.com...: Mean density (gm/cm^3) 5.515
www.solarviews.com...: Mean density (gm/cm^3) 3.34

You can find data form distribution of elements from here.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.windows.ucar.edu...=/earth/geology/crust_elements.html

Here's about geology of moon.
www.star.ucl.ac.uk...



Scientists presented this result and other findings today in a series of papers at the 30th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas. Their data show that the lunar core contains less than four percent of the Moon's total mass, with the probable value being two percent or slightly less. This is very small when compared with the Earth, whose iron core contains approximately 30 percent of the planet's mass.

Similarities in the mineral composition of the Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a common origin. However, if they had simply formed from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the Moon would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's. A third theory suggests that the moon was captured fully intact by the Earth's gravity. Based on information first gathered during the Apollo era, scientists suggested that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body hit the Earth during its earliest history. "This impact occurred after the Earth's iron core had formed, ejecting rocky, iron-poor material from the outer shell into orbit," Binder explained. "It was this material that collected to form the Moon."
www.solarviews.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HARAK
Life has been teachting me, that most of the times, the Truth can be far more fantastic, than fiction.

Most space programs, have "other" agendas, far more interesting, than the titles spreaded in the mass media; like something, for instance, as:

"Probe sent to Mercury, in order to find traces of Ice".

...Please!!!

How can the ones, who rule this world think, even for a second that We are so ... distracted, to don't give attention to the cronoligic evolution of events?

In the 60's, they say that US Astronauts, stepped the Moon, for the first time, in all Mankind. Sorry... but no!

SOviet Union, actually got there first in the 50's, (two astronauts landed), and they went by a shocking experience.... err.... There was an ancient facility there, appeared at first glince abandoned, but... automatic sentrys were still active, and one astronaut, got killed. The other ran away...as fast as his suit let him, and could escape. He was very, very, lucky, because somehow, he could manage to be syncronized with the proper trajectory, to being brought back to Earth's Ionosphere.
All this was top-secret. Not anymore...sorry!!


[edit on 8/8/04 by HARAK]


Wrong. Americans did land on the moon first it's history.

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aether

Originally posted by HARAK
Life has been teachting me, that most of the times, the Truth can be far more fantastic, than fiction.

Most space programs, have "other" agendas, far more interesting, than the titles spreaded in the mass media; like something, for instance, as:

"Probe sent to Mercury, in order to find traces of Ice".

...Please!!!

How can the ones, who rule this world think, even for a second that We are so ... distracted, to don't give attention to the cronoligic evolution of events?

In the 60's, they say that US Astronauts, stepped the Moon, for the first time, in all Mankind. Sorry... but no!

SOviet Union, actually got there first in the 50's, (two astronauts landed), and they went by a shocking experience.... err.... There was an ancient facility there, appeared at first glince abandoned, but... automatic sentrys were still active, and one astronaut, got killed. The other ran away...as fast as his suit let him, and could escape. He was very, very, lucky, because somehow, he could manage to be syncronized with the proper trajectory, to being brought back to Earth's Ionosphere.
All this was top-secret. Not anymore...sorry!!


[edit on 8/8/04 by HARAK]


Wrong. Americans did land on the moon first it's history.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

So was the fact that Bill didnt sleep with Monica, until he admited it.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Shai
I'm aware the currently accepted theory of the moon is that it resulted from a piece of earth being torn off by impact with another celestial body..meaning it would be made of the same stuff earth is.
Yep, that's currently most propable theory.
But I see you didn't read it so thoroughly, althought elements are same in general their distribution is very different... matter blown to orbit by impact would be composed from earth's crust and upper parts which are much lighter than inner iron/metal rich parts of our planet.

www.solarviews.com...: Mean density (gm/cm^3) 5.515
www.solarviews.com...: Mean density (gm/cm^3) 3.34

You can find data form distribution of elements from here.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.windows.ucar.edu...=/earth/geology/crust_elements.html

Here's about geology of moon.
www.star.ucl.ac.uk...



Scientists presented this result and other findings today in a series of papers at the 30th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas. Their data show that the lunar core contains less than four percent of the Moon's total mass, with the probable value being two percent or slightly less. This is very small when compared with the Earth, whose iron core contains approximately 30 percent of the planet's mass.

Similarities in the mineral composition of the Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a common origin. However, if they had simply formed from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the Moon would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's. A third theory suggests that the moon was captured fully intact by the Earth's gravity. Based on information first gathered during the Apollo era, scientists suggested that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body hit the Earth during its earliest history. "This impact occurred after the Earth's iron core had formed, ejecting rocky, iron-poor material from the outer shell into orbit," Binder explained. "It was this material that collected to form the Moon."
www.solarviews.com...


Now I'll show you mine:

But before I do..sstill no word about the apollo faked site I posted here, and still no one to refute the evidence cited on cosmicapollo..so, would you like to give it a dsebunking?
because that is at the heart of the argument, here..there is much more known and being covered-up than we are being led to believe..
The insulting thing is that it is our money being used to fund these projects and the least we can expect is to be given value for money..to be told its none of our business or an issue of national security is just beyond the pale as far as I am concerned. it does all of us a dis-service and worst, perpetuates myths that end up having life and death consequences here on planet earth.
Frankly I found the sites you submitted rather lame. The major annoyance is that although you cite that stuff about a a new therory to explain the moon's anomalous density and orbit [it is moving away from us, did you know that?] there is no indication of the date on that article.
This one is 5 years old but still fairly current and, instead of it being some pop-science retread one can find 100's of..it is from the University of hawaii, where they have some of the world's best telescopes;
www.psrd.hawaii.edu...

Now, if you will agree that everything you read here is 'factual'we can move on and discuss the facts..and the cosmicapollo material..
ok?

Oh..and just what DO you make of those martian photos..eh?

-Sincerely
-Shai


But here's one I'll star with which I do hope you read.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   


[size=150]SCREW THE HATERS!


E_T

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
anomalous density and orbit [it is moving away from us, did you know that?]

..and the cosmicapollo material..
ok?
There's nothing anomalous in "expansion" of moon's orbit.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Considering cosmicapollo... first prove those are original unedited pics, with todays PCs every crackpot (who has way too much free time) can edit photos.
Secondly there's much errors and ignoring facts which have been discussed to death in (many) other threads... which kinda makes site's credibility go down to -273.
Third, you can bet that Soviets monitored Apollo program extreme closely, like things that radio transmissions really came from moon. If they would have had any proofs that landing was faked they would have touted it to world in all medias for years, it would have been even bigger win for them than making own moon landing first. (or why didn't they fake own landing?)


www.badastronomy.com...
www.badastronomy.com...
www.lunaranomalies.com...
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
www.business.uab.edu...
pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...


E_T

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
moon illusion still not explained

No need for "physical" reason, human's senses are easy to fool... to put it mildly.
www.ritsumei.ac.jp...
www.michaelbach.de...
www.grand-illusions.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Shai
anomalous density and orbit [it is moving away from us, did you know that?]

..and the cosmicapollo material..
ok?
There's nothing anomalous in "expansion" of moon's orbit.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Considering cosmicapollo... first prove those are original unedited pics, with todays PCs every crackpot (who has way too much free time) can edit photos.
Secondly there's much errors and ignoring facts which have been discussed to death in (many) other threads... which kinda makes site's credibility go down to -273.
Third, you can bet that Soviets monitored Apollo program extreme closely, like things that radio transmissions really came from moon. If they would have had any proofs that landing was faked they would have touted it to world in all medias for years, it would have been even bigger win for them than making own moon landing first. (or why didn't they fake own landing?)


www.badastronomy.com...
www.badastronomy.com...
www.lunaranomalies.com...
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
www.business.uab.edu...
pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...



You're kidding me with these links, right? I mean did you actually read them?

Here's a quote ripped verbatim off the last link you sent from lpl.arizona.edu;
"One thing that I would like to call to attention, is that I am not an expert on anything that is written in this report. I don't know much about camera's, or non-atmospheric conditions, or physics or anything."

And this is the guy who you cite to discredit cosmicappollo? As for the first link you sent ..it points to a Fox special as its source. Fox, of all networks!
And that is your credible source?

If any site is well-known for being debunkable it is "bad-astronomy". AS a matter of fact the cosmicappollo site was set up specifically to debunk bad-astronomy.

As for you allegations of PC doctored imagery..shouldn't NASA be the one making those claims..like maybe suing the fraudsters for false claims..or denying outright the provenance of the photos you say have been manipulated?
Well, why aren't they?
Have you been to this site:

www.moonmovie.com...

No one has yet come forward tio debunk this or deny it or claim fraud..most notably no-one from NASA.

I get sick to death of folks claiming to have thought it all t hrough or knowing better than to believe this stuff..and what do they offer as ultimate proof?..retreads of pop-science and pseudo-science sponsored by companies out to sell you the party-line at 50,000 bucks a minute.
Do you ever do your own reasoning or do you rely on being spoon-fed the pap they're dishing out to get by?

For the record..I am 50 years old, watched the moon landings 'live' on black and white TV and thought then,,at the ripe old age of 15 that something was fishy about what I was seeing..even without knowing why.

I saw the space flights and live from the cabin interviews ..and that one picture with the blue earth behind it when there should have been stars or moonscape is from official,NASA footage.

So, BTW , are the Martian photos posted here which STILL no debunker wants to comment on.

Perhaps you'd prefer to wait a few years and then when the photos appear on some web-site similar to cosmicappollo you will say..'oh, but they must be doctored photos, not the originals'. Is that the game-plan?
These are the originals, from NASA of a phenomenon unexpected and unexplained on the surface of Mars.




Now I'd be happy to forego any further discussion of apollo and the faking of..if you will knidly give your thoughts on these.

Thanking you in advance

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Well thankyou ATS, after 7 pages im more confused and dissolusioned than I was before I started! Im resigned to the fact that I will never know the truth. Im left with my wonderment and my questions and little else.
Man has acheived great things in my lifetime, Ive seen things beyond the imaginings of my ancestors, and I have no doubt that my children and their children will see much more than I could ever imagine.
The more questions we ask, the more questions come to light, many of my questions will remain for me, unanswered. but I take great pleasure in knowing that my children will learn much more than I will ever know.
My greatest hope is that they learn the truth of these matters and receive answers to their questions.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
There was a big discussion here on those "tube" like pictures. It's my beleif that they were nothing more than sand dunes.


Photo courtesy of GuerrillaFuunkstaahh - see link below for the ATS thread that covered these "tubes"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The image above is from mars also, in the Gorgonum Chaos area.
www.badastronomy.com...

enjoy


[edit on 24-1-2005 by mpeake]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   



Nasa faked the moon landing, No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space.



Nonsense, Van Allen himself is still alive and has said on record that a human being would have to spend around four weeks within the Van Allen Belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. It's been calculated that travelling at speed of the apollo crew through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild. Outside rthe belts, the dangers would have been much reduced.




The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.



Not true - for the short amount of time that the astronauts were on the moon and travelling to and from it, the space suits would have provided adequate protection from everything but a solar flare. In the event of a flare striking the moon whilst the astronauts were on there, the lander's engines and fuel tanks would have provided adequate cover.

24.73.239.154:8081...




If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum.NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. The water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space.
NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.



You have got mixed up between temperature and heat.

Temperature is how fast atoms are moving within a material and heat is how much total energy those atoms have.

You can stick your hand in a 400-degree oven without injury, but touch any solid object in the oven and you'll burn.

So it may be plus 200 degrees in the lunar sunlight and minus 200 in the shade, but in a vacuum there is no heat.

It doesn't take much insulation to protect an astronaut in a vacuum.

Also, it won't be 200 degrees in the sunlight. The sun would strike an astronaut no more fiercely than on earth. The only reason the lunar surface gets hot is that it gets continuous daylight for two weeks at a time and there's no atmosphere to conduct the heat away. In short, the surface would take a while to heat up and cool down.

And on earth, geologists wearing gloves regularly handle desert rocks with temps of over 200.



The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program


The moon landings were independently tracked by hundreds of radio telescopes across the world, including within the USSR. If the USSR suspected that the US had faked the trip, they would have given this huge publicity.




the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon



This proves nothing. Shadows from a single light source do not always travel in the same direction - here on earth or on the moon. Terrain can alter the direction of shadow travel considerably and the light reflected by the lunar surface would also have had a bearing on this.




here is the link ,with alot more info, check it out
not claiming this is fact but logicaly it make good sense
www.hourofthetime.com...



The usual junk.

Here's a bit more debunking:

Conspiracy theorists - No stars visible in NASA photos.

Answer: No camera in existence then or now has the capability to capture stars on film at the same time as the lunar surface because the brightness of the surface would have totally eclipsed them. Even with the eye you'd have difficulty seeing stars from the daytime lunar surface unless you stood in a shadow and shielded yourself from any light reflected from the ground.

Conspiracy theorists - detail is clearly seen in the shadowed areas of some photos which should be 'black'.

Answer: Light reflected from the lunar surface would have been more than enough to have 'lit' the subjects in question.

Conspiracy theorists - photo cross hairs obliterated by objects, indicating that the images have been manipulated.

Answer: This only occurs in very light objects. The brightness from the object effectively 'swamps' the image of the cross hair.

Conspiracy theorists - how come the photos are so good considering restricted movement of astronauts.

Answer: The Hasselbad cameras were designed for the mission and included special controls to allow easily manipulation. The astronauts also had months of practice with them as they were encouraged to take them home and use them as often as possible.

Conspiracy theorists - you can see a prop identifier letter 'C' on one of the rocks.

Answer: It's not on the rock, it's a small hair on a negative.

Conspiracy theorists - the lunar lander should have made a big crater.

Answer: The lunar lander reduced its power considerably as it came in to land and it also drifted down on a very gentle gradient which would have prevented significant crater formation. Also, there's not a great deal of easily mobilised dust on the surface of the moon.

Conspiracy theorists - the flag flaps when it is put in the ground, indicating that there was a breeze.

Answer: No, the flag was suspended on two aluminium poles and 'flapped' when it was physically moved due to low gravity/inertia. On earth, air resistance would have prevented this from occurring.

In summary, for all great achievements there will be naysayers and disbelievers. It's a shame that such a massive achievement as the moon landings is constantly hijacked by foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists. Luckily, few people with any degree of intelligence take them serioulsy.

Some info in this post was abridged from here:

www.uwgb.edu...



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns



Nasa faked the moon landing, No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space.



Nonsense, Van Allen himself is still alive and has said on record that a human being would have to spend around four weeks within the Van Allen Belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. It's been calculated that travelling at speed of the apollo crew through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild. Outside rthe belts, the dangers would have been much reduced.




The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.



Not true - for the short amount of time that the astronauts were on the moon and travelling to and from it, the space suits would have provided adequate protection from everything but a solar flare. In the event of a flare striking the moon whilst the astronauts were on there, the lander's engines and fuel tanks would have provided adequate cover.

24.73.239.154:8081...




If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum.NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. The water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space.
NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.



You have got mixed up between temperature and heat.

Temperature is how fast atoms are moving within a material and heat is how much total energy those atoms have.

You can stick your hand in a 400-degree oven without injury, but touch any solid object in the oven and you'll burn.

So it may be plus 200 degrees in the lunar sunlight and minus 200 in the shade, but in a vacuum there is no heat.

It doesn't take much insulation to protect an astronaut in a vacuum.

Also, it won't be 200 degrees in the sunlight. The sun would strike an astronaut no more fiercely than on earth. The only reason the lunar surface gets hot is that it gets continuous daylight for two weeks at a time and there's no atmosphere to conduct the heat away. In short, the surface would take a while to heat up and cool down.

And on earth, geologists wearing gloves regularly handle desert rocks with temps of over 200.



The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program


The moon landings were independently tracked by hundreds of radio telescopes across the world, including within the USSR. If the USSR suspected that the US had faked the trip, they would have given this huge publicity.




the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon



This proves nothing. Shadows from a single light source do not always travel in the same direction - here on earth or on the moon. Terrain can alter the direction of shadow travel considerably and the light reflected by the lunar surface would also have had a bearing on this.




here is the link ,with alot more info, check it out
not claiming this is fact but logicaly it make good sense
www.hourofthetime.com...



The usual junk.

Here's a bit more debunking:

Conspiracy theorists - No stars visible in NASA photos.

Answer: No camera in existence then or now has the capability to capture stars on film at the same time as the lunar surface because the brightness of the surface would have totally eclipsed them. Even with the eye you'd have difficulty seeing stars from the daytime lunar surface unless you stood in a shadow and shielded yourself from any light reflected from the ground.

Conspiracy theorists - detail is clearly seen in the shadowed areas of some photos which should be 'black'.

Answer: Light reflected from the lunar surface would have been more than enough to have 'lit' the subjects in question.

Conspiracy theorists - photo cross hairs obliterated by objects, indicating that the images have been manipulated.

Answer: This only occurs in very light objects. The brightness from the object effectively 'swamps' the image of the cross hair.

Conspiracy theorists - how come the photos are so good considering restricted movement of astronauts.

Answer: The Hasselbad cameras were designed for the mission and included special controls to allow easily manipulation. The astronauts also had months of practice with them as they were encouraged to take them home and use them as often as possible.

Conspiracy theorists - you can see a prop identifier letter 'C' on one of the rocks.

Answer: It's not on the rock, it's a small hair on a negative.

Conspiracy theorists - the lunar lander should have made a big crater.

Answer: The lunar lander reduced its power considerably as it came in to land and it also drifted down on a very gentle gradient which would have prevented significant crater formation. Also, there's not a great deal of easily mobilised dust on the surface of the moon.

Conspiracy theorists - the flag flaps when it is put in the ground, indicating that there was a breeze.

Answer: No, the flag was suspended on two aluminium poles and 'flapped' when it was physically moved due to low gravity/inertia. On earth, air resistance would have prevented this from occurring.

In summary, for all great achievements there will be naysayers and disbelievers. It's a shame that such a massive achievement as the moon landings is constantly hijacked by foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists. Luckily, few people with any degree of intelligence take them serioulsy.

Some info in this post was abridged from here:

www.uwgb.edu...


You know, I'd take you through this point by point but cosmicappollo and other sites do a far better job of it.
Having said that, I will hit you wiht just one [of a dozen] questions not covered in this reply and that is the hasselblad camera. I've heard this in rebuttal many times..all about how the astronaut trained and even with a glove he could manipulate the shutter..didn't need to focus, etc.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FILM?

That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?
The film ALLEGEDLY used on the moon was not and never has been shown to be able to withstand anything like that amount of temperature variation and deliver even one usable image..so how do you explain the phenomenal quality of the pictures taken with that hasselblad?
And, BTW, wouldn't radiation have an effect on film..like from the van allen belt, as well as cosmic rays on the moon?



Go back to cosmicappollo and read it again..and if you are serious about rebuttal then quote what you believe is BS on that site and give your 'answer' proving them wrong.

And please start with answering the question posed..What about the film?

Thanks in advance

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FILM?

That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?



As I've already explained at length (see above post) in a vacuum there is no ambient heat just radiative heat and the temp of the surface (and objects on it) would have reached nothing like those extremes.

The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The best way to reflect radiative heat is to wrap the object (like a camera or person) in layers designed to reflect as much heat as possible, usually by simply being white.

This is enough to very efficiently direct heat away from the both the astronauts and the camera film.





The film ALLEGEDLY used on the moon was not and never has been shown to be able to withstand anything like that amount of temperature variation and deliver even one usable image..so how do you explain the phenomenal quality of the pictures taken with that hasselblad?



Quite the reverse is true, as a simple bit of research would reveal.

This was no ordinary "Ektachrome" film, and, as I've already explained, it was never exposed to those kinds of temperatures in the cameras.

The 70mm film used in the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts carried was a very special transparency film designed specifically (under a NASA contract) for hostile environments like the Moon.

According to Peter Vimislik at Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200° F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500° F. So, a worst case scenario of 250-280° F for a totally uninsulated, non-reflective camera would still be well within the film's operational parameters.

The film itself, in terms of its light-gathering abilities, was also quite amazing (in striking contrast to the uninformed claims of the debunkers). It was a special "extended range color slide film" called "XRC," that allowed the astronauts to take perfect quality pictures on the lunar surface.

So advanced was the film that it is only now that many of these major features are beginning to be used in the commercially-available colour emulsions used in today's modern day 35mm and 70mm non-digital cameras

Regarding radiation, the same argument applies. The biggest danger to the astronauts and their equipment was the van allen belts. The NASA solution was simple -- to send the crew through the belts at high speed (25,000 miles per hour) to reduce exposure to well below 1 rad/rem both on the way out and on the way back.

Conspiracy theorists can check this (if they can be bothered, which they usually can't) by referring to NASA Technical Notes - NASA TN D-7080, Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation by Robt. English, Richard E. Benson, J. Bailey, and C. Brown, --Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, March, 1973.

Hasselbad provided additional protection against radiation for both camera and internal film magazines, and of course, the film was not removed from its magazines until back on earth.

www.clavius.org...

In short, in my personal experience, those who try to dish astonishing achievements like the moon landings are usually people who have achieved nothing in their own lives.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
One thing that never seems to be addressed in this theory of faked moon landings, is what happened to the shuttles that were launched? Where did they go and what did they do until their alleged faked return?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join