Moon landing hoax

squod

mrplop wrote: »

How so?
You're not providing me with a very compelling argument, just name calling.

I would like your opinion on the fact the Soviets tracked the Apollos all the way to the Moon and back - were they in on it too?

:rolleyes:

Wibbs

Ski Boz wrote: »

Also Im no geologist. are any differences in the make up of moon rock etc. Is there a higher concentration of metals, silicates in the dust that would be floating around them.

They're way older for a start. Waaaay older. They're also lacking in water and a few other substances. And action of same. Mostly basalt like rocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

Now Mars, that would be a whole heap more interesting..

humanji

I'm just wondering if we can try a bold new experiment.

Now, it's fairly obvious that nobody is changing anyones mind. And assuming NASA isn't going to either fly the CT'ers to the moon, or the skeptics to a soundstage somewhere in Nevada, would anyone want to take this thread in a new direction?

What I propose is that we (skeptics, ct'ers and government agents a like) plan out how the moon landing was faked. If you firmly believe it was real then humour me and pretend it wasn't. Think of it as a team building exercise that might relieve a bit of tension here.

So what do we have to do? We'll need to think of where it will be filmed, how to get the minimum amount of people involved, have the outward appearance of a real launch and rescue, and then there's the faking of the physics.

Don't worry skeptics, you can play too. All you have to do is tear the plans apart. But just do it in a more helpful manner. If you see a flaw, point it out and try and offer an alternative. Who knows, it might give everyone a bit of an insight into how it could or maybe, was done. And sure if everyone just thinks it's a stupid idea you can all go back to the pissing contest that is this thread.

So, anyone interested?

uprising2

Listen everybody I'll have a root through some of my pics and try find some examples, similar in lighting conditions, I can't/won't post any pics of people, just scenes, but I hope you can see what I'm saying about shadow, I have lot's of bracketed shot's and I'll post if I can, to show differences through dynamic range/f-stops.

PirateShampoo

Well if i was going to Fake a moon landing i would use my computer and do it all in CGI with a whole load of fancy props and i would use the latest video cameras to capture it.

Then i would remember that its 1969 and that my mobile phone has more computing power than what the whole of NASA had at the time.

People are applying 2010 technology theories to something that happened in 1969.

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen everybody I'll have a root through some of my pics and try find some examples, similar in lighting conditions, I can't/won't post any pics of people, just scenes, but I hope you can see what I'm saying about shadow, I have lot's of bracketed shot's and I'll post if I can, to show differences through dynamic range/f-stops.

But it wont be similar, the Moon is a totally alien enviroment. Its has a reflective surface which you wont find naturally here.

Mr. Incognito

This isn't really a debate. It has decended into uprising and squod posting dodgy links from youtube they probably haven't even seen and running back to hoax websites for sources and thanking each other when they make smiley faces or refuse to answer any rational questions.

There is no point in this. None. They can't even answer simple questions on the links they post that actually have nothing to do with the topic in hand like some random russian discussing the russian economic background without any evidence.

I'll say that again. Discussing something WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

That's what they are trying to do. This thread is a waste of time.

Wibbs

With respect Mr. Incognito I dunno, waste of time? Its always good to debate this stuff, even if we're at loggerheads. OH I can be a CT as much as the next guy. Do not get me started.

squod

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen everybody I'll have a root through some of my pics and try find some examples, similar in lighting conditions, I can't/won't post any pics of people, just scenes, but I hope you can see what I'm saying about shadow, I have lot's of bracketed shot's and I'll post if I can, to show differences through dynamic range/f-stops.

I wouldn't worry about it. Humanji has pointed to the truth. What we have here is a pissing contest. The opponents of the conspiracy argument will not put foward a convincing argument. As far as I'm concerened this debate ended at post 141.

You'd be far better off posting pictures the shuttle space walks.
http://fredtopeka.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/spacewalk-347628main_untitled_full.jpg

How could an aastronaught in a pressurised suit wander around in the vacum of space without his suit showing signs of inflation.... inspite of this (restraining) layer, whites suit is clearly ballooned like the michelin man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji24WNxfHiE

squod

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This isn't really a debate...............This thread is a waste of time.

You know where the ignore button is. Thanks for putting foward an incredible case & contributing nothing to this thread. Well done.

uprising2

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This isn't really a debate. It has decended into uprising and squod posting dodgy links from youtube they probably haven't even seen and running back to hoax websites for sources and thanking each other when they make smiley faces or refuse to answer any rational questions.

There is no point in this. None. They can't even answer simple questions on the links they post that actually have nothing to do with the topic in hand like some random russian discussing the russian economic background without any evidence.

I'll say that again. Discussing something WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

That's what they are trying to do. This thread is a waste of time.

That's a big climbdown from your big entrance, I was rattling here waiting for you to tear me apart, you make up YOUR game, then DONT play, you post and run, never stay for a debate, you don't know what you are talking about.

This is for the office laminated print:
"Hello everybody in Mr Incognito's office, it's me uprising, the one he was telling you all about, how I made his day, you'll be glad to know he's a decent fella, I know you may all hate him, but he returns favors and gestures, I made his day, brought tears of laughter to his eye's, he returned the favor 100%, I've laughed so much at his post's, his "Here's the MAN:cool:" appearance, hiding and dodging when questioned, Now this, the cop out. So he's been the bright light of my day so I hope he doesn't take any of this as an insult, He's Great."

pirelli

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This isn't really a debate. It has decended into uprising and squod posting dodgy links from youtube they probably haven't even seen and running back to hoax websites for sources and thanking each other when they make smiley faces or refuse to answer any rational questions.

There is no point in this. None. They can't even answer simple questions on the links they post that actually have nothing to do with the topic in hand like some random russian discussing the russian economic background without any evidence.

I'll say that again. Discussing something WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

That's what they are trying to do. This thread is a waste of time.

Well! This is my first post here. I have read the thread form start to finish and watched the google vidoes and you tube videos. I hadn't expected much in the way of evidence but one video a funny thing happened on the way to the moon has compelling evidence of the astronauts faking the earth shots.

This authenticity of this evidence i am not sure about but if it is genuine and apparently its nasa own footage then it's enough to spark a debate. I do not like the parts of a funny thing happened on the way to the moon such as the Nasa pic shots of the moon have yellow lines highlighted on them and the Narrators claims that some undetectable change in light proves conclusively that they are fake.In no way does it prove this.I think this make their other claims more suspect and you would as naive to believe their claims as to believe nasa that they are genuine.

There are new forensic technologies ( GTX ) that could do a better analysis of the pictures and the authors of a funny happened on the way to the moon haven't been abole to afford to provide this type of additional data.


As to the post above quoted above, I think its a little unfair to expect anyone here to have a degree from the moon hoax university. It's a very difficult topic and you would have to pull knowledge from many areas forensics and physics to even approach rationalising many of these theories.

It's not exactly as if it isn't rocket science.

uprising2

Yea squob it is a pissing competition.

Good idea Humanji.

Man this thread went a long way for something that started as a bad joke with this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

K-9

squod wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it. Humanji has pointed to the truth. What we have here is a pissing contest. The opponents of the conspiracy argument will not put foward a convincing argument. As far as I'm concerened this debate ended at post 141.

You'd be far better off posting pictures the shuttle space walks.
http://fredtopeka.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/spacewalk-347628main_untitled_full.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji24WNxfHiE

Oh, a pissing contest on one side is it?

It isn't a contest unless you partake.

Anyway, it was an interesting thread and it still could be, that is up to the posters. Shame the whingers on both sides had to take it over.

mrplop

squod wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Such a compelling and clever response.

mrplop

squod wrote: »

As far as I'm concerened this debate ended at post 141.

Why are bothering to argue then?

You guys are slating me for listening to the Mythbusters and yet you want me to believe an untraceable photo expert from a video with all the production values of a 1970's softcore porn flick.

Once more I'd like to know how the Soviets tracked the ALL of the Apollo missions to the moon and back if none of them took place - no emoticons this time, just an answer.

Don't forget that you're the one in the minority when it comes to your view of the moon landings so it's up to you to make us believe.

squod

mrplop wrote: »

You guys are slating me for listening to the Mythbusters

No-one is slating you. At best this thread is only slightly serious, mostly it's just a laugh. As I posted earlier 89% of Joe public in the US believes the official line from NASA. You're not alone and the people who created mythbusters know that. They defo wouldn't try and sell a product that only suited 6% of the population now would they?

mrplop wrote: »

Once more I'd like to know how the Soviets tracked the ALL of the Apollo missions to the moon and back if none of them took place - no emoticons this time, just an answer.

Don't forget that you're the one in the minority when it comes to your view of the moon landings so it's up to you to make us believe.

Personally I couldn't give a crap what you believe. For the record. The apollo missions were cancelled just before the russian long range radar were completed. Or in other words, before the US got found out.

mrplop

squod wrote: »

Personally I couldn't give a crap what you believe. .

That just about says it all.

Here's a quote from http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm which sums you and your argument up quite nicely;

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Such a pity people like yourself dishonour the heroes that risked their lives going to the moon.

squod

mrplop wrote: »

Such a pity people like yourself dishonour the heroes that risked their lives going to the moon.

I've always liked your heroes. I've watched countless doumentaries about this stuff. Those guys were amazing.

mrplop wrote: »

That just about says it all.

Here's a quote from http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm which sums you and your argument up quite nicely;

This sums up none of my arguments! You're on the ignore list.

Honestly, folks, if this thread keeps going down the path it's going, I'll close it. Quit with the petty whinging and whining, quit with the bickering.

mrplop

I think the facts pertaining to the moon landings are on squod's ignore list too.

You could send him to the moon and show him the descent stage, footprints and the flag but he's so hardcore he'd tell you it was a fake.

Again this quote says it all;

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Have a nice day!

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it. Humanji has pointed to the truth. What we have here is a pissing contest. The opponents of the conspiracy argument will not put foward a convincing argument. As far as I'm concerened this debate ended at post 141.

You'd be far better off posting pictures the shuttle space walks.
http://fredtopeka.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/spacewalk-347628main_untitled_full.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji24WNxfHiE

Again with respect you're not comparing like with like. The first EVA suits were a very different animal to the later Apollo suits. Those first suits had a lot of problems with pressure. White got into trouble on that spacewalk. He overheated, couldnt move very well and his gloves restricted his movements. Leonov on the Russian side had similar problems. On both sides respective mission controls had serious concerns the guys might not get back in. Its ballooning as they didnt allow for that to the degree they needed to, hence both guys hand control was limited.

The apollo suits were a major step forward, were structurally different, were water cooled with a completely different support structure under the main skin. Also had more layers and different materials too. Made by a different design team and supplier. The gloves, boots, joints, connection points were all different. It's like looking at a model T and saying "oh look they're not as curvy as a new Mondeo.

Ballooning? No creases? OK look at these images of shuttle EVA suits. Where's the ballooning? Creases all over the place. They look nothing like Whites early EVA suit. They're pressurised(actually more than the Lunar EVA suit. the guy in the vid is getting fierce confused about relative pressures) in a vacuum. And they werent even designed with walking on a surface in mind. Nor are the STS suits tailored to a particular astronaut. They come in a range of sizes.









So comparing one design with a different one and the evidence of subsequent EVA suits which look like the Lunar EVA suits, I really cant see this as evidence.

mrplop

squod wrote: »

Personally I couldn't give a crap what you believe. For the record. The apollo missions were cancelled just before the russian long range radar were completed. Or in other words, before the US got found out.

From the Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_independent_parties;

Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. On later missions NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories.[20]
[edit] Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[21] Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991): 2-3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after Apollo.

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.[22]

In Australia, Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station monitored transmissions from Apollo missions, from:

* Tidbinbilla radio telescope made observations.
* Carnarvon received radio transmissions
* Deaking Switching Station was the switching station for the Apollo television broadcasts.

[edit] Apollo 8
Main article: Apollo 8

* On December 21, 1968 at 18:00 UT Amateur astronomers (H.R. Hatfield, M.J. Hendrie, F. Kent, Alan Heath, and M.J. Oates) in the UK photographed a fuel dump from the jettisoned S-IVB stage.[20]
* Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees); the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (University of Arizona); Corralitos Observatory, New Mexico, then operated by Northwestern University; McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas; and Lick Observatory of the University of California all filed reports of observations.[20]
* Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi reported an initial sighting around 17:10 UT on December 21 with the 1.1-meter reflector as an object (magnitude near 10, through clouds) moving eastward near the predicted location of Apollo 8. He used a 60-cm refractor to observe a cluster of objects which were obscured by the appearance of a nebulous cloud at a time which matches a firing of the service module engine to assure adequate separation from the S-IVB. This event can be traced with the Apollo 8 Flight Journal, noting that launch was at 0751 EST or 12:51 UT on December 21.[20]
* Justus Dunlap and other at Corralitos Observatory (then operated by Northwestern University) obtained over 400 short-exposure intensified images, giving very accurate locations for the spacecraft.[20]
* The 2.1 m Struve telescope at McDonald, from 01:50-2:37 UT observed the brightest object flashing as bright as magnitude 15, with the flash pattern recurring about once a minute.[20]
* The Lick observations during the return coast to Earth produced live TV pictures broadcast to West Coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco.
* An article in the March 1969 issue of Sky & Telescope.[20]
* The first post-launch sightings were from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) station on Maui, and observed the TLI burn near 15:44 UT on December 21.
* Table Mountain, a Deep Space Network station, reports that they tracked all the Apollo lunar missions except 17.
* Bernard Scrivener (at Honeysuckle Creek) personally recorded forty-five to fifty hours of the radio conversation between Houston and Apollo 8. These are recordings of the raw audio, not what was released to the public through NASA.[23]

[edit] Apollo 10
Main article: Apollo 10

* A list of sightings of Apollo 10 were reported in "Apollo 10 Optical Tracking", Sky & Telescope, July 1969, pp. 62–63.

[edit] Apollo 11
Main article: Apollo 11

* The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[24]
* A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
* The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.[25]
* Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.[26]
* At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it had been many years previously for Sputnik.[27] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[28] In July 2009 Jodrell released some recordings they made.[29]
* Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.[30] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include Capcom in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcipts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from Earth.[24][31]

[edit] Apollo 12
Main article: Apollo 12
Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum

Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module.[32]

Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12.[33] These samples were determined to have been exposed to lunar conditions.[34]
[edit] Apollo 13
Main article: Apollo 13

Chabot Observatory calendar records an application of optical tracking during the final phases of Apollo 13, on 17 April 1970:
“ "Rachel, Chabot Observatory's 20-inch refracting telescope, helps bring Apollo 13 and its crew home. One last burn of the lunar lander engines was needed before the crippled spacecraft's re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. In order to compute that last burn, NASA needed a precise position of the spacecraft, obtainable only by telescopic observation. All the observatories that could have done this were clouded over, except Oakland's Chabot Observatory, where members of the Eastbay Astronomical Society had been tracking the Moon flights. EAS members received an urgent call from NASA Ames Research Station, which had ties with Chabot's educational program since the 60's, and they put the Observatory's historic 20-inch refractor to work. They were able to send the needed data to Ames, and the Apollo crew was able to make the needed correction and to return safely to Earth on this date in 1970."[20] ”
[edit] Apollo 14
Main article: Apollo 14

Elaine Halbedel, from the Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14.[20]
[edit] Apollo 15
Main article: Apollo 15

Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle Jr. received voice transmissions from the Command Service Module in lunar orbit on the morning of August 1, 1971. In an article for QST magazine they provide a detailed description of their work, with photographs.[35]
[edit] Apollo 16
Main article: Apollo 16

Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16.[20]

Honeysuckle Creek tracked Apollo 16 and recorded the Audio of the landing.

At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment.[36][37]

Bochum Sternwarte in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the TV downlink from Apollo 16. The extrapolated TV signal was converted to black and white PAL and was recorded onto 2" videotape via their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston (as the signal received came from the Moon only). The videotapes are held in storage on site.
[edit] Apollo 17
Main article: Apollo 17

Sven Grahn describes several amateur sightings of Apollo 17.[38]

Obviously all these sources were in on the entire hoax:rolleyes:

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

The apollo suits were a major step forward, were structurally different, were water cooled with a completely different support structure under the main skin. Also had more layers and different materials too. Made by a different design team and supplier. The gloves, boots, joints, connection points were all different. It's like looking at a model T and saying "oh look they're not as curvy as a new Mondeo.

.....look at these images of shuttle EVA suits. Where's the ballooning? Creases all over the place. They look nothing like Whites early EVA suit. They're pressurised(actually more than the Lunar EVA suit. the guy in the vid is getting fierce confused about relative pressures) in a vacuum. And they werent even designed with walking on a surface in mind. Nor are the STS suits tailored to a particular astronaut.

You are pretty much making my argument for me here. As I said it would be more beneficial to show more recent spacewalks and compare them with the fakery of apolo 14 etc. As the picture posted earlier demonstrates.

http://fredtopeka.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/spacewalk-347628main_untitled_full.jpg

Wibbs

The design of the STS suit is different again from the lunar suit. Larger more roomy shoulders for a start(for overhand work more likely on near earth orbit EVA).

But OK lets look at his suit in this very close cropped picture. Look at the area around his neck. Look at the area around the chest panel. Creases and no ballooning. Look at what you can see of his arms. Creases and no ballooning.

Why not adress the full length photos I posted, where no ballooning and plenty of creases are seen? Indeed with those pics, photshop a lunar background and they look like slimmed down versions of the lunar EVA suit.

Photoshop the moon onto this image.



Or this one



Or this one




Here's a pic of an unpressurised STS suit

Little obvious diff to a pressurised one. Why? Because they learned after the early ones how to layer them so ballooning would be far far less of a problem. Indeed by your logic the current STS photos must be fake too as they show far less ballooning than Whites early EVA suit.

FlameoftheWest

This is all so interesting. I spent the weekend looking at both sides of the issue and I have to say that "Hoax Tards" are winning me over.

The issue of the Van Allen belt interested me greatly as it is the ultimate smoking gun if the belt is as dangerous as they claim it is (depening on day of the week going by the excuses on Bad Astonomy). They say the radiation is mainly about electrons and ionized protons, right? Yet, we know about Bremsstrahlung radiation which occur when accelerated electrons have to suddendly stop against a target.They change direction and are transformed into Bremsstrahlung X rays. When your dentist uses X rays is about 500 keV. Now, what about the amount in Van Allen belt?
It's not about Russian people talking about this but we know in 1998, hundreds of miles BELOW Van Allen belt, the space shuttle using a better shield than Apollo, the astronauts with closed eyes could stare the readiation through their already damaged retinas. That's why most of the astronauts got eye cataracts developed at 40 years old. I have to wonder if they could see or even LIVE if they actually went to the moon.

Is this why in a NASA video we see a astronaut laughing his ass with the visor UP not covering his face!

I mean, even here with our atmosphere shield and 150 million kilometers distance from the Sun, we are told to wear sunglasses to protect ourselves from UV light, don't we? I mean, nobody told that guy to use the visor with a golden protection?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkRG3EaEGfk

This has to be a fake. There is no two ways about it. The Astronaut would be blinded. This is pretty much damning evidence that this bit of footage at least was not filmed on the surface of the moon.

bytey

Wibbs wrote: »

They're way older for a start. Waaaay older. They're also lacking in water and a few other substances. And action of same. Mostly basalt like rocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

Now Mars, that would be a whole heap more interesting..

who can say this is true ?
NASA ?
some scientists approved by NASA ?

bytey

PirateShampoo wrote: »

But it wont be similar, the Moon is a totally alien enviroment. Its has a reflective surface which you wont find naturally here.

you mean like antartica , or the artic ?
or clouds ?

bytey

regarding the radio tracking , conversation recording , and telescope tracking

all data was prerecorded data from previous earth orbit apolos and relayed via a " test satellite " - NASA owned on the 2 gig wave band .


radio hams picked up faked transmission from a delayed relaying satellite .

astonomers only captured appollo in earth orbit , not lunar orbit



yes , that was all faked as well


I did hold the opinion that
1/ some missions did go to the moon- but not all
2/ ALL of the photo record is faked or manipulated in some way

but after looking at some of the newer evidence , im starting to feel that NONE of them made it to the moon at all.

Wibbs

FlameoftheWest wrote: »

The issue of the Van Allen belt interested me greatly as it is the ultimate smoking gun if the belt is as dangerous as they claim it is (depening on day of the week going by the excuses on Bad Astonomy). They say the radiation is mainly about electrons and ionized protons, right? Yet, we know about Bremsstrahlung radiation which occur when accelerated electrons have to suddendly stop against a target.They change direction and are transformed into Bremsstrahlung X rays. When your dentist uses X rays is about 500 keV. Now, what about the amount in Van Allen belt?
It's not about Russian people talking about this but we know in 1998, hundreds of miles BELOW Van Allen belt, the space shuttle using a better shield than Apollo,

As you said the radiation consists of mostly electrons and ionized protons and some higher charged particles too. Now to your Bremsstrahlung radiation. Heavy metal sheilding such as lead would cause more of that radiation. The lower the atomic number of the metal one uses the less bremsstrahlung created. Aluminium is better than steel as an example. Plus the lunar CM had insulation that acted as sheilding. Plus they flew through the tinnest part of the belts, backwards with the engine and CM support bit into the "current".

the astronauts with closed eyes could stare the readiation through their already damaged retinas. That's why most of the astronauts got eye cataracts developed at 40 years old. I have to wonder if they could see or even LIVE if they actually went to the moon.

Is this why in a NASA video we see a astronaut laughing his ass with the visor UP not covering his face!

I mean, even here with our atmosphere shield and 150 million kilometers distance from the Sun, we are told to wear sunglasses to protect ourselves from UV light, don't we? I mean, nobody told that guy to use the visor with a golden protection?

Radiation of any sort is down to intensity and length of exposure. Snow blindness is a real problem in polar regions(and in deserts with sand blindness), but takes time to build up the exposure to when it occurs. These types of damage occur not just because of the sun, but the reflected light from the ground. This can happen on lakes or seas too. Sunburn in an open boat happens way quicker than on land. As both hoax and sckeptics have pointed out the moons reflectivity isnt very high. Not compared to snow.

So staring at the sun is not a good bet, but walking around in the sun is not nearly as bad. Not even close. Was he being sensible in flipping up his visor? Nope. Would it have blinded him? Nope. Not for that length of time. And in the vid you link to, ground control do get onto him to use the visor but he complains its scratched and affecting his ability to see. Id say pure geologic excitemnet comes to mind too as he was the only geologist sent up. Like telling a kid on the beach to reapply sunscreen. You often hear "ahh ma/da Im graaaand". His reply is a bit of an adult version of that You also regularly see shuttle EVA's where they have the visor up and they're out of the atmosphere. The clear visor itself will attenuate at least some of the rays itself. Then you have to ask if the UV is that strong, how do unmanned probes cameras deal with it? Old style TV cameras can be fried by it. Indeed on Apollo 12 Al bean made a mistake and pointed the camera at the sun for too long and blew it. Maybe his paintings of the moon are his way of making up for the cock up

So yea I get your point, but I dunno.