Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Moon landing hoax
Comments
-
I look forward to being proven incorrect in my belief we actually went to the moon.
Can I ask what your views are on the Mythbusters moon hoax episode - are these guys in cahoots with NASA and the US government?
Mythbusters are putting foward many points most of them we have not discussed here. If you're relying on mythbusters..............well, you'd have better spent your time reading through the last 16 pages.
As for LRO, the images are faked would you believe.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59243
Ok that is an explanation indeed. They would want to have fired up a fair few probes to get that amount back(the first mars return mission is hoping for less than a kilo. Bigger distance though) but yep that could be done alright..Moon rock's don't need humans to collect them, I never doubted unmanned missions.
The important terms are short and long term. If you're getting a chest xray fine. If youre working the xray machine wear a lead jacket. Its also the nature of the radiation too. Some radiation is stopped with very little. Radium as a source for example. Used in wristwatches back in the day for read in the dark dials. The watch glass stops most of it and none or feck all goes through the back of the watch case. The danger came from those who had to apply it*. I have a couple of old dials with radium. Had them checked out and the counter doesnt go batshít. In transit they made sure they went through the thinnest part of the van allen belts. Plus the CM had shielding. You dont need lead. They were also aware of solar flares and allowed for that. 17 missed one by a few weeks. Long term on the moon? Yes you would need sheilding. Underground would be the best. Ditto with Mars. And they did note radiation effects. the flashes in their eyes from hi energy rays. The tracks in their visors from same. The way above average cataract rate among the moon guys. All but one of them suffered them. Statistically younger. Both swigert and shepard died of cancer and given they were supremely fit men. The former from luekemia IIRC. So maybe they werent so lucky. Lots of heart attacks too and one researcher reckoned he found a link between amount of chest x rays and heart disease, so.... Plus while radiation is dangerous people have shown very varying responses to it. Especially adults. Look at hiroshima or nagasaki. Two bloody dirty crude nukes and the cancer rates in those cities now is pretty equal to the rest of Japan. Chernobyl another example. Yes adults died, but in far fewer numbers than expected. Children were the main casualties. Even there.... another CT thread methinks.....Well tell that to these guys:
A team of researchers is looking to the moon to develop the tools future astronauts may need to ward off potentially life-threatening levels of space radiation.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...ed_050112.html
Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.
"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."
Easy answer but it doesnt work like that. Show me a staged moonwalk, any staged moonwalk that looks like the Apollo footage. The Apollo "bunny hop" for a startSpeed up the frame rate while taking the moving images, then play them back at normal speed, thats that problem sorted.
Now look at what looks like a card or material on one of the guys waist. It's not moving in slow mo. Again the apollo bunny hop was not how they envisaged walking on the moon. Look at any movie including NASAs before they went and walking normally in slo mo was the order of the day. These shots and others like it are not slow mo whatever they are.
The three that died on the pad on apollo 1 nearly ground the project to a halt. This was when the public were behind it. By apollo 17 people were bored of apollo and its expenditure. If three guys had died then it wuld have been game over for NASA. No CT required. Look at what happened after challenger. The shuttle was grounded. PR alone would have said quit while youre ahead lads. They had the gear to do two more, hence you can see two saturn 5's laying on their side to this day. Actually 3. Skylab cannabalised the 3rd.Plenty of astronauts have died, hasn't stopped them yet, so re-think that one.
Possible, but for my mind unlikely. Possible though.I don't know that they all aren't fake, actually after releasing the first fake one's maybe they had to fake the rest.
Still doesnt answer that question though. You expect a bigger crater. They expected a bigger crater. the LEM design allowed for that. So why if they faked everthing else sooo well, why not just dig a big crater? Or better yet dont comment at length on it or take video and high def shots of it. As for the dust. The moon's dust is very different to dust on earth. Its sharper and compacts far more quickly with depth. So dust that was blown off was only the top layer which you can see in some of the shots. If the top layer was a different colour then you would have seen the effects of the engine much more. Each mission kicked up more or less dust too. it wasnt that consistent.Well for the way the dust was kicking up behind the lunar rover a crater would be expected, but isn't there?
Well my explanation is in the previous post.With the possible aldrin decending?, you mean when "somebody turned on the light?", pictures are inconsistant, and obviously they can keep the lights out of the shots, nothing convincing here.
You ask what the hell is a horse doing riding a motorbike.Yea but what if you hear hooves then a motorbike shows up?
You see thats were we differ. The amounts of people involved, the tracking of the flights. Even recently one of the stages of apollo 12 was found in a loose orbit around the moon. The science, the hours of footage and photos, the difference in what was expected and what was encountered. The list is longer on the yay side than the nay, but as I say thats just my take.The case that they went is much, much weaker.
*Interesting story that one. The radium girls who used to handpaint the dials. Many died horrible deaths. Interesting CT fodder too as the danger was denied for so long cos of big biz.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
Mythbusters admitted they look similar, but there is a big difference.
Look at again at the part where they are comparing the jumps.
Now tell me what happens then they both land. What happens to both there feet.
Now tell me why would that happen to the Astronaut when he lands and not Jamie?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59243
Jesus I dont know where to begin. Im sorry, you need to read up on cameras or have some basic understanding of the differences between a low resolution black and white video camera and a large format colour film camera with a wide angle lens.I dunno how you can make that argument, the aastronaught was either in darkness or he wasn't. According to the video he was. If you're going to continually put up the 'magic hasselblad' argument then you've proved only one point.
The video camera is a fixed frame rate for a start with only aperture changes available. There's absolutely nothing "magical" about it. OK lets break it down into easily digestible chunks for you. Ever watch crimeline/watch? See the blurred low def security pics of scumbags a robbing? You would barely recognise yourself in one of them shots. Now imagine if you will a 70mm format still camera with a zeiss lens in the same position. Basically you're nicked mate and if all in shop security cameras captured the same detail as a 70mm stills camera, scumbags would be an endangered species. The difference is huge.
OK lets go to moving images. Are you telling me the video setting on your phone can capture the same quality, depth of field as a 70mm panavision camera? Is the latter "magic"? Could you capture the Ben Hur chariot race with your nokia? Eh no. You couldnt.
You are comparing apples and oranges with little or no understanding of fruit.
Please by all means have a different angle on things. Take the different path. Hell I'll applaud you for it. There are too many sheep, but learn more. That way your arguments will have more weight. Uprising I may take to debating over some issue or other, but he works as a photographer and has points that are based on applied knowledge. That makes a diff.That this statement is bollox untrue.
Ok I see your point, but I would also say looking at that frame the main body of the suit is over exposed, by about a stop I'd reckon. Maybe 1.5. The exposure there is for full sun, so you would expect that if they were trained to run two basic exposure settings. Even then details are still visible in the shadow.http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Ap11_Mag40.jpg
Now look at AS11-40-5964.jpg, the black shadow on his back should also have been in this pic, why is it not?, thats been my argument all along, and AS11-40-5964.jpg proves what I was saying has been correct all along. Actually as your scrolling down to AS11-40-5964.jpg look at the numerous others with the "black" shadow everybody says shouldn't be there, either people can't tell black from white, or are simply blinded by the whole hoax and even though they see the black will claim it is white.
OK compare that shot you mention and the buzz ladder one. OK? Look at the exposure on the moon surface. Its a mid tone(near enough anyway). As a mid tone its useful for exposure comparison. Now look at the buzz ladder shot. The surface is much "whiter". I'd say at least 2 odd stops lighter. Which is what you would expect if he was using the "shadow" setting.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Actually its not too perfect. The light shining on his front side is not even. His right arm is darker than his left. Same with the legs. The top of his helmet is not lit at all. The darkest area is his top right shoulder. Interestingly that is the furthest point from the reflective surface at his left foot (lunar module foot). I can post a picture of my camera and my flash too if that will lend weight to my opinion
0 -
-
Actually its not too perfect. The light shining on his front side is not even. His right arm is darker than his left. Same with the legs. The top of his helmet is not lit at all. The darkest area is his top right shoulder. Interestingly that is the furthest point from the reflective surface at his left foot (lunar module foot). I can post a picture of my camera and my flash too if that will lend weight to my opinion
So are you a photographer?, and you seriously believe these photo's aren't faked, no fill in?.
EDIT:
Actually it's not "perfect", but way,way, too good for those conditions, just look at the pics and work out how you would copy them, exactly as they are and you come to the problem.0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59243
Actually the suit colour makes a diff. It was designed to be as white as possible. To reflect solar radiation. I photographed a wedding before and as uprising2 will better tell you, though from a more pro angle as a photographer, the white wedding dress can be a bitch to expose correctly depending on the ambient light.
Actually, as an aside I say we vote for uprising to be strapped to a rocket to get proper decent pics up there. No chopping of heads and better angles. I can see it now. "Dammit Houston I need a fill in light. How can an artist work in such conditions? What do you mean there's no feckin viewfinder? At least Neil could just about frame a shot though... What do you mean I cant pose these guys?? Bloody amateurs. I better be getting danger money! Damn this suit kinda gets you in the goolies". Houston: "did we get any science done?" uprising2: "No but we all look damn good" Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDybPDtsrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
Advertisement