was the moon landing fake?
- Thread starter mars13
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Light, I must protest. I have the greatest respect for the quality of your insightful posts, but this goes to far. We doubtless have a number of thirteen year olds who are valuable contributors to sciforums. To compare them to Mars13 is extremely offensive.Light said:
dont know,whih is why i am askin about this. i am not pretending to be a scientist. but not beihg A 'scientist' must NEVER EVER EVER EVER stop anyone from inquiring, EVER...!...at the moment i have heard several explantions here from people who Do believe the moon ladning was real. i would now like to hear sevweral explanations from scientists who dont believe it was real to tell me about Van Ellen belt shit and i will then look at it in theee way i look at it.......snake river rufus said:
such questions as these summarized:
'Moon is affected by extreme teperatures excacerabted by lack of atmosphere'...so, if so, how come teir 'Hasselblad 500' camera worked witout destroying film emulsioon'
'Xrays from Sun would fog film and ultraviolet rays would distort colours'...yet offical Landing pics are perfect---explain?
'Gravity on moon is one sixth that of Earth...........astronaut would weigh about 30 kilos on moon, yet....the depth of te astronauts' footprints in sand of Moon suggest they weighed much more..' explain?
'None of photos taken on the oon showed evidence of flash. You wold have seen a flash...because the astronaut taking the phograph would have been reflected in the visor of othe astronaut' please explain
these questions come from a film called 'Dark Side of the Moon'
see here: 'Moon Hoax Documentary' http://www.orwelltoday.com/moonhoaxdoc.shtml
'Moon is affected by extreme teperatures excacerabted by lack of atmosphere'...so, if so, how come teir 'Hasselblad 500' camera worked witout destroying film emulsioon'
'Xrays from Sun would fog film and ultraviolet rays would distort colours'...yet offical Landing pics are perfect---explain?
'Gravity on moon is one sixth that of Earth...........astronaut would weigh about 30 kilos on moon, yet....the depth of te astronauts' footprints in sand of Moon suggest they weighed much more..' explain?
'None of photos taken on the oon showed evidence of flash. You wold have seen a flash...because the astronaut taking the phograph would have been reflected in the visor of othe astronaut' please explain
these questions come from a film called 'Dark Side of the Moon'
see here: 'Moon Hoax Documentary' http://www.orwelltoday.com/moonhoaxdoc.shtml
leopold99 said:
No, sock puppeting is when a member makes more than one account and posts with it. Like how vincent28uk, Ritris and that Kiwi guy are all sock puppets of one person who likes posting anti-Islamic propoganda onto sciforums.
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
I'm not knowledgable in the others, but this one is easy. The suits the astronauts were wearing weighed almost as much as the person. There was so much gear they carried around the only way they could walk was because the gravity was so light.duendy said:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The moon does indeed experience extreme temperatures - but over a twenty eight day period. The timing of the moon landings was partly arranged to avoid the very highest lunar temperatures. My recollection is that the camera was contained within a protective casing, which would have provided additional insulation. Operating temperatures would have remained satisfactory throughout.duendy said:
I am certain you could find something on this - published before the landings - if you look hard enough. NASA poured out masses of information on just about every aspect of the flights.
The trite answer, of course, is that for what a Hasselblad costs I would expect the damn thing to work on the surface of the sun, not just the moon!
Solar x-ray emissions are significant during flares. These constitute a major danger to astronauts: had one occured at any point in the mission, it would have been aborted. Under normal conditions, however, the flux levels of x-rays are insufficient to cause any problems. There are considerably fewer x-rays to fog the film in space, than in an airport x-ray machine. You can run film through those dozrns of time without visibly effecting it.duendy said:
Two points. One has already been mentioned. They were in massive suits. Point two: it isn't sand, its very fine dust, very loosely settled on the surface. Not at all compact. Very easy to leave footprints in.duendy said:
Do you use flash to take photographs outdoors, in the middle of the day? If you do, I can recommend some good books on photography.
Next.
so radiation cooks the surface of the moon,but humans are uneffected?
do you know what solar radiation is?
do you know how powerful it is?
funny how the sun is alittle stronger the a heat lamp.
and since when cant you tell the diffrence between REAL footage and SPECIAL FX?
im sure tricking people during vietnam was easy,but now we have movies that make the cheap FX in the ''moon landing''look like film school projects.
everyone who is over 40 says''i was there'' in response to moon landing allegations.
no,you were watching a grainy BW image on tv.
its just like the people who see jesus in tacos,i see a taco,religous nuts see the savior of mankind.
one of those two people are DILUTED LUNITICS,the other is a rational human.
have fun with your phoney moon landing,cause we will NEVER go back[for some reason,i wonder what it could be?].
do you know what solar radiation is?
do you know how powerful it is?
funny how the sun is alittle stronger the a heat lamp.
and since when cant you tell the diffrence between REAL footage and SPECIAL FX?
im sure tricking people during vietnam was easy,but now we have movies that make the cheap FX in the ''moon landing''look like film school projects.
everyone who is over 40 says''i was there'' in response to moon landing allegations.
no,you were watching a grainy BW image on tv.
its just like the people who see jesus in tacos,i see a taco,religous nuts see the savior of mankind.
one of those two people are DILUTED LUNITICS,the other is a rational human.
have fun with your phoney moon landing,cause we will NEVER go back[for some reason,i wonder what it could be?].
Your 'radiation argument' has a lot of holes, mars13. The amount of radiation an astronaut receives on the moon in Roentgens Equivalent Man is nominal unless there is a solar storm. For someone to die from the radiation, they'd have to suddenly absorb 300 rems or more but you can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect.
Even if an astronaut was on the Moon in 1972 during the August solar storm, he would have absorbed 400 or more rems and probably have gotten sick, but could have been easily treated. There were no Apollo missions on the surface of the Moon during the storm, but even if there were, they could have simply returned to the command module and its thick aluminium hull would have reduced the total rem exposure to about 35.
Before repeating the conspiracy "theories" of the lunatic crowd, I'd suggest actually educating yourself.
Even if an astronaut was on the Moon in 1972 during the August solar storm, he would have absorbed 400 or more rems and probably have gotten sick, but could have been easily treated. There were no Apollo missions on the surface of the Moon during the storm, but even if there were, they could have simply returned to the command module and its thick aluminium hull would have reduced the total rem exposure to about 35.
Before repeating the conspiracy "theories" of the lunatic crowd, I'd suggest actually educating yourself.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Mars13, I'll indulge you a little further, but lay off the insults: you really wont be able to match me in that department.
Tell me, how powerful is solar radiation? Just exactly what is it? You claim to know. Excellent. For all us terminally foolish individuals, lay it out for us.
Don't post a series of links and leave us to read them. Set down in clear, concise and comprehensive terms the quality and quantity of solar radiation we might expect to encounter on the surface of the moon.
I don't want adjectives. Adjectives I can do. I want hard, validated, relevant, accurate facts. Do you know what a fact is Mars? If so, lets have some from you.
In passing let me respond obliquely to another of your questions: can I tell the difference between real footage and special effects? Let me ask you: can you tell the difference between real English and slovenly verbiage? I'll give you a clue: it has to do with spelling and grammar; structure and syntax; usage and abusage.
Finally, I am sorry to hear about your ocular difficulties. If you continue to see tacos I would recommend you consult an optometrist. If you see the face of Jesus, consult a priest.
Tell me, how powerful is solar radiation? Just exactly what is it? You claim to know. Excellent. For all us terminally foolish individuals, lay it out for us.
Don't post a series of links and leave us to read them. Set down in clear, concise and comprehensive terms the quality and quantity of solar radiation we might expect to encounter on the surface of the moon.
I don't want adjectives. Adjectives I can do. I want hard, validated, relevant, accurate facts. Do you know what a fact is Mars? If so, lets have some from you.
In passing let me respond obliquely to another of your questions: can I tell the difference between real footage and special effects? Let me ask you: can you tell the difference between real English and slovenly verbiage? I'll give you a clue: it has to do with spelling and grammar; structure and syntax; usage and abusage.
Finally, I am sorry to hear about your ocular difficulties. If you continue to see tacos I would recommend you consult an optometrist. If you see the face of Jesus, consult a priest.
Again, your ignorance prevails. You failed to answer Ophiolite's questions. How much solar radiation is present on the surface of the moon during periods of no solar storms?
You're full of shit or ignorant. Get an education.
Start with, J. R. Letaw, R. Silberberg and C. H. Tsao (1989). Radiation hazards on space mission outside the magnetosphere. Advanced Space Research, 9(10)285–291.
The lunatic fringe isn't welcome to post nonsense as if it were fact in a science board. Either produce facts or STFU.
Start with, J. R. Letaw, R. Silberberg and C. H. Tsao (1989). Radiation hazards on space mission outside the magnetosphere. Advanced Space Research, 9(10)285–291.
The lunatic fringe isn't welcome to post nonsense as if it were fact in a science board. Either produce facts or STFU.
so the sun doesnt produce gamma rays?
and humans are not effected by gamma rays?
space is not the cuddly happy place you wish it was.
its a dangrous radiation,vacuum,micrometeor infested HELL SCAPE.
we cant go back,majicly,and for some reason the shuttle experinces lethal radiation levels at 400 miles up,and its 10X thicker then the crap they''went ''to the moon with.
and humans are not effected by gamma rays?
space is not the cuddly happy place you wish it was.
its a dangrous radiation,vacuum,micrometeor infested HELL SCAPE.
we cant go back,majicly,and for some reason the shuttle experinces lethal radiation levels at 400 miles up,and its 10X thicker then the crap they''went ''to the moon with.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Mars, I said I would indulge you. I shall continue to do so a little longer. Here is how the situation looks to an educated outsider:
MArs13: emotional tirade, filled with powerfull adjectives, conjecture, guesswork and invective.
Ophiolite: a calm request for some data to substantiate Mars13's claim
Mars13: more emotion, more qualitative remarks. Nothing of substance.
So, again I ask you for facts. I'll help you out here. At midday on the moon, withint 10 degrees of the equator, what is the radiation flux per square metre? You can give me the total figure, or split it into any wavelength ranges you care to, including your precious gamma rays. I just want you to tell me what the strength of that radiation is. You know we have measured it, with a multitude of satellites, not just in trans-lunar space, but all round the solar system. We've been doing so for almost half a century. So, it should be simple for you to tell me the simple facts: how much radiation will one square metre of the moon receive? Specifically, quantitatively. How much?
Answers such as "more than a human can handle you dumb shit" will not be judged acceptable, so don't try it.
I'm waiting. I don't think you are smart enough to be able to get that information. Prove me wrong. It's the only thing you'll prove me wrong in, so take the opportunity while it is up for grabs.
Take your certainty and your limited brain power and find the information and report back to me, and I'll graciously bow and say "I didn't think you had it in you."
Go ahead.
MArs13: emotional tirade, filled with powerfull adjectives, conjecture, guesswork and invective.
Ophiolite: a calm request for some data to substantiate Mars13's claim
Mars13: more emotion, more qualitative remarks. Nothing of substance.
So, again I ask you for facts. I'll help you out here. At midday on the moon, withint 10 degrees of the equator, what is the radiation flux per square metre? You can give me the total figure, or split it into any wavelength ranges you care to, including your precious gamma rays. I just want you to tell me what the strength of that radiation is. You know we have measured it, with a multitude of satellites, not just in trans-lunar space, but all round the solar system. We've been doing so for almost half a century. So, it should be simple for you to tell me the simple facts: how much radiation will one square metre of the moon receive? Specifically, quantitatively. How much?
Answers such as "more than a human can handle you dumb shit" will not be judged acceptable, so don't try it.
I'm waiting. I don't think you are smart enough to be able to get that information. Prove me wrong. It's the only thing you'll prove me wrong in, so take the opportunity while it is up for grabs.
Take your certainty and your limited brain power and find the information and report back to me, and I'll graciously bow and say "I didn't think you had it in you."
Go ahead.