Re: Has anyone else seen this video?
You obviously didn't watch the video...Jan Lundberg...the designer of the Hasselblad, plaily explains the lack in dexterity..He designed the cameras with this in mind.
WRapping your hand in duct tape is absolutely invalid as any kind of comparison of a glove inflated to around 4 PSI.
And if was was such a non-issue...the gloves back in the late sixties, then why did NASA just recently have a contest to come up with a better glove? They actually have done it every year for a few years now..
http://astronaut-glove.tripod.com/
http://www.islandastro.org/Hands In Space/interview.html
“It wasn't like I thought it would be,” Homer said. “The glove is rigid when it is pressurized. It was surprising to me because intellectually four psi (pounds per square inch) doesn’t seem like that much. I was surprised at how much a rigid shell it became.”
Right: Peter Homer demonstrates his glove design at the Astronaut Glove Challenge event. (Matthew Z. Homer)
With his hand inside the pressurized Phase VI glove, the glove used currently by astronauts, Homer tried to curl his fingers. “I was surprised at how difficult that was,” he said. “It was the Phase VI. It was the latest and greatest, and I was surprised.”
The latest and the greatest and he was surprised? Are you going to argue that the Apollo gloves of the sixties and early seventies were superior to the latest and greatest of our current stock?
And please tell me what magical ingredient gave the Apollo suits protection from micrometeorites?
http://www.wirespecialties.com/seniorproject/reports/micrometeorite_protection.htm
a_lost_packet_":1m124lrj said:By the way, the vids are pretty painful to watch. When are Moon Hoaxers going to put together decent videos that effectively argue their points? I suppose when they get some effective points to argue, the videos will improve.
Quantum11":1m124lrj said:
No, in short, that is a video effect. You can see other objects being effected the same way in the video. Are you saying everything became magically animate? I can't even see much of a video effect compared to other objects in the scene, which clearly demonstrate it much better than a few pixels on the flag.
No. First of all, in the vid, the comparisons made between "inflated" suits is invalid. The suits of Gemini and Apollo were not the same suits. As a matter of fact, the Apollo Moon suits had a restraint layer built into the suit to prevent problems with inflation. A7L They were also more armored against potential micro-meteorite impacts. They were extremely stiff suits to begin with.
Gemini Suit
Apollo Suit
They're obviously not the same suit.
Secondly, If I wrapped my hand in a ductape covered oven mitt, as long as I could still flex my fingers, I could pick up an eagle feather. Spacesuit gloves are specially designed to combat problems with internal pressure. Apollo suit also had rubber fingertips.
Obviously, whoever the guy is that made the vid is more interested in portraying himself as some sort of Moon Hoax James Bond than accurately portraying a factual argument.
On the Moon, there may not be much of an atmosphere for a scattering effect, but you're definitely going to see that high albedo objects reflect light. That's part of what is happening here. Another thing is that it's a high-contrast picture - It's going to somewhat have a "white-out" effect like an old 50's black&white television show. There is no "spotlight" effect going on here.
You obviously didn't watch the video...Jan Lundberg...the designer of the Hasselblad, plaily explains the lack in dexterity..He designed the cameras with this in mind.
WRapping your hand in duct tape is absolutely invalid as any kind of comparison of a glove inflated to around 4 PSI.
And if was was such a non-issue...the gloves back in the late sixties, then why did NASA just recently have a contest to come up with a better glove? They actually have done it every year for a few years now..
http://astronaut-glove.tripod.com/
http://www.islandastro.org/Hands In Space/interview.html
“It wasn't like I thought it would be,” Homer said. “The glove is rigid when it is pressurized. It was surprising to me because intellectually four psi (pounds per square inch) doesn’t seem like that much. I was surprised at how much a rigid shell it became.”
Right: Peter Homer demonstrates his glove design at the Astronaut Glove Challenge event. (Matthew Z. Homer)
With his hand inside the pressurized Phase VI glove, the glove used currently by astronauts, Homer tried to curl his fingers. “I was surprised at how difficult that was,” he said. “It was the Phase VI. It was the latest and greatest, and I was surprised.”
The latest and the greatest and he was surprised? Are you going to argue that the Apollo gloves of the sixties and early seventies were superior to the latest and greatest of our current stock?
And please tell me what magical ingredient gave the Apollo suits protection from micrometeorites?
http://www.wirespecialties.com/seniorproject/reports/micrometeorite_protection.htm
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Would you like to applaud Alp's decision to ignore the radiation issue completely?
ZenGalacticore":t1iogrho said:
Would you like to applaud Alp's decision to ignore the radiation issue completely?
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Unfortunately, I don't think it will matter. For some reason, I envision a flurry of accusatory questions about such pivotal topics like spacesuit underwear, a lack of sufficient gravity due to the Moon being made of styrofoam instead of cheese, a lack of air would cause the fuse for the lander to not be lit, etc...
ZenGalacticore":3h75iq7l said:
Unfortunately, I don't think it will matter. For some reason, I envision a flurry of accusatory questions about such pivotal topics like spacesuit underwear, a lack of sufficient gravity due to the Moon being made of styrofoam instead of cheese, a lack of air would cause the fuse for the lander to not be lit, etc...
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Well, are you going to explain the resolution figures for us, or just make silly statments? Seriously?
a_lost_packet_":2i16i9tg said:Quantum11":2i16i9tg said:
Do you want the license plate number? Wait awhile. When we get some "Enemy of the State" better-than-TacSat-capable satellites orbiting the Moon, you can check the landers for dings and scratches. Until then, we'll have to use the LRO which is not designed to take those kind of pictures.
Well, are you going to explain the resolution figures for us, or just make silly statments? Seriously?
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
If you would care to discuss what materials in the Apollo suits protected from micrometeorites. And then perhaps you can further that by describing what radiation protection the suits offered as well?
a_lost_packet_":osztqc0e said:ZenGalacticore":osztqc0e said:
Unfortunately, I don't think it will matter. For some reason, I envision a flurry of accusatory questions about such pivotal topics like spacesuit underwear, a lack of sufficient gravity due to the Moon being made of styrofoam instead of cheese, a lack of air would cause the fuse for the lander to not be lit, etc...
If you would care to discuss what materials in the Apollo suits protected from micrometeorites. And then perhaps you can further that by describing what radiation protection the suits offered as well?
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Well, the minute you decide you want to use intellect, and sources to support your position, rather then silly comments..again...The conversation can progress in a productive manner...
a_lost_packet_":1brxx6mq said:
Well, the minute you decide you want to use intellect, and sources to support your position, rather then silly comments..again...The conversation can progress in a productive manner...
Re: Has anyone else seen this video?
What does that have to do with anything?
But, it does illustrate the difficulty in making dexterous movements against uniform resistance. It's an illustration, nothing more.
Gee, things change. We have color televisions now too. Astronauts have always complained about the gloves. Astronauts are also doing much more detailed work with their hands, more often while fully suited and would definitely benefit from improved gloves.
That illustrates the point - Obviously, the gloves needed to be improved. Do you have something against progress in engineering new and better designs? Note that he did not say the gloves were impossible to use... What's the point of stating the obvious? Yes, they are difficult to use. Anyone even passingly familiar with NASA spacesuits would know that.
What kind of question is that? It makes no sense at all in light of your argument. Yes, they are all difficult to use. That's obvious. But, "difficult" is not "impossible."
I didn't say they were micro-meteorite proof, just clarifying that. But, to answer your question:
Irrelevant link is irrelevant. (Nice high-school project, though.) It doesn't address the specific conditions faced on the Moon nor does it do anything more than point out that micrometeorites can be dangerous and must be prepared for. How does that support any point you're trying to make. What is your point?
The Lunar EVA suits were designed to provide protection from micrometeorites and fragments caused by micrometeorites striking the lunar surface. They provided "protection", but did not guarantee safety. A hardhat might help protect you against a falling bolt. But, it's not going to protect you from a falling iron beam. (It's a matter of relative protection, in case you didn't get the illustration.) The suits provided what safety was possible while still affording the lunar astronauts the ability to move and work in the lunar environment.
Quantum11":3fi06hiw said:
What does that have to do with anything?
But, it does illustrate the difficulty in making dexterous movements against uniform resistance. It's an illustration, nothing more.
Gee, things change. We have color televisions now too. Astronauts have always complained about the gloves. Astronauts are also doing much more detailed work with their hands, more often while fully suited and would definitely benefit from improved gloves.
That illustrates the point - Obviously, the gloves needed to be improved. Do you have something against progress in engineering new and better designs? Note that he did not say the gloves were impossible to use... What's the point of stating the obvious? Yes, they are difficult to use. Anyone even passingly familiar with NASA spacesuits would know that.
What kind of question is that? It makes no sense at all in light of your argument. Yes, they are all difficult to use. That's obvious. But, "difficult" is not "impossible."
I didn't say they were micro-meteorite proof, just clarifying that. But, to answer your question:
[url=http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/p223-228.htm:3fi06hiw said:
Irrelevant link is irrelevant. (Nice high-school project, though.) It doesn't address the specific conditions faced on the Moon nor does it do anything more than point out that micrometeorites can be dangerous and must be prepared for. How does that support any point you're trying to make. What is your point?
The Lunar EVA suits were designed to provide protection from micrometeorites and fragments caused by micrometeorites striking the lunar surface. They provided "protection", but did not guarantee safety. A hardhat might help protect you against a falling bolt. But, it's not going to protect you from a falling iron beam. (It's a matter of relative protection, in case you didn't get the illustration.) The suits provided what safety was possible while still affording the lunar astronauts the ability to move and work in the lunar environment.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
What radiation issue? Which post am I supposed to be responding to?
Quantum11":22nhmcni said:
What radiation issue? Which post am I supposed to be responding to?
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
What do you want explained?
The point is that the LRO is not designed to take high-resolution photographs at an optical resolution of half an inch.. or whatever it is you want the resolution to be.
LRO
If you have a high-def, high resolution, 5 megapixel camera and take a picture outside, how many feathers can you count on a bird that is 500 feet away? If your camera is designed with a powerful zoom lens, to make the field of view tighter, then you might be able to count a few. But, if it doesn't have a zoom lens, you likely won't. The LRO is not equipped with a zoom lens capable of bringing a narrow field of view into sharp focus. That is not what it was designed to do.
Quantum11":1ejji565 said:
What do you want explained?
The point is that the LRO is not designed to take high-resolution photographs at an optical resolution of half an inch.. or whatever it is you want the resolution to be.
LRO
If you have a high-def, high resolution, 5 megapixel camera and take a picture outside, how many feathers can you count on a bird that is 500 feet away? If your camera is designed with a powerful zoom lens, to make the field of view tighter, then you might be able to count a few. But, if it doesn't have a zoom lens, you likely won't. The LRO is not equipped with a zoom lens capable of bringing a narrow field of view into sharp focus. That is not what it was designed to do.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Fine, if that is not what it was designed to do, then all the people, like yourself posting up pictures of light and dark pixels, should not be surprised when those who doubt the authenticity of Apollo are not impressed. And no one can use those images, and hold them up as the defacto, final proof of anything.
a_lost_packet_":1agp3025 said:
Fine, if that is not what it was designed to do, then all the people, like yourself posting up pictures of light and dark pixels, should not be surprised when those who doubt the authenticity of Apollo are not impressed. And no one can use those images, and hold them up as the defacto, final proof of anything.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
I've only posed the question here on this board twice, or three times...One more for you just in case you missed the others..
The search for truth about Apollo, begins and ends in space. Deadly, radioactive, truth awaits the open-minded.
I invite any solar/astro physicist or space radiation expert, to explain the relative excellent health the Apollo astronauts enjoy/ed after journying into what Van Allen called a sea of deadly radiation.
I also invite you to look at the data for major solar flares, and tell me why NASA, and it's 'space experts' keep saying Apollo astronauts were lucky not to have encountered any major solar flares, otherwise they'd be dead. Because there the EDIT fug EDIT they are. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/FLARES_INDEX/McMath/CFI55_80.TXT
Now how about you guys do some explaining?
And can you explain why NASA would lie about this simple MAJOR SOLAR FLARE FACT in their:
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
You can read, so all you have to do is look at the major solar flares solar physicists state would have killed apollo astronauts, listed by date at the NGDC. Hundreds of solar flares, and thirty major solar flares during various Apollo missions. Some while they were supposedly on, or near the moon.
If you want to start applauding the radiation shielding for Apollo missions, why don't you start with how Honey-combed aluminum, and Nylon spacesuits serve to block solar radiation, gamma rays, x-rays, and killer electrons?
a_lost_packet_":qkc2imoi said:
I've only posed the question here on this board twice, or three times...One more for you just in case you missed the others..
The search for truth about Apollo, begins and ends in space. Deadly, radioactive, truth awaits the open-minded.
I invite any solar/astro physicist or space radiation expert, to explain the relative excellent health the Apollo astronauts enjoy/ed after journying into what Van Allen called a sea of deadly radiation.
I also invite you to look at the data for major solar flares, and tell me why NASA, and it's 'space experts' keep saying Apollo astronauts were lucky not to have encountered any major solar flares, otherwise they'd be dead. Because there the EDIT fug EDIT they are. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/FLARES_INDEX/McMath/CFI55_80.TXT
Now how about you guys do some explaining?
And can you explain why NASA would lie about this simple MAJOR SOLAR FLARE FACT in their:
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
You can read, so all you have to do is look at the major solar flares solar physicists state would have killed apollo astronauts, listed by date at the NGDC. Hundreds of solar flares, and thirty major solar flares during various Apollo missions. Some while they were supposedly on, or near the moon.
If you want to start applauding the radiation shielding for Apollo missions, why don't you start with how Honey-combed aluminum, and Nylon spacesuits serve to block solar radiation, gamma rays, x-rays, and killer electrons?
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Sure.
As an additional offering to further explain the considerations surrounding radiation and high velocity particles ("cosmic rays", etc..)
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Includes Van Allen Belt data)
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HZE GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION (Includes data on assessments regarding high velocity particles and biological risks from actual studies conducted on Apollo missions)
MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (Experiments and their conclusions concerning further considerations regarding radiation on biology.)
APOLLO 17 POCKET MOUSE EXPERIMENT (Mice, bravely sacrificing themselves so we can go to the Moon.)
Read the conclusions.
If you'd like to learn how the suits worked, here's the manual - Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit
Detailed report on the development of the Apollo EMU. AER-Development...EMU.pdf
Average radiation doses received for flight crews of all Apollo flights - Solar energetic phenomena and radiation hazards to biological systems
Now that you're intimately familiar with the effects of spaceborn radiation on biological systesm, both the expected (due to experimental evidence) and actual radiation doses received by Apollo flight crews and the variety of components within the Lunar EMUs, we come to:
Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation
So, in short, what protection did they have? As far as the EMU goes, the materials of construction would protect them against low energy particles and radiation. Neutrons generated from secondary radiation (particles impacting the lunar surface) were also mitigated, somewhat, by the materials of construction including neutron-resonant foils. However, Radiation was never a significant problem with any of the Apollo missions and it was not thought to be one unless a solar flare occurred. In that case, it was hoped the astronauts would make it back to the LEM before significant damage by high v cosmic radiation could take place. Though, at the time, little was known concerning cosmic rays. Later, it was determined that inside the flight capsule, crews could survive radiation from a solar flare. However, secondary radiation might be a problem and further effort for protection was made. Cosmic rays, as it turns out, generally need repeated strikes to do significant damage to the most concerning organ - the brain. Incidental damage from occassional strikes was not thought to be of significance. (Remember the "Eye Flashes?" The summary from those incidents is also included in the links above.)
As it stands, Apollo flight crews did not return home with any dosages higher than what were already recommended as yearly limits set by the USAEC. (Atomic Energy Commission -The authority at that time.)
The only specifically constructed anti-radiation (aside from heavy thermal insulation, materials of general constuction/dual purpose and some neutron protection) component on the Apollo EMU that I know of was the gold visor used to protect against UV and infra-red radiation. Oh, and all EMUs came with a handy dosimeter, in an external pocket...
That should answer your question.
Quantum11":bgtssdce said:
Sure.
As an additional offering to further explain the considerations surrounding radiation and high velocity particles ("cosmic rays", etc..)
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Includes Van Allen Belt data)
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HZE GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION (Includes data on assessments regarding high velocity particles and biological risks from actual studies conducted on Apollo missions)
MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (Experiments and their conclusions concerning further considerations regarding radiation on biology.)
APOLLO 17 POCKET MOUSE EXPERIMENT (Mice, bravely sacrificing themselves so we can go to the Moon.)
Read the conclusions.
If you'd like to learn how the suits worked, here's the manual - Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit
Detailed report on the development of the Apollo EMU. AER-Development...EMU.pdf
Average radiation doses received for flight crews of all Apollo flights - Solar energetic phenomena and radiation hazards to biological systems
Now that you're intimately familiar with the effects of spaceborn radiation on biological systesm, both the expected (due to experimental evidence) and actual radiation doses received by Apollo flight crews and the variety of components within the Lunar EMUs, we come to:
Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation
So, in short, what protection did they have? As far as the EMU goes, the materials of construction would protect them against low energy particles and radiation. Neutrons generated from secondary radiation (particles impacting the lunar surface) were also mitigated, somewhat, by the materials of construction including neutron-resonant foils. However, Radiation was never a significant problem with any of the Apollo missions and it was not thought to be one unless a solar flare occurred. In that case, it was hoped the astronauts would make it back to the LEM before significant damage by high v cosmic radiation could take place. Though, at the time, little was known concerning cosmic rays. Later, it was determined that inside the flight capsule, crews could survive radiation from a solar flare. However, secondary radiation might be a problem and further effort for protection was made. Cosmic rays, as it turns out, generally need repeated strikes to do significant damage to the most concerning organ - the brain. Incidental damage from occassional strikes was not thought to be of significance. (Remember the "Eye Flashes?" The summary from those incidents is also included in the links above.)
As it stands, Apollo flight crews did not return home with any dosages higher than what were already recommended as yearly limits set by the USAEC. (Atomic Energy Commission -The authority at that time.)
The only specifically constructed anti-radiation (aside from heavy thermal insulation, materials of general constuction/dual purpose and some neutron protection) component on the Apollo EMU that I know of was the gold visor used to protect against UV and infra-red radiation. Oh, and all EMUs came with a handy dosimeter, in an external pocket...
That should answer your question.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
People like me, posting up pictures of light and dark pixels... And your "flag moving" video is any different? Kettle.. pot... black?
The LRO images confirm that there is direct evidence to support the idea that there are man-made objects on the Moon, including footprints and tire tracks... The location of these objects match the reported landing and EVA areas of the Apollo astronauts. The tracks and apparent instrument packages appear where the Apollo astronauts said they left them when they last saw them..
We'll get VIN numbers off the transmission of the LEM when next we visit. Until then, or until someone makes a purpose built camera package simply to take pictures of the sites, well have to wait. Of course, I am sure Moon Hoaxers will decry any photographs and esoteric ID number evidence as simply further evidence of a huge conspiracy or faked photographic evidence.
It will never stop.
It's Conspiracy, all the way down.
Every offer of evidence and proof of the credibility of the Apollo missions will be met with Moon Hoaxers screaming that it "isn't credible because it is only part of a Conspiracy." When the last Moon Hoaxer is 120 years old and finally gets his flight to the Moon to view Apollo 11's LEM and Armstrong's first footprint, he'll turn to all the media present and with his last dying breath claim "You guys just put this here yesterday. YOU'RE ALL IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!"
Quantum11":3rtlbrnc said:
People like me, posting up pictures of light and dark pixels... And your "flag moving" video is any different? Kettle.. pot... black?
The LRO images confirm that there is direct evidence to support the idea that there are man-made objects on the Moon, including footprints and tire tracks... The location of these objects match the reported landing and EVA areas of the Apollo astronauts. The tracks and apparent instrument packages appear where the Apollo astronauts said they left them when they last saw them..
We'll get VIN numbers off the transmission of the LEM when next we visit. Until then, or until someone makes a purpose built camera package simply to take pictures of the sites, well have to wait. Of course, I am sure Moon Hoaxers will decry any photographs and esoteric ID number evidence as simply further evidence of a huge conspiracy or faked photographic evidence.
It will never stop.
It's Conspiracy, all the way down.
Every offer of evidence and proof of the credibility of the Apollo missions will be met with Moon Hoaxers screaming that it "isn't credible because it is only part of a Conspiracy." When the last Moon Hoaxer is 120 years old and finally gets his flight to the Moon to view Apollo 11's LEM and Armstrong's first footprint, he'll turn to all the media present and with his last dying breath claim "You guys just put this here yesterday. YOU'RE ALL IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!"
Re: On the moon..
If you properly shield your view from the sun, and the light scattered from the surface of the moon (or anything else), you may be able to let your eyes adjust enough to pick out some stars.
If you properly shield your view from the sun, and the light scattered from the surface of the moon (or anything else), you may be able to let your eyes adjust enough to pick out some stars.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
I'm sorry, I didn't go back and read all of your posts. I answered the posts that I responded to directly.
Not so serious a radiation issue for Apollo crews as some would like to make it awaits in reality.
See my above posts, specifically the series of links concerning biological effects of radiation and the exposure times in the Van Allen belt.
You'd be surprised at what will stop some harmful radiation. The results of all the experiments conducted at the time show that appropriate precautions were taken. Subsequent findings on return missions show that dosages were actually lower than expected. "Radiation" in the Moon Hoaxer's lexicon is a Golden Calf that they simply won't let go of despite evidence either before or after the Apollo missions that it was not the all encompassing concern they make it out to be.
There's something that needs to be understood. During this period in history, most of the public was radiation-terrified. Radiation was "everywhere" and it was constantly being warned as a huge threat. Well, it was. When someone is going to drop a bomb on you armed with a very nasty nuclear weapon, radiation is definitely going to be a concern. However, meanwhile, back in the lab, researchers are holding blocks of plutonium in their hands because they know their skin is enough of a barrier to protect themselves. Nuclear scientists are blowing up bombs all over the place (incidentally, causing a few deaths around the globe from particulate ingestion (nuclear dust)), but not really caring much about radiation problems like the general public.
Yes, radiation is dangerous and can be deadly. But, ignorance is just as dangerous. You don't combine ignorance and radiation exposure, that's a fact. But, you can combine knowledge and the possibility of radiation exposure and survive quite normally - That's what the Apollo mission designers and crews did.
Quantum11":3hwuopga said:
I'm sorry, I didn't go back and read all of your posts. I answered the posts that I responded to directly.
Not so serious a radiation issue for Apollo crews as some would like to make it awaits in reality.
See my above posts, specifically the series of links concerning biological effects of radiation and the exposure times in the Van Allen belt.
You'd be surprised at what will stop some harmful radiation. The results of all the experiments conducted at the time show that appropriate precautions were taken. Subsequent findings on return missions show that dosages were actually lower than expected. "Radiation" in the Moon Hoaxer's lexicon is a Golden Calf that they simply won't let go of despite evidence either before or after the Apollo missions that it was not the all encompassing concern they make it out to be.
There's something that needs to be understood. During this period in history, most of the public was radiation-terrified. Radiation was "everywhere" and it was constantly being warned as a huge threat. Well, it was. When someone is going to drop a bomb on you armed with a very nasty nuclear weapon, radiation is definitely going to be a concern. However, meanwhile, back in the lab, researchers are holding blocks of plutonium in their hands because they know their skin is enough of a barrier to protect themselves. Nuclear scientists are blowing up bombs all over the place (incidentally, causing a few deaths around the globe from particulate ingestion (nuclear dust)), but not really caring much about radiation problems like the general public.
Yes, radiation is dangerous and can be deadly. But, ignorance is just as dangerous. You don't combine ignorance and radiation exposure, that's a fact. But, you can combine knowledge and the possibility of radiation exposure and survive quite normally - That's what the Apollo mission designers and crews did.
Re: On the moon..
Even a small telesope with CCD = charge coupled device would see almost as many stars as in darkness. Most telescopes have a shade to reduce lens flares built in, but a much larger shade would be needed to look at dim stars near the horizon or other local objects. Neil
Even a small telesope with CCD = charge coupled device would see almost as many stars as in darkness. Most telescopes have a shade to reduce lens flares built in, but a much larger shade would be needed to look at dim stars near the horizon or other local objects. Neil
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
I was discussing Apollo hoax disinfo at this site but the moderator started to delete my posts when I was winning the debate, so I stopped. Take a look.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
www (dot) davidicke (dot) com/forum/showthread (dot) php?t=125628
I was discussing Apollo hoax disinfo at this site but the moderator started to delete my posts when I was winning the debate, so I stopped. Take a look.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
www (dot) davidicke (dot) com/forum/showthread (dot) php?t=125628
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
SpeedFreek should have provided a link I agree. However, I did a little Googling and found that Dr Van Allen said this in a letter to a BAUT member. Then another BAUT member, (username Jay Utah, actual name Jay Windley, who is also the webmaster at http://www.clavius.org) wrote to Dr Van Allen asking for confirmation that he did in fact make this comment. Here's a copy of the letter sent to Dr Van Allen by Jay, as it was returned to him with Dr Van Allen's written comment in the bottom right corner of the page.
Quantum11":1yfs9lpg said:
SpeedFreek should have provided a link I agree. However, I did a little Googling and found that Dr Van Allen said this in a letter to a BAUT member. Then another BAUT member, (username Jay Utah, actual name Jay Windley, who is also the webmaster at http://www.clavius.org) wrote to Dr Van Allen asking for confirmation that he did in fact make this comment. Here's a copy of the letter sent to Dr Van Allen by Jay, as it was returned to him with Dr Van Allen's written comment in the bottom right corner of the page.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Great research, once again, Smersh! Nicely done.
Smersh":2ynw44hu said:
Great research, once again, Smersh! Nicely done.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Please, don't discuss activities on other forums at SDC.
cosmored":1driaavg said:
Please, don't discuss activities on other forums at SDC.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
GIVE IT UP ALREADY.
Yes Werhner von Braun was in the nazi party, if he wasn't he'd likely have been hunted down by the secret police. A lot of those german rocket scientists who came to the U.S. ended up doing a lot of good and we would not be where we are today without their work and accomplishments. Are you seriously suggesting that they should not have been allowed to work for NASA due to their involuntary membership in the nazi party?
You talk about the LRO pictures, but what are you expecting? Crystal clear HD shots of the landing sites? All of your arguments have been explained and debunked a thousand times over. You are asking for proof that can not be given, and I'd bet that if we took you on a trip to the Apollo landing sites you would say that they were all put there by robots.
Simply put, you're being irrational and choosing to support the side of the argument with less data.
GIVE IT UP ALREADY.
Yes Werhner von Braun was in the nazi party, if he wasn't he'd likely have been hunted down by the secret police. A lot of those german rocket scientists who came to the U.S. ended up doing a lot of good and we would not be where we are today without their work and accomplishments. Are you seriously suggesting that they should not have been allowed to work for NASA due to their involuntary membership in the nazi party?
You talk about the LRO pictures, but what are you expecting? Crystal clear HD shots of the landing sites? All of your arguments have been explained and debunked a thousand times over. You are asking for proof that can not be given, and I'd bet that if we took you on a trip to the Apollo landing sites you would say that they were all put there by robots.
Simply put, you're being irrational and choosing to support the side of the argument with less data.
Re: Has anyone else seen this video?
Did you not read the explanation of light fall-off (the "spotlit effect" as you call it) on the lunar surface, on Jay's website? I posted the link to the page that covered all this. In fact, all these questions are dealt with at clavius.org, which is why I originally posted the link on page 1 of this thread (the flag waving is explained too).
How about coming up with something original?
Quantum11":1yif2tu4 said:
Did you not read the explanation of light fall-off (the "spotlit effect" as you call it) on the lunar surface, on Jay's website? I posted the link to the page that covered all this. In fact, all these questions are dealt with at clavius.org, which is why I originally posted the link on page 1 of this thread (the flag waving is explained too).
How about coming up with something original?
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
And now let's consider the other facts, for example, why would we fake the moon landings 6 times? And if they really were fake, why did we cancel the last three moon landings? Also, if this was all really done in an attempt to one-up the USSR, why did they never say it was fake or even attempt to?
There's too many holes in the "moon hoax" theory. Hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Apollo project, from president Kennedy all the way down to the guy who swept the floors. You are insulting all of those people and the tremendously difficult work they did to get us on the moon. This is one of America's greatest legacies and it deserves some respect.
And now let's consider the other facts, for example, why would we fake the moon landings 6 times? And if they really were fake, why did we cancel the last three moon landings? Also, if this was all really done in an attempt to one-up the USSR, why did they never say it was fake or even attempt to?
There's too many holes in the "moon hoax" theory. Hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Apollo project, from president Kennedy all the way down to the guy who swept the floors. You are insulting all of those people and the tremendously difficult work they did to get us on the moon. This is one of America's greatest legacies and it deserves some respect.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
See a dead Chinese satellite burn up as a brilliant fireball across the night sky (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
How to follow Santa Claus this Christmas Eve with NORAD's 2024 tracker
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram