| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Were The Moon Landings Real or Hollywood? |
| Real! |
|
23% |
[ 11 ] |
| Special Effects! |
|
51% |
[ 24 ] |
| I Like Sitting On Fences, I Feel Safer... |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| I Neither Know Nor Care! |
|
4% |
[ 2 ] |
| What Has This Poll Got To Do With 911? |
|
14% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 47 |
|
| Author |
Message |
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
"As to what colour the sky would be absent atmo = pitch black with visible celestial objects"
why would the objects be visible? think of the sun as light pollution in the city at night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They would not be visible during the Moon's "daylight" period but would be visible during the Moon's "night" period. Just like here on Earth. Are you being deliberately thick?
As for the moon rocks - proof of possession of genuine moon rock does not mean proof of MENhaving landed there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Firstly, is anyone else having trouble connecting to this site?
Further to this subject;
Earlier in the thread I asked for evidence that the shielding provided by the command module was sufficient to ward off any and all Van Allen nasties. All I got was a pretty graphic and a very insufficient cursory response about science that actually said nothing much. There were no figures, no detailed information based upon independent research, in fact nothing much of anything.
If people believe that the radiation in the VAB is ‘harmless’ given timing combined with the protection afforded by a couple of millimeters of aluminium – then supply it.
This of course does not stop there;
The lunar surface is awash with all kinds of nasty and powerful radiation, yet here we see Jack Schmitt wandering about on the lunar surface with no visor in place. So the consumate professional somehow magically avoids being turned into Stevie Wonder.
NASA source;
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.html
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: |
As for the moon rocks - proof of possession of genuine moon rock does not mean proof of MENhaving landed there. |
So how were they studied by US scientists well before the first robotic landing/return mission (which was Russian in any case) ?
Try this, from
http://www.braeunig.us/space/lunar.htm
Luna 16 (USSR) 12-Sep-70 SL-12/D-1-e 12,620 (5,725) First successful automatic lunar soil sample return. Sample from mare region at 0o41'S x 56o18'E. Dry lander 4,145 lb (1,880 kg).
105 gms of lunar soil returned !!
I can't find reference to any unmanned US missions that returned even soil samples, let alone substantial rocks. Maybe I missed one?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok - let me spell it out for you Ignatz. If a group of people are about to pull off a huge multi-billion dollar hoax they might just lie about how they got rock samples.
You believe that men can repeatedly fly to the moon and then return safely but have trouble believing they could fly unmanned craft and have them return with samples weighing a fraction of a single astronaut? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | Ok - let me spell it out for you Ignatz. If a group of people are about to pull off a huge multi-billion dollar hoax they might just lie about how they got rock samples.
You believe that men can repeatedly fly to the moon and then return safely but have trouble believing they could fly unmanned craft and have them return with samples weighing a fraction of a single astronaut? |
During the 6 Apollo missions 382 kilograms of moon rock were collected. That's more than the fraction of the weight of one astronaut.
Three robot probes managed 326 grams between them.
Don't you think that people would notice space missions being launched? There are very few space launch facilities around the world, people tend to notice huge rockets being sent into the sky, especially in the 1960s during the cold war, what is effectively a missile launch would certainly make people stop and look.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
Earlier in the thread I asked for evidence that the shielding provided by the command module was sufficient to ward off any and all Van Allen nasties. All I got was a pretty graphic and a very insufficient cursory response about science that actually said nothing much. There were no figures, no detailed information based upon independent research, in fact nothing much of anything.
If people believe that the radiation in the VAB is ‘harmless’ given timing combined with the protection afforded by a couple of millimeters of aluminium – then supply it.
|
I'll address your points one at a time -
Way back in time it was considered "true" that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Scientists showed this was false, that in fact the reverse was true. Sometime later they were even allowed to live after proving it. The new theory became the new "truth", which we still accept.
Similarly, it was once held "true" that mould and maggots sprang spontaneously from organic matter that was left lying around. Keen observers and formal scientists eventually showed that airborne agents were responsible for the decomposition.
Now - as far as the Apollo program and the Van Allen belts are concerned, the conventional "truth" is the the VA belts are a minor matter if skirted as much as possible, that astronauts went to the moon and returned safely.
Telecaster, you are proposing to overturn conventional 'truth' with your theory. The scientific method requires you to provide proof that the VA belts are inevitably lethal for astronauts in a normal spacecraft.
Now, you may choose to spit on the 'scientific method'. That's your privilege. However, there are certain catches with this. A significant one is that you can't then reasonably invoke the 'scientific method' in defence of your own proposals. In fact, everything you claim with any scientific content is laid open to the "prove it" parrot-cry of the kiddies playground. In other words, nothing is held to be 'true' any more. In discussion with you I could claim that the Sun orbits the Earth and you'd have no cause for complaint.
So - what's it to be?
Do we debate according to the 'scientific method'? If so, it's for you - or your verifiable sources - to prove the VA belts are inevitably lethal. If not, any opinion holds as much water as the next.
Your call.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | | flamesong wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | The pupil adjusts very quickly to darkness (a few seconds). The retina takes 30 minutes to adapt fully to darkness, though most of the adaptation occurs in about 10 minutes.
The astronauts would have needed to keep stock still for several minutes with their vision turned totally away from even reflected sunlight for their retinas to have the time to adapt well. On top of this they had dark visors on their helmets to protect their eyes from the sunlight.
So, it isn't that simple.
Incidentally - which stars do you claim to be able to see in sunlight?
So far you Moon-Truthers haven't come up with a single piece of evidence that bears scrutiny. What else have you got? |
Er... it was you that said, 'it still takes a few seconds to see the stars' - it was this period of time, emphasised by you with the word 'still' to which I referred when I said 'so long'.
Personally, I find that closing my eyes for a few seconds helps them to adjust.
Your next point ignores the fact that it is re-reflected sunlight which normally prevents us from seeing stars during daylight. If the astronauts were to lie on their backs they would not be able to see the 'reflected sunlight' on the surface (which you contend is the obstacle here) and would therefore be able to see the stars quite clearly as there are no atmospheric conditions to reflect the reflected light back.
Your replacement of my word 'daytime' with 'sunlight' indicates what a mendacious approach you have to debate. I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of stars so the fact that I cannot name them is completely irrelevant. But even with my limited knowledge I know that some stars are far brighter than those around them and that millions of stars are only visible from Earth in ideal conditions. |
Well said, flamesong. Ignatz appears to be wasting your time.
Ignatz, have you seen these yet? I would be interested in your critical analyses:
"Did we really land men on the moon?"
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561&q=moon+ landing+hoax
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3-QIlsWhaw
JarrahWhite's films on youtube. He does an excellent job of debunking the debunkers with his simple, straight-forward Aussie style. This is the first of a number of films he has made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTm66nu6dGI |
Ignatz?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What? If you're pointing out that I didn't watch your YouTubes, you'd be right.
Watching every YouTube video posted here is the way to nuttery.
If you'd like to summarise each one, with a decent clue to the evidence provided - and its sources - then you might have a customer.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh nonsense, my post didn't post with it's bucket load of maths.
To summarise, Apollo 11 left earth orbit at 39,000km/hr, van allen belts are 65000km, giving 1.64 hours inside the belts.
from wikipedia:
An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per year
That's 25/365 = 0.068 Sv/day = 0.0029 Sv/hr
1.64 hours in the belt * 0.0029 = 0.0047 Sv
From my radiation safety manual, limit for UK worker is 0.02 Sv / year, so astronauts on out and return trip get a total of 0.0093 Sv, just under half acceptable dose.
Apollo spacecraft had inner and outer skin of min 6mm aluminium and 17mm steel honeycomb structrures, and then all the instrumentation around the craft as well, and the heat shield which was even thicker, so radiation would be lower.
And then they didn't fly right through the middle of the belt, because satellites like the hubble telescope shut down to protect electronics during high radiation periods, so flying straight through would be daft. Especially because the belts are widest at the equator, and the moon does not orbit around the equator.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | rodin wrote: |
.... Lunar rocks for example match those from Antartica... |
Why do Thruthers just blurt out bits of nonsense they picked up on a CT site somewhere, as though they represent actual science? And without taking 5 minutes to verify these "facts"???
A few key words in any search engine would have saved you your demonstration of gullibility, rodin.
Certain moon rocks have no earth equivalent.
The solar wind - uninterrupted on the moon, unlike earth - results in unique effects on lunar rock samples.
The oldest moon rocks are older than the earth's oldest.
Most are characterised by a total lack of water, unlike on earth.
Virtually all are characterised by low levels of volatile elements - like sodium and potassium - an effect derived from their method of formation. |
If you supply sources for this I will check. I have to admit you OCT promoters are putting up a good fight...
But then, so much hangs on this issue
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: |
Telecaster, you are proposing to overturn conventional 'truth' with your theory. The scientific method requires you to provide proof that the VA belts are inevitably lethal for astronauts in a normal spacecraft.
Now, you may choose to spit on the 'scientific method'. That's your privilege. However, there are certain catches with this. A significant one is that you can't then reasonably invoke the 'scientific method' in defence of your own proposals. In fact, everything you claim with any scientific content is laid open to the "prove it" parrot-cry of the kiddies playground. In other words, nothing is held to be 'true' any more. In discussion with you I could claim that the Sun orbits the Earth and you'd have no cause for complaint.
So - what's it to be?
Do we debate according to the 'scientific method'? If so, it's for you - or your verifiable sources - to prove the VA belts are inevitably lethal. If not, any opinion holds as much water as the next.
Your call. |
Okay, so it's my call;
Thus far you have furnished the debate with a nice colourful graphic of some rings around our planet - nothing else. What have we to discuss? I haven't seen anyhting to disprove as yet.
You ignored the nice picture of the astronaut with no visor = figured as much.
Although I acknowledge you played the turnaround card), all you have to do is actually supply some scientific evidence as to the efficacy of the shielding provided by 3 millimetres of aluminium and we will take it from there.
Remember - the efficacy of 3 millimetres of aluminium - verifiable independent sources or it's over for you.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | rodin wrote: |
.... Lunar rocks for example match those from Antartica... |
Why do Thruthers just blurt out bits of nonsense they picked up on a CT site somewhere, as though they represent actual science? And without taking 5 minutes to verify these "facts"???
A few key words in any search engine would have saved you your demonstration of gullibility, rodin.
Certain moon rocks have no earth equivalent.
The solar wind - uninterrupted on the moon, unlike earth - results in unique effects on lunar rock samples.
The oldest moon rocks are older than the earth's oldest.
Most are characterised by a total lack of water, unlike on earth.
Virtually all are characterised by low levels of volatile elements - like sodium and potassium - an effect derived from their method of formation. |
If you supply sources for this I will check. I have to admit you OCT promoters are putting up a good fight...
But then, so much hangs on this issue |
No.
Check my post about 'scientific method' with telecaster up above in this thread.
It's you that's proposing to replace the accepted belief.
It's you that needs to provide evidence to counter it. That's the way science works.
fwiw, everything I posted was found inside 10 minutes with Google.
If you have any contrary evidence with any substance, post it.
Over to you.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Telecaster, you are proposing to overturn conventional 'truth' with your theory. The scientific method requires you to provide proof that the VA belts are inevitably lethal for astronauts in a normal spacecraft.
Now, you may choose to spit on the 'scientific method'. That's your privilege. However, there are certain catches with this. A significant one is that you can't then reasonably invoke the 'scientific method' in defence of your own proposals. In fact, everything you claim with any scientific content is laid open to the "prove it" parrot-cry of the kiddies playground. In other words, nothing is held to be 'true' any more. In discussion with you I could claim that the Sun orbits the Earth and you'd have no cause for complaint.
So - what's it to be?
Do we debate according to the 'scientific method'? If so, it's for you - or your verifiable sources - to prove the VA belts are inevitably lethal. If not, any opinion holds as much water as the next.
Your call. |
Okay, so it's my call;
Thus far you have furnished the debate with a nice colourful graphic of some rings around our planet - nothing else. What have we to discuss? I haven't seen anyhting to disprove as yet.
You ignored the nice picture of the astronaut with no visor = figured as much.
Although I acknowledge you played the turnaround card), all you have to do is actually supply some scientific evidence as to the efficacy of the shielding provided by 3 millimetres of aluminium and we will take it from there.
Remember - the efficacy of 3 millimetres of aluminium - verifiable independent sources or it's over for you. |
You seem to have missed two vital points.
1. Scientific Method requires you to disprove the accepted theory, and replace it with your own. You need to examine the science of the VA belts, flux of protons (the most significant, in the inner VA belt) and electrons, angle of the moon-injection trajectory, exposure times, protection afforded by the vessel etc etc and show they would certainly have died. That's the way science works. Or you can abandon science entirely. It's still your call.
Stuff for you to "disprove" is not an issue. Your turn to provide evidence.
2. The sun visor was a separate issue, as I made crystal clear. Very happy to discuss that later.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | During the 6 Apollo missions 382 kilograms of moon rock were collected. That's more than the fraction of the weight of one astronaut. |
So that would be about 64 kilos per trip. Very slim astronauts who weigh less than that. If they could bring back 60 kilos plus several men they could have brought back 60 kilos remotely.
| Quote: | | Three robot probes managed 326 grams between them. |
Debating with you is like trying to explain to a religious nut that you do not believe the contents of the bible. At every turn such people quote from the Book as if it proves their point and they cannot grasp that someone could see the Bible as a fairy tale rather than a record of fact.
Telling me "facts" stated by the people who committed the moon hoax does nothing to establish the truth of events. Don't you get it? I do not believe them!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | During the 6 Apollo missions 382 kilograms of moon rock were collected. That's more than the fraction of the weight of one astronaut. |
So that would be about 64 kilos per trip. Very slim astronauts who weigh less than that. If they could bring back 60 kilos plus several men they could have brought back 60 kilos remotely.
|
And have a system for loading it onto the lunar lander? It was a difficult task done with hand winches as I recall.
And have a system for transferring it through the service module into the command module?
And then (this is the good bit) you'd need dozens of navy vessels carrying thousands of sailors to recover two command modules after coming down in the sea. One with astronauts and one with rocks. And the one with rocks would have no astronauts. Did NASA consult any top stage magicians over this? Ah yes. Holograms!
Meanwhile, the absence of any sign of human activity up on the moon (e.g. footprints, equipment etc) would make the USA a hostage to fortune forever. No orbital high-powered photographic moon mission could ever be allowed to scan the various landing areas, for example.
It's all too silly, blackcat.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: |
What? If you're pointing out that I didn't watch your YouTubes, you'd be right.
Watching every YouTube video posted here is the way to nuttery.
If you'd like to summarise each one, with a decent clue to the evidence provided - and its sources - then you might have a customer. |
I was trying to point out that you hadn't responded to my polite question regarding whether you had seen these videos.
I am not asking you to watch all the Youtube videos posted on here. Just these ones.
Watching the video evidence will be far more persuasive than any verbal summary I could provide. And I would be genuinely interested in your view of these films. I had expected them to be laughable and was surprised that they were actually quite persuasive.
If you still refuse to watch them then I will be forced to conclude that you simply do not want to consider the evidence against the lunar landings.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: |
I am not asking you to watch all the Youtube videos posted on here. Just these ones.
|
Yes, but then everybody could say the same thing. Then you'd have to watch them all, including thought criminal's endless stream of no-plane nonsense.
| Craig W wrote: |
Watching the video evidence will be far more persuasive than any verbal summary I could provide. And I would be genuinely interested in your view of these films. I had expected them to be laughable and was surprised that they were actually quite persuasive. |
Do they contain anything that isn't in the books and on the moon-hoax websites? I've read those already. Please let me know.
| Craig W wrote: |
If you still refuse to watch them then I will be forced to conclude that you simply do not want to consider the evidence against the lunar landings. |
No, you'd choose to believe it, not be forced.
We've been debating the evidence 'against the lunar landings' in some depth. Why do you say I'm unwilling to consider it?
Your logic doesn't work. Could I post a YouTube link that claims Lord of the Rings is a true story, and use your reluctance to watch it as useful evidence about your bona fides?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | And have a system for loading it onto the lunar lander? It was a difficult task done with hand winches as I recall.
And have a system for transferring it through the service module into the command module?
And then (this is the good bit) you'd need dozens of navy vessels carrying thousands of sailors to recover two command modules after coming down in the sea. One with astronauts and one with rocks. And the one with rocks would have no astronauts. Did NASA consult any top stage magicians over this? Ah yes. Holograms! |
I have no idea what scenario you are talking about. Why dozens of navy vessels? Why two modules? Magicians? Holograms? Have you been drinking? I am saying that it is known that rock samples were brought back from the moon by remote control. The quantity you state is simply what we are told. I have no idea what is true but since I believe the authors are liars then why should I believe them? You still don't get it - just like the bible quoters.
| Quote: | Meanwhile, the absence of any sign of human activity up on the moon (e.g. footprints, equipment etc) would make the USA a hostage to fortune forever. No orbital high-powered photographic moon mission could ever be allowed to scan the various landing areas, for example.
It's all too silly, blackcat. |
Indeed it does make them a hostage to fortune. But not forever. We will see if it is all too silly when someone eventually does get up there and scans the area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | And have a system for loading it onto the lunar lander? It was a difficult task done with hand winches as I recall.
And have a system for transferring it through the service module into the command module?
And then (this is the good bit) you'd need dozens of navy vessels carrying thousands of sailors to recover two command modules after coming down in the sea. One with astronauts and one with rocks. And the one with rocks would have no astronauts. Did NASA consult any top stage magicians over this? Ah yes. Holograms! |
I have no idea what scenario you are talking about. Why dozens of navy vessels? Why two modules? Magicians? Holograms? Have you been drinking? I am saying that it is known that rock samples were brought back from the moon by remote control. The quantity you state is simply what we are told. I have no idea what is true but since I believe the authors are liars then why should I believe them? You still don't get it - just like the bible quoters.
|
US Apollo spacecraft always ditched in the sea on their return.
The US always sent out navy vessels to retrieve them.
This requires lots of sailors, helicopter pilots, reconnaisance aircraft and the like.
Your theory requires :
1. An unmanned spacecraft to bring back the rock samples
2. A faked re-entry of a command module containing the astronauts.
i.e. two recovery operations. The first might have come as a bit of a shock to the recovery crews, as there would have been no astronauts in the capsule.
I could go on about how tracking stations (including Australia and Spain, plus all the many unofficial trackings) would have been mystified about the lack of a normal earth-approach and re-entry from the faked version, but I can see you have enough on your plate already to try to understand.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Craig W wrote: |
I am not asking you to watch all the Youtube videos posted on here. Just these ones.
|
Yes, but then everybody could say the same thing. Then you'd have to watch them all, including thought criminal's endless stream of no-plane nonsense.
|
We're not talking about everybody's films we are talking about the ones I provided and have specifically asked you to view.
| Ignatz wrote: |
| Craig W wrote: |
Watching the video evidence will be far more persuasive than any verbal summary I could provide. And I would be genuinely interested in your view of these films. I had expected them to be laughable and was surprised that they were actually quite persuasive. |
Do they contain anything that isn't in the books and on the moon-hoax websites? I've read those already. Please let me know. |
I don't know. I haven't read the books. You will only find out whether they do by watching the films.
I do know one of them includes a very strange piece of NASA footage appearing to show the "astronauts" practising faking shots of earth when in low earth orbit to try and make it seem like they were much deeper into space. Furthermore, it is time stamped at a time that they should have been way out on their way to the moon.I would be interested to know your opinion of that (but won't hold my breath as you don't seem to want to see the evidence).
| Ignatz wrote: |
| Craig W wrote: |
If you still refuse to watch them then I will be forced to conclude that you simply do not want to consider the evidence against the lunar landings. |
No, you'd choose to believe it, not be forced.
We've been debating the evidence 'against the lunar landings' in some depth. Why do you say I'm unwilling to consider it?
Your logic doesn't work. Could I post a YouTube link that claims Lord of the Rings is a true story, and use your reluctance to watch it as useful evidence about your bona fides? |
Wrong. You are refuting the claims of a moon hoax. I am providing evidence of the alleged hoax in the links. You are refusing to view the evidence I am providing.
What conclusion would you have me draw other than that you simply don't want to view the evidence?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | Your theory requires :
1. An unmanned spacecraft to bring back the rock samples
2. A faked re-entry of a command module containing the astronauts.
i.e. two recovery operations. The first might have come as a bit of a shock to the recovery crews, as there would have been no astronauts in the capsule.
|
My theory requires there to have been a hoax and a government as powerful as the USA could do it easily. Recovery crews could be told to pick up a craft without needing to be told anything else. Secret - shush. Obey orders. No need to know what is in it or to expect astronauts. Experimental space mission - top secret. Recover that module.
As for your faith that all the people with telescopes would have a voice, or that anyone would listen or even hear people with something to say that challenged the official version, you are a hopeless case. You believe they could send astronauts to the moon and get them back safely but they could not manage to send up the astronauts to a height of a few miles and drop them when required. Because some one would have NOTICED!!!!! Dear dear dear. A huge asteroid almost hit the Earth a few years ago and the entire space agencies of Russia, China, Europe, and the USA knew nothing of it till it had passed. But a piddling little rocket would be bound to be spotted by amateur astronomers who would inevitably then be able to alert the entire world. Oh dear! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"but would be visible during the Moon's "night" period. "
except they weren't there during the night period.
"The lunar surface is awash with all kinds of nasty and powerful radiation"
about as much radiation as anywhere else in space without any protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | "but would be visible during the Moon's "night" period. "
except they weren't there during the night period.
"The lunar surface is awash with all kinds of nasty and powerful radiation"
about as much radiation as anywhere else in space without any protection. |
They were in the Moon's "night" period when orbiting the moon and still have no records of stars or any photographs. Yes there is a lot of radiation on the moon just like elsewhere in space. Also temperatures on the moon's surface reach over a hundred degrees Celsius during the "daylight" then fall to minus 170 degrees below during the "night-time". Pretty tough to survive there in either case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | During the 6 Apollo missions 382 kilograms of moon rock were collected. That's more than the fraction of the weight of one astronaut. |
So that would be about 64 kilos per trip. Very slim astronauts who weigh less than that. If they could bring back 60 kilos plus several men they could have brought back 60 kilos remotely. |
No.
Mission..........Mass of rocks returned
Apollo 11.......22 kg
Apollo 12.......34 kg
Apollo 14.......43 kg
Apollo 15.......77 kg
Apollo 16.......95 kg
Apollo 17.......111 kg
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Three robot probes managed 326 grams between them. |
Debating with you is like trying to explain to a religious nut that you do not believe the contents of the bible. At every turn such people quote from the Book as if it proves their point and they cannot grasp that someone could see the Bible as a fairy tale rather than a record of fact.
Telling me "facts" stated by the people who committed the moon hoax does nothing to establish the truth of events. Don't you get it? I do not believe them!! |
You don't get it. The luna missions which returned soil samples were RUSSIAN.
The Americans have not returned anything form the moon robotically.
How would they have picked out interesting rocks to return? The astronauts were taught basic geology so they could select useful samples. The luna probes landed, picked up soil from where they were, and launched again. Rock retrieval requires a moveable robot. You see the Mars rovers? They are state of the art, and they cannot pick up rocks and return them. How big do you think the project to steal moon rocks would be? It would be more expensive and complicated than sending men to the moon, plus, radio telescopes would pick up the signals from the robots on the moon as the relayed information to allow the people on the ground to move them. That would be very suspicious, because radio telescopes are not controlled by NASA. It would mean that people would be publishing papers on signals from the moon, as it would look like alien intelligence, as they would have no idea that there was a secret mission being carried out.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | johndoe wrote: | "but would be visible during the Moon's "night" period. "
except they weren't there during the night period.
"The lunar surface is awash with all kinds of nasty and powerful radiation"
about as much radiation as anywhere else in space without any protection. |
They were in the Moon's "night" period when orbiting the moon and still have no records of stars or any photographs. Yes there is a lot of radiation on the moon just like elsewhere in space. Also temperatures on the moon's surface reach over a hundred degrees Celsius during the "daylight" then fall to minus 170 degrees below during the "night-time". Pretty tough to survive there in either case. |
You need several seconds exposure time to capture stars on film. You can't hand hold a camera that still for long enough to get a clear picture.
For example, this is a 30 second exposure, for which I had to prop up my camera on a windowsill:
The astronauts did moon walks in the daytime on the moon, and wore suits with cooling systems which provided some protection from overheating, but they could not stay outside for extended periods because of the danger of overheating.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | You don't get it. The luna missions which returned soil samples were RUSSIAN.
The Americans have not returned anything form the moon robotically.
|
I do get it. I KNOW the robot ones were Russian. I do not believe what I am told by the Americans. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?!! When they say they have not returned anything robotically I do not know whether to believe it or not. When they say they have moon rock I do not know whether it is true or not. If they DO have rock then I say they got it robotically because I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY SENT A MAN TO THE MOON. I think they are habitual liars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hmm.... johnny is that photo filtered? if not i didn't realise the majority of those stars were blue (maybe because i'm in the city though)
of course black cat electronics respon even worse to radiation than us humans do.
which is why emp bombs destroy equipment but are harmless to the population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | hmm.... johnny is that photo filtered? if not i didn't realise the majority of those stars were blue (maybe because i'm in the city though)
|
That is indeed an unfiltered photo. The colour of stars is very hard to see with the naked eye because so little light reaches us here on earth. The long exposure means that the light can build up on the sensor so you get some colour information, although it may have a some increased colour saturation, I think I may have turned it up on my camera. Here's another picture of the constellation of Orion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orion_3008_huge.jpg
Mine was taken on a 30 second exposure, this one was a 25 minute (!) exposure.
And here's another, using a special technique to highlight the colours of orion
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961202.html
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: |
of course black cat electronics respon even worse to radiation than us humans do.
which is why emp bombs destroy equipment but are harmless to the population. |
It depends. Some radiation is harmful to humans and does no harm to equipment. The type, strength and duration of the radiation and the sensitivity of the equipment being crucial. Even something as simple as heat radiation say at 80 degrees C for 8 hours could be harmless to some equipment but toast a human. It could also toast some equipment but it would depend on how it was designed and for what circumstances. Equipment can often be tailored to suit the environment in which it will be placed. It really depends on a range of factors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
