An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by resistance
BTW, jra, you say you don't work for NASA. I'm curious if you are getting any paycheck at all from NASA or from one of its agencies. I know you live in Canada but are you affiliated with NASA in ANY WAY AT ALL?

No paycheck, but that would be nice

Not affiliated either. Being the sci-fi nerd that I am. I'm really just into all things related to space science and exporation and all that.

Sounds logical to me. You do a great job. Somebody should hire you for public relations. I'm not joking! You can use me for a reference. I'd vote you top secret but since I'm on the other side of the argument, I'll let someone else do that.

Agent Smith -- Great job debunking the photos of the lander. I'm starting to think that nasascam site might be one of NASA's own hoax sites to contribute to the sucess of their debunking the debunkers.

Actually NASA does a good job of intrigue and subterfuge. Maybe they should hire the FBI to run NASA and give NASA the FBI's job? Ha!

Guys - please try and learn how to format your posts properly and not have FIVE posts one after the other - anyone would think you're trolling for points. I don't think it's the case because I used to have the same problem when trying to use multiple quotes, but I find the best way these days is to have two windows open, one with the editor in and another browsing the thread so you can copy and paste with ease and do it manually.

Originally posted by Resistance
Several months ago I was surfing NASA's website and wandered into their own links to the HOAX sites. One site had a warning by NASA,You really don't want to go in here. We're warning you. Well, I went in anyway and was reading the site when all of a sudden my computer started making all kinds of whirring and chugging noises. I ignored it and kept reading. When I came out of the site, I found I could not navigate at all, and found my computer had been sabotaged. I had to wipe everything off the hard drive and reformat the whole thing.

Can you give us the link ot the NASA page with this on, I'd like to have a gander at the code and see how they slipped the virus in.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 16-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent Smith -- I don't give a hoot about the points. I don't even know what these points are all about and don't care. I'm just responding to what's been put up here by people because that's what this board is for I thought.

What's with the points? Do you get money or something if you get a lot of points?

As to the NASA site with the landmine, I just went on their site and they had links to the hoaxes somewhere there. You can find it. I think it might have been the site poinint to Cooper's stuff or maybe Rense. But there was a warning posted there by NASA not to go in. When I DID go in, it crashed my computer. I now have firefox and I'm careful where I go -- ESPECIALLY on NASA's site. I don't think they want people surfing around their site who aren't just looking for pretty pictures to feed their dreams of space exploration.



[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]

As I said in my comment, I doubted you were doing it for points if you read it properly, but the fact still stands that it's not good etiquette to write 5 posts one after the other and push everything else off the screen.

Originally posted by resistance
As to the NASA site with the landmine, I just went on their site and they had links to the hoaxes somewhere there. You can find it. I think it might have been the site poinint to Cooper's stuff or maybe Rense. But there was a warning posted there by NASA not to go in. When I DID go in, it crashed my computer. I now have firefox and I'm careful where I go -- ESPECIALLY on NASA's site. I don't think they want people surfing around their site who aren't just looking for pretty pictures to feed their dreams of space exploration.

Well I couldn't find it and we like people to back their claims up round here, if you talk about something - be prepared to link to it.
I'm sure your right, but I'd like to look at it myself and I couldn't see it - so please provide the link. Thank you.

And here's a link about Solar radiation and calculating the temperature of a body any distance from the Sun.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

It would reach a temperature of 250 degrees and remain at that temperature. It would not "get hotter and hotter".

How so? You don't think the stones can absorb heat? Why is it that my flagstones get much hotter than the temperature of the sun beating down on them? They get so hot you can't walk on them barefoot. And there's no vacuum to hold the heat in on earth. On the moon there's a vacuum to keep all the heat in. Rocks have a way of capturing heat and holding it. If you have any links to augment your opinion about the temperature of rocks heated in a vacuum I'd appreciate you pointing me to that. Thanks.

The statement that if there was an effective temperature of 250 degrees hitting an object in a vacuum then it would not get any hotter than that is correct.
I don't really know how you think that an object can effectively radiate more than the amount of energy it is receiving - but please share your insight with us as you may very well have found the solution to our energy problems!

I want to know how much heat comes off the moon and how much stays during the two-week time any one part of the moon is in full sunlight with no atmosphere to block the rays and no atmosphere to absorb the heat of the moon once the rays strike the surface. You have sun rays striking the moon, and immediately the molecules start to vibrate (heat). As the rocks heat up there is no place for the heat to go except to spread out to the rest of the moon. A little bit of heat is reflected or radiated out from the moon, but most of it stays right where it is with pretty much no way to cool itself except to spread out. Why doesn't NASA have any information on this? You would think they could at least be able to tell us some useful information like how hot the moon actually does get.

Uh? You must be looking at a different NASA site than everyone else.
Is this good enough information for you:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And you might find this useful too:

The difference between Temperature and Heat

We all know what a big bearocracy NASA is -- which is another reason they could not send a man to the moon. They can't even get an unmanned probe to Mars most of the time. They can't even keep the space station going. Any poor sap who goes there spends his whole time in terror trying to keep the contraption running. Hubble is a piece of junk. The shuttles are useless pieces of junk ruing the Earth's atmosphere and using a lot of fuel and sucking up the taxpayers' money for naught.

Really? What MOST of the time? Where do you get your information?
Here's a list of interplanetry missions inlcluding NASA projexts - please not some of them expand into further lists of the individual craft involved in each project:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The ISS can't be blamed all on NASA, it's an international effort - we're all to blame and it is a noble idea, but since the shuttle disaster, things have been going badly, as to be expected. Maybe if less money was spent on war then more money could be spent on space exploration and they could have used the better shuttle design instead of the cheap crappy one.

And the Hubble's junk? Have you ever bothered to look at any of the images? Thousands have been taken in it's life, here is a site with a selection on:

hubblesite.org...



You're right, what a heap of junk...

I wouldn't mind learning about the other planets, sending some unmanned satellites there, IF it was feasible to do so and we could actually land them or get any useful information. Three-quaraters of the time these things don't do what they're supposed to or they just crash. Very seldom are we able to land anything.

Three quarters? What are you basing your figures on exactly? Don't get confused with our British heap of junk Beagle and various other foreign projects. NASA have an excellent track record, have you forgotten already about the two rovers that they currently have on Mars and I believe are still functioning well beyond their life expectancy.

Maybe you are referring to the event fairly recently when they actually landed a craft that wasn't designed to be on an asteroid? Huh... amateurs...

A HUGE amount of raw data is released from their projects on the various sites they have for them, have you ever bothered to look? Hundreds and hundreds of images and readings... Your comments lead me to think that you believe the information acquired is what you see in the 30-second snippet on the news and nothing else.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent Smith -- I spent 45 minutes surfing. NASA used to have their own debunking done right on their own site. Now they don't. I did find the link that said warning. It's on another site now. In fact Wikipedia also links to it. It's Ralph Rene's site. This is the site that NASA doesn't like.

Calvin Hamilton is a name involved in this. He's the one who "touches up" NASA's photos -- the Hubble photos and others, to make them prettier. This is not a secret. He's associated with Nine Planets and NASA mentions his name. Seems NASA owes a big debt to Calvin. He's the one who took all their old boring photos and made them exciting -- just as a hobby. Calvin doesn't claim to be a professional, just a Mormon who likes the space pics and fixing them to look nice. I'm not saying Calvin has anything to do with the landmind planted on links to Rene's site. I'm just saying his name comes up a lot, and I had to use his name to track down the sites below while I was surfing.

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
www.solarviews.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


The first link has rene with the warning. I didn't click on it.
The second link is the one I clicked on to get to the "redzero" link.

Wickikpedia also has a link to Ralph Rene's site with no warning.

This happened to me almost a year ago, when NASA had its own debunking pages on its own site. It no longer does. But I don't believe for a minute that the people who are now doing the debunking for NASA aren't affiliated with them in all KINDS of ways. (but then I'm just a suspicious paranoid, I know)

Hubble's pics are virtual reality. If they can't take a decent picture of the moon because their resolution is too low, they cannot be taking color photos of galaxies that are buried behind eons of space dust, things no one else can even see as a pinprick of light, but somehow they can see all this stuff in color? Not. Hubble is a computer that tells you what you would see if you could see, and its images are only as good as the data that's fed into it. Knowing who's feeding the data into Hubble, I don't believe anything that's put out as their "scientific observations."

As to the temperature on the moon, thanks for the links. Anything I can get on this subject is helpful to me because I am sincerely in search of the truth about this matter. On the link you posted The Difference between Heat and Temperature I've pulled this sentence to try to show you what I mean by the numerous posts I've put out that tell me that moon gets a lot hotter than 250 degrees IN PLACES. Your link said:

Temperature is the MEASURE of the AVERAGE molecular motions in a system and simply has units of (degrees F, degrees C, or K).

So that's my point. It's the average temp of the moon. What the heck does that mean? I don't care what the average temp is. I want to know what the temperature is on the part of the moon that's facing the sun and that has been baking in that sun for two weeks. THAT's what I want to know. I want to know how hot it is where the astroNOTs were supposedly playing golf, riding moon buggies and digging up almost a ton of rocks, setting up big contraptions and wrapping them in foil and black cloth, and all the other stuff they supposedly did. I want to know how they were able to unload all that stuff in that heat, how they were able to be so comfortable in what I still say must have been extremely boiling heat on a moon surface that's been baking continuously for 14 days with no chance to cool, surrounded by a vacuum which allows NO DISSIPATION OF THAT HEAT. Until that part of the moon turns out of the sun's rays (which takes two weeks for any part of the moon to come into and go out of the sun) those molecules are heating up more and more and more, baking in the sun, with nothing to cool them except conduction through the rest of the moon, no atmosphere to soak up the heat, and a vacuum to keep all the heat in.

There's only two things there to cool the surface of the moon -- the rest of the moon as the heat spreads out and what's reflected from its surface. Since the moon is craggy and dusty not much light is reflected. I think I read some place it's about 6 percent of the sun's rays are reflected. The rest are absorbed as heat.

So I'm still looking for the answer. I just need a common sense explanation. Graphs and charts and physics formulas are helpful to a point, but I'd just like a simple and direct explanation as to how anybody knows how hot the moon is on any one place on the moon that's facing the sun, that's BEEN facing the sun for two weeks, and where you're you're going to plan to land on it and spend a day or two there, play golf and drive a moon buggy around.



[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Agent Smith -- I spent 45 minutes surfing. NASA used to have their own debunking done right on their own site. Now they don't. I did find the link that said warning. It's on another site now. In fact Wikipedia also links to it. It's Ralph Rene's site. This is the site that NASA doesn't like.

I'm not suprised! I didn't like it much either - seems to be an outlet to buy his books (yep, one of those).. LOL

I expect this virus thing was a co-incidence if anything. I also find it weird that your computer would start making 'whirring and chugging' noises as you put it. In all the virus's I've come across, I've never seen one like that apart from in the movies, though I might be wrong. Not sure how it could affect your computer to make it behave that way.

Bit unsure about timescales though because you said:

As to the NASA site with the landmine, I just went on their site and they had links to the hoaxes somewhere there. You can find it. I think it might have been the site poinint to Cooper's stuff or maybe Rense. But there was a warning posted there by NASA not to go in.

But now you are saying:

Agent Smith -- I spent 45 minutes surfing. NASA used to have their own debunking done right on their own site. Now they don't. I did find the link that said warning. It's on another site now. In fact Wikipedia also links to it. It's Ralph Rene's site. This is the site that NASA doesn't like.

Do you mean they took it down in the last 45 minutes?

Calvin Hamilton is a name involved in this. He's the one who "touches up" NASA's photos -- the Hubble photos and others, to make them prettier. This is not a secret. He's associated with Nine Planets and NASA mentions his name. Seems NASA owes a big debt to Calvin. He's the one who took all their old boring photos and made them exciting -- just as a hobby. Calvin doesn't claim to be a professional, just a Mormon who likes the space pics and fixing them to look nice. I'm not saying Calvin has anything to do with the landmind planted on links to Rene's site. I'm just saying his name comes up a lot, and I had to use his name to track down the sites below while I was surfing.

Can't argue about touching up photo's, I do it myself for press releases and promotional purposes. I think you'll find it's pretty common in the world.

And this site is pretty basic, but a good explanation of how Hubble works:

science.howstuffworks.com...

just to make things fair, here is a site which explains a few of the 'anomalies' with experiments you can try at home:

www.badastronomy.com...

[edit on 16-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent Smith-- When I said I "just" went to the website I didn't mean just meaning "now." I meant just meaning "simply."

After this happened to me, I learned from others that there ARE sites that are put up to lure people in for one purpose -- to attack their computers and crash them. This is a well-known fact. I have a teenager who's a computer geek and whose friends are computer geeks, and this thing has happened to them also. Once you know this you are careful where you go and how you go there.

So don't pooh pooh it. I'm not making up any stories. In fact, the "be warned" was there on the link. The fact that your computer didn't crash is not proof that there was not a spyware virus put there at one time when NASA had their hoax debunking part of their website -- which isn't it interesting that they no longer have that?

Originally posted by resistance
Agent Smith-- When I said I "just" went to the website I didn't mean just meaning "now." I meant just meaning "simply."

Sorry, I misunderstood.

After this happened to me, I learned from others that there ARE sites that are put up to lure people in for one purpose -- to attack their computers and crash them. This is a well-known fact. I have a teenager who's a computer geek and whose friends are computer geeks, and this thing has happened to them also. Once you know this you are careful where you go and how you go there.

Don't worry, I know that - but I still havn't come across a virus that makes the computer act like you describe - of course it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So don't pooh pooh it. I'm not making up any stories. In fact, the "be warned" was there on the link. The fact that your computer didn't crash is not proof that there was not a spyware virus put there at one time when NASA had their hoax debunking part of their website -- which isn't it interesting that they no longer have that?

I'm not suprised they said 'be warned'. as you pointed out they are not the only one's too and when you se the guy's money grabbing site it seems a perfectly valid comment.

And NASA do still have at least one section which addresses the Moon hoax, maybe more if I look:

Did the Apollo astronauts really land on the Moon?

Of course they did! The Apollo Moon landings were among the most completely documented and observed events in history. The conspiracy "theories" that claim otherwise are a bunch of nonsense without even a single compelling piece of evidence. Most of the questions raised are based on ignorance of basic physics and optics. Video special effects were in their infancy in the late 60's so that faking a landing on the Moon would probably have been more difficult than actually going there, and it seems highly unlikely that the hundreds or even thousands of people who would have had to be involved in such a conspiracy would have kept it a secret for so long. Ultimately you'll have to decide for yourself if the marginal evidence offered to show this was all a hoax is compelling enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence that it actually occurred, but make sure you check the facts carefully, you need to be a little skeptical of the skeptics, too. For more detailed debunking of this ill-conceived notion, see:

www.badastronomy.com...

pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...

homepage.mac.com...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 16-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent said:

And NASA do still have at least one section which addresses the Moon hoax, maybe more if I look:

They have a one page debunking. No more pics analyzed or extensive part devoted to debunking. Just a short page with some links to four other debunking sites. They no longer provide links to the hoax sites themselves and they no longer do much of any debunking themselves.

As a matter of fact, NASA was going to write a book debunking the hoax allegations, announced they were going to. Then they backed out.


[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]

I don't blame them from backing out of publishing. Why should they waste their time, and money, just to disprove the overwhelming minority that lack comprehension of the subject matter?

Originally posted by apc
I don't blame them from backing out of publishing. Why should they waste their time, and money, just to disprove the overwhelming minority that lack comprehension of the subject matter?

The minority has been known to be right before, as you know. And as I think about this, I think it was smart of NASA not to put out the book. Anything that would come out in a book would be "official" and they couldn't duck out of things as easily. The public at large would have a book with all the questions laid out before them, and get to read the excuses NASA presents. It would start a national discussion. So NASA is not as stupid as they might at first appear to be.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]

i think the simple fact is they are not going to justify and add credability to moon conspiracy questions by answering them. Espcailly when any evidance proving the landing would be ignored because they can't be trusted, or goes off on another tangent without a fact being accepted as truth

Dear Agent Smith -- I took another look at Jack White's photo of the lander and the 'photographs" on the foot. I don't think Jack White cropped anything or did anything on purpose. I just think he made an honest mistake. I do agree with you that what he saw is probably NOT photographs.

Jack White was given a bunch of photos and asked to look them over and find anomalies. This was all off the top of his head. The Aulis people I think are reputatble and careful, so I wouldn't discount everything they say because they made one mistake.

Originally posted by resistance
I want to know how much heat comes off the moon and how much stays during the two-week time any one part of the moon is in full sunlight with no atmosphere to block the rays and no atmosphere to absorb the heat of the moon once the rays strike the surface.

No offense, resistance, but just what is your educational background? It is difficult to answer your questions without knowing just how much background in the fundamentals of physics that you have.

Originally posted by resistance
You have sun rays striking the moon, and immediately the molecules start to vibrate (heat).

OK, so far, but did you know that molecules have specific vibration frequencies? Do you also know that when a molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy and transforms it into heat, the wavelength of the absorbed energy is related to the characteristic vibration frequency of the molecule?

In other words, in order to heat an object using light, you need to use the lower end of the spectrum, in the infrared range. An incandescent light bulb emits a lot of energy in the infrared range, which is why you can burn yourself on a hot light bulb. On the other hand, a fluorescent lamp only emits a small amount of infrared and can be safely touched when in use.

Originally posted by resistance
As the rocks heat up there is no place for the heat to go except to spread out to the rest of the moon. A little bit of heat is reflected or radiated out from the moon, but most of it stays right where it is with pretty much no way to cool itself except to spread out.

OK. Lets go over this carefully. There are three ways for an object on earth to dissipate heat.

1) conduction. The direct transfer of heat from one object to another. This is applicable to the lunar surface as the lunar rocks and soil is in direct contact with rocks and soil under them.

2) convection. A variation of conduction, only instead of transferring to a solid object, the heat is transferred to a liquid or a gas. Obviously this is not applicable to the lunar environment.

3) Radiation. All objects emit radiation. You yourself are positively glowing in the infrared range right now. The color, or wavelength of the radiation being emitted is directly related to the temperature of the object. This is called blackbody radiation. The higher the temperature of an object, the bluer the emitted light becomes.

One other concept to understand is that; if an object is not a blackbody radiator, it will not re-radiate all the excess heat and the leftover will go toward increasing its temperature. But, as the temperature goes up. so does the energy emitted. Since the energy flux of the sun is relatively constant, the surface of the moon will heat up until it reaches a constant temperature. At this point it will be reradiating all of the thermal energy added to it by the sun.

This is called the blackbody temperature.

The blackbody temperature of the moon is 274.5° K. (The Earth is slightly cooler at 254.3° K.)

Originally posted by resistance
Why doesn't NASA have any information on this? You would think they could at least be able to tell us some useful information like how hot the moon actually does get.

NASA is useless. All they are good for is pretty pictures and fairy tales and spending people's money on make believe.

You know, the people you should really be angry at are your teachers.

Originally posted by resistance


Meantime NASA is setting us up for another huge hoax. This time it will be an alien invasion. NASA is working with Walt Disney at this moment to produce a $150 million movie about Mars that will claim it is inhabited.

There really isn't much you can say to someone who posts this.

Howard. I still don't have my answer. You said:

OK. Lets go over this carefully. There are three ways for an object on earth to dissipate heat.

I'm not concerned with how earth dissipates heat; I want to know about the moon. They are two different places with two entirely different set of circumstances. For example, here on Planet Earth I have an air conditioner, and it works because there is an atmosphere to throw the heat out into. If there were no atmosphere, the air conditioner would not work.

Ergo, since the moon has no atmosphere, where did the astroNOTs send the heat from their "cooling packs." And furthermore, if the moon stays in the sun for two weeks (which it does because it does not turn around once a day like the earth does) and if there is no atmosphere, seems to me there are places where the moon gets quite sizzling hot.

I'm willing to see the light here if somebody will show it to me. I'm just stuck on this idea of the moon being really, really hot in places. I assume you are considering the fact that a moon's day is 28 of ours, so any part of the moon is in the sun's rays for at least two weeks. And with a vacuum that means the only way the moon has to cool itself is a small amount of radiation and by the heat spreading outward throughout the surrounding moon surface.

Where am I going wrong here?

I have actually posed this same question to an on-line friend with a PhD in physics, and perhaps he will have the answer for me before anyone else on this thread does. If so, I will share with you what he says.



[edit on 17-10-2005 by resistance]

You know... I hate to bring this up again...

But it does get cooler at night, doesn't it?

Where do you think all that heat from the daylight goes?

It radiates into the vacuum of space.

I guess you just completely missed Howards in-depth explanation of how... heat... works. Might you try to... read it?

Originally posted by resistance

How so? You don't think the stones can absorb heat? Why is it that my flagstones get much hotter than the temperature of the sun beating down on them? They get so hot you can't walk on them barefoot.

Yes Resistance the stones do absorb heat, but they also radiate heat away and as they reach the temperature of the sunlight beaming down on them--which in your example was 250 degrees--they radiate away exatcly as much heat as they absorb. In the case of your flagstones, the stones never reach the temperature of the sunlight hitting Earth because some is absorbed by the atmosphere, some is reflected back into space, some is leached away through convection into the surrounding substances and the remainder is absorbed by the stones until they too radiate away exactly as much as they absorb.

And there's no vacuum to hold the heat in on earth. On the moon there's a vacuum to keep all the heat in.

Vacuum doesn't hold heat in. Vacuum could care less if a substance is hot or cold.

Rocks have a way of capturing heat and holding it. If you have any links to augment your opinion about the temperature of rocks heated in a vacuum I'd appreciate you pointing me to that. Thanks.

Any decent physics text covering heat, light and radiation will cover it. And what I'm telling you is not an opinion it is experimentally confirmed fact.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by resistance

None of this information is to the point. I don't need a lesson in x-rays. I want to know how much heat comes off the moon and how much stays during the two-week time any one part of the moon is in full sunlight with no atmosphere to block the rays and no atmosphere to absorb the heat of the moon once the rays strike the surface. You have sun rays striking the moon, and immediately the molecules start to vibrate (heat). As the rocks heat up there is no place for the heat to go except to spread out to the rest of the moon. A little bit of heat is reflected or radiated out from the moon, but most of it stays right where it is with pretty much no way to cool itself except to spread out. Why doesn't NASA have any information on this? You would think they could at least be able to tell us some useful information like how hot the moon actually does get.

NASA is useless. All they are good for is pretty pictures and fairy tales and spending people's money on make believe.

The maximum temperature of the surface of the moon at noon on a typical lunar day is 395 degrees Kelvin or 251.6 degrees farenheight (by actual measurement) and the minimum temperature reached at night is 95 degrees Kelvin or minus 288.4 degrees farenheight (by actual measurement). One meter below the surface of the Moon the temperature remains at a constant 210 degrees Kelvin or minus 81.4 degrees farenheight (by actual measurement). As you can see from the above information, heat convection does happen, it is just a slow process. Heat radiation also happens.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Astronomer68]