It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Caution: They know much more!!
page: 9share:
Re: xenophilia.com, yes it's the same old questions, which I feel have already been answered. However, don't try to make out that there is any
significant part of the scientific community which doubts that the missions were genuine. This belief is only popular amongst pseudo-scientist
conspiracy theorists.
I'm not sure how what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about this is relevant. However, I'd expect NASA's information and calculations in 1969 to be more accurate than a decade-old reference book of this sort and would be more inclined to believe them.
Oh come on, this ancient myth has been answered satisfactorily hundreds of times.
The cross hairs (or reseau-lines) were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They cause a black cross on the film where they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the white, over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. It happens on photographs with reseau-lines on Earth too.
It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the reseau-lines seem to disappear behind a bright white area.
Again, answered many times including in my last post - this is due to parallax and is strong evidence that we actually went to the moon as it would have been impossible for this occur with a studio backdrop.
Proof of absolutely nothing. Another example of a false dichotomy revealing the deluded and illogical thinking of the conspiracy camp.
I'll take your word for it, but really its hardly worth noting when he appears in so much of the video footage. Anyway, you explain Armstrong's absence from the still photos later down in your lengthy post.
Many people who have encountered intense publicity have basically 'withdrawn' from public life after the height of their fame because they can't take the intense pressure and lack of privacy.
Again, this is not evidential of fake moon landings in any way.
So what? I don't blame him for wanting to punch some worthless conspiracy theorist who was intent on smearing the astronauts' achievements.
Why would this have me scratching my head? He's stating on the record that the mission was genuine and the photos exceptionally good and is, correctly, debunking the conspiracy theorists' claims.
The film issue has been debated time and time again here and you are going round in circles without producing new evidence. It doesn't actually matter whether it was XRC or Ektachrome, both would have worked perfectly well in the lunar environment.
Again, thousands of pics were taken and many of them would have been unusable. Of course, only the best pics would have been chosen. What's unusual or suspicious about this?
Good, please do.
Well your position has changed then as earlier you stated that it is, and I paraphrase, 'impossible for humans to travel more than 300 miles from earth because of radiation, etc, etc'.
Have you changed your mind now in the light of the scientific evidence which has been presented? (If you have, I take my hat off to you).
I do believe them and none of them has ever made any hint or suggestion that the landings were faked.
You should realise that for a mission of this size and complexity (with 400,000 people involved) there will of course be small inconsistencies in records and in the memories of those who were involved. In fact, it would be more unusual if there were not.
To immediately jump to the conclusion that evidence of fairly minor inconsistencies is evidence of a major conspiracy is paranoid, delusional lunacy.
[edit on 30-1-2005 by harrisjohns]
Originally posted by Shai
In 1960, before the Apollo missions, Encyclopedia Britannica reported ....
I'm not sure how what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about this is relevant. However, I'd expect NASA's information and calculations in 1969 to be more accurate than a decade-old reference book of this sort and would be more inclined to believe them.
"The Hasselblad cameras that were used by NASA on the missions had many crosshairs in each frame. Keen-eyed sceptics have noticed that in some shots the crosses disappear behind objects in the picture, providing further proof of foolery.
Oh come on, this ancient myth has been answered satisfactorily hundreds of times.
The cross hairs (or reseau-lines) were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They cause a black cross on the film where they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the white, over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. It happens on photographs with reseau-lines on Earth too.
It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the reseau-lines seem to disappear behind a bright white area.
"Perhaps even more bizarre are the pictures with identical backgrounds that are supposed to have been taken at different locations on different days. In two sequences from the Apollo 16 mission, this irregularity is clearly depicted.
Again, answered many times including in my last post - this is due to parallax and is strong evidence that we actually went to the moon as it would have been impossible for this occur with a studio backdrop.
"... that the highest ranking official at NASA resigned, without explanation, just days before the first Apollo mission. All three crewmembers of the first historic flight also resigned shortly thereafter.
Proof of absolutely nothing. Another example of a false dichotomy revealing the deluded and illogical thinking of the conspiracy camp.
"Neil Armstrong, the most famous astronaut because of supposedly being the first man on the Moon, refused to even appear in a single still picture on the Moon! Aside from the initial press conference immediately following the event, in which he seems very disgruntled, he has not given a single interview on the subject, in print or on camera, to anyone ever.."
I'll take your word for it, but really its hardly worth noting when he appears in so much of the video footage. Anyway, you explain Armstrong's absence from the still photos later down in your lengthy post.
Many people who have encountered intense publicity have basically 'withdrawn' from public life after the height of their fame because they can't take the intense pressure and lack of privacy.
Again, this is not evidential of fake moon landings in any way.
"In October 2004, a Washington newspaper report suggested that the argument was getting ugly too. The Daily News ran a story alleging that one sceptic confronted 72 year old former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, poked him, verbally abused him and demanded that he swear on the Bible that he really walked on the Moon. Aldrin supposedly responded by punching Bart Sibrel in the face."
So what? I don't blame him for wanting to punch some worthless conspiracy theorist who was intent on smearing the astronauts' achievements.
As For HJP 'Douglas Arnold, I found an interview with him conducted in 2004 in which he affirms the party-line..and I do confess he argues well, except for one thing...he never mentions the kind of film used...But here is a direct quote from the article with Arnold that should have you scratching your heads..
"...you need only to look properly at the thousands of wonderful photographs and movie footage to know that they are genuine; even today, our digital techniques could not match this. As photographer H.J.P. (Douglas) Arnold says: "They are literally out of this world, and to say they are a fraud demeans the achievement"
Why would this have me scratching my head? He's stating on the record that the mission was genuine and the photos exceptionally good and is, correctly, debunking the conspiracy theorists' claims.
Get that..even today our digital techniques could not match the film quality....and we're talking about what film..echtachrome 160?
The film issue has been debated time and time again here and you are going round in circles without producing new evidence. It doesn't actually matter whether it was XRC or Ektachrome, both would have worked perfectly well in the lunar environment.
but a neat reference to how they picked the photos for us to see once they got back:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
Again, thousands of pics were taken and many of them would have been unusable. Of course, only the best pics would have been chosen. What's unusual or suspicious about this?
So when we write Mr. Vimilslik perhaps we should ask ....
Good, please do.
And one last statement of my position to make it clear:
I am claiming that the 'filmed'evidence' of astronauts on the moon in 1969 and 72 is faked, along with a lot of the supporting the data provided at the time...
If you want to believ the brave men landed..I have no problem with that..really.. What I DO have a problem with is the fotos...
Well your position has changed then as earlier you stated that it is, and I paraphrase, 'impossible for humans to travel more than 300 miles from earth because of radiation, etc, etc'.
Have you changed your mind now in the light of the scientific evidence which has been presented? (If you have, I take my hat off to you).
And if you don't believe your own astronauts about what they've seen and experienced on their travels, again I'd like to know why...
I do believe them and none of them has ever made any hint or suggestion that the landings were faked.
You should realise that for a mission of this size and complexity (with 400,000 people involved) there will of course be small inconsistencies in records and in the memories of those who were involved. In fact, it would be more unusual if there were not.
To immediately jump to the conclusion that evidence of fairly minor inconsistencies is evidence of a major conspiracy is paranoid, delusional lunacy.
[edit on 30-1-2005 by harrisjohns]
terrible thread. no links (or anything for that matter) provided as proof. Take a look at the world around you and determine what is fact and what is
theory. now imagine that if everything that is theory is considered to be fact. Can you imagine what kind of world we would live in? would there even
be a world? that is why proof needs to be given in order for people to accept it.
again a terrible thread and it should be shot
Tahlen
[edit on 30-1-2005 by Tahlen]
again a terrible thread and it should be shot
Tahlen
[edit on 30-1-2005 by Tahlen]
Yo Harris,
Even the readers are complaining that you are not providing links just blah blah assertions.
You say things have been disproven hundreds of times..not by you and not with quotes or links which relate directly to my questions.
To say that aulis has been debunked is no good without the link which debunks it or the quote.
You do not comment on the two seperate photos I gave you to explain the background of as asked..and you do not comment on the unanswered problem about the physics of the moon and its distance, density, calling all the NASA data into doubt.
Nor do you comment on Neil Armstrong's assertion that once on the moon they were warned off by ET's.
On three seperate points there are fundamental flaws with the 'official story' is reported on what I would think even you found an objective website.
As for the outstanding quality of echtchrome 160...especially placed aginst the comments of Arnold who swears that the quality of film was so good that it rivals digital fotos of today...here's a quote from Kodaks'website you might find relevant:
"[Kodak']...introduced improved emulsion technology with its Eastman EXR color negative film products in 1989. These gave cinematographers significant creative flexibility, providing more underexposure latitude; truer colors in fluorescent light, and greater sharpness. "
Meaning it was far superior to anything previous..and it took them 20 years to do it AFTER the moon landings..indeed it is the first mention in the company archives of such a film base and the first mention of EXR with capabilities anything like what the 'special film' on Apollo was supposed to have.
You don't answer the problem of there having been two different [and maybe 3 or more different] film stocks on board.
And neither do the sites which claim to explain everything..like this one..
www.lpi.usra.edu... which goes to great lengths to give details like shutter speeds and focus points but gives not one detail of the films used in any one of the cameras..it's brand name or if it was specially made.
In my old biz these are the details we looked for in analyzing info...the absence of details..the reptition almost verbatim of 'the official story' meaning they must be quoting from a common source..and most importantly, a recent source, superceding the original or contemporary accounts.
It never crosses HJ's mind to be in the least suspicious that to date no independent researchers have been given access to the negatives..all requests go through NASA and they do the reprints...leaving us to take NASA''s word, and only NASA's word for it. Nor does NASA allow moon-rocks to be tested by outside agencies....
You don't find it odd that film of such quality must be "updated"..and what would a reason be to update a historical photograph anyway?
No one has answered to any satisfaction how a camera mounted at belt level could capture an eye level image of a standing astronaut from less than 1,5 meters away...
And the whole idea of the moon's surface being so reflective as to hide the stars is blown away by the fact that moon's surface has the reflectivity of asphalt.
You seem content to sweep away arguments of the sort with grand statements and no supporting evidence, using the same old tactic the Soviets used to relish..starting off every blatantly false statement about the West with the catch phrase 'as is well known'..or'..ás we all know'
And so far you haven't posted one creative thought of your own about this on this thread..even using other people's words as your own without credit or providing links to your sources.
I HAVE written Mr. Vimilslik and await his reply..but still find it beyond annoying that you prefer to take the word of someone like a public information hack over a world-reknowned photgrapher and former senior executive at the time of the Apollo mission...in other words you prefer to accept hearsay over direct evidence.
Unless and until you can account for the discrepencies as I listed them in previous threads..the two moonscape photos in particular, which are official NASA releases mind you...i will consider your posts unworthy of rebuttal.
Also you will have to reconcile NASA's recent statement that the EVA was modified to allow astronauts to leave and enter the vehicle while wearing their pressure suits and cooling packs with the statement by the astronauts themselves that the EVA was not modified in that way..and instead was only different to the the 'model'they trained on in that it was given powered ascent and descent.
If you had even bothered to read the links you would have seen that clearly.
Oh and here's another quote from Kodaks'press office packet..
"Kodak technology also went along on Apollo 11, with the first astronauts to walk on the moon. A special stereoscopic color camera built by Kodak enabled astronauts to photograph extreme close-ups of rocks, dust, and minute features of the Moon's surface. The camera, about the size and shape of a large shoebox, was easily operated using a trigger on an extendable handle. This enabled an astronaut to operate it despite the limited mobility, dexterity and visibility caused by their pressure suit and heavy gloves. Photos of the lunar soil taken by Neil Armstrong enabled scientists to see soil particles smaller than two one-thousandths of an inch. "
Here's another quote..from Kodak...
"" In the mid sixties, NASA launched a series of five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft that collectively photographed 99% of the moon's surface in preparation for an Apollo moon landing. Each carried an ingenious photographic system, designed and built by Kodak. The system took photographs, processed and scanned the film, and converted imagery into a continuous video signal for pickup by Kodak-built receivers on Earth. At that time, it was the most complex instrumentation payload ever launched aboard a spacecraft. In addition to medium-resolution images that were taken to analyze the moon's surface topography, the system took a number of high-resolution pictures that were clear enough to show objects the size of a card table on the surface. "
To date no one outside Kodak has been given access to these films..and since when did Kodak build radio receivers?
Another quote from Kodak..
"1971 - Kodak introduced KODAK EKTACHROME 160 Movie Film (Type A) and two new super 8 movie cameras which, in combination, made possible "existing light" movies for home use. ♦ The Marketing Education Center (also known as the Riverwood site), opened as a training facility that offered a variety of educational services to professionals who used Kodak products."
So the ektachrome 160 movie film comes on the market more than two years after Apollo 11.
"Here's what NASA has to say about the film/camers and Apollo 11:
Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.
Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions. During the Moon landing one Hasselblad was left aboard the Command Module Columbia, which remained in lunar orbit. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's surface.
The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications. A transparent glass Reseau plate, or register glass, engraved with grid markings was placed between the film magazine and the camera body, immediately in front of the film plane. The plate is engraved with crosses to form a grid and the intersections accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. The crosses were recorded on every exposed film frame. From the markings, it is possible to calibrate distance and heights in photos taken either on the lunar surface or from space. Such markings were not new or unique to the space program. They were commonly used for large format scientific and aerial photography prior to the Moon landings, when the large size of the photographic negative could be distorted either during exposure or the printing process.
When film is normally wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity is dispersed by metal rims and rollers, which guide the film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided by the Reseau plate's raised edges. As glass is a poor electrical conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air, the charge built up between the glass surface and the film could become so great that sparks could occur between the plate and the film. In order to conduct the static electricity away and prevent sparking, the side of the plate facing the film was coated with a thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited on the edges of the conductive layer. The electrical charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera body by contact springs.
The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.
Two film magazines for the lunar surface Hasselblad 500EL data camera were carried for use on the Moon's surface. Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. The film used for Apollo 11 was loaded and several test shots exposed prior to flight. When the film magazines were returned for processing after the mission, the test shots were cut off and processed first. These were compared against accurate color charts to ensure that there would be no defects in processing the remainder of the film and that the colors would be most accurate.
[ let me highlight this for ya.. "Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. " so, did the other missions use 'special film" or ektachrome 160? NO! In fact, after much digging I did come up with what films was 'officially used' on the Apollo flights....and here it is:
"Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission. "
history.nasa.gov...
Each film magazine was finished in the same silver color as the camera body. The film magazines were each fitted with a tether ring. To the ring, a cord was attached that permitted the entire camera to be lowered from the lunar module cabin to Neil Armstrong on the surface using a clothesline-like arrangement. The exposed film magazines were lifted from the surface in the same manner. The camera and lens were left behind and still rest on the Moon's surface at Tranquility Base.
The Apollo 11 Kodak Stereo Close-Up Camera
Seven months prior to the Apollo 11 mission, a new camera was commissioned by NASA. The camera would be used by the crew to take close-up stereo views of the lunar soil and rocks. The camera had a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, an aperture of f/22.6, film was held approximately 10 inches from the lunar surface, and lighting was provided by an integral electronic flash.
The camera was designed for ease of use by the astronaut in his bulky pressure suit. The camera was rested on the soil and the astronaut would simply press down on a trigger on a long handle to expose the frames. Each exposure resulted in two side-by-side photographs of the same area of the surface. The surface photographed measured three inches by three inches. The size of the exposed film was one inch square.
After Apollo 11
Five more flights landed on the Moon after Apollo 11. On all, the photographic equipment and films were similar to that taken on the first landing. On Apollo 15, the 250mm telescopic lens was added to the Hasselblad lunar surface complement. By the time of Apollo 17, a total of 18 rolls of film were taken to the lunar surface.
Astronaut Training for Lunar Photography
The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions, scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique. Tutorials were provided to the crews on the equipment, its operation, as well as on the scientific purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently simulating their lunar traverse, completely outfitted with sample bags, checklists, simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, core-sampling equipment, and typically using Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they would use on the Moon. As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras. Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results.
The Meaning
From December 1968 to December 1972, twenty-seven astronauts traveled to the Moon and twelve walked upon its surface. There were nine voyages across the quarter million miles. The treasures of Apollo included the samples of the lunar surface and the photographs the astronauts took. The photographs of Apollo, today, three decades later, help us to relive the experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the photographs taken by astronauts are available at the GReat Images in NASA photo database and in the galleries associated with the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals. We also have a page devoted to more general information about the Apollo Program."
AND all of that sounds great except, again, no mention of special film for the still shots, nor what kind of film...BUT..heres' a NASA produced copy of the special camera...and it is a Minolta.
www.exscitec.com...
Hassleblad has its own version of the story..
www.hq.nasa.gov... and maintains the film was special-thin coated 7omm double perforated...but gives no ASA ratings or specific film-types
Another site tells us just how many cameras and films were on the moon...
www.lpi.usra.edu... but makes no mention of the film used except to say it was 16mm and 70mm
That Mr. Sibrel was punched for asking questions of our moon-walking astronaut could be just the reaction of an old man on a bad day reacting to a nuisance who iimpuned his integrity..or it could be the natural reaction to a man about to have his reputation sullied by cold hard facts..or the frustration with not being able to speak the truth and settle the issue without giving away the real truth..that something DID happen on the moon which no one wants to discuss. As some wag put it....if you're catching flak it means you are over a sensitive target.
Here again is the senior personnel listings for Kodak..
www.kodak.com.../2572&pq-locale=en_US
And Mr. Vimilslik is nowhere to be found..NOR IS HIS OFFICE...as it would seem he has a 'special office' which is unlisted in the company's main indexes.
Hmmmm.
So along with a letter to Mr. Vimilslik at Kodak I will be forwarding a copy to
Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian, to see how he responds to some pointed questions.
And they will relate to the following:
"Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.
Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.
"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."
A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later. "
HERE'S anothjer unanswered question you've been avoiding or ignoring...
In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound
of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the
surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust. "
THE SOUNDS!!!
The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.
When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out. "
[www.apfn.org...]
About THE FOOTPRINT, which you mentioned in your post...according to every scientist asked...if you were to take me back to the moon to look for the print we wouldn't find it...and the main reason? IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO LEAVE A FOOTPRINT IMPRESSION in moon dust with ZERO moisture.
Lastly I give you a site which I find most informative...
www.apolloarchive.com...
Where you can all look at the recently released [and tweaked] Apollo 11 images..a couple of which are alarmingly anomalous, and I leave you to discover them.
In the meantime I will go looking for Vimilslik..
-Sincerely
-Shai
Even the readers are complaining that you are not providing links just blah blah assertions.
You say things have been disproven hundreds of times..not by you and not with quotes or links which relate directly to my questions.
To say that aulis has been debunked is no good without the link which debunks it or the quote.
You do not comment on the two seperate photos I gave you to explain the background of as asked..and you do not comment on the unanswered problem about the physics of the moon and its distance, density, calling all the NASA data into doubt.
Nor do you comment on Neil Armstrong's assertion that once on the moon they were warned off by ET's.
On three seperate points there are fundamental flaws with the 'official story' is reported on what I would think even you found an objective website.
As for the outstanding quality of echtchrome 160...especially placed aginst the comments of Arnold who swears that the quality of film was so good that it rivals digital fotos of today...here's a quote from Kodaks'website you might find relevant:
"[Kodak']...introduced improved emulsion technology with its Eastman EXR color negative film products in 1989. These gave cinematographers significant creative flexibility, providing more underexposure latitude; truer colors in fluorescent light, and greater sharpness. "
Meaning it was far superior to anything previous..and it took them 20 years to do it AFTER the moon landings..indeed it is the first mention in the company archives of such a film base and the first mention of EXR with capabilities anything like what the 'special film' on Apollo was supposed to have.
You don't answer the problem of there having been two different [and maybe 3 or more different] film stocks on board.
And neither do the sites which claim to explain everything..like this one..
www.lpi.usra.edu... which goes to great lengths to give details like shutter speeds and focus points but gives not one detail of the films used in any one of the cameras..it's brand name or if it was specially made.
In my old biz these are the details we looked for in analyzing info...the absence of details..the reptition almost verbatim of 'the official story' meaning they must be quoting from a common source..and most importantly, a recent source, superceding the original or contemporary accounts.
It never crosses HJ's mind to be in the least suspicious that to date no independent researchers have been given access to the negatives..all requests go through NASA and they do the reprints...leaving us to take NASA''s word, and only NASA's word for it. Nor does NASA allow moon-rocks to be tested by outside agencies....
You don't find it odd that film of such quality must be "updated"..and what would a reason be to update a historical photograph anyway?
No one has answered to any satisfaction how a camera mounted at belt level could capture an eye level image of a standing astronaut from less than 1,5 meters away...
And the whole idea of the moon's surface being so reflective as to hide the stars is blown away by the fact that moon's surface has the reflectivity of asphalt.
You seem content to sweep away arguments of the sort with grand statements and no supporting evidence, using the same old tactic the Soviets used to relish..starting off every blatantly false statement about the West with the catch phrase 'as is well known'..or'..ás we all know'
And so far you haven't posted one creative thought of your own about this on this thread..even using other people's words as your own without credit or providing links to your sources.
I HAVE written Mr. Vimilslik and await his reply..but still find it beyond annoying that you prefer to take the word of someone like a public information hack over a world-reknowned photgrapher and former senior executive at the time of the Apollo mission...in other words you prefer to accept hearsay over direct evidence.
Unless and until you can account for the discrepencies as I listed them in previous threads..the two moonscape photos in particular, which are official NASA releases mind you...i will consider your posts unworthy of rebuttal.
Also you will have to reconcile NASA's recent statement that the EVA was modified to allow astronauts to leave and enter the vehicle while wearing their pressure suits and cooling packs with the statement by the astronauts themselves that the EVA was not modified in that way..and instead was only different to the the 'model'they trained on in that it was given powered ascent and descent.
If you had even bothered to read the links you would have seen that clearly.
Oh and here's another quote from Kodaks'press office packet..
"Kodak technology also went along on Apollo 11, with the first astronauts to walk on the moon. A special stereoscopic color camera built by Kodak enabled astronauts to photograph extreme close-ups of rocks, dust, and minute features of the Moon's surface. The camera, about the size and shape of a large shoebox, was easily operated using a trigger on an extendable handle. This enabled an astronaut to operate it despite the limited mobility, dexterity and visibility caused by their pressure suit and heavy gloves. Photos of the lunar soil taken by Neil Armstrong enabled scientists to see soil particles smaller than two one-thousandths of an inch. "
Here's another quote..from Kodak...
"" In the mid sixties, NASA launched a series of five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft that collectively photographed 99% of the moon's surface in preparation for an Apollo moon landing. Each carried an ingenious photographic system, designed and built by Kodak. The system took photographs, processed and scanned the film, and converted imagery into a continuous video signal for pickup by Kodak-built receivers on Earth. At that time, it was the most complex instrumentation payload ever launched aboard a spacecraft. In addition to medium-resolution images that were taken to analyze the moon's surface topography, the system took a number of high-resolution pictures that were clear enough to show objects the size of a card table on the surface. "
To date no one outside Kodak has been given access to these films..and since when did Kodak build radio receivers?
Another quote from Kodak..
"1971 - Kodak introduced KODAK EKTACHROME 160 Movie Film (Type A) and two new super 8 movie cameras which, in combination, made possible "existing light" movies for home use. ♦ The Marketing Education Center (also known as the Riverwood site), opened as a training facility that offered a variety of educational services to professionals who used Kodak products."
So the ektachrome 160 movie film comes on the market more than two years after Apollo 11.
"Here's what NASA has to say about the film/camers and Apollo 11:
Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.
Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions. During the Moon landing one Hasselblad was left aboard the Command Module Columbia, which remained in lunar orbit. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's surface.
The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications. A transparent glass Reseau plate, or register glass, engraved with grid markings was placed between the film magazine and the camera body, immediately in front of the film plane. The plate is engraved with crosses to form a grid and the intersections accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. The crosses were recorded on every exposed film frame. From the markings, it is possible to calibrate distance and heights in photos taken either on the lunar surface or from space. Such markings were not new or unique to the space program. They were commonly used for large format scientific and aerial photography prior to the Moon landings, when the large size of the photographic negative could be distorted either during exposure or the printing process.
When film is normally wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity is dispersed by metal rims and rollers, which guide the film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided by the Reseau plate's raised edges. As glass is a poor electrical conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air, the charge built up between the glass surface and the film could become so great that sparks could occur between the plate and the film. In order to conduct the static electricity away and prevent sparking, the side of the plate facing the film was coated with a thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited on the edges of the conductive layer. The electrical charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera body by contact springs.
The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.
Two film magazines for the lunar surface Hasselblad 500EL data camera were carried for use on the Moon's surface. Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. The film used for Apollo 11 was loaded and several test shots exposed prior to flight. When the film magazines were returned for processing after the mission, the test shots were cut off and processed first. These were compared against accurate color charts to ensure that there would be no defects in processing the remainder of the film and that the colors would be most accurate.
[ let me highlight this for ya.. "Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. " so, did the other missions use 'special film" or ektachrome 160? NO! In fact, after much digging I did come up with what films was 'officially used' on the Apollo flights....and here it is:
"Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission. "
history.nasa.gov...
Each film magazine was finished in the same silver color as the camera body. The film magazines were each fitted with a tether ring. To the ring, a cord was attached that permitted the entire camera to be lowered from the lunar module cabin to Neil Armstrong on the surface using a clothesline-like arrangement. The exposed film magazines were lifted from the surface in the same manner. The camera and lens were left behind and still rest on the Moon's surface at Tranquility Base.
The Apollo 11 Kodak Stereo Close-Up Camera
Seven months prior to the Apollo 11 mission, a new camera was commissioned by NASA. The camera would be used by the crew to take close-up stereo views of the lunar soil and rocks. The camera had a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, an aperture of f/22.6, film was held approximately 10 inches from the lunar surface, and lighting was provided by an integral electronic flash.
The camera was designed for ease of use by the astronaut in his bulky pressure suit. The camera was rested on the soil and the astronaut would simply press down on a trigger on a long handle to expose the frames. Each exposure resulted in two side-by-side photographs of the same area of the surface. The surface photographed measured three inches by three inches. The size of the exposed film was one inch square.
After Apollo 11
Five more flights landed on the Moon after Apollo 11. On all, the photographic equipment and films were similar to that taken on the first landing. On Apollo 15, the 250mm telescopic lens was added to the Hasselblad lunar surface complement. By the time of Apollo 17, a total of 18 rolls of film were taken to the lunar surface.
Astronaut Training for Lunar Photography
The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions, scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique. Tutorials were provided to the crews on the equipment, its operation, as well as on the scientific purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently simulating their lunar traverse, completely outfitted with sample bags, checklists, simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, core-sampling equipment, and typically using Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they would use on the Moon. As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras. Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results.
The Meaning
From December 1968 to December 1972, twenty-seven astronauts traveled to the Moon and twelve walked upon its surface. There were nine voyages across the quarter million miles. The treasures of Apollo included the samples of the lunar surface and the photographs the astronauts took. The photographs of Apollo, today, three decades later, help us to relive the experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the photographs taken by astronauts are available at the GReat Images in NASA photo database and in the galleries associated with the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals. We also have a page devoted to more general information about the Apollo Program."
AND all of that sounds great except, again, no mention of special film for the still shots, nor what kind of film...BUT..heres' a NASA produced copy of the special camera...and it is a Minolta.
www.exscitec.com...
Hassleblad has its own version of the story..
www.hq.nasa.gov... and maintains the film was special-thin coated 7omm double perforated...but gives no ASA ratings or specific film-types
Another site tells us just how many cameras and films were on the moon...
www.lpi.usra.edu... but makes no mention of the film used except to say it was 16mm and 70mm
That Mr. Sibrel was punched for asking questions of our moon-walking astronaut could be just the reaction of an old man on a bad day reacting to a nuisance who iimpuned his integrity..or it could be the natural reaction to a man about to have his reputation sullied by cold hard facts..or the frustration with not being able to speak the truth and settle the issue without giving away the real truth..that something DID happen on the moon which no one wants to discuss. As some wag put it....if you're catching flak it means you are over a sensitive target.
Here again is the senior personnel listings for Kodak..
www.kodak.com.../2572&pq-locale=en_US
And Mr. Vimilslik is nowhere to be found..NOR IS HIS OFFICE...as it would seem he has a 'special office' which is unlisted in the company's main indexes.
Hmmmm.
So along with a letter to Mr. Vimilslik at Kodak I will be forwarding a copy to
Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian, to see how he responds to some pointed questions.
And they will relate to the following:
"Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.
Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.
"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."
A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later. "
HERE'S anothjer unanswered question you've been avoiding or ignoring...
In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound
of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the
surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust. "
THE SOUNDS!!!
The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.
When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out. "
[www.apfn.org...]
About THE FOOTPRINT, which you mentioned in your post...according to every scientist asked...if you were to take me back to the moon to look for the print we wouldn't find it...and the main reason? IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO LEAVE A FOOTPRINT IMPRESSION in moon dust with ZERO moisture.
Lastly I give you a site which I find most informative...
www.apolloarchive.com...
Where you can all look at the recently released [and tweaked] Apollo 11 images..a couple of which are alarmingly anomalous, and I leave you to discover them.
In the meantime I will go looking for Vimilslik..
-Sincerely
-Shai
Thank You For Your Feedback
Below is what you submitted to Apollo Archive on Monday, January 31, 2005 at 06:40:27 from IP address 84.82.130.148
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments: Dear Apollo Archive. In researching the Apollo projects I have been given differing accounts regarding the film[s] and cameras used on missions 8. 10 & 11 One site tells me that the film in the Hasselblad cameras on the famous moon-landing mission was an early version of Kodak's Ektachrome 160..another says it is the same as was used on earlier Apollo flights,[Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film.] Another site states that a 'special film' was created for NASA by Kodak for the specific purpose of capturing the best images on the moon. Could you put the matter to rest for me, as this is causing some confusion. Also, if indeed the astronauts took special[ thin] film on the Apollo 11 mission, is it possible to see or test such samples..or is it on display in an archive/museum? Are the photos posted on this site retouched in any way to bring out detail or highlight features? If so by whom and what process? Lastly, in reading the official NASA site[s] it is mentioned that the original Apollo photos have been undergoing 'updating'although nothing is mentioned to indicate in which way or for what reason..could you shed light on this for me? Thanking you in advance for your help -Sincerely
Below is what you submitted to Apollo Archive on Monday, January 31, 2005 at 06:40:27 from IP address 84.82.130.148
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments: Dear Apollo Archive. In researching the Apollo projects I have been given differing accounts regarding the film[s] and cameras used on missions 8. 10 & 11 One site tells me that the film in the Hasselblad cameras on the famous moon-landing mission was an early version of Kodak's Ektachrome 160..another says it is the same as was used on earlier Apollo flights,[Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film.] Another site states that a 'special film' was created for NASA by Kodak for the specific purpose of capturing the best images on the moon. Could you put the matter to rest for me, as this is causing some confusion. Also, if indeed the astronauts took special[ thin] film on the Apollo 11 mission, is it possible to see or test such samples..or is it on display in an archive/museum? Are the photos posted on this site retouched in any way to bring out detail or highlight features? If so by whom and what process? Lastly, in reading the official NASA site[s] it is mentioned that the original Apollo photos have been undergoing 'updating'although nothing is mentioned to indicate in which way or for what reason..could you shed light on this for me? Thanking you in advance for your help -Sincerely
Found this on the web and it sums up our debate so far.
I ask the moderator for this thread to read this post and see if it might also properly belong on other threads.
And I give notic e that until the much anticipated answer to my 3 letters to competent authorities regarding the unanswered, or incompletely answered questions and issues found here...
www.geocities.com...
Rethinking NASA's Version of History.
Never accept the obvious. Never take anything on face value. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Question everything, and I mean everything. Follow these directions and you will be led to some disturbing conclusions.
Currently the Creeps Research Group's findings on NASA and the Apollo missions have two possibilities: Number One, the space program has been for the most part a hoax and we never went to the moon, or Number Two, we went to the moon but for some reason NASA felt the need to falsify all released info on what happened. We find Number Two to be the most likely scenario but cannot completely discount Number One at this time.
Cat in a hot tin suit
According to any basic science text, as we all know, the only reason the Earth is not roasting from the Sun's heat is our atmosphere. The official NASA line is that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of. This being the case, the surface temperature of the moon must be extremely hot, not cold as the popular myth would have it. And in fact, reference works varyingly place the daytime surface temperature between 206 and 265 degrees F.
There is no way - absolutely no way - the astronauts and the Lunar Module could have survived in such heat. NASA claims the suits were air-conditioned and also used a water-cooling system, both of which are impossible and could not function in a vacuum at 265 degrees of heat. Carrying oxygen tanks at that temperature is probably not a very good idea either!
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled off by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Oh, sure, objects which are in the shade of another object will eventually cool off, but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the near-absolute vacuum of space. Since the vacuum of space is the ultimate insulator, objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat.
The upshot of all this is that 265 degrees of heat in a vacuum is even worse than 265 degrees of heat on Earth, because once heat is generated there is no way to cool down in any meaningful amount of time. The water-cooled spacesuits could not have possibly worked. And oh yeah, did you know water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot? Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft...look it up.
What amazingly powerful batteries!
And what was the power source for the system that kept these suits cooled and kept the water circulating? And what was the power source for the system that had to keep the Lunar Module cooled as it sat there and baked in the extreme heat? Think about your electric bills in the summer and how many BTUs your air conditioners use, then think about what it must have taken to keep the LM and the individual suits cooled. How was this enormous amount of power generated?
How does water freeze at anything but the Freezing Point?
According to Kozloski's reference work "U.S. Space Gear": "The astronauts' portable life support system, developed by Hamilton Standard, supplied oxygen and circulated it through the helmet and suit. It controlled relative humidity and held temperature to a comfortable 70 degrees F. A PLSS pump cooled water by sublimation* and recirculated it through the tubing of the liquid cooling garment."
okay, then the asterisk at "sublimation" brings us to a footnote:
"Hamilton Standard introduced a porous plate sublimator on the PLSS : Heated water would pass through the sublimator, freeze at pores of the nickel plate that was partially exposed to ambient space temperature, vaporize as heat was introduced through exchange fins, sublimate the ice film, and thereby free the vapor to be discharged."
THINK ABOUT THIS. This whole concept hinges on the assumption that it is cold enough outside to instantly freeze water on a nickel plate that is partially exposed outside the suit. But we know the moon CANNOT be freezing outside the suit, because the sun's rays are beating down on it in an atmosphereless vacuum!
And if it's really that cold on the moon, why do they need an air conditioning system in the suit in the first place??
Vague answers from NASA's answer man
Hoping that some light could be shed on this glaring discrepancy, we consulted the NASA "Ask A Space Scientist" web page, e-mailed them the details above and asked for an explanation. Just minutes later, they fired back this terse, nearly incoherent response, reprinted here exactly as it was received:
"in the shade...blocked from direct view of the sun..it plunges to over 100 degrees below zero...actually... 3 degrees above absolute zero if properly shielded from stray light. Dr. odenwald"
And there you have it. This answer came from a NASA scientist. Everyone knows damn well the astronauts were not in the shade. The pictures show they were in broad daylight - he admits this himself by fudging with "blocked from DIRECT view of the sun". It only plunges to below zero at night. (243 below zero, to be exact) And the Apollo missions were clearly conducted in broad daylight with the sun beaming directly on them as they're running, jumping, hanging out and riding their Lunar Rover around. For hours at a time. Where did this guy come up with "3 degrees above absolute zero", and what the heck does "if properly shielded from stray light" mean, anyway??!
Where are the stars?
Much has been said in other works suspicious of the Apollo program about the lack of stars in the sky in the moon pictures. This has been attempted to be explained away by saying that the camera's exposures simply did were not set to allow starlight in. 'There's really no mystery to it', the debunkers say, 'go out in your yard some night and take a bunch of pictures of trees and houses and things, but leave a lot of sky in view. You won't see any stars in 99 percent of the pictures.' Well, you know, I tried it and by golly, it's true, you can't. The stars are so indistinct as to be invisible. Problem is, it makes the moon pretty indistinct too. Just a big bright round blur with none of its surface features visible. Yet the Earth is in crystal clear focus in the sky in the Apollo pictures, even when the foreground is what is being focused on. And yet still no stars. Hmmmm.
Furthermore, light behaves differently in a vacuum. With no atmosphere to diffuse the sun's rays into light pollution, the sky should have been lit up like a Lite-Brite with a thousand points of light, far more brilliant than seen from Earth. Taking this into account, it's even harder to believe that none of the Apollo photos show any stars.
I can't see a thing in this helmet
I own a high-altitude air force pilot's helmet, the closest thing to an actual space helmet one could have. I tried it on and was struck by something interesting : my breath fogged it up immediately and I couldn't see a thing. So how did the NASA space suits prevent this problem? There could not be any sort of air-blowing device, as with a car windshield defogger, because an air-exchanging system cannot work in a vacuum. Space helmets currently employ a special glass that prevents fogging, but this did not exist in the era of the Apollo missions.
With the alleged water-cooled cool temperature inside the suit and 265-degree heat outside the suit, condensation should have formed on the glass faceplate even without the astronaut's breath. (The astronauts' mouths are not covered in any way under the helmet, by the way.)
The bloody gloves fit....a little too well
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. Yet the gloves the astronauts wore are made of pliable material containing no devices which would aid the astronauts in the dextrous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. I have viewed these gloves myself at the Smithsonian Institute. Such gloves are impossible to use, for the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dextrous work whatsoever when pressurized.
There is plenty of film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their time on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... which would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.
So.... if they weren't in a vacuum, where were they?
Footprints lead to the truth
This one's been floating around out there for while amongst NASA-doubters. We all know about the famous footprints of Neil Armstrong on the moon, and there plenty more left by the various Apollo crewmen. Problem is, in order for soil to retain a footprint, there must be moisture. A significant amount of it, in fact. Yet NASA insists there is no moisture on the moon, except for a few pockets of recently-discovered ice shaded in edges of craters. The idea of moisture in the moon soil that Armstrong trod upon is impossible, given what we know about the intense daytime heat well beyond the boiling point of water. And yet, there the footprints are. Maybe these photographs weren't really taken on the moon....
Walk on the beach sometime in the hottest, dryest sand you can find. Your footprints will barely be distinct. Only in the moister sand approaching the water do your footprints hold an exact impression. Even in the finest, most particulate sand you can find.
And speaking of that fine dust-like sand on the moon's surface, ever wonder why, in a low-gravity environment, huge clouds of it aren't kicked up with every step the astronauts take? Remember the famous film footage of astronauts taking advantage of the extremely low gravity to take giant bouncing jumps many feet in the air? If the gravity is low enough to allow them to do this, it's low enough to bring up clouds of this dust each time they hit the ground, clouds that should take a long, long time to settle.
Below the Belt
But believe it or not, dear reader, all of this is beside the point. Here's the capper: The Van Allen Belt, also known as the Van Allen Shields. It's a zone of high-intensity radiation that surrounds the Earth, beginning at altitudes of about 1000 kilometers. We didn't know much about The Van Allen Belt in the days of the manned Apollo missions. We didn't know for sure what it was comprised of, what its effects were, or just how intense the radiation got the further one goes from Earth.
With what we now know about the Van Allen Belt, and looking back at the primitive (some would say nonexistent) shielding used on those early Apollo landings, one realizes that it is a physical impossibility for the crew to have survived! In such an intense sea of radiation for such a duration and with such pitifully weak shielding, they should have perished instantly and the onboard instruments should have gone haywire, sending them hurtling out of control. There were also a number of solar flares (about 15 per day) in their direction during the times when they were en route to the moon....factor in this additional deadly radiation and one begins to realize that something is very, very wrong here.
NASA's own press releases and statements are wildly contradictory. One states that astronauts must be warned well in advance of solar flares so they can take cover, yet another actually tells the truth and admits "High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover." Any amount of radiation over 0.5 rems a year is considered dangerous, anything remotely approaching 100 rems a year would be fatal. And yet the astronauts were exposed to 100-500 rems a DAY while in space and on the moon. And this just from solar radiation alone, not even including the deadly radiation bombardment from the Van Allen Belt.
How did these flimsy little rockets, modules, and space suits protect these men from more deadly radiation than a nuclear power plant's shielding could withstand? Nuclear power plants shield their fuel rods with many feet of concrete and lead layers under the water, for just a few dinky little fissions. Think about that and then think about the nonstop Proton bombardment of the Van Allen Belt and the solar radiation. Look at the space suits and look at the LM. Could this really have happened?
I ask the moderator for this thread to read this post and see if it might also properly belong on other threads.
And I give notic e that until the much anticipated answer to my 3 letters to competent authorities regarding the unanswered, or incompletely answered questions and issues found here...
www.geocities.com...
Rethinking NASA's Version of History.
Never accept the obvious. Never take anything on face value. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Question everything, and I mean everything. Follow these directions and you will be led to some disturbing conclusions.
Currently the Creeps Research Group's findings on NASA and the Apollo missions have two possibilities: Number One, the space program has been for the most part a hoax and we never went to the moon, or Number Two, we went to the moon but for some reason NASA felt the need to falsify all released info on what happened. We find Number Two to be the most likely scenario but cannot completely discount Number One at this time.
Cat in a hot tin suit
According to any basic science text, as we all know, the only reason the Earth is not roasting from the Sun's heat is our atmosphere. The official NASA line is that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of. This being the case, the surface temperature of the moon must be extremely hot, not cold as the popular myth would have it. And in fact, reference works varyingly place the daytime surface temperature between 206 and 265 degrees F.
There is no way - absolutely no way - the astronauts and the Lunar Module could have survived in such heat. NASA claims the suits were air-conditioned and also used a water-cooling system, both of which are impossible and could not function in a vacuum at 265 degrees of heat. Carrying oxygen tanks at that temperature is probably not a very good idea either!
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled off by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Oh, sure, objects which are in the shade of another object will eventually cool off, but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the near-absolute vacuum of space. Since the vacuum of space is the ultimate insulator, objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat.
The upshot of all this is that 265 degrees of heat in a vacuum is even worse than 265 degrees of heat on Earth, because once heat is generated there is no way to cool down in any meaningful amount of time. The water-cooled spacesuits could not have possibly worked. And oh yeah, did you know water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot? Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft...look it up.
What amazingly powerful batteries!
And what was the power source for the system that kept these suits cooled and kept the water circulating? And what was the power source for the system that had to keep the Lunar Module cooled as it sat there and baked in the extreme heat? Think about your electric bills in the summer and how many BTUs your air conditioners use, then think about what it must have taken to keep the LM and the individual suits cooled. How was this enormous amount of power generated?
How does water freeze at anything but the Freezing Point?
According to Kozloski's reference work "U.S. Space Gear": "The astronauts' portable life support system, developed by Hamilton Standard, supplied oxygen and circulated it through the helmet and suit. It controlled relative humidity and held temperature to a comfortable 70 degrees F. A PLSS pump cooled water by sublimation* and recirculated it through the tubing of the liquid cooling garment."
okay, then the asterisk at "sublimation" brings us to a footnote:
"Hamilton Standard introduced a porous plate sublimator on the PLSS : Heated water would pass through the sublimator, freeze at pores of the nickel plate that was partially exposed to ambient space temperature, vaporize as heat was introduced through exchange fins, sublimate the ice film, and thereby free the vapor to be discharged."
THINK ABOUT THIS. This whole concept hinges on the assumption that it is cold enough outside to instantly freeze water on a nickel plate that is partially exposed outside the suit. But we know the moon CANNOT be freezing outside the suit, because the sun's rays are beating down on it in an atmosphereless vacuum!
And if it's really that cold on the moon, why do they need an air conditioning system in the suit in the first place??
Vague answers from NASA's answer man
Hoping that some light could be shed on this glaring discrepancy, we consulted the NASA "Ask A Space Scientist" web page, e-mailed them the details above and asked for an explanation. Just minutes later, they fired back this terse, nearly incoherent response, reprinted here exactly as it was received:
"in the shade...blocked from direct view of the sun..it plunges to over 100 degrees below zero...actually... 3 degrees above absolute zero if properly shielded from stray light. Dr. odenwald"
And there you have it. This answer came from a NASA scientist. Everyone knows damn well the astronauts were not in the shade. The pictures show they were in broad daylight - he admits this himself by fudging with "blocked from DIRECT view of the sun". It only plunges to below zero at night. (243 below zero, to be exact) And the Apollo missions were clearly conducted in broad daylight with the sun beaming directly on them as they're running, jumping, hanging out and riding their Lunar Rover around. For hours at a time. Where did this guy come up with "3 degrees above absolute zero", and what the heck does "if properly shielded from stray light" mean, anyway??!
Where are the stars?
Much has been said in other works suspicious of the Apollo program about the lack of stars in the sky in the moon pictures. This has been attempted to be explained away by saying that the camera's exposures simply did were not set to allow starlight in. 'There's really no mystery to it', the debunkers say, 'go out in your yard some night and take a bunch of pictures of trees and houses and things, but leave a lot of sky in view. You won't see any stars in 99 percent of the pictures.' Well, you know, I tried it and by golly, it's true, you can't. The stars are so indistinct as to be invisible. Problem is, it makes the moon pretty indistinct too. Just a big bright round blur with none of its surface features visible. Yet the Earth is in crystal clear focus in the sky in the Apollo pictures, even when the foreground is what is being focused on. And yet still no stars. Hmmmm.
Furthermore, light behaves differently in a vacuum. With no atmosphere to diffuse the sun's rays into light pollution, the sky should have been lit up like a Lite-Brite with a thousand points of light, far more brilliant than seen from Earth. Taking this into account, it's even harder to believe that none of the Apollo photos show any stars.
I can't see a thing in this helmet
I own a high-altitude air force pilot's helmet, the closest thing to an actual space helmet one could have. I tried it on and was struck by something interesting : my breath fogged it up immediately and I couldn't see a thing. So how did the NASA space suits prevent this problem? There could not be any sort of air-blowing device, as with a car windshield defogger, because an air-exchanging system cannot work in a vacuum. Space helmets currently employ a special glass that prevents fogging, but this did not exist in the era of the Apollo missions.
With the alleged water-cooled cool temperature inside the suit and 265-degree heat outside the suit, condensation should have formed on the glass faceplate even without the astronaut's breath. (The astronauts' mouths are not covered in any way under the helmet, by the way.)
The bloody gloves fit....a little too well
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. Yet the gloves the astronauts wore are made of pliable material containing no devices which would aid the astronauts in the dextrous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. I have viewed these gloves myself at the Smithsonian Institute. Such gloves are impossible to use, for the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dextrous work whatsoever when pressurized.
There is plenty of film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their time on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... which would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.
So.... if they weren't in a vacuum, where were they?
Footprints lead to the truth
This one's been floating around out there for while amongst NASA-doubters. We all know about the famous footprints of Neil Armstrong on the moon, and there plenty more left by the various Apollo crewmen. Problem is, in order for soil to retain a footprint, there must be moisture. A significant amount of it, in fact. Yet NASA insists there is no moisture on the moon, except for a few pockets of recently-discovered ice shaded in edges of craters. The idea of moisture in the moon soil that Armstrong trod upon is impossible, given what we know about the intense daytime heat well beyond the boiling point of water. And yet, there the footprints are. Maybe these photographs weren't really taken on the moon....
Walk on the beach sometime in the hottest, dryest sand you can find. Your footprints will barely be distinct. Only in the moister sand approaching the water do your footprints hold an exact impression. Even in the finest, most particulate sand you can find.
And speaking of that fine dust-like sand on the moon's surface, ever wonder why, in a low-gravity environment, huge clouds of it aren't kicked up with every step the astronauts take? Remember the famous film footage of astronauts taking advantage of the extremely low gravity to take giant bouncing jumps many feet in the air? If the gravity is low enough to allow them to do this, it's low enough to bring up clouds of this dust each time they hit the ground, clouds that should take a long, long time to settle.
Below the Belt
But believe it or not, dear reader, all of this is beside the point. Here's the capper: The Van Allen Belt, also known as the Van Allen Shields. It's a zone of high-intensity radiation that surrounds the Earth, beginning at altitudes of about 1000 kilometers. We didn't know much about The Van Allen Belt in the days of the manned Apollo missions. We didn't know for sure what it was comprised of, what its effects were, or just how intense the radiation got the further one goes from Earth.
With what we now know about the Van Allen Belt, and looking back at the primitive (some would say nonexistent) shielding used on those early Apollo landings, one realizes that it is a physical impossibility for the crew to have survived! In such an intense sea of radiation for such a duration and with such pitifully weak shielding, they should have perished instantly and the onboard instruments should have gone haywire, sending them hurtling out of control. There were also a number of solar flares (about 15 per day) in their direction during the times when they were en route to the moon....factor in this additional deadly radiation and one begins to realize that something is very, very wrong here.
NASA's own press releases and statements are wildly contradictory. One states that astronauts must be warned well in advance of solar flares so they can take cover, yet another actually tells the truth and admits "High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover." Any amount of radiation over 0.5 rems a year is considered dangerous, anything remotely approaching 100 rems a year would be fatal. And yet the astronauts were exposed to 100-500 rems a DAY while in space and on the moon. And this just from solar radiation alone, not even including the deadly radiation bombardment from the Van Allen Belt.
How did these flimsy little rockets, modules, and space suits protect these men from more deadly radiation than a nuclear power plant's shielding could withstand? Nuclear power plants shield their fuel rods with many feet of concrete and lead layers under the water, for just a few dinky little fissions. Think about that and then think about the nonstop Proton bombardment of the Van Allen Belt and the solar radiation. Look at the space suits and look at the LM. Could this really have happened?
Shai, you clearly have no abililty to distinguish between credible scientific information and mumbo jumbo. The points that you continually raise have
all been answered on numerous occasions yet you refuse to believe established, peer-reviewed scientifc fact and instead obsess on the red herring film
issue.
Your posts are now so rambling, confused and incoherent that I cannot actually understand your current line of argument or the points that you are trying to make.
I've already posted several of the links from where I've obtained information and it is pointless to continue posting the same links (as you do). I'm certainly not going to continue referencing every paragraph just because your similarly deluded goons (or aliases, more likely) ask for references.
By the way, the cosmicapollo site which you so heavily rely on is a joke. The site contains a large section alleging that men never walked on the moon and another large section alleging that the Apollo missions encountered UFOs and strange lunar structure when ... errrr .... they walked on the moon .... This is typical of the contradictory nonsense we see from the moon landing conspiracy theorists and underlines why they are such a complete joke to those of us who don't spend most of our days in a strait-jacket.
Continuing this argument for ever is pointless. I do hope that the Japanese Selena missions this year, which will map the lunar surface with a resolution good enough to see the landing site, will put an end to this nonsense for good. (Although probably not as you and your kind are bound to accuse NASA of paying the japanese to fake some evidence, or some other rubbish).
In the meantime, I'm not going to continue with this thread because there's simply no point. It's like bashing my head against a brick wall time and time again.
Your posts are now so rambling, confused and incoherent that I cannot actually understand your current line of argument or the points that you are trying to make.
I've already posted several of the links from where I've obtained information and it is pointless to continue posting the same links (as you do). I'm certainly not going to continue referencing every paragraph just because your similarly deluded goons (or aliases, more likely) ask for references.
By the way, the cosmicapollo site which you so heavily rely on is a joke. The site contains a large section alleging that men never walked on the moon and another large section alleging that the Apollo missions encountered UFOs and strange lunar structure when ... errrr .... they walked on the moon .... This is typical of the contradictory nonsense we see from the moon landing conspiracy theorists and underlines why they are such a complete joke to those of us who don't spend most of our days in a strait-jacket.
Continuing this argument for ever is pointless. I do hope that the Japanese Selena missions this year, which will map the lunar surface with a resolution good enough to see the landing site, will put an end to this nonsense for good. (Although probably not as you and your kind are bound to accuse NASA of paying the japanese to fake some evidence, or some other rubbish).
In the meantime, I'm not going to continue with this thread because there's simply no point. It's like bashing my head against a brick wall time and time again.
Originally posted by harrisjohns
Shai, you clearly have no abililty to distinguish between credible scientific information and mumbo jumbo. The points that you continually raise have all been answered on numerous occasions yet you refuse to believe established, peer-reviewed scientifc fact and instead obsess on the red herring film issue.
Your posts are now so rambling, confused and incoherent that I cannot actually understand your current line of argument or the points that you are trying to make.
I've already posted several of the links from where I've obtained information and it is pointless to continue posting the same links (as you do). I'm certainly not going to continue referencing every paragraph just because your similarly deluded goons (or aliases, more likely) ask for references.
By the way, the cosmicapollo site which you so heavily rely on is a joke. The site contains a large section alleging that men never walked on the moon and another large section alleging that the Apollo missions encountered UFOs and strange lunar structure when ... errrr .... they walked on the moon .... This is typical of the contradictory nonsense we see from the moon landing conspiracy theorists and underlines why they are such a complete joke to those of us who don't spend most of our days in a strait-jacket.
Continuing this argument for ever is pointless. I do hope that the Japanese Selena missions this year, which will map the lunar surface with a resolution good enough to see the landing site, will put an end to this nonsense for good. (Although probably not as you and your kind are bound to accuse NASA of paying the japanese to fake some evidence, or some other rubbish).
In the meantime, I'm not going to continue with this thread because there's simply no point. It's like bashing my head against a brick wall time and time again.
Again without posting links you take broad swipes and then resign from the argument.
I have been to each and evry site YOU have, Harris. Unlike you I quote the material I find and name the source link as opposed to copy=pasting and using it uncredited as my own.
I have been waiting and waiting for you to puiblish what I think is the best site going for your side:
www.braeunig.us... from whch you apparently lifted large sections of quotes...but then so does MR. Braeunig from other sites, and again without checking or giving credit to sources.
Most of what is there does nothing to answer this site:
www.geocities.com...
Like..why no time delay in the transmission during the lunar lander descent
Like...if there is no temperature in a vacuum, why did the astronauts need their suits cooled with water...and if it wasn't so hot why did they count on the coolant water ?
Like how much water was in each suit..and how much was carried on the mission..given that water weighs 62lbs to the cubic foot.
Like why, if moon gravity is so low, did the astronauts not kick up dust clouds when they skipped and jumped..dust clouds that should have hung for hours.
Like why should I believe Neil Armstrong when he says he went to the moon, but disbelieve him when he says ET's were there?
The official story is BS..as evidenced that the three major palyers inn getting the photos taken can't even agree on which film was used.
Your debunking sites say 'special film'..and so does your PR jock, Vimilslik
[BTW, he seems to have banished from google in the last thwo days..his name no longer brings up links when you type it in...curious don't you think?]
hasselblad who supplied 3 cameras for the Apollo 11 mission swears it was the same film used on apollo 8-10 as listed in my previous post..and HJP Arnold says it was Ektachrome 160, which was made commercially available 2 years later...
I don't doubt that what we sent men to the moon...I doubt the official story about how we did it in 69 and more than that I doubt the official story as documented by the fotos...
In 1970 I had an entire roll of newly exposed film wiped out by one of the first baggage scanners using x-rays..so don't tell me X-rays don't bother film
and in a zero atmosphere radiation travels at the speed of light..so telling me about 3 kev X-ray bits slowing down in a vacuum is utter and complete nonsense.
All of you die-hards tow the party line without one iota of critical thinking to support it..plainly following the leader and letting others think for you.
But it isn't your fault..I know. iTHE OFFICIAL STORY is the problem.
-Sincerely
-Sha
www.geocities.com...
READ IT AGAIN
Originally posted by Shai
Vimilslik
[BTW, he seems to have banished from google in the last thwo days..his name no longer brings up links when you type it in...curious don't you think?]
Yes, it must be part of the conspiracy. Nasa has spent the last two days erasing all references of him from the internet to prevent us from learning the truth that he is in fact a shape-shifting reptilian who lives with Elvis Presley and the Queen of the Lemurians in a giant glass cube hovering several miles above the surface of the moon.
Or perhaps the more realistic explanation is that you have misspelt his name.
It is PETER VIMISLIK.
This is so revealing about the way in which your mind works - seeking to create giant conspiracy theories out of small mistakes. It says so much about you and your illogical, unreasoned and woolly thinking.
Maybe because clearly that guy couldn't tell the difference between snowball and 30 mm HEI hitting his chest.
Originally posted by Shai
Most of what is there does nothing to answer this site:
www.geocities.com...
And those have been answered.
Originally posted by Shai
THINK ABOUT THIS. This whole concept hinges on the assumption that it is cold enough outside to instantly freeze water on a nickel plate that is partially exposed outside the suit. But we know the moon CANNOT be freezing outside the suit, because the sun's rays are beating down on it in an atmosphereless vacuum!
And if it's really that cold on the moon, why do they need an air conditioning system in the suit in the first place??
Vague answers from NASA's answer man
Hoping that some light could be shed on this glaring discrepancy, we consulted the NASA "Ask A Space Scientist" web page, e-mailed them the details above and asked for an explanation. Just minutes later, they fired back this terse, nearly incoherent response, reprinted here exactly as it was received:
"in the shade...blocked from direct view of the sun..it plunges to over 100 degrees below zero...actually... 3 degrees above absolute zero if properly shielded from stray light. Dr. odenwald"
And there you have it. This answer came from a NASA scientist. Everyone knows damn well the astronauts were not in the shade. The pictures show they were in broad daylight - he admits this himself by fudging with "blocked from DIRECT view of the sun". It only plunges to below zero at night. (243 below zero, to be exact) And the Apollo missions were clearly conducted in broad daylight with the sun beaming directly on them as they're running, jumping, hanging out and riding their Lunar Rover around. For hours at a time. Where did this guy come up with "3 degrees above absolute zero", and what the heck does "if properly shielded from stray light" mean, anyway??!
Shai you are comical in your steadfast determination to remain as ignorant as possible.
Shielded from direct sunlight means just that. Sheeesh. What a maroon. . . .
No one has answered to any satisfaction how a camera mounted at belt level could capture an eye level image of a standing astronaut from less than 1,5 meters away...
Belt level? As far as I know, they were mounted at eye level.
And the whole idea of the moon's surface being so reflective as to hide the stars is blown away by the fact that moon's surface has the reflectivity of asphalt.
Any data to back up that assertion?
That asphalt is sure bright on a full moon.
As for discrediting Aulis...here is a post on their site which I confirmed as genuine with NASA
"NASA's answer (extract)
When the sun flares, it produces x-rays, gamma-rays, and energetic particles. The energetic particles are the worst, but they are delayed compared to the x-rays and gamma-rays, so you have some warning that they are coming. This gives you time to get into a 'storm shelter', a well-shielded area that you can live in for a few days until the particles die down. A good place for a storm shelter would be in the center of the ship, surrounded by the water tanks. If you don't have a storm shelter (e.g. if you are out moonwalking in just your suit) a bad solar flare can kill you by radiation sickness. Since space is inherently dangerous at the present state of the art, cancer due to cosmic rays is relatively small additional risk.
Aulis note: No such 'storm shelter' was provided on the Apollo missions.
Question to NASA #2
What do we do when we have to fly through the radiation belts-like when we went to the Moon or send probes to other planets?
NASA's answer (extract)
In the 1960s, NASA asked Oak Ridge National Laboratory to predict how astronauts and other materials would be affected by exposure to both the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts and the Sun's radiation. Oak Ridge biologists sent bacteria and blood samples into space and exposed small animals to radiation. They concluded that proper shielding would be key to successful flight not only for living organisms, but for electronic instrumentation as well. To develop shielding for the Apollo crews, Oak Ridge researchers recycled the Lab's Tower Shielding Facility, which had hoisted shielding experiments aloft for the 1950s nuclear-plane project.
Aulis note: No such 'proper shielding' was actually provided on the Apollo missions. "
You say this site was discredited...hmmm..by whom...NASA?
And about Cosmic Apollo...and the australian accusuations, about seeing "live transmissions' from the moon and astronauts kicking a coke bottle.
I sent you the link, it shows the Australian newspaper article...NASA has never commented....and either did you.
Just what about that report if bogus or phony in your mind I can't say..nor is there any explanation as to why the australians should make it up..since they are our closest allies in the Pacific.
Again you skip by that as irrelevant.
You think I am incoherent....well there;s two reasons for that..i cannot type [In english] as fast as I can think in Hebrew/Dutch and my time is very limited. I will try to do a spell check before posting next time.
Now then..where ..oh where is the rebuttal from anyone about this;
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer Una Ronald stayed up to see the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change can be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and several articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the 'raw footage'.
Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, he is also a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Comms Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!! "
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
You say cosmicapollo is a joke..well how come the australians aren't laughing..and how come all those attempting to debunk debunkers ..and yourself...conveniently skip over these reports?
Remember, until glaring querstions like this are answered there is still reasonable doubt and there still will be reasonable doubters.
Like me.
As for knowing a credible report from an incredible one...if that is my flaw it is shared by your entire military/industrial complex and your CIA..who told you Saddam had WMD and could launch in 45 mins....
Oh, and don't forget Powell who lied to the UN and used forged evidence to support a war resolution.
And you trust the government still..eh? Acting in your best interest, is it?
It is BECAUSE I worked for your government and others that I do not trust them.
It is becuase I helped disinform and misinform people like you for 15 years that i do not take on faith a single word they have to say.
Moreover it is BECAUSE I was raised in the Cold War, doing 'duck and cover' exercises in school everyday, watching my parents panic in 62 when the cuban missile crisis was going on and WWIII was imminent that I am intensely aware of the stakes at the time between super-powers and in the race for the moon.
The idea that we got there and so they didn't have to waste the time and money DOES NOT HOLD WATER.
The idea of going to the moon at the time wasn't limited to exploration, curiousity and prestige..it was a military asset, a launch and spy platform, a possible launch site for nukes....Do you think landing Apollo 11 put an end to that goal..or was it what Apollo 11 and subsequent crews found when they got there that put an end to such dreams?
As for the lasers on the surface...that is plain BS, too. They are not lasers they are mirrors and they were built and shipped to NASA by a company, now defunct called PERKIN-ELMER. This is something I DO know about, having been briefed on it in 1979..ten years after Apollo 11.
It is those mirrors that we bounce our lasers off of..and they were not put there by Buzz Aldrin or Neil Armstrong or any other manned flight to the moon.
As for the most powerful telescopes, including Hubble, not having a lens big enough to photograph what we left up there..like the lunar roving vehicle...that is beyond patently absurd....The israelis launched Ofeq 1 in 89 and on board were cameras that could photograph a license plate from 100 miles above the surface of earth, through clouds and atmosphere.....Hubble can capture galaxies on the other side of the milky way, but can't pick a detail smaller than 300 feet on the moon? [* official story] meaning the LM at 31 feet in length is too small to see ...hmmm... Oh..of course I believe that.
Now for the science of the moon and its structure...here is the science:
sci.fgt.bme.hu...
"On comparing the variation of seismic velocities with depth of the Moon with that of the Earth, a striking similarity appears in the uppermost 100 km region. From this it may be concluded that the structure of the crust of the Moon is similar to that of the Earth, and - since according to Fig. 1 a major increase of seismic velocity occurs between a depths of 55-60 km in average-this depth may be considered as the lower boundary of the lunar crust. Still, this depth is not identical everywhere. The above given depth is only a mean value varying between about 30 and 110 km. Comparing the above discussed results of the seismic measurements with the gravity and the topography of the Moon we can experience that the law of isostasy is to all probability valid also in case of the Moon's crust since there are large variations in crustal thickness, ranging from 30-55 km beneath mascons to 90-110 km in the far side highlands. It is interesting to note here that the average crustal thickness of the Moon is greater on the far side that on the nearside. It follows that the center of mass of the Moon does not coincide with its geometrical center; the deviation is about 2.5 km.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the investigation of the lunar rocks the APOLLO program has played a decisive role since in the course of the six landings on the Moon - by means of a well-planned and careful selection - about 384 kg of lunar rocks was transported to the terrestrial laboratories for studying purposes [13]. (In addition about 0.1 kg of moon dust has been delivered by the LUNA 16 and 20 for analysis.) At the sametime, only the commander and the service module of the APOLLO 15 prepared a geochemical map of 38% of the lunar surface. In the followings a brief summary will be given of the results of the main petrological investigations. The rocks to be found on the surface of the Moon are of volcanic origin. These primary rocks, which have been crystallized from the magmatic material, are transformed on the lunar surface by cosmic effects. The original rocks are broken and cut to pieces by meteorite impacts. Moreover, these rock fragments and the moon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
7dust are melted again and cemented to breccias by meteorite impacts of higher energy. A particularly characteristic lunar material is the Moon dust consisting of rock fragments of a size of 10-100 microns formed on the effect of the bombardment by micrometeorites. A 5 - 25 cm thick layer of these moon dust covers the flatter areas. The magmatic rocks of the Moon had not been exposed to such transforming effects as those to which the rocks of the Earth had been exposed in the atmosphere rich in water and oxygen. Therefore, the chemical composition of the rocks on the Moon remained unchanged in lack of erosive processes, the various rock types having been mixed up only mechanically; including also some components originating from meteorites [14]. Two major petrologic provinces can be distinguished on the lunar surface the anorthositic lunar highlands which are known as terra regions cutting into strips by light-colored craters, and the dark color basaltic mare regions. The rocks of the mare regions are the so-called mare-basalts whereas the rocks of the terra regions are the anorthosites and other rocks very rich in feldspars. On comparing their chemism with that of the adequate terrestrial rocks it appears that the iron, titanium and chromiumcontents of the mare-basalts are strikingly higher than those of the terrestrial basalts but they are poorer in silicates - i.e. on using the traditional expression: the lunar rocks are more basic than their terrestrial equivalents [14]. Iron present in the mare-basalts consists almost exclusively of bivalent Fe2+and some metallic iron whereas in the basalts of the Earth also significant amounts of trivalent ferric iron are always present. From this it may be concluded that the lunar rocks had been formed under reductive conditions poor in oxygen and other volatile substances. The content of CaO and A12O3of the mare-basalts is similar to those of the terrestrial unsaturated olivine-basalts [14]. The terra-rocks very rich in lunar feldspar are standing nearest to the anorthosites, norites and trocktolites of the Earth, according to their chemism and mineral composition. A fundamental difference between the lunar and the terrestrial anorthosites is that the lunar rocks are richer in calcium i.e. the feldspars (plagioclases) of the lunar anorthosites are almost completely anorthites whereas those of the terrestrial rocks are rather bytownite and labradorite [14]. At the comparison of the rocks of the mare and the terra regions it appears that the mare-basalts are sharply distinguished from the terra rocks by their high iron content and richness in titanium and chromium whereas the anorthositic terra rocks are being characterized mainly by their high aluminium content [15]. Now let us examine the rock-forming minerals found in the various lunar rocks. The number of minerals found - or more exactly, recognized up to the present - on the Moon is rather small when compared to the about 80 varieties of minerals found in meteorites or to the 2100 mineral types to be found on the Earth. In Table 3, besides the three main rock-forming minerals, 28 different accessory lunar minerals and three further new minerals are listed which latter are occurring only in the Moon and were still unknown up to the present [14]. A quick survey of the list of the lunar minerals indicates that they are belonging mostly to the type of magmatic crystallization. Further, also their richness in iron, titanium, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, zirconium, uranium and thorium, and in rare earth elements is conspicuous; whereas - in comparison to the minerals of the Earth - their silicate content is low and their content of oxygen and volatile substances is very low. "
So all this bit about the footprints on the moon bein g made becuase the dust is silicate and needs no moisture IS WRONG. The silicate value of moon dust and moon rocks is lower than that of earth,..and there is less of it. So how do you account for tightly bound silica particles leaving footprints in the sand on the moon....
That is pure speculation, not science..in fact as a theory it has less ground to stand on than we doubters about those footprints.
BTW..you never did answer my question about your 'great achievements in life'nor your expertise in any field...and that makes the tone you use even more insulting...given that you have posted nothing to back it up with.
One final comment....I guess you never did bother to read my signature and think on it..which is okay from my side..but i think if you had you might have responded to my posts a little differently.
;-)
Ciao for now Harris.
-Shai
"NASA's answer (extract)
When the sun flares, it produces x-rays, gamma-rays, and energetic particles. The energetic particles are the worst, but they are delayed compared to the x-rays and gamma-rays, so you have some warning that they are coming. This gives you time to get into a 'storm shelter', a well-shielded area that you can live in for a few days until the particles die down. A good place for a storm shelter would be in the center of the ship, surrounded by the water tanks. If you don't have a storm shelter (e.g. if you are out moonwalking in just your suit) a bad solar flare can kill you by radiation sickness. Since space is inherently dangerous at the present state of the art, cancer due to cosmic rays is relatively small additional risk.
Aulis note: No such 'storm shelter' was provided on the Apollo missions.
Question to NASA #2
What do we do when we have to fly through the radiation belts-like when we went to the Moon or send probes to other planets?
NASA's answer (extract)
In the 1960s, NASA asked Oak Ridge National Laboratory to predict how astronauts and other materials would be affected by exposure to both the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts and the Sun's radiation. Oak Ridge biologists sent bacteria and blood samples into space and exposed small animals to radiation. They concluded that proper shielding would be key to successful flight not only for living organisms, but for electronic instrumentation as well. To develop shielding for the Apollo crews, Oak Ridge researchers recycled the Lab's Tower Shielding Facility, which had hoisted shielding experiments aloft for the 1950s nuclear-plane project.
Aulis note: No such 'proper shielding' was actually provided on the Apollo missions. "
You say this site was discredited...hmmm..by whom...NASA?
And about Cosmic Apollo...and the australian accusuations, about seeing "live transmissions' from the moon and astronauts kicking a coke bottle.
I sent you the link, it shows the Australian newspaper article...NASA has never commented....and either did you.
Just what about that report if bogus or phony in your mind I can't say..nor is there any explanation as to why the australians should make it up..since they are our closest allies in the Pacific.
Again you skip by that as irrelevant.
You think I am incoherent....well there;s two reasons for that..i cannot type [In english] as fast as I can think in Hebrew/Dutch and my time is very limited. I will try to do a spell check before posting next time.
Now then..where ..oh where is the rebuttal from anyone about this;
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer Una Ronald stayed up to see the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change can be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and several articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the 'raw footage'.
Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, he is also a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Comms Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!! "
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
You say cosmicapollo is a joke..well how come the australians aren't laughing..and how come all those attempting to debunk debunkers ..and yourself...conveniently skip over these reports?
Remember, until glaring querstions like this are answered there is still reasonable doubt and there still will be reasonable doubters.
Like me.
As for knowing a credible report from an incredible one...if that is my flaw it is shared by your entire military/industrial complex and your CIA..who told you Saddam had WMD and could launch in 45 mins....
Oh, and don't forget Powell who lied to the UN and used forged evidence to support a war resolution.
And you trust the government still..eh? Acting in your best interest, is it?
It is BECAUSE I worked for your government and others that I do not trust them.
It is becuase I helped disinform and misinform people like you for 15 years that i do not take on faith a single word they have to say.
Moreover it is BECAUSE I was raised in the Cold War, doing 'duck and cover' exercises in school everyday, watching my parents panic in 62 when the cuban missile crisis was going on and WWIII was imminent that I am intensely aware of the stakes at the time between super-powers and in the race for the moon.
The idea that we got there and so they didn't have to waste the time and money DOES NOT HOLD WATER.
The idea of going to the moon at the time wasn't limited to exploration, curiousity and prestige..it was a military asset, a launch and spy platform, a possible launch site for nukes....Do you think landing Apollo 11 put an end to that goal..or was it what Apollo 11 and subsequent crews found when they got there that put an end to such dreams?
As for the lasers on the surface...that is plain BS, too. They are not lasers they are mirrors and they were built and shipped to NASA by a company, now defunct called PERKIN-ELMER. This is something I DO know about, having been briefed on it in 1979..ten years after Apollo 11.
It is those mirrors that we bounce our lasers off of..and they were not put there by Buzz Aldrin or Neil Armstrong or any other manned flight to the moon.
As for the most powerful telescopes, including Hubble, not having a lens big enough to photograph what we left up there..like the lunar roving vehicle...that is beyond patently absurd....The israelis launched Ofeq 1 in 89 and on board were cameras that could photograph a license plate from 100 miles above the surface of earth, through clouds and atmosphere.....Hubble can capture galaxies on the other side of the milky way, but can't pick a detail smaller than 300 feet on the moon? [* official story] meaning the LM at 31 feet in length is too small to see ...hmmm... Oh..of course I believe that.
Now for the science of the moon and its structure...here is the science:
sci.fgt.bme.hu...
"On comparing the variation of seismic velocities with depth of the Moon with that of the Earth, a striking similarity appears in the uppermost 100 km region. From this it may be concluded that the structure of the crust of the Moon is similar to that of the Earth, and - since according to Fig. 1 a major increase of seismic velocity occurs between a depths of 55-60 km in average-this depth may be considered as the lower boundary of the lunar crust. Still, this depth is not identical everywhere. The above given depth is only a mean value varying between about 30 and 110 km. Comparing the above discussed results of the seismic measurements with the gravity and the topography of the Moon we can experience that the law of isostasy is to all probability valid also in case of the Moon's crust since there are large variations in crustal thickness, ranging from 30-55 km beneath mascons to 90-110 km in the far side highlands. It is interesting to note here that the average crustal thickness of the Moon is greater on the far side that on the nearside. It follows that the center of mass of the Moon does not coincide with its geometrical center; the deviation is about 2.5 km.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the investigation of the lunar rocks the APOLLO program has played a decisive role since in the course of the six landings on the Moon - by means of a well-planned and careful selection - about 384 kg of lunar rocks was transported to the terrestrial laboratories for studying purposes [13]. (In addition about 0.1 kg of moon dust has been delivered by the LUNA 16 and 20 for analysis.) At the sametime, only the commander and the service module of the APOLLO 15 prepared a geochemical map of 38% of the lunar surface. In the followings a brief summary will be given of the results of the main petrological investigations. The rocks to be found on the surface of the Moon are of volcanic origin. These primary rocks, which have been crystallized from the magmatic material, are transformed on the lunar surface by cosmic effects. The original rocks are broken and cut to pieces by meteorite impacts. Moreover, these rock fragments and the moon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
7dust are melted again and cemented to breccias by meteorite impacts of higher energy. A particularly characteristic lunar material is the Moon dust consisting of rock fragments of a size of 10-100 microns formed on the effect of the bombardment by micrometeorites. A 5 - 25 cm thick layer of these moon dust covers the flatter areas. The magmatic rocks of the Moon had not been exposed to such transforming effects as those to which the rocks of the Earth had been exposed in the atmosphere rich in water and oxygen. Therefore, the chemical composition of the rocks on the Moon remained unchanged in lack of erosive processes, the various rock types having been mixed up only mechanically; including also some components originating from meteorites [14]. Two major petrologic provinces can be distinguished on the lunar surface the anorthositic lunar highlands which are known as terra regions cutting into strips by light-colored craters, and the dark color basaltic mare regions. The rocks of the mare regions are the so-called mare-basalts whereas the rocks of the terra regions are the anorthosites and other rocks very rich in feldspars. On comparing their chemism with that of the adequate terrestrial rocks it appears that the iron, titanium and chromiumcontents of the mare-basalts are strikingly higher than those of the terrestrial basalts but they are poorer in silicates - i.e. on using the traditional expression: the lunar rocks are more basic than their terrestrial equivalents [14]. Iron present in the mare-basalts consists almost exclusively of bivalent Fe2+and some metallic iron whereas in the basalts of the Earth also significant amounts of trivalent ferric iron are always present. From this it may be concluded that the lunar rocks had been formed under reductive conditions poor in oxygen and other volatile substances. The content of CaO and A12O3of the mare-basalts is similar to those of the terrestrial unsaturated olivine-basalts [14]. The terra-rocks very rich in lunar feldspar are standing nearest to the anorthosites, norites and trocktolites of the Earth, according to their chemism and mineral composition. A fundamental difference between the lunar and the terrestrial anorthosites is that the lunar rocks are richer in calcium i.e. the feldspars (plagioclases) of the lunar anorthosites are almost completely anorthites whereas those of the terrestrial rocks are rather bytownite and labradorite [14]. At the comparison of the rocks of the mare and the terra regions it appears that the mare-basalts are sharply distinguished from the terra rocks by their high iron content and richness in titanium and chromium whereas the anorthositic terra rocks are being characterized mainly by their high aluminium content [15]. Now let us examine the rock-forming minerals found in the various lunar rocks. The number of minerals found - or more exactly, recognized up to the present - on the Moon is rather small when compared to the about 80 varieties of minerals found in meteorites or to the 2100 mineral types to be found on the Earth. In Table 3, besides the three main rock-forming minerals, 28 different accessory lunar minerals and three further new minerals are listed which latter are occurring only in the Moon and were still unknown up to the present [14]. A quick survey of the list of the lunar minerals indicates that they are belonging mostly to the type of magmatic crystallization. Further, also their richness in iron, titanium, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, zirconium, uranium and thorium, and in rare earth elements is conspicuous; whereas - in comparison to the minerals of the Earth - their silicate content is low and their content of oxygen and volatile substances is very low. "
So all this bit about the footprints on the moon bein g made becuase the dust is silicate and needs no moisture IS WRONG. The silicate value of moon dust and moon rocks is lower than that of earth,..and there is less of it. So how do you account for tightly bound silica particles leaving footprints in the sand on the moon....
That is pure speculation, not science..in fact as a theory it has less ground to stand on than we doubters about those footprints.
BTW..you never did answer my question about your 'great achievements in life'nor your expertise in any field...and that makes the tone you use even more insulting...given that you have posted nothing to back it up with.
One final comment....I guess you never did bother to read my signature and think on it..which is okay from my side..but i think if you had you might have responded to my posts a little differently.
;-)
Ciao for now Harris.
-Shai
Originally posted by HowardRoark
No one has answered to any satisfaction how a camera mounted at belt level could capture an eye level image of a standing astronaut from less than 1,5 meters away...
Belt level? As far as I know, they were mounted at eye level.
And the whole idea of the moon's surface being so reflective as to hide the stars is blown away by the fact that moon's surface has the reflectivity of asphalt.
Any data to back up that assertion?
That asphalt is sure bright on a full moon.
Dear Howard,
Yes I do..
Here's the short of it...
"The Moon moves about Earth at an average distance of 384,403 km (238,857 mi), and at an average speed of 3,700 km/h (2,300 mph). It completes one revolution in an elliptical orbit about Earth in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes 11.5 seconds with reference to the stars. For the Moon to go from one phase to the next similar phase, or one lunar month, requires 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes 2.8 seconds. The Moon rotates once on its axis in about the same period of time that elapses for its sidereal period of revolution, accounting for the fact that virtually the same portion of the Moon is always turned toward the Earth. Although the Moon appears bright to the eye, it reflects into space only 7 percent of the light that falls on it. The reflectivity, or albedo, of 0.07 is similar to that of coal dust. "
www.angelfire.com...
And here's the long of it...
"How bright is the Moon? That depends on a number of factors. The phase of the Moon is the primary one. Other obvious factors are the Earth-Moon and Sun-Moon distance as well as atmospheric transparency and extinction. Albedo and its variation is the final major factor affecting lunar brightness.
"Visual albedo is defined by the “reflectivity of the surface of a planet, moon, asteroid, or other celestial body that does not shine by its own light. Albedo is measured as the fraction of incident light that the surface reflects back in all directions. A perfect reflector by definition has an albedo of unity, i.e., all the incident light is reflected; a body that reflects no light at all would have an albedo of zero.” Actually, real surfaces never have albedos of exactly zero or one, but something in between.
"Astronomers have determined the visual albedos of our planets. From NASA’s planetary sites, the brightest is Venus with an albedo of 0.65. That means 65% of incoming sunlight is reflected from the cloud-covered planet. The remaining 35% contributes to the heat energy of Venus. Mercury, at 0.11, has the lowest planetary albedo. Earth’s albedo is 0.37; Mars is 0.15; Jupiter, 0.52; Saturn, 0.47; Uranus, 0.51; Neptune 0.41. Pluto’s albedo varies from 0.5 to 0.7.
"Our Moon’s average albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth.
On Earth, we never see a perfectly full Moon, since the true phase angle we see is in the order of 5 degrees. With a zero degree phase angle the Moon would be in Earth’s shadow, and we would experience a total lunar eclipse. Apollo astronauts reported that a true full Moon is about 30% (0.2 magnitudes) brighter than what we see here on Earth.
So if the full Moon as seen on Earth has a visual magnitude of –12.7, its brightness at first quarter (phase angle 90 degrees) would be magnitude –10.0, a brightness reduction of 12x. Since we see the Moon half illuminated by the Sun at first quarter, a 6x brightness reduction implies an effective lunar albedo reduction from .12 to .02.
It should be pointed out that as we reach new Moon, earthshine becomes a factor. Someone on the Moon sees a “full Earth” when we see a new Moon. As seen from the Moon, our Earth would look about 100x brighter than our full Moon. This is because of the Earth’s larger size and higher albedo. Imagine being on the Moon and seeing a full earthrise at magnitude –17.7, with earthlight dimly illuminating and casting shadows on the lunar scenery.
www.asterism.org...
Meaning, if astronauts did indeed take fotos of earthrise from the moon..it should have appeared 30x brighter to them than the moon does to us..and all by itself that would explain why no stars in the sky on some lunar pics..but does anyone mention it as a reason to dismiss the debunkers and doubters...No-o-o. Not even Harris Johns.
Instead they give us psuedo-science which raises more querstions than it answers and keeps the argument going.
And why? Because to admit that the moon has the reflectivity of coal-dust ..and that the earth was 30x brighter than a full moon... meaning it would be be BRILLIANT at any distance..and bigger than the moon appears to us from here since it is SO MUCH BIGGER ANYWAY...would mean also having to admit that almost every foto taken on the Apollo mission that we are given is a fraud , a fake or a retouch which conceals the truth.
In this case both the doubters and the die-hards are missing the point...and we are arguing pro-and con positions based on bogus evidence and details that shouldn't be there to begin with.
That's my position unitl further notice
-Sincerely
-Shai
Actually, the science says that a full moon seems 30x brighter to anyone onthe surface of the moon than it wquld to us observing a full moon from
earth. AND it says that a 'full earth'would be 100x brighter to a moon observer than a full moon would be to an earth observer.
So if the earth was in the sky at the time and reflecting sunlight it would, indeed have blocked out the stars in ssome camera shots by astronauts..and looked bigger and brighter than it does in the snaps...and would account for the 2nd light source that all the hoax believers keep pointing to.
But NASA never mentions this as a reason, insisting that the sun was the only light source.
Why the omission? Because to give that excuse would leave the doubters to go running to plot the earth's position in relation to the sun's and then by degrees to work out the shadows and declensions in the photos...which is exactly what NASA doesn't want.
So they'd rather put up with people like cosmicapollo and Mr. rene and his Dark Moon tales than give the real game away....WHY?
What reason would be so grand and secret, so terrible that you couldn't reveal it and blow the doubters out of the water?
For that I think we should talk to Neil armstrong about the ET's who warned us off the moon.
His is, to date, the only story about the Apollo mission that i believe.
Sincerely
-shai
So if the earth was in the sky at the time and reflecting sunlight it would, indeed have blocked out the stars in ssome camera shots by astronauts..and looked bigger and brighter than it does in the snaps...and would account for the 2nd light source that all the hoax believers keep pointing to.
But NASA never mentions this as a reason, insisting that the sun was the only light source.
Why the omission? Because to give that excuse would leave the doubters to go running to plot the earth's position in relation to the sun's and then by degrees to work out the shadows and declensions in the photos...which is exactly what NASA doesn't want.
So they'd rather put up with people like cosmicapollo and Mr. rene and his Dark Moon tales than give the real game away....WHY?
What reason would be so grand and secret, so terrible that you couldn't reveal it and blow the doubters out of the water?
For that I think we should talk to Neil armstrong about the ET's who warned us off the moon.
His is, to date, the only story about the Apollo mission that i believe.
Sincerely
-shai
Originally posted by MBF
Originally posted by HARAK
With NASA "direct" communications with cosmonauts, on 1969, there was a " delay" in more than 2 minutes, between the time that Armstrong spoke to NASA operations center, and the content that arrived to the worldwide TV screens. How's that , huh?
Don't you mean about 2 seconds? It takes 2-3 seconds for a radio signal to travel from the earth to the moon and back.
I agree that it is stupid to try to find ice on Mercury, it's just hot for it to exist. That's about all that I agree with.
I can understand that ice "could" exist on Mercury if the planet's orbit is similar to our own moon for instance. The dark side if that was the case would still be near "absolute zero". Much stranger news has made its way to us about our solar system in the last 10 years then even the best mind could imagine.
Just a thought.
What a contradiction!
Originally posted by Shai
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
...
Remember, until glaring querstions like this are answered there is still reasonable doubt and there still will be reasonable doubters.
Like me.
You say cosmicapollo is a joke..well how come the australians aren't laughing..
You believe to site which is so full of errors that only rational use for their "output" is toilet paper (or should be taken with "bucket of monomethylhydrazine") while claiming to be capable to rational thinking.
Maybe because if spammers would add "Just laughing how anyone can be so stupid to fall this BS." to sent messages no one would buy anything from them...
(but I'm sure there would be still people dumb enough to buy)
It doesn't have nothing to do with shadows, dust particles/way they arrange is such that surface reflects light much more effectively when it comes perpendicular compared to surface. And most of it is reflected back to its arrival direction. (almost like focusing it)
"Our Moon’s average albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth.
And neither will moon look much anything if you take photo from it at bright daylight so that there's landscape (which isn't overexposed) on foreground in photo.
PS. Again contradiction, at start of the post you claim 0.07 as moon's albedo while later in post it's 0.12.
I mean no dis-respect HARAK but where did you learn to write.? I'm not a Mod., but your post needs to be edited before you post because your writing
posted as is, should be most embarrasing to you and it shows everyone else your level of intellegence and does not meet the previous rules of proper
writing by A.T.S. Staff. Maybe you can use spellcheck or a dictionary and that would lend credence to your posts in the future.
Originally posted by Shai
So all this bit about the footprints on the moon bein g made becuase the dust is silicate and needs no moisture IS WRONG. The silicate value of moon dust and moon rocks is lower than that of earth,..and there is less of it. So how do you account for tightly bound silica particles leaving footprints in the sand on the moon....
That is pure speculation, not science..in fact as a theory it has less ground to stand on than we doubters about those footprints.
Has anyone else spotted the logical absurdity in Shai's argument?
He uses the chemical composition of lunar dust, as determined by the analysis of samples returned by the lunar missions to "prove" that the lunar soil would not have been able to show a footprint.
Talk about a circular argument
Originally posted by Shai
Nor do you comment on Neil Armstrong's assertion that once on the moon they were warned off by ET's.
These "assertions" come from a single source and Armstrong and other astronauts have debunked this. As I recall, Armstrong was so tired of this that he punched and knocked down the last fool who tried to tell him he hadn't been on the moon.
As for the outstanding quality of echtchrome 160...especially placed aginst the comments of Arnold who swears that the quality of film was so good that it rivals digital fotos of today.
That's NOT praise for the film. It's praise for the digital photos.
I have done professional photography. The quality of digital photos has ALWAYS been considerably behind that of film photography... I can take pictures with my old Cannon that rival our top of the line digitals. The test is "how big can you blow up the image before it gets too grainy to make up details"?
They were given modified professional cameras and pro film for the time (Hasselblads.) Our 8 megapixel cameras can just now rival that performance.
And the whole idea of the moon's surface being so reflective as to hide the stars is blown away by the fact that moon's surface has the reflectivity of asphalt.
Agreed. The reason you don't see the stars is that the exposure wasn't long enough.
You don't have experience with those cameras, but in those days you manually set the shutter and speed. To do this, you held up a light meter to the brightest part of the object you were photographing and metered off that. If you metered off a darker area (like the sky, so you can get stars in your image) then the bright areas would wash out and "bloom."
Ask any photographer who's been in the biz since the 1980's and earlier.
Here's another quote..from Kodak...
To date no one outside Kodak has been given access to these films..and since when did Kodak build radio receivers?
Kodak built part of it, yes. ITT built the other part. It's explained here:
ssd.itt.com...
Hassleblad has its own version of the story..
www.hq.nasa.gov... and maintains the film was special-thin coated 7omm double perforated...but gives no ASA ratings or specific film-types
As I recall, (and I think the site hints at it), this was special film that they made for the trip. There weren't many commercially made products aboard the ships; everything on them (even when from a major manufacturer) had to be modified for the voyage.
new topics
-
He Had and It Has
Short Stories: 2 hours ago -
Morning’s Reverie
Short Stories: 4 hours ago -
Democrat county officials openly declare intention to commit ballot fraud in PA
2024 Elections: 7 hours ago -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three: 10 hours ago, 27 flags -
Incoming TRUMP Admin will Declare a National Emergency to Mass Deport People Here Illegally.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 15 hours ago, 19 flags -
Whistleblower warns FBI can’t be trusted with background checks for Trump’s nominees
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 14 hours ago, 16 flags -
Democrat county officials openly declare intention to commit ballot fraud in PA
2024 Elections: 7 hours ago, 12 flags -
What is your most awesome achievement or proudest moment, RE: something you were responsible for?
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 9 flags -
Like a Phoenix from the Ashes Notre-Dame Cathedral re-opens Next Month
Other Current Events: 15 hours ago, 6 flags -
Morning’s Reverie
Short Stories: 4 hours ago, 3 flags -
He Had and It Has
Short Stories: 2 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
The JAN 6th 2021 U.S. Capitol Unrest Charges Against Former President TRUMP Were Dropped Today.
US Political Madness • 14 • : WeMustCare -
Incoming TRUMP Admin will Declare a National Emergency to Mass Deport People Here Illegally.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 94 • : AlroyFarms -
Former DOJ charged with defrauding Rep. Matt Gaetz’s family over sex-crimes investigation
Propaganda Mill • 33 • : EyeoftheHurricane -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3302 • : WeMustCare -
He Had and It Has
Short Stories • 1 • : JJproductions -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 130 • : ratcals -
Morning’s Reverie
Short Stories • 1 • : JJproductions -
Democrat county officials openly declare intention to commit ballot fraud in PA
2024 Elections • 8 • : WeMustCare -
60s-70s Psychedelia
Music • 59 • : Hellmutt -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three • 22 • : Astrocometus