Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.
An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.
There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.
When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched. [Reply]
When I bought the movie studio in GTA Vice City, one of the studio buildings had the "set" for the fake lunar landing. I can only assume that Rockstar Games is responsible for the hoax. [Reply]
I at least found out why there aren't any stars in the pictures from the moon:
Q:
When ever i see clips of when the astronaunts or on the moon, there are never any stars in the back round, why is this?
(age )
A:
Well, the sun is a star, and it should be plenty visible to the astronauts and their photographers on the moon. Maybe they were careful not to point their cameras directly at the sun for fear of damage.
As for all the other stars, they are much fainter than the sun. The lunar surface, when illuminated by sunlight, is very bright. The astronauts' helmet visors were metallized to reflect most of this (sunglasses built right in). The range of brightnesses which are recorded by a camera is limited -- brighter than some maximum is white, and dimmer is black. Set a camera so it records an astronaut and the surrounding lunar surface reasonably, and the sky will look black (except for the sun and the Earth). Set the camera so the stars are visible, and the astronaut and the lunar surface will look all white ("washed out"). It's pretty hard to take pictures of stars with ordinary cameras even on a dark night. The shutter has to be left open a long time to collect enough light to see the stars. Stars should appear to be brighter when viewed on the moon because of the lack of air to dim their light, but with those sunglass-like visors on, I'll be the astronauts themselves had a tough time seeing them, if at all.
CadMonkey, Thank you for spamming the f*ck out of this thread with your insane ramblings. Now go take your pills and put the jacket back on before they know you've escaped.
75% of your proof is based on improper shadows. Apparently you're going on the assumption that the astronauts took absolutely no light source with them, relying 100% on the light of the sun. [Reply]
Originally Posted by cadmonkey:
On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's
The answer is in the angles of the ground (i.e. whether one guy is standing in a flat area while another guy is standing at the top of a slope.
Further, and more importantly, if TWO light sources were being used, why does each figure only have ONE shadow?
(note of attribution -- I learned this from one of the Hoax-busting websiets someone else linked to). [Reply]
Originally Posted by cadmonkey: Facts about the Moon
An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moon's surface reaches during the long lunar day. (The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) That's very, very hot. Fortunately, no-one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks.
The Apollo missions were timed to take place during lunar mornings. The temperatures are at their most hospitable then, so the astronauts themselves were at not going to overheat.
The film also spent all its time either within the camera or within the lander. Unlike the moon's surface, both of these were designed to reflect as much of the sun's heat as possible. So they never got anywhere near the temperatures that the surface reaches.
You also have to keep in mind that because there is no air, there is no ambient temperature and no convected heat on the moon. So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. As the camera and lander were designed to reflect heat, the film wouldn't even pick up much conducted heat from them. So that's no convection, little radiation, little conduction. There are no other methods of receiving heat.
Okay conspirasists tell me this...If it is a big cover up how do they keep it a secret? How many people know the truth? Even the mafia can't keep it's secrets any more. You know how much this would be worth in book deals , movie rights etc if you were one of the ones with defenitive proof of the cover up.
Originally Posted by cadmonkey: Facts about the Moon
An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.
There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.
When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.
There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.
The film - The ambient temperature on the moon did not reach 260. Read about heat transfer and why the temperature inside the Hasselblad cameras never was that hot. Hasselblad designed the cameras to reflect heat.
The radiation from the Van Allen Belt. First, it is a lot farther than 20 miles. Space Ship One, earlier this week, went to 62 miles. Have you ever heard of Bremsstrahlung? Do some research on this. The 4+ feet of lead may help when dealing with an atomic blast, but does very little to help with particle radiation.
I am at work and don't have time to dispute all this crap, but I will say this: I have sat down and had dinner with two people that walked on the moon. I spent four hours taking with them and have ZERO doubt about the moon landings. It really pisses me off that people with very little knowledge of a subject try to ruin one of the greatest acheivments in human history. [Reply]
Originally Posted by cadmonkey:
Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.
The cross hairs are called reseau-lines and 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. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is what is happening where the thin reseau-lines meet a bright, reflective part of the photograph and is not unusual. 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 part. You never see it happening anywhere else.
Originally Posted by cadmonkey:
Whether we have or have not will be known soon enough. Japan or China, I forget which one is sending a satelite to orbit the Moon in a couple years. The mission is to photograph the surface, and see how much change has happened since we were there. They are going to go to where we landed and see it the Flag is there. If it isn't, at least the lunar modual should be there.
I say it won't be there.
What if China or Japan is faking their orbital mission? Would they then "confirm" NASA's fake moon mission, or would they produce fake photos that show the moon with no lunar module, which would be ironic since they wouldn't need to be fake photos if Japan or China wasn't on a fake mission.
Personally, I don't think we went to the moon. I think we went to Mars, and we say it's the moon because we don't want anyone else to know about our bases there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
The answer is in the angles of the ground (i.e. whether one guy is standing in a flat area while another guy is standing at the top of a slope.
Further, and more importantly, if TWO light sources were being used, why does each figure only have ONE shadow?
(note of attribution -- I learned this from one of the Hoax-busting websiets someone else linked to).
in that photo, it's obvious just by the light hitting the ground(moon) that it slopes up on the left of the photo(light hitting it more directly), that causes one shadow to be shorter than the other.
Originally Posted by cadmonkey:
If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?
The "C" isn't in the original NASA photo. It's a bit of fiber that got involved when copies were made.
