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.
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]
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 jspchief:
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.
I got all these "facts" from some site. I just thought there should be some info for people to look at and discuss. [Reply]
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.
They've got moon rocks at the Smithsonian, or maybe it's the Air and Space Museum. I'll warn you, though, that I spent a lot of time looking at them and for a month afterward I was able to ignite myself on fire at will. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
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.
Professor Van Allen has stated that his original concept of the
"Van Allen Belt" was flawed and incorrect.A more proper definition
of the field is as follows...
Originally Posted by :
"The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.
" In addition there exist electrons and protons (and also oxygen particles from the upper atmosphere) given moderate energies (say 1-100 keV; 1 MeV = 1000 keV) by processes inside the domain of the Earth's magnetic field. Some of these electrons produce the polar aurora ("northern lights") when they hit the upper atmosphere, but many get trapped, and among those, protons and positive particles have most of the energy .
"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.
"If all this sounds too technical but you still want to find out-- what ions and magnetic fields and cosmic rays are, etc.--you will find a long detailed exposition (both without math) on the World Wide Web at: http://www.phy6.org/Education/Intro.html
