If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

I hope you notice BTW......

Postby slimmouse » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:48 pm

<br><br> That for all my questions regarding the pics, I am not for one moment suggesting that we didnt put a man on the moon <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: I hope you notice BTW......

Postby snowlion2 » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:19 pm

I think I just read a better-than-the-dictionary definition of passive aggressive. <p></p><i></i>
snowlion2
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:40 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I hope you notice BTW......

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:37 pm

No prob;<br><br>I found the following description of the special film in about 30 seconds via google -- it was the first one that dealt with the special design specs of the film -- more detailed descriptions are available. This site holds that while the Moon Landing definitely did occur, the REAL cover-up is NASA's conspiracy to keep photographic and recorded-voice transmission evidence of Alien artifacts secret from the public. I've examined this claim and tend to not believe it. The most compelling photos I've seen of glass-dome tower ruins look like lava-flow outcroppings.<br><br>The Mars-images of ancient ruins (recently posted on the forum) are VERY intriguing, and I really enjoyed looking at the crisp color photos and imagining seeing artifacts of a civilization outpost perhaps millions of years old -- a REAL imaginative foray. As to whether I believe it -- I remain hopeful, but unconvinced.<br><br>I'm a hard-headed skeptic, but a dedicated sci-fi tru-believer.<br>Starman<br>******<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm">www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>ISSUE 4 - There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. <br><br>Any normal film exposed to 250° would indeed melt at that temperature. There are only two problems with this Moon Hoax claim -- this was no ordinary "Ektachrome" film, and it was never exposed to those kind of temperatures in the cameras.<br><br>The 70mm film used in the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts carried was a very special transparency film designed specifically (under a NASA contract) for hostile environments like the Moon. According to Peter Vimislik at Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200° F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500° F. So, a worst case scenario of 250-280° F for a totally uninsulated, non-reflective camera would still be well within the film's operational parameters. The film itself, in terms of its light-gathering abilities, was also quite amazing (in striking contrast to the uninformed claims of the debunkers). It was a special "extended range color slide film" called "XRC," that allowed the astronauts to take perfect "National Geographic" quality pictures on the lunar surface, even though they were hardly experienced photographers. This has truly opened up whole web pages of controversy -- with the Moon Hoaxers claiming that such a film simply doesn't exist! In fact, Enterprise Principal investigator Richard C. Hoagland actually used many rolls of this "super lunar film," back when he was advising Walter Cronkite at CBS. His personal story of the film's development, its inventor, and how NASA cleverely hid its very development from everyone, will be detailed in a future segment of this series. Suffice it to say that more than thirty years after the first manned lunar mission, many of the features of this amazing film are only now finding their way into the commercially-available color emulsions used in today's modern day 35mm and 70mm non-digital cameras<br><br>As you can see from the image of Alan Bean above, the cameras were also protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. Although it is true that in the direct, airless sunlight the temperature can reach upwards of 250° - 280° Fahrenheit, precisely because there is no air, it's fairly easy to keep cool. The situation is a lot different than in your oven, for instance. With no convection or conduction, the only type of heat that is of concern is radiative. The best way to reflect radiative heat is to wrap the object (like a camera or person) in layers designed to reflect as much heat as possible, usually by simply being white. As you can see from the images above, most all of the astronaut's clothing and the camera casing were indeed white, which very efficiently directed heat away from the both the astronauts and camera film. <br>--unquote--<br><br>BTW: This site also has a couple more earth-in-background photos from Apollo 17, of a boulder with earth in background, and earth overhead while Cernan salutes the flag.<br><br>"Next!" <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

"Next!"

Postby slimmouse » Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:46 pm

<br><br> And how about withstanding temperatures of minus 180 degrees without cracking - having in one shot previously taken photos in sunlight?<br><br> From the best source I have, the temperature varies from plus 180 in the sunlight, to minus 180 in "the shade".<br><br> We have to remember that since there is no ( or relatively Zero ) atmosphere on the moon, the difference between temperature in the light and shade is unable to even itself out.<br><br> I still want to ( and do ) believe that we have been to the moon. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: "Next!"

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:24 pm

Re-quote, the second time around:<br><br>Although it is true that in the direct, airless sunlight the temperature can reach upwards of 250° - 280° Fahrenheit, precisely because there is no air, it's fairly easy to keep cool. The situation is a lot different than in your oven, for instance. With no convection or conduction, the only type of heat that is of concern is radiative. The best way to reflect radiative heat is to wrap the object (like a camera or person) in layers designed to reflect as much heat as possible, usually by simply being white. As you can see from the images above, most all of the astronaut's clothing and the camera casing were indeed white, which very efficiently directed heat away from the both the astronauts and camera film. <br>--unquote--<br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

poor little moonhoax thread......

Postby Pirx » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:19 pm

beaten and kicked, <br>like the redheaded step-dog<br>of a former lover.<br><br>Nice to see Andy Kaufman make an appearance though.<br>And some think this board has no sense of humor.<br><br>I hereby nominate Andy as the patron saint of RI moonhoax threads.<br><br>See you all back here in about 28 days.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Pirx
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

and another thing.....

Postby Pirx » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:21 pm

<!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/images/marsmilk.jpeg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>
Pirx
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

why

Postby smithtalk » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:49 pm

why always the triumphalist wanking,<br>someone asks a question which may seem to others to be naive and is just attacked, ridiculed, satirized,<br>wow how clever some of you must be, no doubt holding pure maths or astrophysicists professorships? no, really<br><br>you want to know why cunts like dick cheney are running the planet and there isnt much peace or genuine brotherhood,<br>re-read this whole thread and youve got your answer <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

saw it on tv

Postby blanc » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:20 am

anyone else her saw ML on tv at the time as an adult? <p></p><i></i>
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: why

Postby nomo » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:50 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>why always the triumphalist wanking,<br>someone asks a question which may seem to others to be naive and is just attacked, ridiculed, satirized,<br>wow how clever some of you must be, no doubt holding pure maths or astrophysicists professorships? no, really<br><br>you want to know why cunts like dick cheney are running the planet and there isnt much peace or genuine brotherhood,<br>re-read this whole thread and youve got your answer<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Pffft. So it's your contention that we should always seriously entertain even the most obviously silly and unfounded theories? I must disagree. It behooves to cut through the crap as fast and as often as we can. There's plenty of weird shit in the world to talk about and analyze, but this whole Moon Hoax business isn't it.<br><br>Oh, and Dick Cheney is a c*nt because of this thread? I don't follow. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

The way to let a thread die

Postby betty a free man » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:47 pm

The way to let a thread die is to not post a comment on it.<br><br>ST- i think frustrated egos are why most flame wars happen...not to keep the riff-raff out.<br><br>sighing and eyerolling is sooo Gore/Bush 2000!<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
betty a free man
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The way to let a thread die

Postby zjurhgvc » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:21 pm

Metaphorically, at least, the Moon Landing as hoax is similar to organized religion. It's all like the Wizard of Oz. Where's the proof? And we tell ourselves and our kids that it's real. It's all faith-based, and the rest is smoke and mirrors. At most, I'll concede that God and gods are lodged in the brain and the hive-mind, not "out there." Figments of the imagination. And I have great respect for many religions. <p></p><i></i>
zjurhgvc
 

The Van Allen Radiation Belts

Postby greencrow0 » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:48 pm

I particularly liked the explanation on that link for why the astronauts were not harmed by going through the Van Allen belts.<br><br>Same old argument as 'running through the raindrops'.<br><br>Do an experiment next time it rains. Run through the rain without an umbrella then walk through the rain without an umbrella.<br><br>What time did you get the wettest? Or, did you get wet to the same degree both times.?<br><br>It would seem that going through the Van Allen Belts at top speed you would get the same [or close to the same] degree of radiation, only at a different slant because of the trajectory. <br><br>In any case, it's a silly explanation. Either the radiation is dangerous or it is not. What amount of radiation was acceptable and how much did the astronauts get? Going through it 'quickly' still leaves the individual's exposed...like when you're getting an x-ray. Sure, the technician's finger doesn't linger once the button is pressed, but you still have to wear a lead apron or whatever to protect your organs. <br><br>Here are the questions to note:<br><br>1) Did the explanation tell us what the actual exposure was? <br><br>2) Did the explanation tell us what was a safe exposure?<br><br>Neither of these questions was answered.<br><br>Let's face it. The entire Man to the Moon episode is looking more and more technologically rinky dink with each passing year. There is no way that lunar module could have done what they say it did. That's why you never see any reference to it in the MSM anymore or any big celebration on anniversaries...like 1999 when it was a big anniversary they hardly said 'boo' about it. they don't want to raise a whole lot of questions.<br><br><br>GC<br> <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Van Allen Radiation Belts

Postby darkbeforedawn » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:00 pm

Another point: Since the alleged moonlandings what is the farthest point a real live human being has gotten from earth? Isn't it about 500 miles? And how far is the moon? 250,000? Hmmm...something stinks here. <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: The Van Allen Radiation Belts

Postby greencrow0 » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 pm

dbd<br><br>what happened with the Lunar Landings is that the majority of the population was quite unsophisticated technologically, having been around since before flight or even automobile travel became every day occurrences.<br><br>so, it was easy to fool that population, they didn't know any better.<br><br>the majority of the population today, however is technologically sophisticated. We know what kind of a vehicle it would take to produce the kind of rocket thrust to land on the moon...and it sure wouldn't be that spindly-legged contraption they're ashamed to show us a photograph of anymore.<br><br>so as the population becomes more technologically sophisticated, there is absolutely nothing they can do but stand by and watch as their big shock and awe production of the 60's and early 70's becomes a huge embarrassment and a joke.<br><br>Just like 9/11 is becomming...although that, in addition, was a mass murder and a pretext for an evil war.<br><br>GC <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to UFOs and High Weirdness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests