| Users Online Now: 2,135 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,537,852 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,232,865 | Threads Today: 610 | Posts Today: 12,388 |
| 06:08 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,135 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,537,852 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,232,865 | Threads Today: 610 | Posts Today: 12,388 |
| 06:08 PM | ||
Moon Hoax Evidence Analysis | |
Drei Hund Nacht
 User ID: 73844703  United States08/19/2018 11:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well I hate to be on the hoax bandwagon BUT........... Why else have we lost the ability to go to the moon? Can we really buy the fact that the rocket designers did not keep notes? Horseshit! I think they maybe got as far as orbiting the moon but they never "landed" If they did it in the 60s There should be 0 problem with it today.. That would be the argument I would use.. If i was apart of this hoax stuff... Quoting: TheSep ^This Apollo astronauts could not have passed through Van Allen’s Belt; Van Allen wore suspenders. Joanie Loves Tchotchke. “No puppet. No puppet. YOU’RE the puppet.” |
| zepa
User ID: 76809982  United Kingdom08/19/2018 11:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Un exposed film is currently used in any application where people are close to radiation Quoting: zepa Its a nice cheap way to show just how much a person has been exposed too [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] The dosage isnt relivant,un exposed film is very sensitive to radiation.If the crew could see high energy particles in there eyes while shut im guessing high energy particles were passing though the craft and every thing inside.An order of maginitude isnt relivant. Like i said at no point in the whole time any craft that visited the moon did a single frame of film,wether it was inside the craft or strapped to a person on the moon did a single frame of film encounter either a single high energy particle or any radiation whatsoever. Not a single frame Something which occums razor dictates isnt plausable so you can't quantify it then. And I guarantee that you haven't seen every frame to know that none encountered any radiation. Nor have you investigated what protection it did have. Well i can see by the pictures taken that the cameras they used were strapped to the front of the space suit.You can also go see the actual camera.Its exactly the same model thats still popular today but they had a special lens made for focusing with gloves on. The film is held in a small aluminium box about 3x2 inch ish,since we have evidence some radiation was passing through the entire craft im guessing it would also pass through this box.The exact same setup wont protect your film from airport scanners since ive seen the results.We can also be sure the film on occasion spent 8 hours on the surface of the moon strapped to the front of a suit.Are we to believe that no radiation would be present on the moon ? And that a thin aluminium box would be able to protect the film from the temperature fluxuations present,it didnt have any cooling whatsoever in the camera. It would also mean since the film is held in a roll inside the case any radiation would have fogged the entire roll. But lets ignore the basic facts and focus on magnitude,its impossible that the film didnt encounter radiation when the crew did You obviously have absolutely no idea about photography or the handling of film,and its sensitivity to heat and radiation.From this point you are regurgitating what you have read without any first hand knowlegde whatsoever You ask me to prove facts that are irrelevant,try microwaving an unprocessed film for 10 seconds,or have it scanned by airport xray scanner and take it to a photo lab get it processed and have a look.The radiation isnt even close to whats in space,remember the film as inside a small aluminium box in direct sunlight for hours.Im only talking about the radiation and ignoring the heat. Im happy if you refute this but to be honest your views are of someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60455047 United States08/19/2018 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ...just ignorance, misinterpretation of the photos, and willful negligence. Author doesn't understand squat about Apollo hardware, and has no interest nor desire to learn. Quoting: hotdogg Unfortunate... You're right. When people challenge evidence of a moon landing, it generally takes about five minutes of online searching to refute their objections. It doesn't matter, though, when you give them the facts, they just don't care. people in this time of 4d have serious cognitive dissonance. Always first do they accept bullshit until the desire for true wisdom comes about. During 4d the purpose is to challenge people with truth whiich overrides their belief systems. |
| LHP598
User ID: 76679244 United States08/19/2018 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Un exposed film is currently used in any application where people are close to radiation Quoting: zepa Its a nice cheap way to show just how much a person has been exposed too [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] The dosage isnt relivant,un exposed film is very sensitive to radiation.If the crew could see high energy particles in there eyes while shut im guessing high energy particles were passing though the craft and every thing inside.An order of maginitude isnt relivant. Like i said at no point in the whole time any craft that visited the moon did a single frame of film,wether it was inside the craft or strapped to a person on the moon did a single frame of film encounter either a single high energy particle or any radiation whatsoever. Not a single frame Something which occums razor dictates isnt plausable so you can't quantify it then. And I guarantee that you haven't seen every frame to know that none encountered any radiation. Nor have you investigated what protection it did have. Well i can see by the pictures taken that the cameras they used were strapped to the front of the space suit.You can also go see the actual camera.Its exactly the same model thats still popular today but they had a special lens made for focusing with gloves on. The film is held in a small aluminium box about 3x2 inch ish,since we have evidence some radiation was passing through the entire craft im guessing it would also pass through this box.The exact same setup wont protect your film from airport scanners since ive seen the results.We can also be sure the film on occasion spent 8 hours on the surface of the moon strapped to the front of a suit.Are we to believe that no radiation would be present on the moon ? And that a thin aluminium box would be able to protect the film from the temperature fluxuations present,it didnt have any cooling whatsoever in the camera. It would also mean since the film is held in a roll inside the case any radiation would have fogged the entire roll. But lets ignore the basic facts and focus on magnitude,its impossible that the film didnt encounter radiation when the crew did You obviously have absolutely no idea about photography or the handling of film,and its sensitivity to heat and radiation.From this point you are regurgitating what you have read without any first hand knowlegde whatsoever You ask me to prove facts that are irrelevant,try microwaving an unprocessed film for 10 seconds,or have it scanned by airport xray scanner and take it to a photo lab get it processed and have a look.The radiation isnt even close to whats in space,remember the film as inside a small aluminium box in direct sunlight for hours.Im only talking about the radiation and ignoring the heat. Im happy if you refute this but to be honest your views are of someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about and still nothing quantified. If YOU think that a microwave or airport xray scanner are comparable to the radiation they would have received (hint: they aren't) then YOU need to show it. So far just handwaving as expected though. If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| LHP598
User ID: 76679244 United States08/19/2018 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well I hate to be on the hoax bandwagon BUT........... Why else have we lost the ability to go to the moon? Can we really buy the fact that the rocket designers did not keep notes? Horseshit! I think they maybe got as far as orbiting the moon but they never "landed" If they did it in the 60s There should be 0 problem with it today.. That would be the argument I would use.. If i was apart of this hoax stuff... Quoting: TheSep Nobody said they didn't keep notes. Nobody has seriously wanted to pay for it since then. If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Vad
User ID: 75021383 United States08/19/2018 01:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well I hate to be on the hoax bandwagon BUT........... Why else have we lost the ability to go to the moon? Can we really buy the fact that the rocket designers did not keep notes? Horseshit! I think they maybe got as far as orbiting the moon but they never "landed" If they did it in the 60s There should be 0 problem with it today.. That would be the argument I would use.. If i was apart of this hoax stuff... Quoting: TheSep I prefer to call it moon propaganda. I think some of it was studio and we eventually landed. Curious as to why we postponed manned return to moon without explanation..again... This site has a counter to the hoax. Images of apollo landings most convincing: [link to spacecentre.co.uk (secure)] I'm a driver, I'm a winner. Things are going to change, I can feel it. |
| Wooz
User ID: 72722278 United States08/19/2018 01:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 76260827  Netherlands08/19/2018 03:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "We" didn't lose the ability to go to the Moon. The rocket engineers did keep notes. Lots of them. They stopped making one of the most expensive launch vehicles ever because people stopped buying them. This assertion is all we need to know that you are not an aerospace engineering expert at all.  How is asking for PROOF that the alleged facts you use in evidence actually are facts irrelevant? So now there's microwave radiation is space? or have it scanned by airport xray scanner and take it to a photo lab get it processed and have a look. The radiation isnt even close to whats in space, Quoting: zepa Yet another A is larger than B claim without enumerating either A or B. Its'a begged question, a mere ASSertion, an UNEVIDENCED claim. So what are the specifications of that "small aluminium box"? Im happy if you refute this but to be honest your views are of someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about Quoting: zepa Now, this is the height of irony.  Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| Ozric
User ID: 76792171 United States08/19/2018 03:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| hotdogg
User ID: 76788570 United States08/20/2018 11:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I know this as i spent decades in a photo lab and have seen first had what air port security can do to un processed film Quoting: zepa Or we are to believe that the van allen belts and direct exposure to the sun wouldnt result in any exposure to radiation whatsoever Not one single frame shows any,remember they released every photo In every trip at no time did something hyper sensitive to radiation encounter any. The excuse they use is that they used a type of film thats has a low iso thats resistant to it but youll find its bollocks intended to fool someone that didnt work with the very same film for years what is in the VAB that would destroy the film inside the cameras, inside the spacecraft...? Please amplify, with details and magnitude of the threat... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75169334 United States08/20/2018 11:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I know this as i spent decades in a photo lab and have seen first had what air port security can do to un processed film Quoting: zepa Or we are to believe that the van allen belts and direct exposure to the sun wouldnt result in any exposure to radiation whatsoever Not one single frame shows any,remember they released every photo In every trip at no time did something hyper sensitive to radiation encounter any. The excuse they use is that they used a type of film thats has a low iso thats resistant to it but youll find its bollocks intended to fool someone that didnt work with the very same film for years what is in the VAB that would destroy the film inside the cameras, inside the spacecraft...? Please amplify, with details and magnitude of the threat... You've pinpointed the fallacy of Opie's assumptions. They sit around in dirty t-shirts, thinking "Damn, all this space stuff sure don't sound right!" Then they write a thread about it. No research, no attempt at understanding, just ignorant skepticism. |
| Kirk
User ID: 76845151 United States08/21/2018 12:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | do the hoaxies really expect billowing clouds of dust in a vacuum??? They really need to get their research skills together. Quoting: hotdogg Yes, and you have your research skills in place as, I'm sure, you just researched and tested rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Please post your results! hint...exhaust overexpansion in a vacuum. Also, remember that the LM descent stage had little fuel (aka "mass) in it's descent stage tanks at landing, so was much lighter (requiring much less thrust) than when it initiated the descent burn. Enough to blow dust Nimrod. Government is a body largely ungoverned. |
| hotdogg
User ID: 4448622 United States12/12/2018 01:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | do the hoaxies really expect billowing clouds of dust in a vacuum??? They really need to get their research skills together. Quoting: hotdogg Yes, and you have your research skills in place as, I'm sure, you just researched and tested rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Please post your results! ok...imagine you are floating in space, vacuum, weightless...holding a 9 pound bowling ball. You push the bowling ball as hard as you can away from you...what will happen? |
