Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

nasa apollo hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2593 replies to this topic

#1516    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:17 PM

skyeagle409 -

Quote

Van Allen belts.. they were unaware the astronauts did not stick around long enough to absorb enough radiation to cause harm. Perhaps they should understand why they are not seriously harmed by X-rays duirng their exams.

:rofl:

This is insane comparsion at best.

Radiation dose absorbed by exam using X-rays range from 0.01 mRems for Skull (0.000 01 rem) to 0.7 mRems for pelvis (0.000 7 rem).
http://hps.org/docum...diagimaging.pdf

Radiation dose delivered by Van Allen belts are at around 300 to 11 666 rems/h.
Posted Image
http://photobucket.c...ums/ad75/ax2cz/

Now that is 1 166 600 000 higher dose!

Now according to NASA, they are "in the belts" for a hour to the voyage to the Moon and hour back. Given the fact, that even after absorbing 10 rem in two days you have only a even chance to survival, this alone bust Apollo definitively :)


And you won't have to trust me about it, from it's discovery it was known that the Van Allen belts and radiation in space in general are the showstopers for manned flights thru aby beyond them. Explorer 1 geigercounter was overhelmed by the radiation levels up there, so at altitude nearly 900km it give up.
So, if equipment to measure radiation level is jammed by enormous radiation, what does that tell you? You can't be there at all. They have to shield the next geigercounter with lead to make it work farer that the first one, but even the second one jammed - just in higher altitude.

I recommend you to research first, so you won't claim such scheer nonsense, as comparing dose 1 166 600 000 higher to skull X-ray :clap:

At least read Van Allen article:
Van Allenovy radiation belts

Posted Image
"the human body will have to be shielded from this radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region"

Posted Image
"Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight."

Edited by trodas, 29 December 2012 - 08:19 PM.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1517    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:30 PM

Original scans of the Van Allen article:

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1518    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:52 PM

View Postturbonium, on 29 December 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

The ISS suit is just a few inches away from the surface - such close proximity allows it to reflect some light.

But you are claiming a spacesuit is reflecting light onto a subject 15+ feet away. And that is quite a different thing.

That's what you need to show. So how about it?....  

You first need to prove a spacesuit reflection of 15-20 feet. If you can't prove it, then your case fails,  the arm is moot.

Not that I needed to, but consider it proven anyway.

Posted Image

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1195542.mpg

EDIT: In the LHS bottom image above, the slight in brightness from the previous image is due to the astronaut blocking less of the lunar surface (remember, he is in shadow so not reflecting a great deal of light yet). The fourth image is the killer.

Edited by postbaguk, 29 December 2012 - 08:56 PM.


#1519    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:13 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Posted Image
http://www.hq.nasa.g...146-22293HR.jpg - first picture
http://www.hq.nasa.g...146-22294HR.jpg - second picture

Guys! Somebody stolen our rock from the scene! Damn you, one did not even have time to turn and... rock is gone! WTF! :clap:

The astronaut taking the image has obviously moved to the left, and rotated slightly to the right, between taking the two pictures. The rock is hidden behind the very large rock that the other astronaut is stood in front of. You can easily see this by looking at the entire image, and see how the similar sized rocks to the LHS of the very large rock seem to move to the left between images.

Posted ImagePosted Image

Not forgetting the relative apparent movement of the LM...

Edited by postbaguk, 29 December 2012 - 09:16 PM.


#1520    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

This is, what NASA calls "live video feed":
Posted Image
Original video (Spacecraft Films, leč NASA videa jsou Public Domain) there:
http://ulozto.cz/xhy...ag-ceremony-wmv

So, from when "live video" contains cuts to another, differently set, camera? On the Moon should be a) only one TV cam on the Rover and not two, b) in live video is impossible to have cuts!

There was only one live video feed. That feed was recorded onto various different media. Those different media have been spliced together here by the owner of Spacecraft films.

Here's the proof that the scene in question is continuous.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...17v.1182126.mov

There is a longer clip here, in mpg format rather than mov format.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...17v.1182035.mpg

Quote

Of course I doubt that these sheeple see, that the flag is waving without being touched by anyone and what is worser, it first move away from astroNOT... and that hardly can be explained differently that by the air pressure and we all know that air is not on the Moon:

Posted Image

It is explained by static electricity though. Interestingly, the subsequent pendulum-like motion of the flag demonstrates that this was filmed in a vacuum, since there is no dampening due to air.



#1521    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN :yes:  Because - basically - this is laughable :ph34r:

Magicaly durable PVC bag and picture in it :D

http://i47.tinypic.com/t7lxrq.jpg

Temperature at the Moon in daylight near equator: 134°C - http://lro.gsfc.nasa.../moonfacts.html
Places, where Apollo supposedly landed (AS16 near equator) - http://latenightastr...nding-sites.jpg
Original image - http://www.hq.nasa.g...117-18841HR.jpg

You're looking at the maximum daytime temperature. Apollo missions landed during the lunar morning when temperatures were much lower.

http://tallbloke.wor...pplied-to-moon/




#1522    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,890 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:15 PM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN :yes:  Because - basically - this is laughable :ph34r:



Magicaly durable PVC bag and picture in it :D

Posted Image

Temperature at the Moon in daylight near equator: 134°C - http://lro.gsfc.nasa.../moonfacts.html
Places, where Apollo supposedly landed (AS16 near equator) - http://latenightastr...nding-sites.jpg
Original image - http://www.hq.nasa.g...117-18841HR.jpg
Prove that location was that temperature at that time.  They landed in lunar morning.  It takes TIME to heat the surface.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1523    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:18 PM

Radiation Protection During Space Flight, December 1983, Journal of aviation, space and enviromental medicine, E. E. Kovalev

First - SAA, a lower tip of the belts with a very very light radiation of about 2,5 rem/h at 445km:

Posted Image

However this "light radiation dip" kill Hubble electronic, so they end up shutting Hubble off when it pass thru this region of increased radioactivity. If they try picture something during the SAA transit, then even when the shutter is closed (!) and the picture should be pitch black then, it looks like that:

Posted Image
(book The Hubble Wars, page 75)

So, this is how 2.5 rems/h radioactivity looks like!
Now imagine the hell, that it in the belts... add the fact, that aluminium is actually worsening the problem because of secondary particle fragmentation and you get the cooked astroNOT long before the CSM exit the belts :)

Ships with crew can't fly there w/o special shielding: "Flights of manned spacecraft in the central zone of the ERB are impossible without special shielding.".
Posted Image

But no rocket can carry up such shielding. Some astrophysicist suggest that the radiation exposure is "manageble" when there is at least 2 meters of water shielding. Earth give us the equivalent of 10 meters... and if you want go anywhere near the Sun, the requirments grow exponentially.

Why do you think we can't get even to the damn Moon?!

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1524    trodas

trodas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

postbaguk -

Quote

The rock is hidden behind the very large rock that the other astronaut is stood in front of. You can easily see this by looking at the entire image...

Posted Image

:yes:  :clap:

Indeed you are right - things can be much easier to be seen looking at entire images :tu:  Except it just prove your perspective is way, way off :tu: Thanks for the tip!

Quote

Not forgetting the relative apparent movement of the LM...

Where you see LM on these images? :D Looks like that to see the hoax being revealed make you see things... witch there are not :)


Quote

There was only one live video feed. That feed was recorded onto various different media. Those different media have been spliced together here by the owner of Spacecraft films.

You are hallucinating again, don't you? First the LM, then "different media" to record live feed... :w00t:  This is getting better every second :)))
Could you tell me, how a live feed can be recorded to two different medias and could you elaborate on what media types are "different"? All the Apollo film reels seems to be the same to me, all using the pre-VHS digital tapes, no one ever claimed differently - yet you come with this absolutely unfounded allegation, just to prove that you can't argue with facts on your side, only on false allegations?
Come on :)

Quote

flag movement - It is explained by static electricity though.

Sure, just if that was not already debunked by practice testing:


Quote

You're looking at the maximum daytime temperature. Apollo missions landed during the lunar morning when temperatures were much lower.

This is what? A joke? I hope so... First, it is uninportant, when Apollo supposedly landed on Moon. Important is, when the bag and photo was put on the surface and when it was photographed. If you check there:
http://www.lpi.usra....m/magazine/?117
or there:
http://www.hq.nasa.g...6/images16.html
...you easily at the first look can see, that the picture in question ( AS16-117-18841 ) is taken at the end of EVA 3.

There: http://www.hq.nasa.g...t3.html#1700154 you can read, that: "170:03:17 - At about this time, Charlie places a photo of the Duke Family on the surface and takes three photos, AS16-117- 18839, 18840, and 18841."

From Wiki we got these informations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_16
Launch date - April 16, 1972, 17:54:00 UTC
Lunar landing - April 21, 1972, 02:23:35 UTC, Descartes Highlands
Lunar EVA duration - First 07:11:02, Second   07:23:09, Third 05:40:03

So, without even calculating anything it looks like that the photo placement will be happening in near Moon noon. So, the argument is BUSTED :) This photo cannot be taken on the Moon.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :) my config - my caps

#1525    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,890 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:32 AM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Second - what blurry crap you posted? I did not see much from that lowres... I mean, come on! From LEO thru atmosphere (!) we can read what time is on man watches (in ideal conditions). From few miles LRO can't make a better picture?
Prove it.  I'll bet you can't

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Third - bad news again - according to astrophysics, disturbed Moon surface is lighter that the untouched one, because the untouched one was darkened by Sun for millions of years. So, these tracks should be lighter that the undisturbed surface. The very fact that they are darker means that they are Photoshopped
Prove it.  I'll bet you can't



View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Real Sun in space:

Posted Image
( http://ww1.prweb.com...958/Slide42.JPG )

Real Sun in space (STS mission):
Posted Image
( http://www.nasa.gov/...900_ys_full.jpg )

Sun from Earth:
Posted Image

Sun from Earth behind clouds:
Posted Image
(they are not on the Moon :P )

So, no image of Sun looks like the Apollo "Sun's." That itself is a red flag. How to see the lightbulb in the images? Open a 12MB jpeg from NASA: http://www.lpi.usra....2007e045377.jpg or this one: http://www.lpi.usra....S12/46/6765.jpg and in Photoshop use curves input 247 - 249, output 0. Now you can see, that there is hotspot in the middle of the NASA "Sun's" - on the first image you can even see the reflection near the left side of the reflector!

However what will real Sun look like in this settings?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Quite different from NASA "Sun's" :) Busted again :D
Of course anyone the least bit knowledgable of photography would know that the size of a light source is also determined by the focal length, exposure and film.  But you didn't take any of that into account.  You also neglected the fact that there was likely dust on the lens of the cameras in many Apollo photos.  That would definitely affect the image.

Also HILARIOUS that you are using compressed jpegs for your "analyses" (in quotes because they are all flawed, I'm referring to previous posts) and pointing out anomalies that are likely compression artifacts.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1526    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,890 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:35 AM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

What is the image, that convinced me most, that this is a hoax? The famous Buzz Aldrin portrait:

Posted Image

Fake! In shadow side, the astroNOT could not be light up like a Xmass tree. Shadows from sun are never cast in different directions, as we see (Aldrin shadow vs. rock in back shadow). And also Moon should not end at about 10meters from the camera
Somebody doesn't understand perspective, vanishing points, how to draw shadow direction (the arrow for the shadow on the rock in the background is not drawn in the correct direction), exposure, or how to estimate distances (the rock in the background is farther than 10 meters.)

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:


More Photoshopping? NASA deliver! :D

Posted Image
( http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001104.jpg )
curves input 9, output 255 ;)

Posted Image
( http://spaceflight.n...7-134-20382.jpg )
curves input 24, output 255 ;)
I don't see evidence of photoshop but I do see evidence of jpeg artifacts.  Why do you insist on pointing out compression errors on a lossy format?

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1527    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,583 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:20 AM

Here we Go again ! The Wheels on the Short Buss Go Round,& Round ! We Landed on the Moon and That`s That ! Want to Move on to the next test ?
When did this planet get dumber ? :nw:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1528    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,115 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:32 AM

Lets do it again and see what we see, live feed of Neils original footprints from the lander. Oh wait now adays anything can be spoofed.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#1529    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 December 2012 - 07:28 AM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

skyeagle409 -


:rofl:

This is insane comparsion at best.

Radiation dose absorbed by exam using X-rays range from 0.01 mRems for Skull (0.000 01 rem) to 0.7 mRems for pelvis (0.000 7 rem).
http://hps.org/docum...diagimaging.pdf

Radiation dose delivered by Van Allen belts are at around 300 to 11 666 rems/h.

Let's take a look at some real facts.

Astronaut Radiation Exposure and the Van Allen Belts

According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.

The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.

Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 December 2012 - 08:05 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1530    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,598 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 December 2012 - 07:33 AM

View Posttrodas, on 29 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Original scans of the Van Allen article:

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Once again, why post something you do not understand? Now, let's look at some facts. These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth's magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through less than a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray.

Doug Millard

"You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long,"

Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.


If you are going to debunk something, at least understand the science before letting everyone know how much you don't know.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 December 2012 - 08:11 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX