The Moon Landings Were A Hoax!!:

That doesn't make any sence. All they have to do is paint everything white and it ain't gonna melt. I have a hard time thinking that the friggin camera would survive in the extream temp. What was the temp when they landed?

 

a camera is just a metal box that has a hole and a shutter. shadows are still cast in space

 

There are only 3 ways to transfer heat into an object; Conduction, Convection, and Radiation.

Convection is the way that a household oven works. Heat is transferred between the gas burner/electric element and the food by heating the air in the oven, and the differences in heat between different parts of the oven set up a circulation in the air which transfers the heat to the food. Since there is NO AIR on the moon, this method is completely out of the picture.

Conduction is the transfer of heat between two objects that are in direct contact with each other. The only object that was in direct contact with the film would be the camera body itself, and if you are familiar with the design of a Hasselblad camera (the type the astronauts used on the lunar surface), you know that the film is really only in good contact with the mechanism along it's edges. In order for large amounts of heat to be transferred between 2 objects, you need a large surface area, and good thermal conductivity. The film itself was essentially plastic, which is a poor thermal conductor. Couple this with the limited thermal contact area, and conductive transfer looks pretty limited.

The final mode-radiation-is how objects would be heated on the moon. The light from the sun is absorbed directly by the surfaces of objects, causing their temperature to rise. Fortunately, radiative heating is pretty easy to protect against by making sure that objects REFLECT most of the incident radiation, rather than absorbing it and allowing it to turn into heat. In the case of the cameras, they were modified by stripping off the black leatherette covering, and applying a coat of white paint. If you have a problem believing that this would make a difference, how about actually trying an experiment?

Take two identical metal objects, and paint one black and one white. Place them both in a windowsill where they will get hit with direct sunlight for several hours. Which one gets hotter? Ever notice how hot a car with a dark colored interior gets when parked in the summer sun? Same principle at work.

Rather than just spouting off in disbelief, try paying attention in science class, and doing your own research.

What was the temperature WHERE?

The temperatures given in a weather report here on earth are AIR TEMPERATURES. Since there is NO AIR on the moon, such a reading would be impossible. Surface temperatures of objects would depend on how much sun they were exposed to, and for how long. Objects in permanent shadow would be very cold, at around -250F. Dark objects in bright sun would eventually reach about +250F if left exposed for a long time, and not cooled by conduction into other objects.

The landings were timed for the early lunar morning, so that the surface would not have had a long time to heat up after sunrise.

And your point is...?

 

that it functions the same in a vacuum as we know here, aside from the aperature setting differences

 

when i was a younger lad, my dad worked for a compant that made the camera lens that was used on the space flights. Zeiss was the name of the company. Anyhow, later that year, my dad brought home this little book which was actually a set of slides, ( remember slides?) anyhow,, they were supposedly from the apollo space trip and they were awsome when veiwed. I took them to school, must have been 7th grade or 8th grade and got a big A plus in current events due to those slides. I wish I still had them I bet they would be worth some cash now a days. If it was faked, they did one hell of a job.

 

the real hoax lies in how we got the information to develop such technologies......

..ahhhhh, yes...
and why was jfk murdered anyway?... some kinda magic bullet i heard about once... oh yeah, thats right...

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW COME YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND


THERE IS NO MOON, it''s a holographic image construcdet by the aliens so that we would think that there is more than life than being just an experiment

 

I've heard it was a fake. But i think later ones were real.

 

The film speeded up is running at the correct speed.
Hence the film was deliberately slowed down in order to give the appearance of:weightlessness.

 

Have you ACTUALLY TRIED running the NASA moonwalk film at higher speeds, or are you just parrotting what you have heard from some kook website?

I've actually done it (on a professional grade editing VCR with variable speed control), and the result looks NOTHING like walking in normal earth gravity.

 

I've seen this film on a television documentary.They speeded up the film to however many extra frames per second until it showed Buzz Aldrin or whoever leaping up in the air & landing back on the soil;it was like anybody jumping up in the air in arid dry conditions in a desert-like enviroment.
By slowing down the film;an impression of weightlessness was created because slow-motion distorts the body-mass movements of a man.

 

It wasn't that piece of crap on FOX, was it?

Anyway, just found this, and thought it might go well here:

 

We can fly space shuttles and orbit the earth but we cant land on the closest moon near us. Your just looking to be different thats all.

 

How about this argument


How the fuck would Nasa get it wrong? If they did fake it (i doubt that), it would be fucking seamless! Guess why? Becuase they're fucking NASA, they wouldnt get that shit wrong

 

the motivation to have us believe all the moon landings were faked is the vested conspiracy of right wing fanatacism. this is just a bunch of exploitive tabloid inanity. anyone whith half a brain doesn't have to think twice to realize why certain interests would like to have us believe physical exploration beyond our earth's surface is beyond human capability.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I wasn't aware that the hoax conspiracy theorists were either right wing or left wing.

I notice that the No vote is nearing 100 & that should convince me but it doesn't.


* Nixon : Moon Landings : Nixon: Watergate.

* Moon photographs: No stars in space.

* Film of Flag planting: Flag swaying in what appears to be a breeze.

*The Moon: Gamma Rays : Van Allen Belt: Enough radiation to kill a man or carcenergenic.(Cause Cancer cells).

*The Russians: abandoned Moon exploration.


*Man visits another world.......then plants An 'American Flag'!!!

*Area 51 -Nevada Desert-permanently sealed off to general public & patrolled by the U.S. Millitary.


*Film of Lunar Buggy & Astronauts bouncing in weightless when played at faster speed reveals no weightlessness at all.


*NASA never officially denied hoax theory.


*T.V.Interviewer to Buzz Aldren:"Were the Moon landings a hoax?"
Buzz Aldren:"People are entitled to believe what they want".



*******************

 

Most of the public advocates of the "moon hoax" are politically conservative. A major undercurrent of the hoax believers seems to be the claim that human travel beyond the earth is somehow contradictory of the Bible. Bart Sibrel, perhaps the most famous hoax proponent, is a fundamentalist Xtian.

Nixon also brought us the EPA, the Clean Air Act, and the thawing of US-China relations. None of these eliminates his Watergate dealings, but they should serve to remind you of the few good things that came out of that administration.

As previously mentioned, not even Nixon could possibly have managed to pull off something as huge as the alleged moon hoax, or keep it secret for all these years after his death. ESPECIALLY when the Apollo program was in full swing many years BEFORE he came into office....

Explained previously. Simple matter of exposure latitude vs. shutter speed for handheld photography. You can't photograph stars with a snapshot exposure on earth, either!

More like vibrating in a vacuum after being shaken by the astronaut planting it. The reason it appears to be "flying" is that it is held taut by a horizontal support along the top edge...

Which is why NASA planned the lunar trajectories to MINIMIZE exposure to this radiation. Radiation-induced cancer is a function of dose vs. time. Do people get cancer every time they get a dental X-ray?

FWIW, the Apollo astronauts ARE showing a higher than normal rate of cataracts as they age, so they didn't get away completely unscathed...

Because their hardware repeatedly failed in testing, as previously mentioned...

I never much cared for that, either. Seeing as the Apollo program owed a huge debt to other countries including Germany, Canada, and Australia (among many others), the US flags always seemed a bit obnoxious to me. But certainly UNDERSTANDABLE given the cold war origins of the space race, and the typical patriotism (and military backgrounds) of the astronauts and NASA management.

At any rate, I'm not sure how the US flags relate to the allegations that the landings were faked...

And do you really think that a place where the US develops and tests highly classified military aircraft is going to be open for public tours?

And this proves...?

You take a film and alter the playback speed, making it look different. I could just as easily take a film of you walking down the street, run it at 10X speed, and claim that you are actually an olympic sprinter cranked up on crystal meth...

Yes, they have. Links were posted to NASA webpages specifically debunking the moon hoax theories earlier in this thread.

So people AREN'T entitled to believe whatever they want, regardless of how ridiculous it might be? Better start shutting down organized religion, then...

 

idiots...

1) Stars cannot be seen from earth during the day, without out atmosphere it would not look blue it would look black and we still wouldn't be able to see the stars in the day. Day or night on the moon the sky is still black however we can see stars at night on the moon, just like on earth. Showing that they landed on the light side of the moon.

2) Seeing as there is little gravity on the moon, putting the flag in causing it to wobble and the lack of gravity would mean the wobbling would take longer to dissipate then on earth.

3) When your on the moon you dont walk differently on the moon you just walk slower...This is due to limited gravity.

4) How many of you idiot skeptics are jedis 'cause that makes you doubly stupid. "use the force" - goodluck with that, losers.

Instructions for idiots:

Flight From Ashiya this means YOU!

A) Actually go to school once in a while and maybe listen.

B) Make it past grade 3 this time.

C) Get to at least grade 11.

Do that and you will learn about subjects so that you can actually create good arguments and if your smart enough you'll understand it.

 

From what you said in your statement was demeaning the rest of us and actually having the nerve to make us believe you are an educated person with valid arguements. Which from your spelling and grammer and the way you go about typing your words isn't true at all, from my point of view.

 

Your grammar (spelt with an A not an E) is pretty pathetic, you pompous hypocrite. You should follow the instructions for idiots. You might need to get someone to read them to you very slowly. Sure I got a few words wrong but you could still read the freaking post and that’s what counts.



What’s wrong with the way I type? How can I type differently and how would you know? By the way I was demeaning you paranoid conspiracy theorists; you must feel pretty smart now, big man.



P.S. Lead blocks radiation!



P.P.S. In future, you might want to get your intelligent friends (if any) to type your opinions and rebuttal.