Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 20, 2009 20:38:22 GMT -4
1) The spacesuits could not have protected them from the radiation level on the moon. The pressure in their spacesuits, specifically their gloves would have kept them from opening their camera to change film which would have exposed the film to radiation and destroyed its images. How could they have changed the film of the cameras on the moon if the radiation is so high? Your friend is exaggerating the radiation hazard on the moon; the suits provided adequate protection. The gloves were engineered with bulbous constant volume joints that allowed them to flex under pressure. The film was housed within pre-loaded cartridges that could be easily changed. The cartridges protected the film from radiation exposure. 2) The radiation in the Van Allen belt is deadly. The Russians did not go to the moon because they determined that an astronaut had to be in a led suit 4 feet thick to survive the radiation on the moon. The Chinese kept sending animals into the Van Allen belt and they kept coming back dead. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can be deadly if exposed to them long term without adequate protection. Apollo passed along the outer fringes of the belts over a span of just a couple hours. This resulted in an insignificant exposure. The Russians determined no such thing. This is a conspiracy theorist generated myth. I don't know for sure about the Chinese, but I've heard of no attempt by them to send animals beyond the radiation belts. I'd put money on this being another myth. 3) Finally we have a satellite orbiting the moon now and it took pictures of the landing sights. All they have shown us is pictures with dots & arrows pointing to them. We have satellites that can take pictures of men on earth and that's the best they can do? And those satellites that can take pictures of men on Earth are in orbit around Earth, not the moon. The best we've got in orbit around the moon is LRO. Future images will have 2 to 3 times greater resolution than those just released because LRO has not yet reached its final mapping orbit.
|
|
|
Post by thequestion on Jul 20, 2009 21:08:59 GMT -4
Hi thequestion: Why don't you try something a bit different than "instructing" this person. As we all know, a movie or visual medium could be better. Thanks I have tried that but his attitude is that any movie that is presented would be backed by "those guys at Nasa" trying to "cover it up." Today I mentioned to him that Whoopie Goldberg is sharing his ideas. His rebuttal was that Whoopie was put up to it by the government for disinformation purposes. < Try not to laugh to much. It's really sad!">
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 20, 2009 21:21:45 GMT -4
Is it just me, or does anyone else see these "new" questions as essentially the same questions that were originally asked and answered, just worded slightly differently....? 1) The spacesuits were not real. The suits could not stand the pressure in space and the radiation. 1) The spacesuits could not have protected them from the radiation level on the moon. The pressure in their spacesuits, specifically their gloves would have kept them from opening their camera to change film which would have exposed the film to radiation and destroyed its images. How could they have changed the film of the cameras on the moon if the radiation is so high? 2) The Russian and the Chinese never go past the Van Alan belt because of the radiation therefore proving that the USA created a film about the landing. 2) The radiation in the Van Allen belt is deadly. The Russians did not go to the moon because they determined that an astronaut had to be in a led suit 4 feet thick to survive the radiation on the moon. The Chinese kept sending animals into the Van Allen belt and they kept coming back dead. 3) Why if we have the Hubble Telescope we cannot simply point it to the moon and see where the ship landed. When they show a picture online from a satellite, it is a small dot. 3) Finally we have a satellite orbiting the moon now and it took pictures of the landing sights. All they have shown us is pictures with dots & arrows pointing to them. We have satellites that can take pictures of men on earth and that's the best they can do? Granted that #3 references Hubble originally and now LRO, but aside from that, the question is essentially the same... no? Cz
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 20, 2009 21:25:34 GMT -4
Is it just me, or does anyone else see these "new" questions as essentially the same questions that were originally asked and answered, just worded slightly differently....? It's not just you.
|
|
|
Post by thequestion on Jul 20, 2009 21:29:23 GMT -4
Thanks gonehollywood, laurel, Bob B. & gillianren. czero101 cut me some slack. I know you guys are on here al the time and know your stuff. I was on a blogger website and was sent here when I asked for help. They said this board would be able to help me out. Your welcome to jump off the thread if you don't like it. I am in a serious situation with a friend that I need to help. The answers I have gotten from you gentlemen are helping greatly.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 20, 2009 21:33:01 GMT -4
czero101 cut me some slack. I know you guys are on here al the time and know your stuff. I was on a blogger website and was sent here when I asked for help. They said this board would be able to help me out. Your welcome to jump off the thread if you don't like it. I am in a serious situation with a friend that I need to help. The answers I have gotten from you gentlemen are helping greatly. Alright... But the "new" questions you have asked are essentially exactly the same as the original questions. Are you expecting different answers just because you've worded them slightly differently? Edited to add...And just for the record, despite what you might be assuming I'm not accusing you of anything... I and apparently at least one other are just confused as to why you're asking the same questions again. Cz
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 20, 2009 21:34:44 GMT -4
I'm not a "gentleman" and neither is Gillianren. Just pointing that out.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 20, 2009 21:36:43 GMT -4
Can your friend come here to discuss his questions with us directly?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 21:44:19 GMT -4
czero101 cut me some slack. I know you guys are on here al the time and know your stuff. I was on a blogger website and was sent here when I asked for help. They said this board would be able to help me out. Your welcome to jump off the thread if you don't like it. I am in a serious situation with a friend that I need to help. The answers I have gotten from you gentlemen are helping greatly. Alright... But the "new" questions you have asked are essentially exactly the same as the original questions. Are you expecting different answers just because you've worded them slightly differently? Edited to add...And just for the record, despite what you might be assuming I'm not accusing you of anything... I and apparently at least one other are just confused as to why you're asking the same questions again. Cz CZ, ...just a thought... Maybe thequestion's friend is asking the same questions not thequestion himself? This has happened before when someone is relaying back and forth from his/her friend. It would be a lot easier for the him/her to join us here and post their questions directly to us but a lot of times this doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 21:47:38 GMT -4
I'm not a "gentleman" and neither is Gillianren. Just pointing that out. I think "guys" was the actually term used, not "gentleman" ? Guys can be generically used to refer to men or women. Maybe Gillianren could let us know...
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jul 20, 2009 21:51:03 GMT -4
CZ, ...just a thought... Maybe thequestion's friend is asking the same questions not thequestion himself? This has happened before when someone is relaying back and forth from his/her friend. It would be a lot easier for the him/her to join us here and post their questions directly to us but a lot of times this doesn't happen. Thanks, Ginnie, I do understand that. I - and apparently Bob - just find it odd that the question asked, regardless of who is actually asking them, will garner essentially the same answers, despite being worded slightly differently. As I said... I'm not accusing anyone of anything... I just find it odd... nothing more, nothing less... Cz
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 20, 2009 21:53:27 GMT -4
Thanks gonehollywood, laurel, Bob B. & gillianren. czero101 cut me some slack. I know you guys are on here al the time and know your stuff. I was on a blogger website and was sent here when I asked for help. They said this board would be able to help me out. Your welcome to jump off the thread if you don't like it. I am in a serious situation with a friend that I need to help. The answers I have gotten from you gentlemen are helping greatly. I was referring to this post saying "gentlemen." It's not really a big deal anyway, I'm just in a strange mood today.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 22:00:02 GMT -4
Thanks gonehollywood, laurel, Bob B. & gillianren. czero101 cut me some slack. I know you guys are on here al the time and know your stuff. I was on a blogger website and was sent here when I asked for help. They said this board would be able to help me out. Your welcome to jump off the thread if you don't like it. I am in a serious situation with a friend that I need to help. The answers I have gotten from you gentlemen are helping greatly. I was referring to this post saying "gentlemen." It's not really a big deal anyway, I'm just in a strange mood today. ah, so it does say "gentlemen" - my bad. I just went through a mind twister. After watching "The Apollo Years" I switched over to "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On the Moon". The last thing said in that show is "the question remains - did we land on the moon". Does the question remain? I don't think so...
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 20, 2009 22:13:35 GMT -4
After watching "The Apollo Years" I switched over to "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On the Moon". Was that playing on TV? Which channel actually had the poor taste to air that piece of crap today of all days?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 22:38:12 GMT -4
After watching "The Apollo Years" I switched over to "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On the Moon". Was that playing on TV? Which channel actually had the poor taste to air that piece of crap today of all days? Vision TV! Canada's Multifaith, Multicultural Television Network... Whoahh.... what a piece of programming to "celebrate" the moon landings!
Its "Moon Landing Week" - VisionTV Celebrates The Anniversary of the First Moon Landing Just before 11 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 20, 1969, a 38-year-old father of two from Wapakoneta, Ohio climbed to the bottom of a metal ladder, spoke a few words, and changed the course of human history forever.
The Apollo 11 lunar landing was more than a triumph of science and technology. When astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot upon the moon, he became the first human being ever to look upon earth from the surface of an alien world. To the millions watching at home, the flickering images on the screen revealed an inescapable truth: our blue-green home planet is just one of many millions of lights in the sky – small, fragile and infinitely precious.
VisionTV celebrates the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing in July with a series of special prime time presentations that will include documentaries and feature films. At midnight they are broadcasting "Apollo: Race to the Moon" www.visiontv.ca/Programs/specials_mmonlanding.html
|
|