|
Post by cos on Oct 11, 2009 21:56:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 19:05:59 GMT -4
Nope. I am saying the moon landings are true because of a mountain of unrefuted evidence.
400000 people worked on the program. The largest rockets in history lifted off the planet. The missions were tracked all the way to the moon's surface by many installations (Jodrel Bank as I mentioned earlier). There is a mass of scientific evidence from moonrocks, to laser reflectors and experiments at the landing sites - you can bounce your own laser off them if you care. The video and film archives (as mentioned earlier). And to cap it all the recent photographs of the landing sites by the LRO.
Nothing circular. Just facts.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 18:49:55 GMT -4
And if you didn’t already know I’ll tell you how the War of the Worlds was staged. Now you (or anyone) tell me how the Apollo footage could be faked. For starters I’d like to know how to film a continuous 3 hour sequence in a vacuum simulating 1/6th G.
My point is that you can’t just dismiss it because you think it is possible to fake. In the absence of any credible propositions the only logical stance is that they weren’t.
Anyway, we can leave the photographic discussion there if you feel it is distracting from the radiation questions you aired (which incidently has caused me to research the Surveyor probes - fascinating - so I thank you for that!)
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 17:39:56 GMT -4
This is NASA's way of saying that the success of the moon missions was basically a crap shoot, and that is not a parsimonious explanation. No responsible scientist would engage in such methodology, and the likelihood of a successful mission, much less 6(I think?), resides somewhere in between improbable and impossible. Well whatever you think of NASA's research prior to the landings, history would suggest that they got away with it. 'I think they didn't do enough research' ergo 'it never happened' is rather too big a leap given the mountain of evidence. I think most of the information about the lunar environment prior to Apollo was gleaned from the Surveyor probes. This document is fascinating reading (page 22 makes mention of an experiment to measure radiation level on the lunar surface but I haven't waded through all 438 pages). ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690027073_1969027073.pdfHardly the efforts of a bunch of cowboys.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 16:12:08 GMT -4
If it is possible for the photos or pictures to be contrived through fakery, such as the movie Capricorn One, then I will take them for what they are, pictures that reflect some kind of event.
And I can tell you how Capricorn One was filmed and Star Wars and Space Odyssey 2001 but I'm damned if I can tell you how Apollo was filmed other than it was genuine and I'll wager neither can you or anyone else.
I could knock up a fake UFO picture or a picture of the Loch Ness monster. It may not prove that the original was fake but it shows it could be done. The Apollo footage shows many things that just could not be simulated. I have no blind faith in video images just a scientific knowledge of the possible.
It is all very well to make the assertion that it could have been faked but the onus is on you to show how.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 15:51:27 GMT -4
Now that we want to go back for perhaps months at a time, we need to learn more about the moon and study even the smallest sources of radiation as these can become a hazard over long durations.Good point and key to understanding the renewed interest in the radiation environment. It reminds me of the problem of radioactive Radon gas in Cornwall. Not a problem if you are going on holiday but if you live there you need to take precautions. As for NASA having no idea about the hazards I think this is another example that they did. And they documented the actual exposures the astronauts were subject to. history.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdfIt is simply not credible to state that they were ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 15:03:53 GMT -4
It is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the footage or pictures were not tampered with. Well until someone tells me just how to simulate shooting in 1/6th G continuously for 3 hours (parabolic dust arcs? how?) I am going to apply Occam's razor again and state that they are genuine. Incidently, the tv camera was not the only camera recording the event. There was a 16mm film camera on the lunar module, so here are is some original footage that is safely in the archive. www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73jCthcAokwww.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTgc7w8wf0&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 14:08:03 GMT -4
In my opinion the original tapes being missing is much more confounding than the Saturn rocket. I was basing my non-speculation on the non accumulation of appropriate data.
This is well known but since recordings exist of the event and also many many hours of lunar surface footage from later missions, I can only use Occam's razor to conclude that it was an honest mistake.
By the way, when I was a student back in the early 80's, I had the privilege to be shown around Jodrel Bank. It came up in conversation that one of the guys had been there on the night of the moon landing and he showed me a trace of the communications with lunar module that allowed them to track it to the surface. They even knew that it had overshot the proposed landing site by a few miles!
Sad that the original tapes aren't to hand but they are not really vital to prove the veracity of the event.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 12:53:15 GMT -4
All of the blueprints for the Saturn rockets are missing.
Not true. But are you seriously saying that the Saturn V didn't exist!
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 11:55:37 GMT -4
I've read the article and it is quite clearly concerned about long term exposure associated with a lunar or Mars base. Here is a Nasa paper summarising the radiation hazards of the Apollo missions. lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htmNow what in your article contradicts this? The authors are credited at the bottom of the article so why not drop them an email and ask if they think anything they have written casts doubt on Apollo. It doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 24, 2009 17:59:42 GMT -4
It doesn't take long to get pretty good at judging exposures. They made damn sure that using the equipment was second nature. There were effectively professional photographers by the time they got there. Why would this be so hard to believe? It ain't rocket science. When I was a kid and my light meter packed up I could always guess the exposure to within a stop.
This has echoes of an earlier thread involving John Lear (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Apart from alien artefacts on the moon didn't he also subscribe to the idea that the moon's gravity was half the earth's gravity? Got my vote for the wackiest HB belief.
If the technology wasn't up to filming it care to explain the TV transmissions from the spacecraft, Apollo 8 onwards? Those transmissions travelled a quarter of a million miles so I don't see a problem with broadcasting from the surface of the moon. Now if you say that the TV transmissions from the spacecraft were faked then surely the whole thing must of been faked because we can clearly see the astronauts and perhaps you can enlighten us with how you film a continuous 15 minute weightless sequence on the earth? Would you care to furnish us with the technical details? Thought not...
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 21, 2009 22:05:02 GMT -4
The 1.6m drop height is not authoratative and as we seem to be in the realms of 'looks like' science then try this; measure the distance from the shoulder to the top of the head of a 6ft man. You will find that in order for the drop to be 1.6M he would have to drop it from about shoulder height and it clearly isn't (we can agree that much I hope). Looks much more like 2/3rds of his height so 1.2 M seems a better guess. And that's all it is, a guess. Now given the difficulties we have in timing the drop from this compressed footage and knowing an actual value for the drop height we are, I suggest, within acceptable limits of what we would expect on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 20, 2009 20:12:16 GMT -4
Dr. James Van Allen, who is appropriately qualified to discuss the radiation in space, and who has a different idea of how much protection is required to traverse the Van Allen belts. As an aside, what does he have to say on the issue? And is there a good resource on the subject? "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen Nasa's summary of the radiation hazards of the Apollo missions is here; lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htmBut they are lying of course and using science and facts to fool us (none of which is required to support the notion that it isn't possible).
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 18, 2009 16:36:20 GMT -4
I have never seen dust behave like it does on the lunar film. It can only be in a vacuum. The only attempt to replicate it (that I am aware of) is in Tom Hank's film, Magnifcent Desolation and the digital dust in that is too coarse. Leaving aside how far you think the dust should travel on the moon, if, as you claim it was filmed on earth, in atmosphere, please save us all the time and simply recreate the effect for us. All you need is a video camera and some dirt, should be a cinch. We await your proof with interest.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 14, 2009 18:04:02 GMT -4
|
|