|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 5:11:37 GMT -4
Trapped subatomic particles from the solar wind snared by Earth's magnetic field. And you could try Googling Dr van Allen. There are two main belts (there is a third weaker one that is so weak it has only been recently discovered.) The outer one, as jasonthompson stated, is created by electrons fired out of the sun during solar events being trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The inner belt is mostly protons. These are formed by neutrons in the Earth's atmosphere being struck by cosmic rays and decaying into protons.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 4:57:27 GMT -4
why would i have to prove how THEY altered the z-film? -> what needs to be explained is the anomolies that have been found in the z-film. Because unless you can show that there was actually a way to modify the film, then claiming things are anomolies won't fly. Even if you do understand how they occured, and even if I don't understand it, if it'ds not possible to physically modify the film, then such supposed anomolies must have gotten there some other way, such as not actually being anomolies at all, just things that you don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 4:53:32 GMT -4
PhantomWolf what are you talking about...pre-exposed film? Umm, perhaps film that has been exposed prior to someone apparently modifying it?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2012 4:50:17 GMT -4
this is modified z- frame z298 it has been reduced horizontally to 70% note Hill and Moorman - size note Hill and the direction of her head any comments? How about you explain what you think is wrong with it and why?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2012 20:03:06 GMT -4
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah dah - it is the life we were meant to live. does anyone really prefer to have reality be a burden? I suggest that Jay's meaning just went over your head entirely.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2012 20:02:00 GMT -4
PhantomWolf why don't you take a look at the z film or digitals and decide for yourself? does it really matter how they altered it? (experts can explain probable methods used in detail but it was basically cut and matte) I have looked at it. I also know that cut and matte techniques don't work on pre-exposed film, they are use to expose different parts of the film at different times so as to give the impression that the entire frame was exposed at the same time. You can't take a previously exposed film and re-expose it without getting a double exposure. Nor can you cut up the film and resplice it without someone noticing that it was done. The images are actually bonded onto the film via the photochemicals, you can't just rearrange a few bits and get a new image from it. If it's not actually possible to alter it, then the whole claim that it was altered becomes meaningless. Please do.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2012 16:57:05 GMT -4
I have always wondered exactly how the Z-Film was supposed to have been modified. How did whoever did it know of its existance, seek in, take the film, modify it so that it wasn't obvious, then get it back in to the camera, and have no one any the wiser? What technology available in 1963 allowed a person to directly edit what was on an exposed strip of film, heck what technology today allows you to do that? This one has me baffled.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 11, 2012 1:30:12 GMT -4
I have to suggest you invest in a tripod, I think I need some Sea Legs tablets.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2012 18:35:43 GMT -4
Remember folks, in HB world anything is possible except flying to the Moon. In some HB's world that was possible too, they even did, but not in the astronauts, footage, and photos we are shown, that was all faked with the real missions done secretly before the faked public mission, meaning that if anything went wrong, they could hide it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 3, 2012 20:45:25 GMT -4
Well, it's taken me some time, but I have finally put together what I hope is an accurate and comprehensive survey of all the publicly available satellite images and Apollo images. There are available in this document: www.scribd.com/doc/76882844/Clouds-Across-the-MoonAs part of the process I've revised some of my earlier attempts, but the basic principle is simple: 1 Do the satellite images match the Apollo photographs? 2. Why? The answer is always 'Yes' to the first question, and 'because we went to the moon' for the second. I am exhausted with this now! I have only gone through the Apollo 8 and 10 images currently, it's pretty comprehensive. A few of the images have their arrows in the wrong places, but the images really speak for themselves. Great work.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 19, 2011 3:14:26 GMT -4
I love the way many HBs on trying to explain how NASA faked the moon landing they couldn't do because they didn't have the technology required, resort to speculating about how NASA had technology in 1969 we still don't have today.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 14, 2011 22:28:08 GMT -4
For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons. The volume of this module is 17 m3. If that would be completely full solid aluminium, that would weight 47 tons. This means that it should have been half filled with aluminium - which is a big lie. I measured the cross sections and only 15-20 % was some material which means that the real weight is 7-9 tons. You are making a huge assumption here, that it's all made out of Aluminium. What if parts of it were steel? How much did the Oxygen and Nitrogen tanks wiegh for instance? Anything made of steel would instantly be up to four times the weight of something made of Aluminium.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 14, 2011 21:38:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 14, 2011 21:28:57 GMT -4
I have to say that I laughed at the superimposing Buzz onto the Lunar image of the South Massif rather than superimposing the image of Mauna Kea over the South Massif and seeing if they match. Of course doing that would have ruined the whole, but they look similar claims, because if you do superimpose them then it quickly becomes clear that other then the superfical aspect of the shape, they don't match.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 5, 2011 20:30:06 GMT -4
I was concerned that you had jumped the shark while reading the first few sentences.. Heh, I fugured out what he was talking about before finishing the first one.
|
|