Did NASA fake moon Landings?

[deca]

Thought this might be interesting to see what real people think about this on this forum.

*
mistake in poll
*****
There`is more important is used to spend my time on

should read

There`is more important issues to spend my time on
****************************************
Sorry I don`t know how to change/edit this?

[umbrex]

Nasa could debunk this any time they would like, but unfortunately they "lost" 7000 hours of the original lunar tapes..

go figure...

[hagbard_celine]

To the question "Did NASA fake the moon landings" I've answered a resounding "YES", but if the question was "Has nobody been to the moon?" then I'd say "Probably no".

If the Loomies are in league with the aliens then I wouldn't be surprised if they've given them a lift to the moon. There's even rumours of a joint human/alien base on the moon, as well as other places in the solar system and beyond (See Project Serpo etc).

[deca]

Hmm yep I maybe should of took more time in the wording of the poll and thought about it more.First poll I have done ....

[graflok]

For me, the Apollo missions are much like Professional Wrestling.

There are people who insist it's real and those who laugh at it
and think it's all fake.

I'm one of those who believe pro wrestling is fake but I have no proof.
I just look at it and it seems obvious to me and I don't care how many
fans or industry "professionals" tell me otherwise.

I feel the same way about the Apollo moon missions. :)

[the jock rock]

[QUOTE=hagbard_celine;63679]To the question "Did NASA fake the moon landings" I've answered a resounding "YES", but if the question was "Has nobody been to the moon?" then I'd say "Probably no".

If the Loomies are in league with the aliens then I wouldn't be surprised if they've given them a lift to the moon. There's even rumours of a joint human/alien base on the moon, as well as other places in the solar system and beyond (See Project Serpo etc).[/QUOTE
Right on Brother.!:D:p
POE POY
LOVE FY Y T:p

[james777]

I think they absolutely landed on the Moon, but also faked the tapes. Remember everything on that level is more of a production than anything else. In the 60's, there was no technology available to protect the film from the extreme heat on the lunar surface. It would have all melted, no doubt.

[emtec]

Nasa could debunk this any time they would like, but unfortunately they "lost" 7000 hours of the original lunar tapes..

go figure...

Could you explain whats on the tapes that would debunk the hoax theories?

[emtec]

I think they absolutely landed on the Moon, but also faked the tapes. Remember everything on that level is more of a production than anything else. In the 60's, there was no technology available to protect the film from the extreme heat on the lunar surface. It would have all melted, no doubt.


Rubbish there's no atmosphere on the moon so the only heat transfer to the film would have been from touching parts. The cameras were modified to to this into account.

[hagbard_celine]

For me, the Apollo missions are much like Professional Wrestling.

There are people who insist it's real and those who laugh at it
and think it's all fake.


Good analogy.

[emtec]

Hagbard you said that you believed that the Apollo missions stayed in LEO or when they went out further they were on board an alien spacecraft. You have also said that you believe the STS and ISS to be real. Thing is Haggers you also claim that the Earth is doughnut shaped. Now seeing as the STS the ISS and all the activities of Apollo show an Earth that's definitely not Doughnut shaped isn't this a contradiction?

You cant have your Doughnut and eat it son so which is it.

BTW i think the professional wrestling analogy fits best to the dummy who watches the hoax video he just bought and thinks its real.

Lets face it the grandfather of the hoax theory Bill Kaysing who all the others copy didn't believe it was faked at all it was a hoax by him to make money.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Good analogy.

That's a crap analogy. Considering it's common knowledge that wrestling is fake then it would be more analogous to compare the conspiratorial mind in that wrestling was responsible for hidden ritual and abuse and brain-washing the public into believing it was ok to hurt people yet presented as a form of entertainment where no one gets hurt. The fact that they are all 7 feet tall is because they are masquerading as humans when really in lizard form.

Considering most of you opinions and evidence throughout these forums are based on rumours and not hard facts then I have to question anything you say regarding your opinions on factual matter.

"There's even rumours of a joint human/alien base on the moon, as well as other places in the solar system and beyond (See Project Serpo etc)."

I bet it wasn't Patrik Moore that started that one :D


Your philosophies I have no problem with, for the record.

[graflok]

there's no atmosphere on the moon so the only heat transfer to the film would have been from touching parts.

Please explain how the camera was modified so that the film didn't touch any parts of the camera.

[graflok]

Considering most of you opinions and evidence throughout these forums are based on rumours and not hard facts then I have to question anything you say regarding your opinions on factual matter.


I believe you've said that you've read many David Icke books and that you are not a troll.

So, are there any of David Icke's ideas that you agree with?

[emtec]

If i hadn't read any books would that make me a Troll?

Ive read books watched videos and seen him live so what?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

As you never asked me directly in the other thread I will answer you here for sake of satisfying your own curiosity or so you can be triumphant in whatever it is you want to say rather than actually answer anything important.

Firstly, David's "ideas" are mostly compilations of other peoples work. That's why each chapter in his book has a very large range of sources compiled at the very end.

whileI agree on many of the things he identifies as problems but not necessary how those problems arose.

I agree that we are heading towards global fascism.

I agree (in principal) with the ideas in his latest book that we are plugged in to some kind of virtual reality. But this is a hugely philosphical and contentious angle and my intpretation of how we are consciouness made physical is different to his.

I agree that we are probably one form of existence within multiple dimensions.

I find the illuminati/freemason symbolism highly interesting and there is obviously a reason it is so prevalent in our society.

However, I am also a person who likes to have verified facts and david doesn't provide this. A lot of his evidence is merely annecdotal and a huge proportion of his reptilian stuff comes from Credo Mutwa and I don't take comfort in the fact he is an old man who lives out in the jungle as hard evidence of a reptilian/ufo conspiracy. I don't judge the man either but i am a believer in backing up what you say with more than stories.

The Biggest Secret has to be the most fanciful of his books, largely because so much info is pulled from existing books he no doubt found at the library.

There's probably other stuff i can mention that i agree with and stuff i don't agree with. MOSTLY, the material could be fact but it requires you to be an open believer in everything to accept most of what he says. I don't dismiss it but neither do i necessarily hang on to ever word as absolute truth.

I hope you understand where I am coming from and the only reason i treat you with any kind of contemptious tone was because your abusive nature and instant dismissive behaviour in the moon hoax thread, where you basically misintrepreted what i said or chose to ignore it because it didnt fit in with your ideology.

[graflok]

If i hadent read any books would that make me a Troll?


No, it wouldn't necessarily.

Since you've read so many of his books I was just wondering what David Icke ideas you agree with?

[emtec]

Please explain how the camera was modified so that the film didn't touch any parts of the camera.

I never said any parts of the camera as this would be impossible.

Photographic film melts at 150 F (65 C). Therefore you can't use it to take photos on the moon.


This would be a problem only if there was a way for the film to be heated. Since the film wasn't in direct sunlight it wouldn't have been heated.

The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb.


www.clavius.org/envheat.html

[graflok]

As you never asked me directly in the other thread I will answer you here for sake of satisfying your own curiosity or so you can be triumphant in whatever it is you want to say rather than actually answer anything important.

Firstly, David's "ideas" are mostly compilations of other peoples work. That's why each chapter in his book has a very large range of sources compiled at the very end.

whileI agree on many of the things he identifies as problems but not necessary how those problems arose.

I agree that we are heading towards global fascism.

I agree (in principal) with the ideas in his latest book that we are plugged in to some kind of virtual reality. But this is a hugely philosphical and contentious angle and my intpretation of how we are consciouness made physical is different to his.

I agree that we are probably one form of existence within multiple dimensions.

I find the illuminati/freemason symbolism highly interesting and there is obviously a reason it is so prevalent in our society.

However, I am also a person who likes to have verified facts and david doesn't provide this. A lot of his evidence is merely annecdotal and a huge proportion of his reptilian stuff comes from Credo Mutwa and I don't take comfort in the fact he is an old man who lives out in the jungle as hard evidence of a reptilian/ufo conspiracy. I don't judge the man either but i am a believer in backing up what you say with more than stories.

The Biggest Secret has to be the most fanciful of his books, largely because so much info is pulled from existing books he no doubt found at the library.

There's probably other stuff i can mention that i agree with and stuff i don't agree with. MOSTLY, the material could be fact but it requires you to be an open believer in everything to accept most of what he says. I don't dismiss it but neither do i necessarily hang on to ever word as absolute truth.

I hope you understand where I am coming from and the only reason i treat you with any kind of contemptious tone was because your abusive nature and instant dismissive behaviour in the moon hoax thread, where you basically misintrepreted what i said or chose to ignore it because it didnt fit in with your ideology.

I ask you this question because you have taken such an obviously hostile
position toward the ideas of David Icke in nearly every post that I've read of
yours. Yet, you say you've read many of his books and are not a troll.

Now you say you agree with some of the problems that David Icke presents
but disagree with his conclusions.

So, you disagree with David Icke's conclusions and you continually post
opinions that are antagonistic to these conclusions and you've never posted
anything that I know of to support his conclusions yet you say you
are not a troll (meaning someone who is intentionally posting to disrupt
and antagonize a forum's members).

How can this be?

[graflok]

I notice that you two (emtec and reptilian...) post at the same time.
Do you two know each other?

[deca]

http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/images/annexe21hasselblad07.jpg
http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/images/a11magdec.jpg
Apollo 11 film magazine

[emtec]

I notice that you two (emtec and reptilian...) post at the same time.
Do you two know each other?

No we are not acquainted or should i say i didn't know him before he started to post here.

[deca]

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1 - YouTube

[graflok]

I never said any parts of the camera as this would be impossible.

"Photographic film melts at 150 F (65 C). Therefore you can't use it to take photos on the moon.


This would be a problem only if there was a way for the film to be heated. Since the film wasn't in direct sunlight it wouldn't have been heated.

The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb."

www.clavius.org/envheat.html

The problems with this explanation are:
1. the statement "rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it [the film] was
relatively safe from conducted heat" makes no sense. Rolling up film (or anything else)
does not protect it from heat and the fact that it was on a spool means it
was in contact with the camera's parts and would be subject to conducted
heat.

2. film cannot register an image as long as it is "rolled up on its spool." A
portion of it has to unroll and be flattened out against a flat plate positioned
behind the lens. The flat plate is called a pressure plate and it exerts a light
pressure on the film from behind and gently squeezes it against the outer
edge of the opening behind the lens at the moment of exposure. This is
necessary because the rolled up film will curl if it is not flattened out and the
curl will distort the image a great deal. The camera used by the Apollo
(a modified Hasselblad 500EL loaded with 70mm film) also had a "Reseau Plate"
(transparent glass plate) in front of the film marked with crosshairs that
pressed the film in the other direction and was in contact with it. As you can
see from this explanation taken from a page on the Hasselblad web site (http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx).

http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/21246/2003678304338727127_rs.jpg

3. There are also Apollo images that show the sun in the frame behind the subject.
That means the sun had to shine directly on the film through the transparent
lens glass elements for the picture to be taken. Direct sun shining on the film
would heat it just as it would any other object that it shone on directly.

4. film is very sensitive to heat. It is coated with gelatin which easily becomes soft
and sticky when subject to heat above normally encountered temperatures. Since
it is mostly rolled up, it will easily stick to itself when heated and become a sticky
mass that is unusable in a camera.

[graflok]

No we are not acquainted or should i say i didn't know him before he started to post here.

Well, it's odd that I asked a question of reptilianshapeshifter and you
answered it as if I was asking you, emtec. Why is that?

http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/18193/2000467102644487107_rs.jpg

So, let's see --
- The two of you post mutually-supportive statements.
- Asking one of you a question gets a reply from the other.
- You both post on this forum at the same time.
- You both claim to be very familiar with David Icke's works yet you post nothing but critical remarks about it.
- Neither of you has come up with an answer regarding any of David Ick'e ideas that you agree with when asked repeatedly.

So, how is it that you can both claim that you are not trolls, here only to disrupt the forum and antagonize its members?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

this is why you can't be reasoned with or even have a mature conversation. you've got your answer and the only thing you want to hear is confirmation. IT doesn't matter what i say about anything, if it's not direct with your line of thinking you go nuts. you've already said you werent gonna bother discussing with us any more and that's fine. i'd prefer it if you didn't because youre nothing more than an idiot with circular arguments and a hostile, abrasive nature.

here's a list of the books (real books) i have on my shelf next to me (in order of how they are stacked on the shelf)

Robots Rebellion
I am Free I am Me
and the truth will set you free
Children of the Matrix
Tales from the time love
infinte love is the only truth....
Alice in wonderland.
The biggest secret
The truth vibrations
the holographic universe (not DI and an interesting book for the first couple of chapters until the rest of it dives off in anecdotal evidence).

So yes, i wouldn't be wasting my time here or my money on subject matter that didn't interest me or contained information that wasn't slightly relevant to my outlook on the world.

But of course that won't be good enough for you. Any picture i provide of the shelf will be fake. You'll deduce this from shadow anomalies no doubt.

You, in particular Graflok, fail to actual give any answer to anything I have provided here, in fact i don't think you read much of what i write.

NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS COMMENTED ON THE FACT THAT DAVID ICKE DOESN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THE MOON HOAX! Even though i've said this at least twice. It just goes to prove that you read what you want to read and only reply to what you want to reply.

I am here to question, not blindly follow any crap that is presented to me on paper by your anyone.

[graflok]

Oh, reptilianshapeshifter, could you please explain the following
coincidence as well?

Here are the forum join dates of you and 3 other forum members:
enave = 18-06-2007
reptilianshapeshifter = 18-06-2007
emtec = 10-05-2007
frenat = 17-06-2007

Two of you joined on the same day, another joined the previous
day and the fourth joined about a month prior.

And, all four of you have only posted on one topic: the Apollo moon hoax.

And, you all post at the same time of day. Only seconds or minutes apart
at times.

And, I recently asked one of you a question and the other answered it
as if I'd asked him. Imagine that!
See: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=64503#post64503

Now, this is all one helluva coincidence! Since you all have denied you
are trolls, could you please explain this astonishing coincidence?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

i've already explained this in the other thread.

i wish you'd stop cross-pasting the same shit between the two threads, it's quite irritating and it only furthers your annoyance when you miss the reply in one thread and then accuse me (us/whatever) of being evasive. BUt that is exactly my point. you think you've been extremely clever finding 4 people within 1 month who disagree with the moon hoax and 2 of them happen to sign up on the same day. Conjecture is not the same thing as being right, but no doubt its enough to satisfy you.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

if you weren't so freaking lazy you will see i have contributed to more than just the moon hoax thread.

why don't you do a search and read EVERYTHING i have written. sure not all of it is in agreement with the traditional line of thought but i am not here to be traditional.

[enave]

And, all four of you have only posted on one topic: the Apollo moon hoax.
...
Now, this is all one helluva coincidence! Since you all have denied you
are trolls, could you please explain this astonishing coincidence?

Alright fine graflok. Do you really want to know the truth? Fine, I'll tell you the truth. I am a member of the Brotherhood of Babylon. We all are in fact. Agent 3234, whom you know as "emtec" was the mason assigned to conduct surveillance of this forum. He quietly gathered names and locations of the forum members, and one-by-one, they are being detained and converted to nutrient paste for use in our spaceships. Now that the work has started, there is no longer any need to keep it secret.

Last week (one flemton ago by our calendar) at our meeting in cloning lab Echo on the far side of the moon, Agent 3234 regaled us all with the amusing tale of the David Icke forum - as we consumed sweet nutrient paste and were entertained by dancing human slavegirls. We all got a little drunk and we decided to join this forum and pretend to be humans.

The bottom line, my friend graflok, is that it is already too late for you to start running. Your precious David Icke is even now being converted to nutrient paste. Your planet is ours so long as none of you have any salt water available.

Muhahahaha! Sisss sisss.

Muhahahaha!!! Sissss…. AHAHAHAHA!!!!

[reptilianshapeshifter]

lol don't wind him up. I don't want him further pointing the finger at me that I am affiliated with anyone who has joined in the last month being anti moon hoax.

enave = 18-06-2007
reptilianshapeshifter = 18-06-2007
emtec = 10-05-2007
frenat = 17-06-2007

i mean this is what this genius bases that one. Emtec signs up one month ago. Frenat was here on the 17th and i just so happen to register on the same day as someone else.

[graflok]

Alright fine graflok. Do you really want to know the truth? Fine, I'll tell you the truth. I am a member of the Brotherhood of Babylon. We all are in fact. Agent 3234, whom you know as "emtec" was the mason assigned to conduct surveillance of this forum. He quietly gathered names and locations of the forum members, and one-by-one, they are being detained and converted to nutrient paste for use in our spaceships. Now that the work has started, there is no longer any need to keep it secret.

Last week (one flemton ago by our calendar) at our meeting in cloning lab Echo on the far side of the moon, Agent 3234 regaled us all with the amusing tale of the David Icke forum - as we consumed sweet nutrient paste and were entertained by dancing human slavegirls. We all got a little drunk and we decided to join this forum and pretend to be humans.

The bottom line, my friend graflok, is that it is already too late for you to start running. Your precious David Icke is even now being converted to nutrient paste. Your planet is ours so long as none of you have any salt water available.

Muhahahaha! Sisss sisss.

Muhahahaha!!! Sissss…. AHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's a funny joke, enave.

Now, please answer the question. Please explain this incredible coincidence:


Here are the forum join dates of you and 3 other forum members:
enave = 18-06-2007
reptilianshapeshifter = 18-06-2007
emtec = 10-05-2007
frenat = 17-06-2007

Two of you joined on the same day, another joined the previous
day and the fourth joined about a month prior.

And, all four of you have only posted on one topic: the Apollo moon hoax.

And, you all post at the same time of day. Only seconds or minutes apart
at times.

And, I recently asked one of you a question and the other answered it
as if I'd asked him. Imagine that!
See: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...4503#post64503

Now, this is all one helluva coincidence! Since you all have denied you
are trolls, could you please explain this astonishing coincidence?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

can you stop including me in the same information you have now posted 3 or 4 times.

I have contributed in other threads.

I have explained how i came to this forum.

SO the information you have is thus inaccurate when you talk about 4 of us not contributing in other areas of the forum except the moon hoax. This can be easily proved by going to my profile and searching all posts.

[graflok]

OK, it's true that you have contributed to other threads. I will exclude you
from future statements that you have not.

Care to comment on the rest of the coincidences?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

i've already commented mutliple times but here it is again....

i was a registered user on davidickeforum.com for 2 years until they closed it temporarily. i had no intention of signing up here because i was hoping it would reopen again and i didnt want to be involved in two forums on the same topics.

as it looked like it would never reopen i have been popping in and out of here to read stuff but not actively contributing.

i started contributing when i saw the moon hoax thread and was interested that a forum member was not in agreement that it was a hoax. i did not know this was a new member until later on. i was also interested to see if many of DI's supporters also did not believe that it was a hoax and it turns out not many are in agreement with my views. the fact i signed up is mere coincidence but its not a coincidence that the content of the thread prompted me to do so. as the harris forum appears not to have been reopenened i might as well be ehre anyway.

I have spent a lot of time reading both sides of the arguments and debunking sites and I am of the opinion that we went there under the circumstances we were told. i know that is against the grain of what most poeple here believe but i wanted to register that opinion.

i cannot speak for the 3 other users on here. Maybe they are related to each other from another forum and maybe they are not. that is up to them to provide that answer. all i can say is that i am not part of any forum or any conspiracy with them to come here to cause a bit of trouble.

since i agree with what they say regarding the moon hoax i do not see it as trolling as they have not said anything to purposely wind people up. i don't care where they come from or how they got here but i am pleased that the posts by emtec in particular give more balance to a very one sided discussion.

[graflok]

i've already commented mutliple times but here it is again....

i was a registered user on davidickeforum.com for 2 years until they closed it temporarily. i had no intention of signing up here because i was hoping it would reopen again and i didnt want to be involved in two forums on the same topics.

as it looked like it would never reopen i have been popping in and out of here to read stuff but not actively contributing.

i started contributing when i saw the moon hoax thread and was interested that a forum member was not in agreement that it was a hoax. i did not know this was a new member until later on. i was also interested to see if many of DI's supporters also did not believe that it was a hoax and it turns out not many are in agreement with my views. the fact i signed up is mere coincidence but its not a coincidence that the content of the thread prompted me to do so. as the harris forum appears not to have been reopenened i might as well be ehre anyway.

I have spent a lot of time reading both sides of the arguments and debunking sites and I am of the opinion that we went there under the circumstances we were told. i know that is against the grain of what most poeple here believe but i wanted to register that opinion.

i cannot speak for the 3 other users on here. Maybe they are related to each other from another forum and maybe they are not. that is up to them to provide that answer. all i can say is that i am not part of any forum or any conspiracy with them to come here to cause a bit of trouble.

since i agree with what they say regarding the moon hoax i do not see it as trolling as they have not said anything to purposely wind people up. i don't care where they come from or how they got here but i am pleased that the posts by emtec in particular give more balance to a very one sided discussion.

OK, maybe I was wrong in including you in this bunch. It's true that
your similarity to the others is not as strong as with the other 3 who
are like peas in a pod.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

i siad i work 8-5 in sweden as a computer programmer explaining why i can visit and keep an eye on the forums with such regularity. you will notice from my other posts in different threads that they are also within a similar time frame to the person i respond to. its the same here, i respond to you as fast as i add my conjecture to emtec or whoever else is posting and he seems to float by here ever 30 minutes or so during the day (UK time). I would suspect he was english or somethign or an insomniac if he lived on the other side of the world.

i've made no secret that the moon hoax thread prompted me to register on the 18th. its merely coincidenance that someone else registered that day. had it been 20 registrations on the 18th for moon hoax debunkers it would still be coincidence that i registered on that date.

What will be more interesting is a friend of mine might join the discussion at a later date. He is a believer in the possiblity of a moon hoax and is now in the process of going through this thread and also reading the debunking sites that i provided with him. He is a very intelligent person i will be highly interested to see what conclusions he comes to regarding all the information herein plus the webpages dedicated to both sides of the story. I am interested in his judgement, because like me he has no reason to believe in either possibility.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

yeah further more i own the domain www.reptilianshapeshifter.co.uk which was bought as a bit of fun but it proves that i have been interested in davids work for a lot longer than the 18th of this month (that you can check by checking the registration date of the domain).

[Anders Lindman]

I think that the first moon landing may have been faked. The quality of the films from the first moon landing is very poor, and that makes me suspicious. They had the possibility to make very high quality films back then, but they didn't. Why?

[graflok]

OK, reptilianshapeshifter, I will exclude you from the group I was commenting on.

BTW, the other 3 have suddenly gone strangely silent and all at the same time.

I'm sure that's just another coincidence though.;)

[frenat]

OK, reptilianshapeshifter, I will exclude you from the group I was commenting on.

BTW, the other 3 have suddenly gone strangely silent and all at the same time.

I'm sure that's just another coincidence though.;)

Yeah because it couldn't possibly have anything to do with them having a life outside the forum or not responding because there was nothing posted directly involving the moon hoax, or not wanting to get involved with what looks like the beginning of a witch hunt and flame war.:rolleyes:

[Anders Lindman]

I think that the first moon landing may have been faked. The quality of the films from the first moon landing is very poor, and that makes me suspicious. They had the possibility to make very high quality films back then, but they didn't. Why?

Check out this video with the first moon landing:

First Moon Landing 1969 - YouTube

Very poor video quality. And notice how bored the team at Huston control look. Shouldn't we expect a bit more happiness from them when they managed to get the first human to step onto the moon?

It's true that sending a video signal from the moon to earth at that time would likely produce poor video quality. But why didn't they bring high quality film back to earth as they did for the photos?

[frenat]

Check out this video with the first moon landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

Very poor video quality. And notice how bored the team at Huston control look. Shouldn't we expect a bit more happiness from them when they managed to get the first human to step onto the moon?

It's true that sending a video signal from the moon to earth at that time would likely produce poor video quality. But why didn't they bring high quality film back to earth as they did for the photos?

The lower quality was due to the LM not having a large uplink bandwidth. The video from inside the CM on the way there and back was better and the video from later missions when the S-band antenna was set up was also better. They couldn't bring back higher quality video of the surface from Apollo 11 because they only had the one video camera available on the surface. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) is a wonderful source that goes into all of that in much greater detail.

[Anders Lindman]

The lower quality was due to the LM not having a large uplink bandwidth. The video from inside the CM on the way there and back was better and the video from later missions when the S-band antenna was set up was also better. They couldn't bring back higher quality video of the surface from Apollo 11 because they only had the one video camera available on the surface. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) is a wonderful source that goes into all of that in much greater detail.

But why didn't they shoot with a high quality film camera in addition to the video shooting? I'm not saying that the first moon landing was faked, but it seems a bit suspicious.

Here is a short funny video about the moon landing:

Moon Walk Goes Worng - Video

:D

[Anders Lindman]

Another funny moon landing video:

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=44d4c3f679fce10c459631e67fe5cd6d.698491

[frenat]

But why didn't they shoot with a high quality film camera in addition to the video shooting? I'm not saying that the first moon landing was faked, but it seems a bit suspicious.

Here is a short funny video about the moon landing:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/179280/moon_walk_goes_worng/

:D

The addition of another camera would have added more weight when all was carefully measured. All of the other cameras used were video cameras that relayed the image and did not use film (with the exception of the still cameras but that film is completely different.) The way I remember it, the camera on Apollo 11 was a late minute addition anyway. We might not have had any video footage of the landing. Sure a film camera may have been nice but not needed in later missions as the transmissions and quality of video got better.

[Anders Lindman]

The addition of another camera would have added more weight when all was carefully measured. All of the other cameras used were video cameras that relayed the image and did not use film (with the exception of the still cameras but that film is completely different.) The way I remember it, the camera on Apollo 11 was a late minute addition anyway. We might not have had any video footage of the landing. Sure a film camera may have been nice but not needed in later missions as the transmissions and quality of video got better.

It's the first moon landing I'm concerned about. A high quality film camera wouldn't need to weigh that much. Video/TV cameras on the other hand were very big and heavy at that time even when not including the heavy old-fashioned batteries needed. A zillion dollar project and they wouldn't bother to make high quality film shooting?

Here is a documentary by Fox TV:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484

I haven't watched it myself, but will watch it now. :)

[Anders Lindman]

Here is a documentary by Fox TV:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484


Holy smoke! It very much looks like the moon landings really were faked. I think the Fox program clearly showed that.

[frenat]

Holy smoke! It very much looks like the moon landings really were faked. I think the Fox program clearly showed that.

Everything in the Fox show can and has been explained. Try looking here
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
or here
http://www.clavius.org/
There is so much wrong in the Fox program that it is laughable. But I must admit that at first glance they try to make it convincing. The first time I watched it I thought they made some good points too but when you really look into everything they bring you realize that none of it has any substance.

[Anders Lindman]

Everything in the Fox show can and has been explained. Try looking here
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
or here
http://www.clavius.org/
There is so much wrong in the Fox program that it is laughable. But I must admit that at first glance they try to make it convincing. The first time I watched it I thought they made some good points too but when you really look into everything they bring you realize that none of it has any substance.

I don't know. I don't buy that NASA made a 'mistake':

From http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html :

Bad: The other ``identical background'' segment shows an astronaut on a hilltop. A second video shows two astronauts on the same hill (and this time it really is the same hill), and claims that NASA itself says these two videos were taken on two different hills separated by many kilometers. How can this be? They are obviously the same hill, so NASA must be lying!

Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden...'' released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error.

[Anders Lindman]

I don't know. I don't buy that NASA made a 'mistake':


Another thing is that the skeptic sites don't answer (how convenient for the skeptics) Jan Lundberg's comments. Jan Lundberg was the designer at Hasselblad of the cameras used on the moon.

Jan Lundberg says in the video: "It seems like he [the astronaut] is standing in the spotlight. I can't explain that."

I think a project engineer at Hasselblad who designed the cameras to be used on the moon knows what he talks about when it comes to the photos.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

do you have a list of things skeptics fail to answer? if you can list them here maybe we can research that and get the prominent sites to answer them.

[Anders Lindman]

do you have a list of things skeptics fail to answer? if you can list them here maybe we can research that and get the prominent sites to answer them.

No, unfortunately not. I don't do much research. I mostly only do 'instant' research, meaning looking on the web for things depending on the topic at hand. :D

[reptilianshapeshifter]

fair enough. I get the impression you are not a hard core hoax believer.

as i am not a hardcode hoax debunker either.

i'll be interested if anything that is said by the likes of emtec would ever change your mind.

[emtec]

OK, it's true that you have contributed to other threads. I will exclude you
from future statements that you have not.

Care to comment on the rest of the coincidences?

I have contributed to other threads also and yes it was before you mentioned it and before i started the Moon hoax thread. Will i be excluded from future statements also Mr inaccurate?

[Anders Lindman]

fair enough. I get the impression you are not a hard core hoax believer.

as i am not a hardcode hoax debunker either.

i'll be interested if anything that is said by the likes of emtec would ever change your mind.

Sure, my mind can be changed by all sorts of information. But I try to stick to rational thinking so that I remain somewhat centered. :)

[hagbard_celine]

That's a crap analogy. Considering it's common knowledge that wrestling is fake then it would be more analogous to compare the conspiratorial mind in that wrestling was responsible for hidden ritual and abuse and brain-washing the public into believing it was ok to hurt people yet presented as a form of entertainment where no one gets hurt. The fact that they are all 7 feet tall is because they are masquerading as humans when really in lizard form.

Considering most of you opinions and evidence throughout these forums are based on rumours and not hard facts then I have to question anything you say regarding your opinions on factual matter.

"There's even rumours of a joint human/alien base on the moon, as well as other places in the solar system and beyond (See Project Serpo etc)."

I bet it wasn't Patrik Moore that started that one :D


Your philosophies I have no problem with, for the record.

As I've said, where's the evidence that the Apollo astronauts definitely went to the moon in the exact way that the public have been told? Explain to me how this is such a firm conclusion to make from pure baseline logic with not a single factor of trust or convention?

At the end of the day, I think you have to admit that a certain amount of faith and trust in the integrity of govt agencies is necessary. For the reasons we HB's on the other thread have already stated, I don't believe it.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

The video and photographic evidence are enough for me to say we went to the moon. Whether they went up on a magic bus or multicoloured carpet, I couldn't really give a fuck. We can argue endlessly about the semantics and the manner of how they got there. But that really isn't what the argument is about. It's just mere conjecture and exasperation to show that somewhere along the line a conspiracy exists. Your idea of the moon conspiracy is obviously quite different from a lot peoples acceptance of a moon hoax.

Like i've said - you cannot disprove a negative. Anyone can make up stories and they cannot be disproven.

To me, it sounds like your agenda isn't "did we go to the moon and take pics" but rather a real life Star Wars which is really based on nothing more than anecdotes and "rumours" as you even put it yourself (concerning moon bases). You've already stated that you think we went there but no under those circumstances but I get the impression you think the video and pics are fake. I don't.

Maybe the star wars thing exists, i cannot say for absolute sure that it doesn't but i don't go basing my judgement on "what credo mutwa says" or other hearsay. As interesting as exciting as it may be I need a lot more in the way of physical proof before I accept the fantastic as reality.

I can accept the concept of aliens and i can accept the concept of inter dimensional space travel (much more easier to believe than long distance space travel) but I don't accept it as fact, more that it's not outwith the realms of possibility with our current understanding. That's where Occams Razor comes in. Hell, i don't even go around quoting it but certainly there are much more simpler solutions than fantastic stories of aliens and hollywood sets simulating 1/6 gravity.

[hagbard_celine]

OK, Rep. It seems we'll have to differ on this one.

After reading all the Clavius pages, not just the hoax sites, I'm not convinced that the photoes can be explained as just reflections and perspective. Some of them can, but not all. The evidence for the Illuminati's clandestine space operations is understandably thin, but for me the notion that a govt agency is being truthful when it claims that it landed people on the moon, and provides uncorroborated and highly questionable data as "proof", is even less likely if we're talking Occam's Razor. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations", and the explation given to us by NASA falls short of extraordinary in my view.

I've commented in detail on Occam's Razor on the other thread.

[emtec]

As I've said, where's the evidence that the Apollo astronauts definitely went to the moon in the exact way that the public have been told? Explain to me how this is such a firm conclusion to make from pure baseline logic with not a single factor of trust or convention?

At the end of the day, I think you have to admit that a certain amount of faith and trust in the integrity of govt agencies is necessary. For the reasons we HB's on the other thread have already stated, I don't believe it.

Single factor, what single factor name it and i will name another.

I dont take the missions on trust i take them on evidence.

Still i notice you are avoiding the Doughnut shaped Earth STS ISS contradiction you made.

Also what about your claim maps are fake because you found 2 places which are not on them?

Hint our chippy is not on a map Ive got.

Still name the installations and where they were and we will see how secret and hidden they are.

[emtec]

OK, Rep. It seems we'll have to differ on this one.

After reading all the Clavius pages, not just the hoax sites, I'm not convinced that the photoes can be explained as just reflections and perspective. Some of them can, but not all. The evidence for the Illuminati's clandestine space operations is understandably thin, but for me the notion that a govt agency is being truthful when it claims that it landed people on the moon, and provides uncorroborated and highly questionable data as "proof", is even less likely if we're talking Occam's Razor. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations", and the explation given to us by NASA falls short of extraordinary in my view.

I've commented in detail on Occam's Razor on the other thread.

Name the images you think cannot be explained with catalog numbers and say why they are beyond explanation.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

He can't answer your questions because you are on his ignore list. THere's little point taking this discussion further with him.

[aznality]

I believe they did fake the landings, but I also believe they have already been to the moon before 1969 (some UFO researchers believe that too). They perhaps didn't want real footage of the moon, as they are afraid what we might see.

[hagbard_celine]

I believe they did fake the landings, but I also believe they have already been to the moon before 1969 (some UFO researchers believe that too). They perhaps didn't want real footage of the moon, as they are afraid what we might see.

That's likely. There are reports of strange artifacts on or near the moon (not that stupid pencil film!:rolleyes:) picked up by amateaur astronomers.

[davidbarstis]

After hardcore researching, I am certain that the named astronauts who were said to have walked on the Moon did not. There is too much evidence to go into here. Basically, The lighting is impossible and NASA has admitted no lighting was taken, A Coke bottle was seen rolling across the ground during the "live transmission", The is a fake rock with the letter C on it in one of the pictures, some of the photos were too high to have been taken by the astronauts as the cameras were attached to the chest, the astronauts couldn't remember how it felt to be on the Moon, there is in fact lethel radiation in space, the soviets were way ahead of us in rocket technology and in fact the US was working with Russia on the space program, Russia and US shared scientists that were taken from Germany and Russia got the better scientists in rocket technology, the astronauts could not have taken pictures of their boot prints because the suit prevented them from bending over, Dr. James Van Allen in 1959 stated "Our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energy particles, against which space travellers will have to be shielded", micrometeorites would have went right through the material the shuttle was made from, the astronauts aren't wearing their suits while enjoying ero gravity on their way to the Moon but what the heck was protecting them from radiation it wasn't the shuttle itself, you've had x-rays and see the heavy lead apron the put over you for just a tiny dose of radiation and they have to leave the room, astronaut Micheal Collins stated in National Geographic "... Radiation from solar flares could kill the crew, if unprotected, within a couple of days.", They had no protection especially on the Moon itself which ex NASA officials have admitted, NASA officials and astronauts continually change their stories and contradict themselve, Houston: "Hey, er Jack-we see your gold visor up-you may want to put it down, out here in the Sun." Jack:"Well, I think I might... I can't see with it down- it's scratched!" ( Out HERE in the Sun, you can't see with a scratched visor? why did NASA change the dialogue in the transcripts?, when has perspex been able to protect from solar and galactic radiation?), according to Jan Lundberg the maker of the cameras used the only protection from the heat was that he said NASA painted the cameras to deflect the sunlight and there was no protection from the extreme cold, In the sun it reached +180 degrees F and in the shade - 180 degrees F and Lundberg says the instructions were not to leave them in the Sun too long and don't leave them in the shade, This was a direct interview given to Lundberg and I have no idea where that the film couldn't touch any of the parts. That is absurd and makes no sence and that the Moon has no atmosphere so there is no heat. I have to seriously question where you guys get your info from and how gullible you are. There is much more if anyone wants me to go on.
I do believe there were two space programs. One was secret and used technology way beyond the space shuttle and the flimsy and pathetic lunar module, and the public consumption space program. But those astronauts did not go and if anyone did REAL research meaning you looked at ALL the evidence, it is patently absurd to believe that those pictures and film is the Moon. I agree with Mary Bennett and David Percy that whoever made the pictures and film were whistleblowers who purposely sabotaged the evidence so that people could see it was fake. And today there are people who still think it looks real? I have to laugh at that.lol
You guys believe what you want I don't care but whoever is still deciding, look at the evidence, it's all there. I don't have the time to write ALL the evidence. That would be absurd. You need to look yourself.
I don't mean to to state my point without evidence, but I named a very few things above and it gets really scientific and detailed and in all seriousness there is no way I can relay everything here. You guys will have to read on your own but I will certainly go into a little more detail if anyone wants. I hope you guys find the truth.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Hi David,

Obviously, you haven't read any of this thread, you just wanted to throw your 2 cents/pence in, so for the same reason I read the first couple of lines of your post and then decided not to bother reading the same crap you are going to spout that's already been addressed several times in here. Let me see if i can summarise without looking "van allen belts yadayada, impossible shadows etc etc, c rocks, missing stars and so on and so forth".

[emtec]

After hardcore researching, I am certain that the named astronauts who were said to have walked on the Moon did not. There is too much evidence to go into here. Basically, The lighting is impossible and NASA has admitted no lighting was taken, A Coke bottle was seen rolling across the ground during the "live transmission", The is a fake rock with the letter C on it in one of the pictures, some of the photos were too high to have been taken by the astronauts as the cameras were attached to the chest, the astronauts couldn't remember how it felt to be on the Moon, there is in fact lethel radiation in space, the soviets were way ahead of us in rocket technology and in fact the US was working with Russia on the space program, Russia and US shared scientists that were taken from Germany and Russia got the better scientists in rocket technology, the astronauts could not have taken pictures of their boot prints because the suit prevented them from bending over, Dr. James Van Allen in 1959 stated "Our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energy particles, against which space travellers will have to be shielded", micrometeorites would have went right through the material the shuttle was made from, the astronauts aren't wearing their suits while enjoying ero gravity on their way to the Moon but what the heck was protecting them from radiation it wasn't the shuttle itself, you've had x-rays and see the heavy lead apron the put over you for just a tiny dose of radiation and they have to leave the room, astronaut Micheal Collins stated in National Geographic "... Radiation from solar flares could kill the crew, if unprotected, within a couple of days.", They had no protection especially on the Moon itself which ex NASA officials have admitted, NASA officials and astronauts continually change their stories and contradict themselve, Houston: "Hey, er Jack-we see your gold visor up-you may want to put it down, out here in the Sun." Jack:"Well, I think I might... I can't see with it down- it's scratched!" ( Out HERE in the Sun, you can't see with a scratched visor? why did NASA change the dialogue in the transcripts?, when has perspex been able to protect from solar and galactic radiation?), according to Jan Lundberg the maker of the cameras used the only protection from the heat was that he said NASA painted the cameras to deflect the sunlight and there was no protection from the extreme cold, In the sun it reached +180 degrees F and in the shade - 180 degrees F and Lundberg says the instructions were not to leave them in the Sun too long and don't leave them in the shade, This was a direct interview given to Lundberg and I have no idea where that the film couldn't touch any of the parts. That is absurd and makes no sence and that the Moon has no atmosphere so there is no heat. I have to seriously question where you guys get your info from and how gullible you are. There is much more if anyone wants me to go on.
I do believe there were two space programs. One was secret and used technology way beyond the space shuttle and the flimsy and pathetic lunar module, and the public consumption space program. But those astronauts did not go and if anyone did REAL research meaning you looked at ALL the evidence, it is patently absurd to believe that those pictures and film is the Moon. I agree with Mary Bennett and David Percy that whoever made the pictures and film were whistleblowers who purposely sabotaged the evidence so that people could see it was fake. And today there are people who still think it looks real? I have to laugh at that.lol
You guys believe what you want I don't care but whoever is still deciding, look at the evidence, it's all there. I don't have the time to write ALL the evidence. That would be absurd. You need to look yourself.
I don't mean to to state my point without evidence, but I named a very few things above and it gets really scientific and detailed and in all seriousness there is no way I can relay everything here. You guys will have to read on your own but I will certainly go into a little more detail if anyone wants. I hope you guys find the truth.

To be honest what you posted is a mismatch of bullshit and lack of understanding. Not by you but by the people who pump this shit out.

I think you will find every point you raised is dealt with here
www.clavius.org scroll down for the lists of subjects and links.

Then come back and say what you think.

[montag]

I think you will find every point you raised is dealt with here
www.clavius.org scroll down for the lists of subjects and links.

Then come back and say what you think.
As entertainment. Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It's more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner's landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it's even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.

To seem intelligent. Conspiracy theories are often much more elaborate than what's commonly believed about something. And they usually require the listener to expand his understanding to accept the possibility of a conspiracy. Those who casually examine photographs of the lunar landings are impressed when they are led to discover discrepancies. This inflates the ego and gives one the impression that he is smarter than the dozens who look at the same photographs and see nothing special.

To be "on the inside." The conspiracist fancies himself to be elite, to be privy to secret information that few others have.

To express distrust for authority. Americans especially take delight in distrusting authority, particularly governments.
Do you support this statement emtec? Do you trust your government?
I don't really know whether we landed on the moon or not, buy this site you linked to seem to be spewing the same patronizing crap that you hear from so called experts constantly, there is no such thing as conspiracy, your government loves you now go back to sleep.
What a load of crapolla!

[emtec]

Its true people do like to knock governments and no i dont trust them.


Now can you explain why my friends from www.clavius.org would want to lie to you?

[emtec]

He can't answer your questions because you are on his ignore list. THere's little point taking this discussion further with him.


He can read my responses alright dont worry about that. He pretends to have me on ignore so he dosent have to answer my questions.

[montag]

Its ture people do like to knock gevernments and no i dont trust them.


Now can you explain why my friends from www.clavius.org would want to lie to you?
I don't know if they are lying to me or not, besides it is only an opinion albeit a very narrow minded one so I didn't bother looking any further.
As I said I don't know if we went to the moon or not, nor do I particularly care, I'm more concerned with what is happening now and what can be done.

[emtec]

So why are you posting about it then?

[montag]

I was referring to the comment made about conspiracies in general on the site you linked too rather than the moon landing specifically.

[emtec]

Why did you go to a website about a subject your not interested in?

[montag]

I'm interested in your particular agenda on this forum and what it is exactly you're trying to promote.

[emtec]

I'm interested in your particular agenda on this forum and what it is exactly you're trying to promote.

Sorry but after what you did in that other thread to stifle truth and debate i cannot take anything you say or do seriously.

[emtec]

I'm interested in your particular agenda on this forum and what it is exactly you're trying to promote.

Are the accusations of Troll etc now about to resume as an excuse to ban?

[graflok]

Notice how emtec avoided a direct reply to montag's query concerning his agenda. ;)

[emtec]

Notice how emtec avoided a direct reply to montag's query concerning his agenda. ;)

I dont have an agenda.

[emtec]

After hardcore researching, I am certain that the named astronauts who were said to have walked on the Moon did not. There is too much evidence to go into here. Basically, The lighting is impossible and NASA has admitted no lighting was taken, A Coke bottle was seen rolling across the ground during the "live transmission", The is a fake rock with the letter C on it in one of the pictures, some of the photos were too high to have been taken by the astronauts as the cameras were attached to the chest, the astronauts couldn't remember how it felt to be on the Moon, there is in fact lethel radiation in space, the soviets were way ahead of us in rocket technology and in fact the US was working with Russia on the space program, Russia and US shared scientists that were taken from Germany and Russia got the better scientists in rocket technology, the astronauts could not have taken pictures of their boot prints because the suit prevented them from bending over, Dr. James Van Allen in 1959 stated "Our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energy particles, against which space travellers will have to be shielded", micrometeorites would have went right through the material the shuttle was made from, the astronauts aren't wearing their suits while enjoying ero gravity on their way to the Moon but what the heck was protecting them from radiation it wasn't the shuttle itself, you've had x-rays and see the heavy lead apron the put over you for just a tiny dose of radiation and they have to leave the room, astronaut Micheal Collins stated in National Geographic "... Radiation from solar flares could kill the crew, if unprotected, within a couple of days.", They had no protection especially on the Moon itself which ex NASA officials have admitted, NASA officials and astronauts continually change their stories and contradict themselve, Houston: "Hey, er Jack-we see your gold visor up-you may want to put it down, out here in the Sun." Jack:"Well, I think I might... I can't see with it down- it's scratched!" ( Out HERE in the Sun, you can't see with a scratched visor? why did NASA change the dialogue in the transcripts?, when has perspex been able to protect from solar and galactic radiation?), according to Jan Lundberg the maker of the cameras used the only protection from the heat was that he said NASA painted the cameras to deflect the sunlight and there was no protection from the extreme cold, In the sun it reached +180 degrees F and in the shade - 180 degrees F and Lundberg says the instructions were not to leave them in the Sun too long and don't leave them in the shade, This was a direct interview given to Lundberg and I have no idea where that the film couldn't touch any of the parts. That is absurd and makes no sence and that the Moon has no atmosphere so there is no heat. I have to seriously question where you guys get your info from and how gullible you are. There is much more if anyone wants me to go on.
I do believe there were two space programs. One was secret and used technology way beyond the space shuttle and the flimsy and pathetic lunar module, and the public consumption space program. But those astronauts did not go and if anyone did REAL research meaning you looked at ALL the evidence, it is patently absurd to believe that those pictures and film is the Moon. I agree with Mary Bennett and David Percy that whoever made the pictures and film were whistleblowers who purposely sabotaged the evidence so that people could see it was fake. And today there are people who still think it looks real? I have to laugh at that.lol
You guys believe what you want I don't care but whoever is still deciding, look at the evidence, it's all there. I don't have the time to write ALL the evidence. That would be absurd. You need to look yourself.
I don't mean to to state my point without evidence, but I named a very few things above and it gets really scientific and detailed and in all seriousness there is no way I can relay everything here. You guys will have to read on your own but I will certainly go into a little more detail if anyone wants. I hope you guys find the truth.

A friend of mine furi read your post and said this

well that is a long post of most of the stuff that has been thoroughly examined many numbers of timeshere and many other sites, Radiation Photos Shielding Secret Alien technology all make for good reading

As it all gets very scientific and detailed I am sure that he wouldn't mind reading detailed and scientific answers.

Strange I thought The US getting Von Braun was pretty high up in the pecking order of German Rocket scientists, A lot of the Sovs work was championed by Sergei Korolev, and some of the Aircraft Bureaus.

there are a lot of good photo peops on here, and it is not really my thang

The Radiation argument has been well and truly covered, Perspex can stop Quite highenergy particle radiation quite happily, and the last thing you would want to use in shielding against Particle radiation is Lead or high Atomic number materials, Polypropylene is a good material, Beryllium and Boron have good scattering and capture spectrums for neutrons, and reduce bremsstrahlung effect from Beta particles. Alpha Proton Beta Radiation at even very high energies can be stopped by releatively little low mass shielding.

Your outer layer of skin will stop 7.5MeV of Alpha particles, 2.5mm of Aluminium will stop 1MeV Betas (0.3mm paper will stop 90% of 1MeV betas) To stop Neutron Radiation (general space not technically VAB) shielding of good capture or scattering cross section can be used, Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Beryllium Boron Lithium Hydrogen are really good for doing this, so metallised Polyethylene etc would be the shielding material of the day,

your shielding in an Xray room, is due to the fact that Public Exposure has to be kept to a minimum risk, and the Occupational exposure of the radiographer has to be kept as low as possible, however, smoking 20 a day for a year is likely to subject the body to more Radiation, then 10 Chest Xrays, or people living near a main road or fossil fuel powerstation, or in a Granite Area etc,

have a nice little Advert.
"Troubled by Pesky 1MeV Beta Particles get new and improved 0.3mm of Paper stops them in their tracks, Being plagued by 10MeV Betas, simple by our new Value 10 pack 10x the Thickness 10x the protection, this product also features lower Secondary Xray emission than other Heavier materials. Also stops Pesky Alphas and Protons too!
Disclaimer Penetrating power of EM and Neutrons differ to Charged particle radiation, product should be used as directed and not for doodling on"

Even the GCSE Double Science education crap that gets taught in UK schools should provide enough nookfizz knowledge to ditch his radiation arguments.

I Love this line :
One was secret and used technology way beyond the space shuttle and the flimsy and pathetic lunar module, and the public consumption space program.

*Kitty bangs head on table and is happy that this waste of skin isn't changing his kitty litter* that line pretty much craps on his cake of technical credibility.

As he is of the scientific and studious technical researching type, he wouldn't have a problem in coming here and dazzling us. (I'll bring Beer and Fags)

Reminds me Oh NOES I am going to go outside for a cigarette and absorb Cosmic Rays and DEADLY Solar radiation.

[emtec]

Notice how emtec avoided a direct reply to montag's query concerning his agenda. ;)

BTW i noticed how you left the other thread when someone questioned your photographic analysis skills.

[graflok]

BTW i noticed how you left the other thread when someone questioned your photographic analysis skills.

I "left" because I'm still waiting for a reply from you to my posts about the
camera/film problem and your nonsensical posts concerning that. Remember?
You said that rolling up film will "protect it from heat" (?) and you also said the
film did not make contact with the internal camera parts but I showed you
the info from the manufacturer that directly refutes that.

You have a way of avoiding questions and facts, so I don't see that you are
serious about wanting to "discuss" this or any other subject that you post
about.

I've also moved on to other subjects because this one has gotten too ridiculous.

By the way, how many forum members have you convinced that the Apollo
astronauts really walked on the moon?

[emtec]

I "left" because I'm still waiting for a reply from you to my posts about the
camera/film problem and your nonsensical posts concerning that. Remember?
You said that rolling up film will "protect it from heat" (?) and you also said the
film did not make contact with the internal camera parts but I showed you
the info from the manufacturer that directly refutes that.

You have a way of avoiding questions and facts, so I don't see that you are
serious about wanting to "discuss" this or any other subject that you post
about.

I've also moved on to other subjects because this one has gotten too ridiculous.

By the way, how many forum members have you convinced that the Apollo
astronauts really walked on the moon?

Wrong i never said rolling the film up would protect it from heat.
The item i quote said the film was safe rolled up inside its magazine. That's not saying rolling it up made it safe. Its the magazine that offered the protection.

Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat.

[texdallas]

Well, it's odd that I asked a question of reptilianshapeshifter and you
answered it as if I was asking you, emtec. Why is that?

http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/18193/2000467102644487107_rs.jpg

So, let's see --
- The two of you post mutually-supportive statements.
- Asking one of you a question gets a reply from the other.
- You both post on this forum at the same time.
- You both claim to be very familiar with David Icke's works yet you post nothing but critical remarks about it.
- Neither of you has come up with an answer regarding any of David Ick'e ideas that you agree with when asked repeatedly.

So, how is it that you can both claim that you are not trolls, here only to disrupt the forum and antagonize its members?


Might be on to something there

[emtec]

Here we go

Rubbish there's no atmosphere on the moon so the only heat transfer to the film would have been from touching parts. The cameras were modified to to this into account.

Where did i say it touches no camera parts?

Please explain how the camera was modified so that the film didn't touch any parts of the camera.


I never said any parts of the camera as this would be impossible. www.clavius.org/envheat.html

[emtec]

Might be on to something there

The reason why i responded is because he asked me the same question. I answered the wrong post big deal.

[frenat]

The film was never exposed to extreme heat because the camera never got that hot. The oft quoted 220+ degree temperature of the Moon are of the surface but only after it has been exposed to the sun for over a week (Lunar daytime is 2 weeks long). All of the Apollo missions landed in relative lunar morning so the soil had not yet had time to heat up that much. Further the body of the camera never came into contact with the ground so it wouldn't be exposed to that heat anyway. It would only be heated by direct exposure to the sun and as the camera body was reflective it didn't heat very much.

[emtec]

graflok can you please show where i said the film didn't touch any camera parts?

[graflok]

Wrong i never said rolling the film up would protect it from heat.
The item i quote said the film was safe rolled up inside its magazine. That's not saying rolling it up made it safe. Its the magazine that offered the protection.


We've been over this again and again. That's why it's a waste of time to engage
in your "discussions." You completely ignore the facts stated that refute
your nonsensical arguments and you evade questions.

Believe what you wish and waste as much time as you wish convincing no one
of your silly arguments. ;)

[texdallas]

The reason why i responded is because he asked me the same question. I answered the wrong post big deal.

Only on the piss take no offense intended sorry just couldn't help myself sad I know!!:o

[emtec]

We've been over this again and again. That's why it's a waste of time to engage
in your "discussions." You completely ignore the facts stated that refute
your nonsensical arguments.

Believe what you wish and waste as much time as you wish convincing no one
of your silly arguments. ;)


You cant provide as asked where i said the film never touched camera parts. That's because i never said it. Claiming we have been over and over this is rubbish and a cop out. You havent yet provided one scrap of evidence to back up any of your claims you just make out Ive said things which i havent.

Do you now understand that:

The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb.

Does not mean rolling film up protects it from heat and will you admit that i never said that it did?

Now what are these facts i ignore you keep on about ?

[graflok]

Whatever you say, emtec. Yep, you were right all along. Those astronauts
walked on the moon, by golly. Saw it right there on my television set plain as
day. Yessirree-bob.

Now, just go ahead and convince the the rest of the forum.

And, let me know how it turns out. :)

[emtec]

Your dodging what i asked you.

[emtec]

graflok you never did repond to this:

graflok

Seeing something and being illuminated by it are 2 very different things.
But, how would you know that? You're obviously not a photographer.

I will repeat the comments I made to "reptilianshapeshifter" to you
because they apply to you equally:

I am a photographer. You obviously are not but you think you know
everything about photography anyway.

There are aspects of a photo that jump out to an experienced
photographer that a non-photographer would not see. And, you
will never see them until you have gone through the education
and experience that real photographers go through.

For example, you probably think that picture of the trees has something to do
with the shadow anomalies of the Apollo photos. It doesn't. It's
not at all similar but how would you know that? You're obviously not
an experienced and trained photographer.

You and your Truth Denyer friends are babbling in terminology and principles
that you do not understand because you cannot see the way a photographer
sees and you never will until you have had training and experience in
the problems and principles and materials of the craft, especially film and
photochemistry as that is what was used on the Apollo photos.

You probably think you know all about the subject because you have taken
snapshots or because you own Photoshop or an SLR. Well, you don't.

And, you will never know what you are talking about when it comes to
analyzing photos until you have training and, especially, experience
as a real photographer. You will just be a "know-it-all" fool who babbles
about things he does not understand.

Jayutah

He's spewing pure bluster. I am (often) a photographer, meaning I do get paid to take photographs from time to time; and I am also trained in photographic interpretation and analysis, which is a separate field. Many photographers wrongly believe knowing the former creates sufficient expertise in the latter.

And, you will never see them until you have gone through the education and experience that real photographers go through.

Most Apollo commentary is a matter of photographic interpretation, in which almost no professional photographers are formally trained.

It's not at all similar but how would you know that? You're obviously not an experienced and trained photographer.

Neither is he, until he displays any actual expertise. Simply saying he's an expert and believes otherwise, and that you're "obviously" not an expert if you disagree with him, is the oldest trick in the book.

...because you cannot see the way a photographer sees and you never will until you have had training and experience...

Bluster. Real photographers can demonstrate expertise, not merely assert that they have it and believe a certain thing because of it.

And, you will never know what you are talking about when it comes to analyzing photos until you have training...

I have the training, and if he doesn't distinguish between training as a photographer and training as a photographic interpreter or analyst then he doesn't have the appropriate training. Those are different disciplines requiring different bodies of knowledge, expertise, and experience. Being a photographer does not automatically make one a trained photographic analyst. But most of the conspiracy theorists think it does.

My skill in photographic analysis skill was recognized in Science, probably the most prestigious scientific journal in the English language. So unlike him, I have something more than just idle claims to substantiate my training and experience. And I don't agree that there is any photographical merit to the conspiracy theorists claims.

I'm not going to be able to follow this thread. The best strategy is to call the bluff. Real experts can display real expertise. They can explain things to other experts, and can very often explain the essence of something to a layman so as to get the point across. And it's quite fair to demand such a detailed analysis after someone has advertise that such a thing is necessary to the problem and that he is capable of providing it.

Blowhards, however, will generally decline to offer anything substantial or detailed because they can't. The excuses typically include, "It's over your head." (Response: Try me.) Or, "I don't have the time," (Responses: So why are you talking about it? or, So you haven't actually done the analysis yet?) Or the standard burden-shifting. The point is that anyone can say he has expertise; the people who actually do have it distinguish themselves from the masses by displaying it in a way that only a real expert can.

Keep in mind that when David Percy first broached his analysis in the Fortean Times more than 10 years ago, most of the deluge of negative responses was from other photographers. If this guy is correct, where is the army of professional photographers wondering all about Apollo? Why is it limited to a very small number of people claiming to be skilled and trained photographers, but who always seem to have some political or social agenda besides that?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

graflok barely responds to any direct questions and is as evasive as he offensive. That was already established very early on in this thread. Don't waste your time about it. He's made it very clear that he does not wish to accept anything you say as evidence and that his mind is firmly made up on the subject so maybe that should just be respected.

[deca]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4


is this what you have to do to get a job at nasa and build spy satellites

[emtec]

I'm sure most people who build anything for NASA dont have Moon hoax debunking sites so no.

[emtec]

graflok barely responds to any direct questions and is as evasive as he offensive. That was already established very early on in this thread. Don't waste your time about it. He's made it very clear that he does not wish to accept anything you say as evidence and that his mind is firmly made up on the subject so maybe that should just be respected.

Agreed.

Still i dont get the so maybe that should just be respected bit. Was it not him who rekindled the debate between him and myself?

Notice how emtec avoided a direct reply to montag's query concerning his agenda. ;)

[reptilianshapeshifter]

lol ;) I think if anyone's been trolling, it's him :D

[deca]

emtec how many of your mates are on that forum?


http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

[deca]

What a waste of time

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=2788

[deca]

hmmm emtec whats this?

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1182013864&page=6#1182360738

gets better

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1182013864&page=1

[emtec]

emtec how many of your mates are on that forum?


http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

I have no idea the only time Ive been there is when a post has come up on a Google search. So it could be none it could be some.

[emtec]

hmmm emtec whats this?

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1182013864&page=6#1182360738

gets better

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1182013864&page=1

hmmm its me asking for help what do you think it is? Whats this your discovery lol. Read this thread and the other one Ive quoted from that board in both and posted links to it in the other.

[limelady]

Hey guys....sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
Please try not to let this conversation go into a downhill spiral.

Graflok has stated he'd like to leave things be at this stage and that's
probably a very good idea or we could end up with a rant room or
thread closure situation here.

We don't always have to agree do we? ;)

Thanks
LL

[deca]

lime you can close this anytime you want:)
no point keeping this open

[emtec]

Hey guys....sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
Please try not to let this conversation go into a downhill spiral.

Graflok has stated he'd like to leave things be at this stage and that's
probably a very good idea or we could end up with a rant room or
thread closure situation here.

We don't always have to agree do we? ;)

Thanks
LL

Graflok has stated many times in this thread and the other that he would like to leave it there. Then he comes back and starts again. I cannot control what he does.

[furi]

:eek: please not a thread closure, I only just got here. :eek: