Moon landing conspiracy theorists - lend me your ears.

[Buco_73]

My point with the alien picture was to show how the level of sophistication of their appearance has changed throughout the years, partly as our human experience changes and advances but also simply because of what we see in the movies.

I simply answered 'no' to that other series of questions for two reasons - Firstly because no matter what I say, link to, demonstrate with physics you will not have a good think about it and accept it. I'm not saying I'm right all the time but I do want people to have a think about it.
Secondly because for those reasons I would be wasting my time writing about how people throughout history, when confronted with something they don't understand, have all too often just lumped it in with the God did it, or a miracle, or it was magic, or the like. This is where pretty much all the god-like things described in the bible, the koran, etc, come from.
I believe in science and using that is why I answered the possibility of aliens being on Earth the way I did ; Yes it's possible but extremely unlikely.
Same principles are applied to the other questions in that post of yours.
So the simple answer is 'no', with no real need to qualify it. I am not that interested in effectively giving the same answers over and over again either so that's why I don't often keep answering every little thing.

Dude I have more respect for you and what you have to say than that. It just seems we can't get the ball rolling, we all want to say so much with the least of words....lol

[sejanus]

With the photos and video they must have had technology back then that did not require the film to be developed. As they also used the same film technology during many nuclear blast tests, they had hi res video cameras that fit in the palm of your hand that used some sort of digital technology and was highly classified. Other wise there would have been excessive film damage passing through the Van Allen radiation belts. There is some amazing shit out there,

wtf

do you even realise how little sense that makes?

[Billzilla]

wtf

do you even realise how little sense that makes?

Good catch and an example of what I'm talking about - The Van Allen Belts have varying amounts of radiation and the Apollo missions didn't go through the bad bits and that's why they did the mid-course burn to change course, so they could could fly a curved path to/from the Moon so the crew didn't get any excessive radiation exposure.
It's a common mistake made by the hoaxer mob.

[Buco_73]

Let's test that then.

Give me one specific example right now of something you find dubious about the lunar landings. Not what someone said or that sort of thing, but something real and physical that you think isn't right.

The camera footage and the films they us. I had put this question forward already. As I'm under the impression that the undeveloped film would have suffered enough damage through the Van Allen radiation belt to be a major problem. In many of the nuclear test documentary's there was mind blowing camera tech used for the era and much of it was very classified. I don't know enough about film technology to explore this aspect.
Because images like these seems a bit bullshit too me given the environmental conditions under which this equipment is meant to operate under.



Lunar surface temps from -173.15 degree Celsius to 116.85 degree Celsius, these cameras could cope with these extremes. I'm a little dubious. They made the images so appealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

[RA45GTCelica]

there was a picture in the herald sun today showing pics of the moon from a probe going past ,was taking pics of the landing site and with the close ups could still see the moon buggy tracks and also a few bases of the lunar modules

[MickyD]

wtf

do you even realise how little sense that makes?

yeah I read it 3 or 4 times trying to work out a response, but gave up.

Does anyone really think, that of the 400,000+ people working on Apollo, there wouldn't have been someone that would come out and say it was faked? Even if 99.9% of them weren't in on it, that still leaves several hundred who would have been...

[zeusch]

With regards to making claims about what technology was available and when, that's pushing the boundaries. Sure the military and other organisations get things along while before the public, this is easy to understand. But to say they had digital camera's available in the 1960's is a bit far fetched IMO.

far fetched when you look at it on its own but when you look at some of the military hardware that was designed or built around that time it seems a bit more believable
what id love to know is what they are working on/with now

[Buco_73]

Good catch and an example of what I'm talking about - The Van Allen Belts have varying amounts of radiation and the Apollo missions didn't go through the bad bits and that's why they did the mid-course burn to change course, so they could could fly a curved path to/from the Moon so the crew didn't get any excessive radiation exposure.
It's a common mistake made by the hoaxer mob.

I already put up a link to that NASA explanation for this, I agree. The radiation for the crew would have been small. My question is with regard to the undeveloped film in the Van Allen belt and the lunar conditions for the camera equipment.

[MickyD]

In many of the nuclear test documentary's there was mind blowing camera tech used for the era and much of it was very classified.

it's not that high tech actually, the dynamic range of a nuclear blast is so massive that they pretty much took guesses at the exposure across a range on multiple cameras, and at various points in the explosion, different cameras would be exposing correctly. About the only high tech aspect was the high speed cameras, and even that wasn't that radical in the scheme of things....

As for the conditions for photography on the moon... no atmospheric haze or distortion, perfectly predictable lighting conditions, high quality lenses, cameras, and film, highly trained and disciplined operators..... about the only challenge would be dust, and that's hardly difficult to overcome. The radiation is avoided by putting the film in a metal box. Pretty high tech really....

Lots of the astronauts who went to the moon have developed cataracts by the way.

[Buco_73]

By the same token, for the reasons you mentioned. The perfect guy to hide the truth if it were faked. So your reasoning is flawed there sorry, because it was his job and duty as an American patriot, whether the landing was real or fake.
So in reality his word really means the least, this is the problem with trying to be objective and assess things on their own merit. As an outsider this info is of zero relevance. I'm skeptical on what they did, but at the same time I have no definite proof. Yes, it is great to believe. But given the circumstances during the cold war it is a massive influence on the possible faking of the landing. Remember all is fair in love and war. And it would not take many people to organize it, they are all patriots and will take it to their grave. So now it become possible that it was faked. Once there is reason to suspect and enough inconsistencies to warrant skepticism then there is a case. Fuck no one here or any other forum can or will put enough effort in finding any real evidence, all we do is quote other sites and Google links which could be put together by any cunt. So where do we begin to investigate?? Go back to basics.....

Moon....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Van Allen Belt danger to Humans ??
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf

Ok, you photography buffs. How much radiation is required to damage or overexpose an undeveloped film. This I can't seem to find. Anyone know?
http://thetravelinsider.info/2002/0104.htm

here is my previous post with links ...did anyone bother to read before jumping on the band wagon.

[Billzilla]

The camera footage and the films they us. I had put this question forward already. As I'm under the impression that the undeveloped film would have suffered enough damage through the Van Allen radiation belt to be a major problem. In many of the nuclear test documentary's there was mind blowing camera tech used for the era and much of it was very classified. I don't know enough about film technology to explore this aspect.
Because images like these seems a bit bullshit too me given the environmental conditions under which this equipment is meant to operate under.

Lunar surface temps from -173.15 degree Celsius to 116.85 degree Celsius, these cameras could cope with these extremes. I'm a little dubious. They made the images so appealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

And as I mentioned in my previous post, the spacecraft didn't fly through any dangerous radiation areas in the VAB.
The photographs that are commonly seen are not the only ones the astronauts took, they took more than that and there's some that are terrible - poor exposure, poor framing, etc. They can all be found on the archive site - http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

I'm not all that familiar with the construction of the cameras but like everything else that went along with them, it was designed and built for the task and the environment is was going to be used in.

I'm better with the physics & construction of the thing if you have any questions along those lines.

[Eurorogerrevolution]

I have to ask Buco , the digital camera's you speak of in the late 60s early 70s . How did they view images when computers werent powerful enough back then ? The earliest Ive heard of digital camera's was when Commodore was playing around with them with the C64 , but the computer wasnt powerful enough to process the images that well . It wasnt until the Amiga that they could do it with ease : 1985 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oqUd8utr14

[No_idea]

If it was as crazy strict as you say all the people involved would have their phones tapped for the rest of their lives and the conference would have never taken place. simple.

R&D is well guarded by big corporations. You'll sign non-disclosure agreements and at a minimum they will monitor everything in your computer and any device which connects to their network.

If you send something home that maybe you shouldn't have, their security will turn up at your desk, walk you out, follow you to your house, force you to boot up your machine and watch you physically delete the information.

That's how one of Australia's largest businesses handles 'mild' cases of infringement.

Just because you haven't experienced it personally, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 95% of workers have normal jobs and 5% make the decisions. That means 95% of people have absolutely no idea what goes on behind closed doors and 99% of that 95% will eat up whatever they are told without question.

The truth is things are often far more deceitful than you think because the morals applied by an individual are not the same as the morals applied by business.

[Buco_73]

it's not that high tech actually, the dynamic range of a nuclear blast is so massive that they pretty much took guesses at the exposure across a range on multiple cameras, and at various points in the explosion, different cameras would be exposing correctly. About the only high tech aspect was the high speed cameras, and even that wasn't that radical in the scheme of things....

As for the conditions for photography on the moon... no atmospheric haze or distortion, perfectly predictable lighting conditions, high quality lenses, cameras, and film, highly trained and disciplined operators..... about the only challenge would be dust, and that's hardly difficult to overcome.

They had cameras inside the high radiation blast zones taking video images as close as they could get to ground zero, though how close was classified and still is. They wanted to see what happens at ground zero. So the equipment had to be significantly advanced other wise why would the information on the equipment be classified.

[sejanus]

Lunar surface temps from -173.15 degree Celsius to 116.85 degree Celsius, these cameras could cope with these extremes. I'm a little dubious. They made the images so appealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Do you realise how simple a camera can be? you can literally have a shoe box with a small hole in it with film on the other side and you can take a photo.

all film needs is exposure to light

the cameras they had had no computers on them. they are just a simple mechanical device that opens the shutter to expose light to the film when a mechanical button is pressed. Thats all they do - nothing more. So why would something that simple fuck up if it's a bit cold?

The problem with your arguments is that you just have so little idea about the facts involved - yet you still think you are sticking it to the man by doubting the truth. Because your arguments are the same old unfounded drivel that every idiot who doubts the moon landing regurgitates over and over and fucking over again, we are just sick of repeating the same old shit. Yet you think that we are just being all assholes and don't want to see the "truth".