Comments on: Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:19:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dannie walton http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-4#comment-28473 dannie walton Fri, 02 Dec 2011 06:13:26 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28473 NASA think that the American public is stupid. Now let me prove to NASA how stupid they are. There's only one way to prove to me that man actually landed on the moon. Remember the flag that they planted on the moon? Remember the Lunar Rover they was driving around in on the moon? If they went to the moon and back then these two objects should still be on the moon right? If scientist can show me the flag and the Rover which they didn't bring back to earth, then I would be convinced. The most powerful telescope on earth can't show you these objects. Why? Because they don"t exist. Show me the flag and I'll be convinced along with the other idiots that actually believe that this moon landing happen. And furthermore, The technology that was available then wouldn't have allowed man to travel to the moon. Remember this was 1969, not 2009. NASA think that the American public is stupid. Now let me prove to NASA how stupid they are. There’s only one way to prove to me that man actually landed on the moon. Remember the flag that they planted on the moon? Remember the Lunar Rover they was driving around in on the moon? If they went to the moon and back then these two objects should still be on the moon right? If scientist can show me the flag and the Rover which they didn’t bring back to earth, then I would be convinced. The most powerful telescope on earth can’t show you these objects. Why? Because they don”t exist. Show me the flag and I’ll be convinced along with the other idiots that actually believe that this moon landing happen. And furthermore, The technology that was available then wouldn’t have allowed man to travel to the moon. Remember this was 1969, not 2009.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: Mike41 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-1#comment-28336 Mike41 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:26:29 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28336 I spent 5 years in a federal prison for comments critical of the gov't. And there were many people in prison for criticizing the gov't. It happens, welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave. I spent 5 years in a federal prison for comments critical of the gov’t. And there were many people in prison for criticizing the gov’t. It happens, welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: adh1952 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-1#comment-28287 adh1952 Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:46:31 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28287 We have a constitution right to deal with being unhappy with government...it is called voting. We have a constitution right to deal with being unhappy with government…it is called voting.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Boner http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-2#comment-28282 Boner Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:38:10 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28282 Exactly. Why send a man that requires food, water, oxygen, etc, when you can send a robot. Exactly. Why send a man that requires food, water, oxygen, etc, when you can send a robot.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Boner http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-2#comment-28281 Boner Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:35:51 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28281 Fuel to the moon + fuel to land on the moon + fuel needed to leave the moon + fuel to return to earth = total fuel required. The incident you are referring to is the landing. They came close to using up all of the fuel required for landing on the moon. Had they not landed when they did, they would have had to use some of the lift off fuel. And that would have been a problem. Though, the landing engine and the lift off engine were in two different sections so they probably weren't even connected, fuel wise. Fuel to the moon + fuel to land on the moon + fuel needed to leave the moon + fuel to return to earth = total fuel required.

The incident you are referring to is the landing. They came close to using up all of the fuel required for landing on the moon. Had they not landed when they did, they would have had to use some of the lift off fuel. And that would have been a problem. Though, the landing engine and the lift off engine were in two different sections so they probably weren’t even connected, fuel wise.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Boner http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-2#comment-28279 Boner Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:25:09 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28279 There were computers specifically designed for navigation. You can even download the schematics from the internet. Not that you would have a clue how to read them. I think someone needs gas. Go help them out will you. There were computers specifically designed for navigation.
You can even download the schematics from the internet.
Not that you would have a clue how to read them.

I think someone needs gas. Go help them out will you.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Boner http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-2#comment-28276 Boner Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:18:44 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28276 Mirrors only reflect signals, not transmit them stupid. Mirrors only reflect signals, not transmit them stupid.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Boner http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-1#comment-28269 Boner Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:06:02 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28269 The answers are out there. They're just hidden away in things called books. The answers are out there. They’re just hidden away in things called books.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: jfb http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-4#comment-28123 jfb Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:28:19 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28123 <em>Which</em> tests? Citations, please. The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf Here was the conclusion: <blockquote> The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced by the high speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296 and 5030, exhibited an increase in minimum density and a decrease in contrast. When seen in the final image, shadows would appear grainy and ambiguous in the darker detail. Flatness in the tonal range is the effect of the lowered contrast. The black and white films, 5454 and 5453, and color negative film, 6028, displayed identical effects only to a lesser degree. Reversal film 5020 was not significantly affected by the radiation. All color films exhibited a shift in color balance. The color shifts, increases in base exposure and decreases in contrast, are functions of the film's representative speed. While 6028 was the least affected of the negative films, it should be noted that reversal film 5020 showed the least apparent damage (because the effected part of reversal film is beyond the useful density). </blockquote> The film didn't turn <em>black</em>. Some loss of contrast and shadow detail is about the extent of it. Total radiation exposure for this test was 313-363 mrad over something like 130 hours. And this was for high-speed (ASA/ISO 400 or higher) film. I found the following paper http://pcams01.mib.infn.it/ICATPP10th_2007/Software%20Applications/HayatsuK.pdf estimating the average lunar surface radiation dose during quiet solar periods being in the neighborhood of 225-250 mSv/yr. Converting Sv to rad isn't straightforward, since Sv takes biological effects into account: 1 rad (or 1 mGy) of X-rays results in 1 mSv equivalent dose, while 1 rad of alpha particles results in 20 mSv equivalent dose. Given that the equivalent dose value (Sv) will always be equal to or greater than the absorbed dose value (rad or Gy), however, we can at least place an upper limit on rads of 225 to 250 rad/yr (685 mrad/day) on average during quiet solar periods. Given that the bulk of the radiation is in the form of cosmic rays and fast neutrons, which have a 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 dose equivalent, the actual number is going to be smaller than that. My estimate (for what it's worth, which isn't much) is roughly 100 rad/yr, or 270 mrad/day. That's about 4 times higher than the dose received on STS-48. Depending on the film type and speed, you would see some degradation in the final images. The film wouldn't turn black, it wouldn't melt, it wouldn't disintegrate. Which tests? Citations, please.

The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf

Here was the conclusion:

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced
by the high speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296
and 5030, exhibited an increase in minimum density and a decrease in contrast.
When seen in the final image, shadows would appear grainy and ambiguous in the
darker detail. Flatness in the tonal range is the effect of the lowered
contrast. The black and white films, 5454 and 5453, and color negative film,
6028, displayed identical effects only to a lesser degree. Reversal film 5020
was not significantly affected by the radiation. All color films exhibited a
shift in color balance. The color shifts, increases in base exposure and
decreases in contrast, are functions of the film’s representative speed. While
6028 was the least affected of the negative films, it should be noted that
reversal film 5020 showed the least apparent damage (because the effected part
of reversal film is beyond the useful density).

The film didn’t turn black. Some loss of contrast and shadow detail is about the extent of it. Total radiation exposure for this test was 313-363 mrad over something like 130 hours. And this was for high-speed (ASA/ISO 400 or higher) film.

I found the following paper

http://pcams01.mib.infn.it/ICATPP10th_2007/Software%20Applications/HayatsuK.pdf

estimating the average lunar surface radiation dose during quiet solar periods being in the neighborhood of 225-250 mSv/yr. Converting Sv to rad isn’t straightforward, since Sv takes biological effects into account: 1 rad (or 1 mGy) of X-rays results in 1 mSv equivalent dose, while 1 rad of alpha particles results in 20 mSv equivalent dose.

Given that the equivalent dose value (Sv) will always be equal to or greater than the absorbed dose value (rad or Gy), however, we can at least place an upper limit on rads of 225 to 250 rad/yr (685 mrad/day) on average during quiet solar periods. Given that the bulk of the radiation is in the form of cosmic rays and fast neutrons, which have a 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 dose equivalent, the actual number is going to be smaller than that. My estimate (for what it’s worth, which isn’t much) is roughly 100 rad/yr, or 270 mrad/day. That’s about 4 times higher than the dose received on STS-48.

Depending on the film type and speed, you would see some degradation in the final images. The film wouldn’t turn black, it wouldn’t melt, it wouldn’t disintegrate.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sylvain Pimpare http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html/comment-page-3#comment-28070 Sylvain Pimpare Sun, 18 Sep 2011 05:20:54 +0000 http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html#comment-28070 Strange, I did tests and score an average of 147. Strange, I did tests and score an average of 147.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]>