Yeah, an investigation request in 2015 at a point in time where Russia are basically doing the Saddam Hussein/South Park thing of "Hey guy, don't look over here, look over there"

If the USSR had made these allegations back in 1969 when the Cold War was still in full swing, then maybe they'd have a little more weight to them.

Question: When the IMAX team joined the shuttle to film work carried out on the Hubble Space Telescope (on this mission the shuttle flew higher than it's usual "safe" orbiting altitude) - how many SECONDS did they say their film stock could tolerate exposure to ambient radiation levels before they were forced to barricade it behind water tanks?

Oh, I get it - the Russians are now the bad guys.



Besides, I hardly think the Soviets were likely to rock the boat given that one of the worst famines in living memory had forced them to grovel to the Americans for enough grain to feed their starving millions.

Characteristic "fogging" effect of radiation on film.



This is what you might expect to see when 800ASA film stock is exposed to the levels of radiation emitted by a CAT scanner.

Jarrah White's [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D3o1htlz9cexcellent and exhaustive investigation (part one of ten)[/url into the HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White and pad safety supervisor Thomas Ronald Barron (and spouse).

Suffice to say A LOT of people at NASA are telling some very big LIES.

So if the Soviets, who just about everybody accepts were ahead of the US in terms of rocketry, lost NINE ASTRONAUTS before Gagarin made orbit (and we only have their word on this) - is it reasonable to accept that the US could manage to successfully complete all but one Moon mission - with even the crew Apollo XIII crew returning safely?

Bear in mind that compared with a "simple" mission to orbit the earth - landing and retrieving astronauts on and from the moon respectively is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

And let us not forget than the LEM had NEVER even been TESTED under similar conditions.

They would have needed to store a small quantity of oxygen. But a re-breather/scrubber solves the problem of carrying large quantities. Still, you need a fair bit of juice to drive it.

Yes I can.
The flag is stuck in a slight depression left to right and so because of a slight ridge the shadow can't be seen.
This is fooking easy!
Do you think the moon's surface is a flat plane?
I suppose YOU would!
Your analytical skills are SHOCKING!!!!

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iQuestion. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter.[/i'" No. The technical information of how the spacecraft / landers supported life is exhaustively available. Therefore what you need to do is to read them, and then if you can, point out why you don't believe them, or if they are scientifically incorrect, or whatever. You haven't read a word of any of it, clearly. But here's a clue: the equipment RECYCLED oxygen. Did you [ireally[/i think they took a week or two's worth of 24/7 oxygen bottles for 3 up with them? As a favour, here's a kids' guide to how they escaped from the Apollo 13 emergency, but it tells you a lot, in easy bites, of how the systems work. If they hadn't been able to fix the recycler then they would have died, precisely because of not carrying a vast supply of oxygen to breathe. Enjoy www.howequipmentworks.com/apollo_13/ If you want all the detailed techy stuff: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iQuestion. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter.[/i'" No. The technical information of how the spacecraft / landers supported life is exhaustively available. Therefore what you need to do is to read them, and then if you can, point out why you don't believe them, or if they are scientifically incorrect, or whatever. You haven't read a word of any of it, clearly. But here's a clue: the equipment RECYCLED oxygen. Did you [ireally[/i think they took a week or two's worth of 24/7 oxygen bottles for 3 up with them? As a favour, here's a kids' guide to how they escaped from the Apollo 13 emergency, but it tells you a lot, in easy bites, of how the systems work. If they hadn't been able to fix the recycler then they would have died, precisely because of not carrying a vast supply of oxygen to breathe. Enjoy www.howequipmentworks.com/apollo_13/ If you want all the detailed techy stuff: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

You are looking at one. I've changed my mind countless times on issues such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. A good example would be the "Lyndon Johnson did it" argument which emerged in the late nineties. At the time it seemed plausible and I bought into a good deal of it. But as evidence against the theory accumulated I could no longer support it.

I mean, before you put forward this argument (which isn't your own) did you check to see whether it is true? I suspect not.

This is circular logic. Because there's no flag shadow it must be because it's obscured.

It's like saying - we must have gone to the moon because the astronauts came back.

No it is not.
It is an explanation of how that effect can be misinterpreted by people who don't use their brains.
Have you joined that camp now?

Do you collect these silly analogies and store them for future use.
Your analogy is not appropriate.
Try harder.

I don't know if you are deliberately aligning yourself with nutjobs, but it's not doing your reputation much good.
Didn't you USED to be a big hitter?

It's AN explanation. But it doesn't follow that it's THE explanation.

If there's a depression big enough to obscure the flag's shadow - neither you nor I can prove it from that photo. There's just not enough evidence. This is not the same as issues relating to light intensity and the Inverse Square Law. It's an immutable law whose effects on a photograph can be used to unequivocally prove or disprove an argument (providing certain conditions are met).



WTF is a "big hitter"?

Do you accept the existence of the LRO? I mean, if it's not real, who, and how, produces the astonishing array of images? And how do they do it? For example, how did they produce this mosaic of the Moon's north pole, other than from an orbiting craft?


Do you weigh in evidence the detailed imagery the LRO has produced of the various Apollo landing sites?

If we didn't go to the moon, how come the stuff that was in the photos/videos from the missions is still there to be seen on these images?

It's like saying - we must have gone to the moon because the kit we saw on the imagery from the sixties turns out to actually be there.

At some point I'm going to tabulate the total number of unprovoked personal/ad hominem attacks made in this thread and the culprits.

I'm guessing the results will be very interesting on two counts...

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, it is a possible and very logical explanation, and it is not one I had to look up by the way.
All I was doing there was analysing a very good point about why was there no shadow.
Now if I couldn't have come up with a simple rational explanation to explain this away, I might well have thought oops!
But in a millisecond I did, which at the very least, you may concede, knocks a hole in that piece of evidence.

A big hitter?
Really?

[iThe Earth's magnetospheric barrier, the GCR's,SPE's,MM's and more tells us that space travel beyond LEO is impossible, and the Apollo program is a mere fantasy, That's my view. And this isn't a debate thread if anyone is thinking of asking for citations and multiple links and names of credential scientists to play the derailing game as is common in these types of threads.[/i

=#800000[iI concur with the late Bill Cooper on the reasons for it: [/i

Very wise researcher[i[uRIP William Cooper. Simply a Legend.[/u[/i

No they won't.

As an aside I might start playing Flat Stanley's version of 'why?'
We used to play this at school.
When someone tells you something or asks a question you say 'why?'
A few iterations usually brings complete meltdown.

NASA owns some of the best 3D rendering software in existence (why?). It's AT LEAST as good as anything we see from Hollywood. Knowing the insane amounts of money the US military has access to it's probably better. Couple this with enough super-computer time to make Jim Cameron drool and it's pretty apparent that should NASA wish to create highly convincing imagery it can do.

So it really boils down to a question of TRUST, yes?

You trust them. I don't.

Sums it up perfectly which is the exact point i have been making through this entire thread only to suffer personal attacks....
Some people believe what they are told and others go on facts that they have concluded themselves.
I'm glad i'm the latter of the two.

Me too. Spot on Tigerman.

You do know that what you conclude yourself doesn't constitute a fact?
I would describe that as your conclusion.

The thing to remember about Apollo is that from the moment the Saturn V rocket left the launch pad right up to "splash down" - the flow of information was controlled solely by NASA. Which is a military organisation in all but name.

Now, if you are an adherent of Science and you DON'T hear alarm bells reading the above statement there is a very serious disconnect somewhere.

Philosophically speaking, "Science" & "Authority" are about as far apart on the spectrum as you can get. Yet today the two words have all but become synonymous. I propose that this is a VERY BAD thing. It always has been. It always will be.

Returning to the issue of the photographs - I tend not to spend too much time on the question of shadows. Whilst it is true that there are some clearly ludicrous examples which can only be fakes - in many cases the question can become mired in complexity and ultimately nonproductive.

IMO, there are far more vulnerable regions where the photographic evidence can be attacked - such as visible light-intensity falloff which simply cannot be explained by anything other than a close light source.

Then there is the issue of image DETAIL. Our eyes are keyed to sensing and interpreting minute changes in light and shadow. The interaction of both in ways our brains are hard-coded to be more or less receptive to is what makes a good or bad photograph.

We intuitively understand what takes place at both ends of the process of sensing and interpreting. But the precise mechanism of transformation is still a bit of a mystery.

It's the reason for arguably the most common mistake all photographers make - including pros. Anyone who has ever picked up a camera will recall seeing some absolutely stunning interplay of light and shadow, grabbing the camera and pressing the shutter.

Breathless with anticipation they download the image into Adobe RAW/Capture One only to notice that either they've blown out the highlights (overexposed) or the shadows (underexposed) and the image looks nothing like what they remember.

They have just run into the problem of "tonal" or "dynamic range". You see, whilst the human eye can (in certain circumstances) differentiate up to fifteen stops of light intensity - cameras are less able to cope with variation.

Imagine a scale of 1-20 with complete darkness at 1 and unbearable brightness sitting at the other end. Any sensor (whether it be biological or machine) which could differentiate all 20 levels at the same time could be said to see EVERYTHING.

A sensor which can detect 15 consecutive levels is still pretty effective - but given that it will still miss five a decision must be made on which end of the scale you plan to cover. If you are expecting a bright photograph then you would logically position the low end of the range at the 5th level so that you capture everything up to twenty. Providing light intensity stays between 5 and 20 you will record everything in perfect clarity. But should ANY part of the scene fall below 5 (and thus outside your 15-stop recording range) it will appear completely black. Underexposed. A silhouette. Conversely, should you be expecting a dark image and you begin at position 1 right up to 15 - anything which is brighter than 15 will appear completely white. Overexposed.

Digital/film cameras are almost always far worse at coping with varying light intensity than the human eye. Many digital cameras struggle coping with a mere SIX STOPS difference. Film cameras (such as the Hasselblad) are better. But they are by no means perfect.

Which is a MAJOR PROBLEM when you are in an ultra-high contrast environment such as the moon where there is no atmosphere to soften direct sunlight and fill in the shadows.

Indeed, as environments go the Moon must ultimately be rated as a NIGHTMARE by even the most experienced of photographers.

How can you take a photograph in direct sunlight without blowing out the highlights and/or underexposing the shadow regions? The answer is - YOU CAN'T without the use of supplementary light sources (fill flash) and/or reflectors. Yet time and time again we see Apollo photos in which BOTH regions are perfectly exposed.

It's hard enough doing this is direct sunlight on EARTH where you have an atmosphere scattering light which can be pulled in as fill and highly reflective surfaces which can also serve this purpose.

And bear in mind that this film was rated 160ASA. That's PITIFUL by today's high ISO standards.

Now remember that these guys were not pro photographers. They were using arguably one of the most difficult cameras in the world to operate (even though it delivers superb optical results) - made even more so by the removal of the viewfinder and the astronauts limited field of vision.

Facts are things that are proven or known to be true. You don't conclude a fact, a fact is something that is true and proven to be so. The moon landing hoax people have never proven anything that they say. Every single argument put forward has a counter argument based on fact. If moon truthers 'facts' are truly facts, then they'd stand up to scrutiny and be accepted. They don't stand up to scrutiny, unfortunately. As for people believing what they are told, moon truthers are the worst culprits for this. They read books and articles online written by like-minded individuals, and rather than be honest about 'researching' a topic and sticking to a rigorous method of evaluation that would cut out any potential bias. They just read and formulate ideas that conform or seem to strengthen their own position. What they should be doing is trying to prove themselves wrong. Once they get to the stage of being unable to do that they should pass it onto all and sundry to try and do so. If it stands up after that, then you will probably have an actual fact.

Saying something is true doesn't make it so. The weight of evidence is heavily against Moon truthers.