1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Moon Landing Hoax?

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Debates' started by HAZENDRO, May 29, 2007.

  1. HAZENDRO

    HAZENDRO New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wouldnt the moon be too hot to walk on?
     
  2. TheWaffle

    TheWaffle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What?
     
  3. Cheshire Cat

    Cheshire Cat New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wonderland
    Brilliant deduction Sherlock, did you forget to take your medication today?
     
  4. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    If anything it'd be pretty darn cold, what with the almost complete lack of atmosphere and all that.

    Actually, if everyone doesn't mind, I thought I'd bring something else up - the Outer Space Treaty. The following comes from Wikipedia:

    The irony of a treaty that protects a giant space rock with no life from military expansion while people down here on Earth are getting blown up on a daily basis is almost too much to bare.
     
  5. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    There's actually another part of the Outer Space Treaty which I found to be intellectually stimulating. Check out this quote from Article II:

    In other words, nations like us aren't legally allowed to colonize other worlds - unless those colonies are internationally administered. Just think - the UN in space! Getting nothing accomplished on an intergalactic scale!
     
  6. HAZENDRO

    HAZENDRO New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    im sorry i didnt mean to say walk..i was trying o say that when we walked on the moon and we was filming
    "With no atmosphere on the moon, x-rays, solar and cosmic radiation would have caused the Kodak Ektachrome 64 and 160 ASA (ISO) 70 mm sprocketed film in the metal casing of the modified but unshielded Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera to "fog" or lose all contrast. Radiation would have entered via the camera lens. Jan Lundberg of NASA stated that x-rays do not expose common emulsion. When told that X-rays at an airport do destroy Ektachrome film, he stated that the concentration of x-rays in space is hundreds of times lower. "
    Plus wouldnt the heat that reflects off the sun on the moon that gives it the abilty to glow at night make a difference in the temp the moon would be?
     
  7. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol

    Maybe they put the camera in some kind of casing.
     
  8. HAZENDRO

    HAZENDRO New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe, but do you think they had that type of technology then?
     
  9. Well According to NASA this guy has a valid question ,it seems that we landed on a particular area of the moon each time.....as the side of the moon we chose did take advantahe of solar radiance and the warm temps it can bring with it

    that side of the moon has different day and night tempratures the moon itself has a WILDLY fluctuating temprature from -364 to +250 depending on whether or not the sun has hit it
    apparently diring high sun cycles the surface can be hot enought to cook a man

    while still having craters full of frozen ice
     
  10. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, this is one of the few conspiracy theories that raises some real questions that I've never seen answered. The guy brings up some good points about the camere and how it should have been foggy. When you pass through the van allen belt, you get exposed to massive amounts of radiation. So much radiation that it probably would have killed the astronauts. Thats why the Russians claim they never got to the moon. As for 9sublime's question, if they had some kind of casing for the camera, it would have been on the ship's manifest. The manifest for these missions is public record, and it wasn't on there. NASA calculates fuel, approach angles, course corrections, etc., for these missions based on the weight of all of the objects in the manifest. Rocket fuel is extremely expensive, so they don't put extra fuel in. A lead box for the camera would be pretty heavy and would definately have thrown off all of NASA's calculations.
     
  11. HAZENDRO

    HAZENDRO New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kind of Scary..Knowing the fact we been lied to..I'ts no telling what else thier not tellin us..
     
  12. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    Lol, how about a House Of Politics invesitgation into this? Someone dig up the records of what was on the spaceship, and see if the camera was inside a box.

    Have they filmed any moon landings since the first, and with what cameras?
     
  13. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's not fall into the fallacy of saying "they lied here so they must be lying about other stuff too." That's just bad logic.

    9Sublime, I've been working to find the official manifest for the Apollo 11 mission, but to no avail. I might have been wrong about them being a matter of public record. LBJ made some of the files associated with the Apollo missions classified with a declassification date of 2026, which raises a whole different set of questions. I have found this good sight about how the film should have been damaged by temperature variations and radiation.

    http://www.nicholasweiss.com/NASA2.html

    One other question that has always bothered me was about the filming of Neil Armstrongs first steps on the moon. How was it being filmed from outside the LM? Does anybody know if NASA has given an explanation to this? Maybe I'm ignorant about this one, but it just seems odd.
     
  14. n0spam4me

    n0spam4me Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    For the record, if we see examples of PROVEN malfeasents (example, Nixon ...)
    and therefore we have right to NOT trust that person with anything at any time. For good reason! If your spouse cheated on you, just how eager to give them unconditional trust?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    and as we all know
    9/11 was an inside job
    .
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     
  15. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Youre falling into that bad logic of saying "the government did it." Nixon is long dead and buried. He isn't running the government anymore. The government is made up of individuals, it isn't just some continuous body that can't change. By your logic I could say John Marshall was power hungry, so that is reason to distrust the Supreme Court for its entire existance. It just doesn't make sense.
     
Loading...

Share This Page