It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications
Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
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?
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.
Kind of Scary..Knowing the fact we been lied to..I'ts no telling what else thier not tellin us..
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.
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.
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