Maanlanding is nooit gebeurd

quote:

Op donderdag 26 januari 2006 21:13 schreef Diederik_Duck het volgende:

[..]

Is dat de nieuwste gayporn hit ofzo

nee, maar wel een hele goede grap
is een documentaire waar een gast met een camera de astronauten van toen confronteerd met dat het allemaal nep is. hij krijgt o.a. een klap van een van die gasten

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 09:18 schreef mcDavid het volgende:
heel simpel: dr is maanstof. hier op aarde. en die zit chemisch zo complex in elkaar, dat het namaken in een laboratorium waarschijnlijk duurder zou zijn dan een tripje heen-en-weer naar de maan

Ben je zelf een expert op dat gebied? Ben je chemicus ofzo?

Ik heb overigens nog mijn twijfels bij die straling. Het is een reden geweest voor de USSR om niet naar de maan te gaan. Hoe zit dat eigenlijk met die straling?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 13:48 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Ben je zelf een expert op dat gebied? Ben je chemicus ofzo?

Ik heb overigens nog mijn twijfels bij die straling. Het is een reden geweest voor de USSR om niet naar de maan te gaan. Hoe zit dat eigenlijk met die straling?

Bedoel je dat de straling de foto's zou moeten aantasten?

quote:

David Groves, PhD, has shown that the x-ray environment of space would quickly render any photographs unusable. [Bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 540]

Dr. Groves' study contains a number of serious errors.

Although Dr. Groves gives figures for the x-ray dosage to which he submitted his test films, he does not in any way show that this is the expected amount of x-ray energy that exists anywhere in cislunar space or on the lunar surface. This key omission makes Dr. Groves' study of questionable applicability.

Dr. Groves used a Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera in his tests. He does not explain why he did not use a Hasselblad EL/500 or EL/700 camera, the type of camera supplied to NASA for use in the Apollo missions. It is still manufactured by Hasselblad and suitable period examples of which can be obtained easily from second-hand dealers. Use of a dissimilar camera limits the extent to which Dr. Groves' results can be applied to Apollo photographs.

Further, Hasselblad claims they added additional protection to the film magazines. Dr. Groves does not document any similar changes he may have made to the film magazine of his test camera. Nor does he comment upon the possible effect of any of those modifications. Dr. Groves' inattention to the specifics of the Apollo camera design questions his ability to accurately simulate the effects of x-rays on Apollo film.

Dr. Groves first took pictures of a standard color chart, then bombarded that film with x-rays. Then he used standard procedures to develop the film and observe the results. He found that the images were significantly fogged in some cases, and completely obliterated in more extreme cases.

He provided absolutely no shielding around the film during its exposure to the x-rays. It is unclear whether he left the film inside its magazine as the Apollo astronauts would have done. Since the Hasselblad magazines were modified to provide thicker material for the casing, and the film was kept in the magazines during the entire mission, it is not clear whether Dr. Groves' procedure constitutes an adequate comparison.

What is clear, however, is that Dr. Groves exposed the film to x-rays thousands of times more intense than what occurs in space. He used a linear accelerator to bombard the film with an 8 MeV (million electron-volts) beam of x-rays. X-ray astronomers say the x-rays from celestial sources radiate at energy levels of less than 5 keV (thousand elecron-volts). The measurement of x-ray energy is similar to the rating of light bulbs by wattage. The difference between five thousand electron volts -- ambient x-rays in space -- and eight million electron-volts -- Dr. Groves' experiment -- is obviously very large. This factor alone invalidates Dr. Groves' study as an accurate depiction of the ambient x-ray conditions in space.

Dr. Groves exposed his film to x-rays more than a thousand times more energetic than occur in space.
Energy level is quite important. Not only do more energetic x-rays fog film to a greater extent, they also penetrate various substances to a greater extent. This makes the question of shielding very acute. 3 keV x-rays, for example, will not even penetrate air for more than a dozen centimeters.

The experiment subjected the film to three levels of exposure, all at the absurdly intense 8 MeV energy level. The levels are given in the study as "25 rem", "50 rem" and "100 rem". Those who have read the primer and studied the nomenclature of radiation will immediately realize that this is the wrong unit. "Rem" applies only to absorbed radiation in human tissue. It is completely inapplicable to radiation absorbed by photographic film. The appropriate unit of measure for this study would be either "rads" or "Grays". It so happens that for x-rays 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem, but Dr. Groves' apparent misunderstanding of the concepts of absorbed dose is very much out of place in a study purporting to give an expert opinion on radiation exposure.

If we graciously correct Dr. Groves' error of nomenclature and assume he means exposures in rads, we are still faced with two further questions. First, how was absorbed dose computed? It is notoriously difficult to measure the amount of radiation actually absorbed by any given substance.

Second, the 25-100 rads to which Dr. Groves exposed the films is quite excessive. It would take nearly six years in a spacecraft in cislunar space -- barring any serious solar events -- to absorb 25 rads of dosage from all sources combined, not just from x-rays.

Dr. Groves' study contains far too many egregious errors to be considered predictive in any way of the behavior of Ektachrome film under the conditions experienced during Apollo space flights. He has employed levels of radiation far in excess of what can be defensibly claimed for ambient x-ray radiation in cislunar space.

Van: http://www.clavius.org/

Nee ik bedoel dat de straling de mens moet aantasten, denk aan ziekten en verbranding. In de documentaire wordt er gesproken over de grootste zonneuitbarsting ooit tijdens de apollomissie

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 15:12 schreef Integrity het volgende:
Nee ik bedoel dat de straling de mens moet aantasten, denk aan ziekten en verbranding. In de documentaire wordt er gesproken over de grootste zonneuitbarsting ooit tijdens de apollomissie

Ruimtereizen is gevaarlijk. Het is als astronaut hopen dat op het moment dat jij in de ruimte bent de zon niet besluit een aanval van stralingsactiviteit te krijgen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 15:12 schreef Integrity het volgende:
Nee ik bedoel dat de straling de mens moet aantasten, denk aan ziekten en verbranding. In de documentaire wordt er gesproken over de grootste zonneuitbarsting ooit tijdens de apollomissie

Over de zonnevlamuitbarsting kan ik niets vinden.
Wel het volgende:

quote:

The Moon is ten times higher than the van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, has rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. 33 of 36 of the Apollo astronauts have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. (see Ms. Irene Schneider on The Space Show).

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 15:24 schreef Quarks het volgende:

[..]

Over de zonnevlamuitbarsting kan ik niets vinden.
Wel het volgende:
[..]

Da's wel een mooie bron, het zou nog mooier zijn als je je bron ff snel toelicht. Ik snap het verhaal wel, maar het is prettiger als je je punt nog ff benadrukt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 19:02 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Da's wel een mooie bron, het zou nog mooier zijn als je je bron ff snel toelicht. Ik snap het verhaal wel, maar het is prettiger als je je punt nog ff benadrukt.

Zoals eerder aangegeven: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 19:06 schreef Quarks het volgende:

[..]

Zoals eerder aangegeven: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

Nee, dat bedoel ik niet. Ik bedoel dat je zelf ff toelicht wat je nu eigenlijk wilt aangeven.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 19:10 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Nee, dat bedoel ik niet. Ik bedoel dat je zelf ff toelicht wat je nu eigenlijk wilt aangeven.

Ik dacht dat je om een bron vroeg.

Ik gaf aan dat de astronauten niet zo hevig werden geraakt door straling tijdens de maanlanding als vermeld.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 19:24 schreef Quarks het volgende:

[..]

Ik dacht dat je om een bron vroeg.

Ik gaf aan dat de astronauten niet zo hevig werden geraakt door straling tijdens de maanlanding als vermeld.

Cool. Als je voortaan je quote/bron ff toelicht, dan communiceert dat een stuk prettiger! Thanx!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 19:26 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Cool. Als je voortaan je quote/bron ff toelicht, dan communiceert dat een stuk prettiger! Thanx!

Ik quote jou toch.
Eerst zeg ik:

quote:

Bedoel je dat de straling de foto's zou moeten aantasten?

Dan zeg jij:

quote:

Nee ik bedoel dat de straling de mens moet aantasten, denk aan ziekten en verbranding. In de documentaire wordt er gesproken over de grootste zonneuitbarsting ooit tijdens de apollomissie

Vervolgens plaats ik een stuk tekst over het effect van de straling op astronauten.
Simpel toch

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 19:39 schreef Quarks het volgende:

[..]

Ik quote jou toch.
Eerst zeg ik:
[..]

Dan zeg jij:
[..]

Vervolgens plaats ik een stuk tekst over het effect van de straling op astronauten.
Simpel toch

Nee je snapt het nog niet. Kijk op school leren wij dat, als je een bron aanhaalt of een heel stuk beschrijvende tekst geeft om je verhaal te beargumenteren.. je ook een korte conclusie weergeeft waarin je aangeeft wat je nu eigenlijk wilt vertellen. Je kunt in je korte conclusie dan de kern van wat je beschrijvend hebt aangegeven eruit halen, zodat de lezer bepaalt welk gedeelte hij of zij relevant vindt om door te nemen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 21:08 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Daar ben ik ook altijd wel voor

Ja wel zo prettig toch? Op meerdere lezers ingaan

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 13:48 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Ben je zelf een expert op dat gebied? Ben je chemicus ofzo?

nee, ik heb het me laten vertellen

quote:

Ik heb overigens nog mijn twijfels bij die straling. Het is een reden geweest voor de USSR om niet naar de maan te gaan. Hoe zit dat eigenlijk met die straling?

wat zeiken die russen, het was toch een rus die de langste ruimtereis ooit op zijn naam heeft?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2006 13:48 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Ben je zelf een expert op dat gebied? Ben je chemicus ofzo?

Ik heb overigens nog mijn twijfels bij die straling. Het is een reden geweest voor de USSR om niet naar de maan te gaan. Hoe zit dat eigenlijk met die straling?

De maanstenen zijn oa. zo uniek door de totale afwezigheid van water. Ook de miljoenenjaren aan straling is nauwlijks na te maken. In theorie moet het kunnen maar dat is een nog veel grotere uitdaging dan gewoon iemand in een raket stoppen en de stenen op de maan te gaan halen.

Als je je zo zorgen maakt over de hoeveelheid straling dan zoek je toch de gegevens op van de verschillende sondes die naar de maan en omgeving zijn gestuurd

Moondust:

Indeed, there is definitely something wrong here. If you take a moment to view video footage of the moon landing by U.S. astronauts from back in the 1960s, you'll notice that the dust kicked up by astronauts immediately settles down, just as if it was sand on the beach. Yet we all know that not only does the moon have less gravity, but it also has zero-atmosphere. Therefore, the moon dust should travel further given the force and little to counteract it. Yet, for some strange, unexplained reason, the moon dust resettles back to the ground at the same gravitational rate of 32 ft./sec. as the earth.

In a letter I received back from the astronaut Armstrong, which asked him about this strange fact of the same gravitational pull on both the moon and earth, the response I was sent surprisingly admitted that, yes, the gravitational pull should be different. Of course, Armstrong didn't come right out and admit that this was the case. That might be the death sentence for him--similar to what 3 other U.S. astronauts experienced in the 19
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-07-04/discussion.cgi.101.html

The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time. The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Radiation?

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 18:43 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
Moondust:

Indeed, there is definitely something wrong here. If you take a moment to view video footage of the moon landing by U.S. astronauts from back in the 1960s, you'll notice that the dust kicked up by astronauts immediately settles down, just as if it was sand on the beach. Yet we all know that not only does the moon have less gravity, but it also has zero-atmosphere. Therefore, the moon dust should travel further given the force and little to counteract it. Yet, for some strange, unexplained reason, the moon dust resettles back to the ground at the same gravitational rate of 32 ft./sec. as the earth.

Het is stof... geen zand. Er is geen atmosfeer om het langer in de lucht te houden dus valt het gewoon omlaag.

quote:

In a letter I received back from the astronaut Armstrong, which asked him about this strange fact of the same gravitational pull on both the moon and earth, the response I was sent surprisingly admitted that, yes, the gravitational pull should be different. Of course, Armstrong didn't come right out and admit that this was the case. That might be the death sentence for him--similar to what 3 other U.S. astronauts experienced in the 19
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-07-04/discussion.cgi.101.html

The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time. The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Daar heb ik eerder in dit topic al plaatjes van gegeven.

quote:

Radiation?

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

Pssttt.. een paar posts terug is dat onderzoek van meneer Groves nog snoeihard afgemaakt

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 19:09 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

Pssttt.. een paar posts terug is dat onderzoek van meneer Groves nog snoeihard afgemaakt

Psst, ging mij vnl om de info/vragen in de linkjes, de i.m.o. tegenstrijdigheden en de uitspraak van Armstrong en anderen.

Astronaut Brian O'Leary who worked alongside the likes of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Apollo 11 mission during 1967-68, commented ' If some of the films were spoiled, it is remotely possible that they (NASA) may have shot some scenes in a studio environment, to avoid embarrassment!'

In a letter I received back from the astronaut Armstrong, which asked him about this strange fact of the same gravitational pull on both the moon and earth, the response I was sent surprisingly admitted that, yes, the gravitational pull should be different. Of course, Armstrong didn't come right out and admit that this was the case. That might be the death sentence for him--similar to what 3 other U.S. astronauts experienced in the 19

Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

En deze vragen???
Ik weet het 'n paar zijn hier al beantwoord, of althans dat is geprobeerd Dus bij voorbaat sorry voor de dubbel posts.

Still Not Convinced?...
Here's 32 things that need to be answered!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

[ Bericht 25% gewijzigd door Resonancer op 29-01-2006 20:11:23 ]

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 18:19 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

De maanstenen zijn oa. zo uniek door de totale afwezigheid van water. Ook de miljoenenjaren aan straling is nauwlijks na te maken. In theorie moet het kunnen maar dat is een nog veel grotere uitdaging dan gewoon iemand in een raket stoppen en de stenen op de maan te gaan halen.

Als je je zo zorgen maakt over de hoeveelheid straling dan zoek je toch de gegevens op van de verschillende sondes die naar de maan en omgeving zijn gestuurd

Nou geef maar bronnen voor die gegevens dan, vin'k wel cool om te lezen. Wat een lap tekst hier boven zeg, kun je dat niet inkorten?

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 19:39 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

[..]

Psst, ging mij vnl om de info/vragen in de linkjes, de i.m.o. tegenstrijdigheden en de uitspraak van Armstrong en anderen.

*Knip*

Veel is hier te vinden.

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 20:52 schreef Integrity het volgende:

[..]

Nou geef maar bronnen voor die gegevens dan, vin'k wel cool om te lezen. Wat een lap tekst hier boven zeg, kun je dat niet inkorten?

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

quote:

Op zondag 29 januari 2006 19:39 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view.

Er zijn toch enkele sterren zichtbaar op de foto's
Apollo (11) Image Atlas 70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog




Foto's... Foto's.. Foto's... van de Apollo vluchten 4 t/m 17

Nog meer over Apollo....
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

die fake-maanlanding was fake