PROOF THAT APOLLO 11 WAS FAKED

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:20 pm
Location: 56° 0' 0 N, 4° 0' 0 W

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 2:05 am » by Remote7


LOL...isnt tht the claim by "Bart Sibrel's Film" A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.....that Apollo never left low earth orbit and that the shot of the Earth is done through trickery ...
He seamed to have missed out some details......That the Russians tracked the Apollo crew to the moon....and back and that no armature astronomer any where in the world saw Apollo just cruising lower earth orbit ...in fact they watched them leave it



http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/


And the tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. It took Apollo only about an hour ( i think) to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts The Astronauts received about one rem of a radiation dose...You would experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem and death with a dose of 300+ rem.

jetxvii

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 5:28 am » by jetxvii


remote7 wrote:LOL...isnt tht the claim by "Bart Sibrel's Film" A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.....that Apollo never left low earth orbit and that the shot of the Earth is done through trickery ...
He seamed to have missed out some details......That the Russians tracked the Apollo crew to the moon....and back and that no armature astronomer any where in the world saw Apollo just cruising lower earth orbit ...in fact they watched them leave it



http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/


And the tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. It took Apollo only about an hour ( i think) to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts The Astronauts received about one rem of a radiation dose...You would experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem and death with a dose of 300+ rem.



that link was a pretty big joke, they tried there best to explain it until the end which is the smoking gun and the best they came up with was "It's distorted and not colored blue" something because the interior lights, LOL ok.

The Van allen radiation belts are debatable, the only way to know is to see the readings that they got in the 1950's that Van Allen himself installed, then later admitted that the radiation readings were staggering, amazing in itself is the fact that after we went to the moon the readings changed... hmmm ok.

The Russians could have tracked probe for all they know, after all NASA knew they would be trying to find anyway possible and tracking them would be one, so what better way to send something else out there.

Amateur astronomers in 1969 meant "here is a star map and take your telescope and look"... who would be looking for a module that was only big enough for 3 people? can you see a module that is only big enough for 3 people?

while someone has an explanation and an opinion on something it still doesn't answer all of the questions.. I have debated this issue so many times I just don't have the energy for it I am afraid, perhaps I should start copying what I write so I can just paste the responses all over again...

sorry I didn't get to technical, but they did fake a moon shot, and they did use a template but that link was just inferior I'm sorry.

Initiate
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:32 pm

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 7:03 am » by Shadowkhas


jetxvii wrote:that link was a pretty big joke, they tried there best to explain it until the end which is the smoking gun and the best they came up with was "It's distorted and not colored blue" something because the interior lights, LOL ok.

Do you understand what camera white balance is? It's more than "something because the interior lights, LOL." Different color temperatures of different light (sunlight, tungsten, fluorescent, shaded, cloudy, etc) will skew the colors of different objects. This color temperature effect, combined with the possibility that the window might not be the most transparent thing at longer distances and diffuses more light, is a reasonable explanation...

Here's a quick test I did of a picture of mine and color temperature:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6428/img0028v.jpg This is the standard image, with the color temperature set at natural daylight, 5500 K.
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/803/img00282b.jpg Here's the same image, with the color temperature at fluorescent light, 3800 K.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2315/img00283r.jpg And this is set at tungsten, 2850 K.

If the camera balanced itself to the light on the interior, that plus the possibility of more diffusion (and maybe not focusing on the plane of the window?) could reasonably cast a bluer glow.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:06 am

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 8:01 am » by Mahsooyee


The Van Allen Radiation Belt....Wikki states: The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and moderately dangerous for human beings, difficult and expensive to shield against.
There is a proposal by the late Robert L. Forward called HiVolt which may be a way to drain at least the inner belt to 1% of its natural level within a year. The proposal involves deploying highly electrically charged tethers in orbit. .The idea is that the electrons would be deflected by the large electrostatic fields and intersect the atmosphere and harmlessly dissipate.

Hmmm, deploying tethers...man, does that sound familiar! Seems like they are still trying to fiqure out a way through the belt to me!!!
Here's some quotes from an article on Space.com titled: Proposal: Removing Earth's Radiation Belts dated Sept. 16, 2002
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/radiation_belts_020916.html
"There's a bottom line to a top-level problem associated with Van Allen Belts: The space radiation environment presents a significant impediment to both human and robotic exploration and development of space".
"As for humans, radiation particles pose a significant threat, Hoyt said. Zipping through tissue, radiation particles can deposit their energy by ionizing water and proteins, causing cellular damage, modifying DNA, RNA, and proteins in ways that can lead to cancers, immune system disorders, and other maladies, he said."

NASA research scientist, Les Johnson, Manager of In Space Transportation Technologies at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama , said a range of tether applications are worth exploring and exploiting.
One notion is the Momentum Exchange, Electrodynamic Reboost (MXER) tether propulsion system. This long, rotating tether would snag payloads sent its way, then hurl that cargo toward a final locale.

"It will be a while before MXER tethers are in use as a reusable, in-space facility. Though their potential payoff is very high, there are many issues that remain to be resolved before we can commit to fielding them," Johnson told SPACE.com. "Once we put them in use, however, we will be able to dramatically reduce the size of launch vehicles and increase the mission-level performance of interplanetary spacecraft."

"Electrodynamic tethers are another issue entirely," Johnson said. "I believe we could be using electrodynamic tethers for deorbit applications within the decade and, potentially, as a reboost system for the International Space Station or other large, Earth-orbiting spacecraft," he said.

"The key is to demonstrate that they not only perform as predicted, but that they are reliable and cost-effective," Johnson concluded.

Initiate
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:32 pm

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 8:12 am » by Shadowkhas


The Van Allen belts definitely pose risk, there's no doubt there. But it's silly to claim that it's a zone of instant frying.
A typical orbiting satellite going through both the inner and outer belts will receive ~2,500 rem a year. Divided by 365, that's roughly 7 rem a day. To truly start affecting someone, they'd have to stay in the zone of radiation for more than two weeks. A simple passing through them at launch speeds is negligible.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 12:30 pm » by Electrobadgr


remote7 wrote:LOL...isnt tht the claim by "Bart Sibrel's Film" A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.....that Apollo never left low earth orbit and that the shot of the Earth is done through trickery ...
He seamed to have missed out some details......That the Russians tracked the Apollo crew to the moon....and back and that no armature astronomer any where in the world saw Apollo just cruising lower earth orbit ...in fact they watched them leave it



http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/


And the tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. It took Apollo only about an hour ( i think) to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts The Astronauts received about one rem of a radiation dose...You would experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem and death with a dose of 300+ rem.


let me get this straight and correct me if i am wrong, the belts reside from 600 miles up to 250,000 miles from earth. By your logic, in order for the astronauts to travel through the belts in an hour they would have to be travelling at approximately 250000 mph!! Bullshit!! Also, in the 90's the shuttle went just over 400miles up ( the furthest man has travelled from the earth excluding the alleged apollo missions) there were particles of radiation penetratng the skulls of the astronauts. Sorry dude, you don't have an argument, how about you run along, read Everything that has been posted in the thread and the others that have been referenced within an try an form a proper counter. And i dont mean pasting the NASA version of events because anyone with more that three brains cells can see it stinks of bullshit.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:20 pm
Location: 56° 0' 0 N, 4° 0' 0 W

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 1:01 pm » by Remote7


electrobadgr wrote:
remote7 wrote:LOL...isnt tht the claim by "Bart Sibrel's Film" A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.....that Apollo never left low earth orbit and that the shot of the Earth is done through trickery ...
He seamed to have missed out some details......That the Russians tracked the Apollo crew to the moon....and back and that no armature astronomer any where in the world saw Apollo just cruising lower earth orbit ...in fact they watched them leave it



http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/


And the tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. It took Apollo only about an hour ( i think) to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts The Astronauts received about one rem of a radiation dose...You would experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem and death with a dose of 300+ rem.


let me get this straight and correct me if i am wrong, the belts reside from 600 miles up to 250,000 miles from earth. By your logic, in order for the astronauts to travel through the belts in an hour they would have to be travelling at approximately 250000 mph!! Bullshit!! Also, in the 90's the shuttle went just over 400miles up ( the furthest man has travelled from the earth excluding the alleged apollo missions) there were particles of radiation penetratng the skulls of the astronauts. Sorry dude, you don't have an argument, how about you run along, read Everything that has been posted in the thread and the others that have been referenced within an try an form a proper counter. And i dont mean pasting the NASA version of events because anyone with more that three brains cells can see it stinks of bullshit.



You clearly dont understand ...Nasa and the rest of the scientific world knew full well about the dangers of radiation and the most important point here is the Different types of radiation and when you realise this it then becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator.Spacecraft flew in the neighbourhood of 30°.
A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

Your claim that "there were particles of radiation penetratng the skulls of the astronauts".
Is true but there is also particles of radiation bombarding you right now.....its all about the different types of radiation .
This isnt just a Nasa fact its a science fact....if you dont believe Nasa ...try some other space agencies or scientists

I dont think there was a need to be rude...if you dont agree thats fine..No need to put a dig in ?

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:20 pm
Location: 56° 0' 0 N, 4° 0' 0 W

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 1:07 pm » by Remote7


jetxvii wrote:
remote7 wrote:LOL...isnt tht the claim by "Bart Sibrel's Film" A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.....that Apollo never left low earth orbit and that the shot of the Earth is done through trickery ...
He seamed to have missed out some details......That the Russians tracked the Apollo crew to the moon....and back and that no armature astronomer any where in the world saw Apollo just cruising lower earth orbit ...in fact they watched them leave it



http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/


And the tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. It took Apollo only about an hour ( i think) to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts The Astronauts received about one rem of a radiation dose...You would experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem and death with a dose of 300+ rem.



that link was a pretty big joke, they tried there best to explain it until the end which is the smoking gun and the best they came up with was "It's distorted and not colored blue" something because the interior lights, LOL ok.

The Van allen radiation belts are debatable, the only way to know is to see the readings that they got in the 1950's that Van Allen himself installed, then later admitted that the radiation readings were staggering, amazing in itself is the fact that after we went to the moon the readings changed... hmmm ok.

The Russians could have tracked probe for all they know, after all NASA knew they would be trying to find anyway possible and tracking them would be one, so what better way to send something else out there.

Amateur astronomers in 1969 meant "here is a star map and take your telescope and look"... who would be looking for a module that was only big enough for 3 people? can you see a module that is only big enough for 3 people?

while someone has an explanation and an opinion on something it still doesn't answer all of the questions.. I have debated this issue so many times I just don't have the energy for it I am afraid, perhaps I should start copying what I write so I can just paste the responses all over again...

sorry I didn't get to technical, but they did fake a moon shot, and they did use a template but that link was just inferior I'm sorry.


Hi jetxvii
LOL...I know what you mean....i have debated this on other forums and am sick of it too ..you just go round and round in circles ...
we shall agree to disagree ? :mrcool:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 1:19 pm » by Electrobadgr


Sorry if i seemed rude man, genuinley. I admit this is my favourite conspiracy and i tend to get quite passionate about it. I admit the effects of the Van Allen belts is contentious so i tend to avoid that area of the debate are there is too much conflicting science. Irrespective, the wealth of other evidence to suggest that the apollo program was faked is truly overwhelming, there is literally too much evidence! What i meant to say was you should go through literally all the evidence presented (especially in my thread i shamelessly plugged earlier:)) and source some counter material so we can all have a damn hood debate on the subject. I love a good debate :flop: an believe me when i say that if ever i seem sharp or rude my intention is merely to provoke debate.

Ok, so get to work chief :flop: :cheers: :D
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Initiate
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:10 am

PostWed Mar 03, 2010 1:25 pm » by Peaceonearth


THERE ARE SEVERAL SO-CALLED PROOFS IN THE VIDEOS AND PHOTOGRAPHS FOR AND AGAINST MOON LANDING. AGAINST MOON LANDING, HERE ARE A FEW...

It is said that
1. Moments before landing on the moon, the color is bright. the next moment all is dark.

2. The sun that shines brightly does not lighten the sky, only the spot where these astronauts are.

3. The ladder changes the color of the shoes of Armstrong.

4. The first footstep has no piece of stone in one photograph, and has it in another. and many others.

5. Perhaps Stanley Kubrick, who became sucessful because of 2001, Space Odyessey, was hired to make a movie on Moon landing in Area 51. Some think so. He subsequently made THE SHINING to speak out his mind, and The Shining is a symbolic movie. Totally symbolic--observe every little corner, and you have a symbol to say that apollo landing was a hoax. So they say.
There was a discussion of it in this forum, if i remember right.
6. There is also a theory, absolutely funny though, that moon is nothing but a holographic projection in space of sun or earth's reflection of sunlight in the dark. What we call moon is nothing but a light and shade play of the sun and earth.
Before they die, why don't Armstrong, Aldrins and Collins come out to say the truth and rest in peace?
All theories....


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook