Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: conspiracy theory for y'all

  1. #1
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085

    conspiracy theory for y'all

    I'm watching this documentary called 'Did man really land on the moon' or something like that. Some guy that worked for the company that made the apollo rockets, as an engineer, claims that the moon landings were a hoax.
    He puts forward a few arguements: in the NASA footage the american flag, when the astronaut is carrying it on the moon's surface....is waving, but there is no atmosphere on the moon, thus no wind. Even after the flag is firmly staked into the ground, the flag is waving back and forth.
    His second arguement: in the NASA footage of man on the moon...there is no stars in the background...but surely on the moon, which has no atmosphere it would be relatively easy to see the stars in the sky.
    His third arguement: there is no landing crater under the lunar module after it has landed, even though the module is applying a downward force/thrust of several thousand pounds
    His fourth arguement: It is evident that there is more than one light source on the 'moon.' In still photos, shadows of the astronauts and rocks and other object on the 'moon' are running in different directions. But, if the sun is the only light source that they had, then all shadows should be running parallel to each other, which is not the case in the photographs.
    His fifth arguement: Video footage of an astronaut climing out of the left side lunar module, and the sun is on the right side of the lunar module. Therefore there is a shadow cast by the lunar module...although why is the astronaut fully visible even though he is standing in a shadow? This surely indicates more than one light source.
    His sixth arguement: Crosshairs were etched/printed onto the camera lenses or some part of the cameras, so that the crosshairs would show up on the photos. But, on some photos, some objects in the photos are overlapping the cross hairs, how is this possible?
    His seventh arguement: An astonaut named Grissom, or something like that, was an outspoken kind of man. He was a bit of a skeptic on the issue of the NASA space program. Two other astronauts, and Grissom were killed in a fire in a 'simulation' exercise on earth, just a few hundred meters away from the control rooms.
    Also...a safety inspector in the 60's, who inpected Apollo 11 while it was being constructed claimed that the rocket was unsafe...he wrote a report stating this...a little later his car, with himself, his wife and stepdaughter inside, was struck by a train. And his reports went mysteriously missing.

    Next arguement: Above earth there is radiation belts spanning several hundreds or thousands of kilometers. Physicists claim that to get through this radiation field, the rocket would have needed 6 feet or lead shielding around it, to keep the astronauts safe from radiation poisoning.

    Now I ask you all...tell me what you all think of this. I think these people put forward very legitimate arguements.

    -John

    p.s: sorry about the essay
    Life's too short to be small

  2. #2
    Senior Member davetha1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    178
    To be honest nothing would suprise me, wouldnt suprise me if the space program was just another thing to increase the budget for the military without people knowing and thinking we were doing something 'worthwhile'.

  3. #3
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    exactly....
    Life's too short to be small

  4. #4
    Banned Reinier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    south west Holland Europe
    Posts
    8,842
    so your saying that nobody ever left the earth? cuz theyd need 6 feet of lead? what about MIR?

    also what about the tons of satellite around the earth that I watch fookin tv from every day.

  5. #5
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    these radiation belts are further out from the earth than the distance at which satellites such as MIR orbit at.
    Life's too short to be small

  6. #6
    Banned Reinier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    south west Holland Europe
    Posts
    8,842
    oic

  7. #7
    Super Piddles captain piddles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    816
    He puts forward a few arguements: in the NASA footage the american flag, when the astronaut is carrying it on the moon's surface....is waving, but there is no atmosphere on the moon, thus no wind
    solar wind

    His second arguement: in the NASA footage of man on the moon...there is no stars in the background...but surely on the moon, which has no atmosphere it would be relatively easy to see the stars in the sky.
    the sun relecting off the lunar sand was bright causeing the film to pick up on only the nearest objects, I run into this problem freaquently taking pictures, Im a amature photographer

    His third arguement: there is no landing crater under the lunar module after it has landed, even though the module is applying a downward force/thrust of several thousand pounds
    again this could be caused by perspective and the amount of light reflecting back, tricks with light reflection is how magicians make buildings and statues dissapear

    His fourth arguement: It is evident that there is more than one light source on the 'moon.' In still photos, shadows of the astronauts and rocks and other object on the 'moon' are running in different directions.
    again you have several objects which are all shiny reflective metal
    and lots of light coming from the sun being reflected all around

    His fifth arguement: Video footage of an astronaut climing out of the left side lunar module, and the sun is on the right side of the lunar module. Therefore there is a shadow cast by the lunar module...although why is the astronaut fully visible even though he is standing in a shadow? This surely indicates more than one light source.
    see above

    His sixth arguement: Crosshairs were etched/printed onto the camera lenses or some part of the cameras, so that the crosshairs would show up on the photos. But, on some photos, some objects in the photos are overlapping the cross hairs, how is this possible?
    havent seen the pictures, but funnier things have happened when taking pictures, look at all the ghost pictures and ufo pictures that are dissmissed because it was something with the camera, what if..... during take off it is very turbulant, everything is shaking hard, and the crosshairs that are thin peices of metal attached to the lens with adheasive come off and ruin some of the pictures

    His seventh arguement: An astonaut named Grissom, or something like that, was an outspoken kind of man. He was a bit of a skeptic on the issue of the NASA space program. Two other astronauts, and Grissom were killed in a fire in a 'simulation' exercise on earth, just a few hundred meters away from the control rooms.
    stuff happens, when clinton was president and his freind killed himself ( Vince Foster ) theorys were all over the place but it was all just theory

    Next arguement: Above earth there is radiation belts spanning several hundreds or thousands of kilometers. Physicists claim that to get through this radiation field, the rocket would have needed 6 feet or lead shielding around it, to keep the astronauts safe from radiation poisoning.
    if you have ever seen the blueprint to the space shuttle or the apollo and even gemini capsules they have been built with the radiation belts in mind, I am an avid space and science freak
    if there were plausible reasons to say it was faked I would be the first person in line to put my foot in nasa's ass, but here is one thing to think about, go to walmart and charge a good telescope to your walmart charge card, set it up on a night with a full moon
    sit with a book with the moons image and the names of the craters in it, and look for the sea of tranquility, set up the telescope and scan the area thouroghly, be sure to scan it well cause you will find the landing site if you look hard enough, me and my freind george were looking for the pyramids that were saposedly found up there and all we could find was a shiny spot , so we zoomed in and you could just barely make out the bottom half of the uner lander that got left behind

    the conspirasy theory is just that....theory

  8. #8
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    on this documenary....they say that IF it were possible to zoom in to the moon with a very large telescope from earth..to see the leftover pieces from any of the rockets then it would be possible to put these theories to the test. But they state that even with the most powerful telescopes on earth we cannot see the moon with that much detail, as to see the bottom half of the lunar lander.
    Life's too short to be small

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    68
    I think the theories are just theories. I think we landed on the moon, though it's possible that we didn't. However, I did want to comment on the Vince Foster thing. I think that was much more than just a conspiracy theory..

    -Justin

  10. #10
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    I really don't know what to think anymore
    Life's too short to be small

  11. #11
    Senior Member Cackerot69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Moisturizing kimpy's face.
    Posts
    2,744
    Conspiracy theories are cool. This one is pretty good, too. All the photo evidence that we actually landed on the moon seems to be flawed in some way. There was a huge motive to fake the moon landing - we were in a space race with russia. This was during the Cold war, a war of scare tactics. We had to prove we were technoligically superior to them, so we had to get to the moon before they did. If we couldn't, we had to fake it.

  12. #12
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    Cackerot69: great that you can see the perspective the theory is coming from. that would be the exact reason why the americans would have faked the moon landing. the americans were so worried that the soviet union were gonna put a missile base on the moon, they had to prove themselves to be superior.
    Life's too short to be small

  13. #13
    Bmx Bandit McBain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    terra australis
    Posts
    2,125
    i know something about the van allen radiation belts, but stole this from a website anyways


    The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.

    Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:


    Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
    [MeV] electrons protons
    1 0.15 ~ nil
    3 0.56 ~ nil
    10 1.85 0.06
    30 no flux 0.37
    100 no flux 3.7

    For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

    These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

    For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

    So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.


    props to: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
    'you cant avoid confrontation in life. it just makes things more trouble down the road. sometimes you have to look at the bull and say "f--k you bull" and grab that bull by the horns'

    -Shane

  14. #14
    Bmx Bandit McBain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    terra australis
    Posts
    2,125
    however it does continue:

    By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.



    'you cant avoid confrontation in life. it just makes things more trouble down the road. sometimes you have to look at the bull and say "f--k you bull" and grab that bull by the horns'

    -Shane

  15. #15
    Wannabebig Member MuscleMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Quebec,Canada
    Posts
    9
    Plait and other scientists dismiss such notions. Flags can ripple in a vacuum and the U.S. one is doing so because an astronaut is moving the pole to which it is attached.

    Camera crosshairs appear to be behind white objects in some images because the images bled slightly during development, like overexposed film. And why are the stars absent? They are too faint for the camera to pick up, according to Plait.


    NASA adds another line of defense. The program never raised the issue of more than 800 pounds (363 kg) of lunar rocks that astronauts brought back to Earth.

    "Geologists worldwide have been examining these samples for 30 years, and the conclusion is inescapable. The rocks could not have been collected or manufactured on Earth,"

    tuttut

  16. #16
    Bad Monkey! Nights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    cowtown, alberta
    Posts
    1,730
    Ok, what I want to know is this.. how did they catch the first steps on the moon on video, or the landing for that matter? How did the camera get down there before them?
    LaLa

  17. #17
    Gettin Lean Goin_Big's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,719
    the camera was on the shuttle....
    Beachbody coaching lets you turn your hobby into a career - Beachbody

  18. #18
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    there is still so many unexplainable aspect though, which make it very possible that the moon landing was actually shot in Area 51. One of the astronauts that landed on the moon, actually compared the moon with 'the desert highlands of the USA.' And, guess where Area 51 is! Yep, in the desert.
    Life's too short to be small

  19. #19
    "Tuna Boy" NateDogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Central, MA
    Posts
    3,376
    Originally posted by Tank23
    there is still so many unexplainable aspect though, which make it very possible that the moon landing was actually shot in Area 51. One of the astronauts that landed on the moon, actually compared the moon with 'the desert highlands of the USA.' And, guess where Area 51 is! Yep, in the desert.
    OOOOOOOOO, you really got one there...
    "damn...can't beat logic like that.
    NAte is exactly right." - Tryska

  20. #20
    Bmx Bandit McBain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    terra australis
    Posts
    2,125
    dude it is now 3:24AM
    'you cant avoid confrontation in life. it just makes things more trouble down the road. sometimes you have to look at the bull and say "f--k you bull" and grab that bull by the horns'

    -Shane

  21. #21
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    3:24am?? are you from australia too?
    Life's too short to be small

  22. #22
    Wannabebig Member MuscleMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Quebec,Canada
    Posts
    9
    Really 3:24 AM.

    Were are you. Here it's 1:35 PM

  23. #23
    Bmx Bandit McBain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    terra australis
    Posts
    2,125
    im in nsw, none of that AFL shiat up here
    'you cant avoid confrontation in life. it just makes things more trouble down the road. sometimes you have to look at the bull and say "f--k you bull" and grab that bull by the horns'

    -Shane

  24. #24
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    ay mate, none of that rugby bullshit down here either! rugby sucks. lol
    Life's too short to be small

  25. #25
    The Tuna Tempter
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,085
    and wtf are you doing up so late too?? I just cbf going to sleep, what's your excuse?
    Life's too short to be small

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •