You can believe what you want, but this is a science board. If you (for example) state that the Van Allen belts will kill astronauts, you will be challenged to provide the evidence.

Free speech does not mean that you have the right to use someone else's printing press or (in these days) BBS. It's up to the owner to decide. If you aren't willing (or more likely, able) to respond to our requests and are just going off in a huff, well, bye!

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

You mean exactly as expected when using a camera setup to photograph sunlit objects? Also the UV telescope used on Apollo 16 got photos of the UV sky that have been independently verified. And finally Venus has been located in a number of pictures from Apollo 14, which from knowing the performance of the film and the settings used on the cameras is dimmest object that will show up and is eight times brighter than the brightest star.
You mean apart from the fine powdery stuff covering the surface that shows up in just about every photo?
Yeah, its not as if the astronauts were wearing stiff suits with backpacks heavy enough to throw their balance off which were also full of stuff that if it broke they would die? Or the various feats of acrobatics that they managed to (mostly accidentally) accomplish, including at least one incidence of an astronaut jumping with barely bent legs and pulling himself with one arm to a step well up the LM ladder (which didn't start until a fair way off the ground).
You mean apart from the ones left by Apollos 11, 14, and 15, please, at least try to do your homework.

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

Because A) spacesuits are very expensive, too expensive to just let people mess with them for no good reason, B) anyone who actually bothers to learn how they work knows that they won't work in air because the operating principle of their cooling system relies on the behavior of water in vacuum, and C) the suits that are used on the shuttle as ISS are direct descendants of the Apollo ones and use the same principles proving that they operate just fine.

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

Joshuatree has already attacked the intelligence of everyone on this forum multiple times, ad hominem style.

Isn't about time for a temporary ban?

Also, I have no doubt sublimation cooling was tested extensively under proper conditions before the equipment went into space. Jay might have links to references, but then again, not everything is on the web.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

...no other opinions are accepted

Whether studio lighting can produce Apollo photographs and whether the radiation in the Van Allen belts would kill the astronauts are not matters of opinion. They are matters of testable allegations of fact. You have alleged facts, but decline to provide any test or engage in discussion those who have tested these claims themselves.

You simply accuse everyone of being brainwashed and brush off evidence that disputes your belief. If you allege fact on this board, you will be called upon to provide evidence of it. That's the way things work in the real world.

I do not purport to be a technician or a scientist...

Then please tell us exactly what you meant when you saidI am a professional engineer. I have worked in the aerospace industry on and off for 15 years. I most certainly do propose to be a technician and a scientist, and I have investigated the Apollo hoax theory for a number of years as well as NASA's claims. It is my firm professional assessment that NASA's claims explain the evidence far better than any conspiracy theory. I find the conspiracy theories highly ignorant, based on selective and misinterpreted evidence, and deriving from clearly specious lines of reasoning.

If the rules dissallow that most basic of human rights in these countries, then I will continue my search for it elsewhere.

Freedom of speech does not excuse you from the consequences of your statements. You have the right to say essentially whatever you want. But you do not have the right to demand your statements be respected as intelligent and well-founded simply by virtue of having poured forth from you.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.



Oh and by the way, here's a quote from your own forum rules, I guess that it only applies to new members. The old boys club gets to dismiss any new theories or ideas. The standard model is that "we believe we landed on the moon" and that is our belief and it will never change no matter what is said by who, even though there is no evidence that it happened and so much that it didn't.

All the bunk about proof is so easily played with and everyone will believe what they want in the end. Take the reflectors left supposedly by Apollo 11, why was no mention of them made till years later when the question was asked why they were'nt left behind, then they magically appeared.

It's relatively easy to test a sublimator because all you need is a few cubic meters of vacuum. It's extremely reliable, very simple technology. In fact, you can buy one these days off the shelf from Hamilton Sunstrand.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Take the reflectors left supposedly by Apollo 11, why was no mention of them made till years later when the question was asked why they were'nt left behind, then they magically appeared.

Factually false. The LRRR tests were conducted while the Apollo 11 crew were still on the lunar surface. The results were part of the live EVA telecast. Clearly you've never made any significant study of the Apollo record.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I understand, just wondered why references to the workings of the systems were never explained in any of the official nasa videos.

And why didn't the astronauts just adjust the aperture on the cameras to get the stars? They had to be able to adjust them for the moon shots, they even have them on audio talking about the right aperture for a particular time of day.

Too many questions

have you heard of bart sibril the astronaut ambusher
Yes, not even just here I bought a book on how the moon formed, and the astronauts going there to get the samples to find the composition of the moon. The author of the book debunked Sibril in the last chapter.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

The old boys club gets to dismiss any new theories or ideas.

The Apollo hoax theory is not a new theory or a new idea. The theory itself is more than 30 years old, and it has been discussed on this site and its predecessors for seven years. Just because it's new to you doesn't mean it's new to everyone. I guarantee most of the regular posters here know far more about the hoax theories than you do. Many of us have tested elements of those theories empirically.

The standard model is that "we believe we landed on the moon" and that is our belief and it will never change no matter what is said by who, even though there is no evidence that it happened and so much that it didn't.

You haven't supplied any evidence that hasn't already been discussed at length, and the answers compiled and summarized on Clavius and other easily-accessed places. You seem to believe the re-opening a stale debate with the same stale claims somehow breathes new life into them that others are bound to respect. It does not.

If you can prove the Apollo missions are faked, then you will find a critical but fair audience for that proof. If your proof instead is merely the same old conspiracist hogwash that's been sold to gullible people for decades, then you will receive a reception commensurate with that lack of original thought.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Can you see the stars during the day?

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

I plan to peruse the clavia moon base site and see what I can glean from it, just because you say its true, doesn't mean it is. I will check out those LRRR tests to see how I overlooked them.

I understand, just wondered why references to the workings of the systems were never explained in any of the official nasa videos.

They were explained at length in many NASA documents from the 1960s. I have read several period descriptions and seen engineering diagrams available to the public. Not everything's on YouTube.

And why didn't the astronauts just adjust the aperture on the cameras to get the stars?

You said you're a photographer. 38 millimeter lens. 65 millimeter frame format. ISO 160 film, Kodak E-3 process. Maximum aperture is f/5.6. What shutter speed will be necessary to expose stars, and how did you determine it?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Is there enough atmosphere on the moon to create a condition that the stars are invisible? It was mentioned recently that there is no atmosphere on the moon by one of the people here. That the cameras were being operated in a vacuum and thats why there is no heat buildup on the moon, you can't have it both ways


Hmmmm

I plan to peruse the clavia moon base site...

So when you dismissed it as a government disinformation site, that was evidently before you read it. Of what possible value is the opinion of someone who renders them in ignorance?

...just because you say its true, doesn't mean it is.

Have you applied that test to the conspiracy theorists?

The reality of the LRRR operations need not be attested to. It is a matter of objective record.

Since you clearly have not studied the Apollo record to a degree consistent with your claims, kindly withdraw your blusterous insults until you have educated yourself appropriately.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I thought the hasselblads were 70 mm according to the manufacturer, the film was ASA in those days not ISO and I was under the assumption that it was 64 not 160. I may be wrong. I didn't determine anything about exposure to expose the stars, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the stars would be visible in a vacuum, even in broad daylight? Correct?

Is there enough atmosphere on the moon to create a condition that the stars are invisible?

The atmosphere doesn't prevent stars from being seen from Earth at night. Please tell us exactly what camera settings would be required to photograph stars from the lunar surface and how you derived them.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base