Quote:
Och du tycker det inte det är lite skillnad på att påstå att man fejkat en månlandning 1969 (vilket i sig hade varit omöjligt med alla oberoende observatörer) och att påstå att man fejkat 2 förberedande bemannade resor runt månen, 6 genomförda månlandningar samt 1 avbruten månlandningsresa?

Du påstod att man bara landat en gång 1969 vilket visar din totala okunnighet.

Jag har juh sagt det, jag tycker om dig.
Det är bra att du finns.

Trots ett idoga postande i andra trådar har Lightsaber valt att inte svara på min sista fråga som jag ställt till han, men jag är inte sämre än att han kan få en andra chans.


"Solar X Ray" är det strålar som forskare från jorden skickat ut för att mäta vad månen består av?

Quote:


Nasas Chandra X-Ray Observatorium kan fånga upp strålning som reflekteras mot en himlakropp för att avgöra vilket material den är gjord av. Sättet jag uttryckte det på i inlägget du hänvisar till var inte särskilt bra men det faktum att jag inte har en examen i astronomi bevisar inte att vi varit på månen.

Så här uttryckte David Salt på ABC science online det:

"Space researchers have used invisible X-rays, reflecting off the surface of the moon, to find out what our nearest solar neighbor is made of and how it was formed.

The research, done at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., found oxygen, magnesium, aluminum and silicon present over a large area of the Moon's surface."

Quote:

"Inte bra" Det var rent felaktigt.

Man mäter solens reflektioner från olika himlakroppar.

Var någonstans står det att NASA gjorde detta innan 1969?

Var står det att NASA säger att jorden och månen består av samma material / ämnen?

För det är väl det du försöker bevisa?

Har aldrig påstått att det gjordes för 1969.
men i Nasas egen ordbok kan man läsa följande:

"Scientists believe that the moon formed as a result of a collision known as the Giant Impact or the "Big Whack." According to this idea, Earth collided with a planet-sized object 4.6 billion years ago. As a result of the impact, a cloud of vaporized rock shot off Earth's surface and went into orbit around Earth. The cloud cooled and condensed into a ring of small, solid bodies, which then gathered together, forming the moon."

Om månen är en del av jorden borde den alltså bestå av ungefär samma material.

Sen kan vi ju debattera solreflektioner och material i 50 år, det finns gott om forskning och dokumentärer som övertygat åtminstone mig om att de fejkade det. Har du sett BBC:s "What happened on the moon?" eller "Astronauts gone wild?"

Quote:

Jo jag har sett alla dom sk" dokumentärerna" Samma dynga som vanligt!
Massor av lögner och rena fakta fel.

Sen bör du försöka hålla dig till sanningen. Filmen heter "A funny thing happend on the way to the moon. Den är INTE gjord av BBC.

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

Står bakom denna "film". Dom tjänar pengar på svagsinta folk som köper detta och tror att det är sant.


Att man kommer fram till att månen skulle vara en del av jorden gör det ju inte automatiskt till att allt skulle vara det samma på månen som på jorden, för med den logiken skulle det finnas luft vatten och McDonalds där också.
Så det haltar en del ditt resonemang.

OK! Då vet jag att du sett en del av dokumentärerna och att du anser att de bygger på lögner och faktafel. "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" är INTE samma film som "What happened on the moon?" Den film jag talar om, som egentligen är en serie updelad på 3 kan du läsa om här:

http://www.gazellebookservices.co.uk/ISBN/AULISDVD1.htm

eller hämta här:

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/tor ... 150aa29dd40e72762.torrent

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/tor ... 4761bfe7ce545584d.torrent

Ungefär som jorden sa jag. Den där sista kommentaren i ditt senaste inlägg hade jag inte förväntat mig från en kille som verkar så intelligent som dig Mohamed.

Hursomhelst, det är positivt att det finns forum och att människor vill diskutera till skillnad mot Neil Armstrong som vägrat ge intervjuer och istället svarar: "Ask me no questions and I tell you no lies."
Alltid lär man sig något.

Ha det!

Ok. den har jag missat.

Det jag också missar är att jag ser ingenstans att BBC har gjort denna "dokumentär"

Det är du som drar slutsatsen att jorden och månen har samma material /ämnen, det gör inte NASA eller någon annan forskare.
Här förstår man att jorden och månen har haft OLIKA förutsättningar och gått olika öden till mötes, detta har gjort att det finns unika material på jorden och unika material på månen.

Har du några sensationella bevis som visar på något annat så varsågod!


Detta fick vi lära oss på högstadiet, så micro om du kräver att jag skall bevisa detta så slå upp din fysikbok från högstadiet. Detta ingår i allmänbildningen.
Jag behöver knappast bevisa vad klockan är va?

Hmm...någon sa att definitionen på en cyniker är en person som kan tänka sig att sätta eld på sin grannes hus bara för att steka sina ägg.

Lightsaber

Är det en BBC "dokumentär som du rekommenderar eller är det inte?

Det var ett tag sedan jag såg den nu men det vill jag minnas att det var. Spelar det någon större roll?

Här hittade jag en intressant artikel från Nasa:s hemsida apropå månens ursprung:

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=446

Quote:

Det har all världens betydelse, för det visar på hur ditt sätt att argumentera ter sig.

Genom att använda BBC så försöker du få det se ut att vara en riktig dokumentär och inte en gjord av foliehattar. Detta vet du och försöker utnyttja till max.
Dålig stil.


Nu tycker jag du skall fortsätta och leta lite på NASA´s hemsida, där står det mycket om hela Apollo projektet och dom 6 månlandningarna med människor som gjorts.

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/sites/Ex ... ero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

Har du några relaterade frågor kring länkarna kan du väl återkomma!

Mohamed. du tror vad du tror, och det verkar inte som om du kommer att ändra dig, så, varför tjatar du så jävla mycket?
Där i mot, om du är öppen för att ta in annat och kanske ändra åsikt, ja då är det nått annat, men jag tror inte att det är vad du vill just nu, för då hadde du nog vart mer villig att ta in den fakta som Lightsaber postar.

have a nice day
Gramse

Problemet är att "tro" över huvudtaget...att "tro" är till för de fega, de efterblivna, de naiva och dumma.

Professor Psilo

Quote:

Det är ingen FAKTA.

Fakta är att NASA har landat 6 ggr på månen. Om du finner något som bevisar motsatsen, varegod.....

Quote:

Ahh, jag förstår, om något är gjort av BBC är det per automatik en "riktig" dokumentär som alltid presenterar sanningen. Om det INTE är gjort av BBC så är det gjort av idioter som ljuger. Well, så kan man ju också se på livet. Jag skulle önska att vi har varit på månen men jag är inte övertygad. Du säger dig vara övertygad om motsatsen och det är helt ok med mig. Du är i gott sällskap, de flesta i världen tror ju som dig så varför hetsar du upp dig. Jag är helt övertygad om att oavsett om du har rätt eller fel i en fråga Mohamed så älskar Gud dig lika mycket ändå .

Quote:

Allt är inte rätt som BBC gör.. Senast förra veckan tog dom in en arbetssökande som "data-expert" Men dom får stå för det, vad har foliehattarna att förlora på om deras filmer visar sig innehålla lögner och fakta fel? Inget, för ni tycker ju fortfarande att dom har rätt utan att se ett steg längre och använda det som ni förhoppningsvis lärde er i skolan.

Där har du den stora skillnaden.

Titta gärna igenom dom små påståenden som NASA bemöter i min förra länk, sen kan du väl kommentera ett pa påståenden så det blir en debatt om ämnet som tråden handlar om!

Jag har diskuterat de s.k månlandningarna i den här och flera andra trådar många gånger och jag har tagit del av Nasas officiella förklaring i 37 år men det är för mycket som inte stämmer för att jag ska köpa det. Framtiden får utvisa vad som hände, jag tror att en dag kommer sanningen fram. Om det då visar sig att du har rätt kan jag bara säga grattis, det bjuder jag på. Vi behöver alla lite uppmuntran då och då, så även du min käre Mohamed.

Quote:
Sådär brukar det alltid låta från foliehattarna, i alla möjliga frågor, men det normala är det aldrig kommer något som bevisar foliehattarnas påståenden, bara fler och fler motbevis.

Jag kan inte komma på ett enda exempel där tiden gett foliehattarna rätt.

Quote:
Det är ju redan klart att månlandingsförnekarna har fel och att vi verkligen landat på månen, bevisen är överväldigande, så vad väntar du på? Vad, vilka ytterligare bevis, är det som krävs för att du skall erkänna månlandingarna som sanna?

Problemet för dig Lightsaber är att som zpz säger så har ni i detta ämne inte ett enda rätt.


Jag vill att du tar fram en enda sak som inte stämmer med den officiella versionen. Denna sak kan vi diskutera så får vi se vad vi kommer fram till.

Fast du kanske inte törs?

Ett bra tillfälle och visa dig på styva linan, någonting är ju inte riktigt som du själv säger, visa det då!!!

Att försöka överbevisa de troende kommer aldrig att gå, så vi icke troende kan väl sluta att argumentera mot dem, utan i stället med dem. Vi kan ställa frågor som. Hur har du tänkt dig det här? Eller Vad betyder det för dig att… eller, hur mår du egentligen?
Sen så sammanställer vi det till en bok och ger ut den på ett eget förlag och håvar in kosingen, åker till Mallis och dricker öl.
//K

Quote:

Det här uttalandet av förre Nasa chefen Dan Goldin säger väl det mesta:

"NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena Mcdonald openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention, or reference to the Apollo missions 37 years ago."

Liksom det här av Neil Armstrong hämtat ur en biografi om honom:

"As for walking on the moon, sometimes I wonder if that really happened. I can honestly say—and it's a great surprise to me that I have never had a dream about being on the moon. It's a great disappointment to me."

Ett till citat ur samma bok:

"When Neil started as a professor at the University of Cincinnati in 1970, news executives from the area's radio, TV, and print media were summoned to a downtown restaurant to hear an ultimatum: They were not to request interviews with the space hero who would be living in their midst, because none would be granted."

Lite mer som talar emot den officiella versionen:

Bill Kaysing som brukade arbeta som skribent på Rocketdyne, ett företag som arbetade med att tillverka den första månlandarna erbjöd sig att debattera mot vem som helst av astronauterna eller nasas experter eller till och med allihopa tillsammans för att bevisa bluffen.

Resultatet?

SAMTLIGA VÄGRADE STÄLLA UPP.


NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11. In 2006 they are still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, 37 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.


Film footage taken inside the capsule of ALL Apollo missions, shows a light blue haze, and curvature of Earth through capsule window, when they were supposedly half way to the Moon, and in the blackness of space. This proves that capsule was only in Earth orbit.


Moon pictures on NASA's web sites are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted. The pictures reveal a black line penciled in where background meets daylight sky, which was blacked out completely.


The LM used on latter missions, was the same spec as the first mission, ie, no modifications. It would have therefore been impossible to carry the rover vehicle to the Moon in the same confined LM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.


The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro Apollo NUTTERS claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid 70's when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA have had 36 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program. Each time some one brings up a query NASA correct it and say nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Anyway I have pictures of the rover supposedly on the Moon and it has the SAME tires AND tire valves as the one they used at KSC. In other words it is the SAME one. Early close up pictures of the rover on Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web site.


It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate.


The LM was suspended from a huge traverse crane based at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, and was gently lowered at the same time it traversed over a mock Moon surface created beneath it. Ref: Picture on REALITY site, and Channel 4 video "As it Happened" .


Trainee astronauts were also suspended from this huge traverse crane in a horizontal position to simulate reduced gravity. Check picture on REALITY site with the NASA web site picture of Harrison Schmitt tripping up. The unusual high backward leg swing is identical in both pictures.


Film footage allegedly taken by Apollo 8 as it supposedly circled the Moon, is the SAME film used for the Apollo 11 mission, except that film is reversed and run backwards, look for "tadpole like" mountain range. What NASA did was to film the mock lunar surface at LRC, traveling in one direction, then reverse camera, and film surface traveling in opposite direction, as shown in video's.


Film footage showing Apollo missions allegedly circling the Moon, was taken by a rail mounted camera which slowly moved toward a rotating plaster paris model of the Moon.

James Lovell was reading from a prewritten script when he did the voice over for the above film, and referred to the Moon as being "essentially gray, no color, looks like plaster of paris". It was indeed plaster of paris he was referring to, hence the smirk on face of Michael Collins after this remark.


Anyone who believes the Moon landings must be "essentially green".


Michael J. Tuttle who composed the fake Moon pictures, used mountain background scenes from the astronaut training sessions in Iceland, to paste on the fake pictures. Check picture on REALITY site with number 10075749.jpg from the Apollo 16 site. He also digitally composed the 360 degree panoramic shots of fake Moon landing sites for use by NASA. His URL speaks for itself. The majority of NASA's fake Moon landing pictures were taken/composed in the mid 90's, AND NOT in the late 60's as many are led to believe. This was because suspicion was aroused at the time regarding the limited number of photo's available. NASA had to do something rapidly because of the onset of the Internet.


The Saturn V rocket had shed 97% of its weight upon reaching Earth orbit. The remaining 3% was the space capsule placed in EARTH ORBIT.


Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface would be blinded by the light.


In the mid 60's, Alan Shepherd was removed from ALL space missions due to vertigo and meniere's disease. No one in such a poor state of health would be assigned to such a dangerous and complex mission. He was not even on the Apollo 14 mission, which in itself was only in Earth orbit.


Alleged Moon rock is basalt rock found here on Earth. NASA made it radioactive by "baking it" in a radiation oven. If it is genuine Moon rock, then it was brought back by a scoop and return probe.


The monitored radio/data signals were either transmitted from Earth and reflected back by bouncing signal of the Moon, or were transmitted via a leased channel. If a valuable source of monitoring equipment was left on Moon, then it would be used today, and not shut down in the 70's.


Neil Armstrong has NO momento's or photographs whatsoever from his alleged Moon mission, however he has plenty from his test pilot days. There are no photographs of Armstrong supposedly on the Moon, because Armstrong, knowing the saga was fake, refused NASA permission.


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 2006 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 computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k memory.


When Apollo astronauts were not in space, they were manning mission control communication for other Apollo missions, this was to limit the number of persons in the know. There were in fact two communication links to every Apollo mission. First was launch control who dealt with communication at lift off, and reentry, however once in Earth orbit communication was handed over to the limited few astronauts manning mission control. Check it yourself on film coverage released at the time. Collins, Duke, Aldrin, Lovell, Shepherd, Schmitt, Cernan etc, are all there on various missions. Lovell himself admitted that there were two communication links to the astronauts.


It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the conical space capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them. It would have also been impossible for them to get out at the conical/pointed end of space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.


In 2006 NASA does not have the technology to land a man on the Moon, and return them safely. It may be possible in the future, but such a feat is still many, many years away.


Buzz Aldrin believes he has suffered brain damage as a result of his trip to the Moon. He knows darned well that he never went anywhere near the Moon, and so could not have suffered brain damage in the way he alleges. Aldrin was the only Apollo astronaut who went public, and talked about the Moon landings during the 70's and 80's. The guilt, remorse, and stumbling over awkward questions put to him by the media, have put an intolerable strain on him. His psychological damage is the result of keeping it bottled up for 37 years, instead of getting it off his mind. In Aldrin's book "Return to Earth", he makes a remark that all 6 of them have been made to look fools. Make of this what you will.


When approached by journalist Bart Sibrel, Armstrong made the remark "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies". Would he say this if he had nothing to hide?


Bill Kaysing has offered to appear on a live TV debate with any of the Apollo astronauts, NASA officials, or even the whole lot of them together, verses him on his own, to answer questions, and debate the authenticity of Apollo. Think about this, if these astronauts had indeed been to the Moon, and NASA truly landed men on the Moon as they claim, then they have absolutely nothing to fear, and could demolish Bill Kaysing's theory in less than 5 minutes. Not only that, but they would make him look ridiculous in front of millions of people, however both astronauts and NASA continually decline for any such meeting/debate on television. That just about sums it up in a nutshell, THEY CANNOT ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS.

More recently Kaysing has accused NASA of murdering the 3 astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire because they would not go along with any faking of Moon missions. This is a very libelous statement to make if it were untrue. Has NASA taken any legal action to sue Kaysing for labeling them as murderers? No of course not because (A) The statement may be true, (B) If it were not true any legal action would bring into question the authenticity of the alleged Moon landings, and that is what NASA do not want.


Extended space travel past 250 miles from Earth is a wee bit testy, especially if so much as a dust-bunny comes along at 30+km/s (there should actually be a few 100+km/s items that are small but pack quite a nasty kinetic punch).

The closer you get yourself to the solar illuminated side of the moon the more of that intensified secondary/recoil photon dosage becomes an issue. Half the distance and you're receiving 4 times the dosage, and there's certainly plenty of official hard-X-ray images showing exactly How downright TBI hot and nasty that surface environment is.


Once outside the Van Allen zone of death is where your biological clock is seriously ticking down upon the demise of your DNA/RNA. A few too many unfortunate days of that punishment and you're due for a good replenishment of your banked bone marrow upon return to Earth.


So, starting yourself off at just one millirem/hr and keep reducing
upon that distance by half until you've arrived a few meters off the
lunar deck. Meaning that orbiting along at 100+km off the deck is
short-term survivable considering that half of the time you're shielded by the moon instead of being secondary TBI to death. More than a few days of even that 50/50 exposure and your banked bone marrow may not be sufficient for saving the day upon your return to Earth.

En bra artikel om ämnet:

Rethinking NASA's Version of History.

Never accept the obvious. Never take anything on face value. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Question everything, and I mean everything. Follow these directions and you will be led to some disturbing conclusions.
Currently the Creeps Research Group's findings on NASA and the Apollo missions have two possibilities: Number One, the space program has been for the most part a hoax and we never went to the moon, or Number Two, we went to the moon but for some reason NASA felt the need to falsify all released info on what happened. We find Number Two to be the most likely scenario but cannot completely discount Number One at this time.

Cat in a hot tin suit
According to any basic science text, as we all know, the only reason the Earth is not roasting from the Sun's heat is our atmosphere. The official NASA line is that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of. This being the case, the surface temperature of the moon must be extremely hot, not cold as the popular myth would have it. And in fact, reference works varyingly place the daytime surface temperature between 206 and 265 degrees F.

There is no way - absolutely no way - the astronauts and the Lunar Module could have survived in such heat. NASA claims the suits were air-conditioned and also used a water-cooling system, both of which are impossible and could not function in a vacuum at 265 degrees of heat. Carrying oxygen tanks at that temperature is probably not a very good idea either!
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled off by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Oh, sure, objects which are in the shade of another object will eventually cool off, but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the near-absolute vacuum of space. Since the vacuum of space is the ultimate insulator, objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat.

The upshot of all this is that 265 degrees of heat in a vacuum is even worse than 265 degrees of heat on Earth, because once heat is generated there is no way to cool down in any meaningful amount of time. The water-cooled spacesuits could not have possibly worked. And oh yeah, did you know water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot? Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft...look it up.

What amazingly powerful batteries!
And what was the power source for the system that kept these suits cooled and kept the water circulating? And what was the power source for the system that had to keep the Lunar Module cooled as it sat there and baked in the extreme heat? Think about your electric bills in the summer and how many BTUs your air conditioners use, then think about what it must have taken to keep the LM and the individual suits cooled. How was this enormous amount of power generated?

How does water freeze at anything but the Freezing Point?
According to Kozloski's reference work "U.S. Space Gear": "The astronauts' portable life support system, developed by Hamilton Standard, supplied oxygen and circulated it through the helmet and suit. It controlled relative humidity and held temperature to a comfortable 70 degrees F. A PLSS pump cooled water by sublimation* and recirculated it through the tubing of the liquid cooling garment."

Okay, then the asterisk at "sublimation" brings us to a footnote:
"Hamilton Standard introduced a porous plate sublimator on the PLSS : Heated water would pass through the sublimator, freeze at pores of the nickel plate that was partially exposed to ambient space temperature, vaporize as heat was introduced through exchange fins, sublimate the ice film, and thereby free the vapor to be discharged."

THINK ABOUT THIS. This whole concept hinges on the assumption that it is cold enough outside to instantly freeze water on a nickel plate that is partially exposed outside the suit. But we know the moon CANNOT be freezing outside the suit, because the sun's rays are beating down on it in an atmosphereless vacuum!
And if it's really that cold on the moon, why do they need an air conditioning system in the suit in the first place??

Vague answers from NASA's answer man
Hoping that some light could be shed on this glaring discrepancy, we consulted the NASA "Ask A Space Scientist" web page, e-mailed them the details above and asked for an explanation. Just minutes later, they fired back this terse, nearly incoherent response, reprinted here exactly as it was received:
"in the shade...blocked from direct view of the sun..it plunges to over 100 degrees below zero...actually... 3 degrees above absolute zero if properly shielded from stray light. Dr. odenwald"
And there you have it. This answer came from a NASA scientist. Everyone knows damn well the astronauts were not in the shade. The pictures show they were in broad daylight - he admits this himself by fudging with "blocked from DIRECT view of the sun". It only plunges to below zero at night. (243 below zero, to be exact) And the Apollo missions were clearly conducted in broad daylight with the sun beaming directly on them as they're running, jumping, hanging out and riding their Lunar Rover around. For hours at a time. Where did this guy come up with "3 degrees above absolute zero", and what the heck does "if properly shielded from stray light" mean, anyway??!

Where are the stars?
Much has been said in other works suspicious of the Apollo program about the lack of stars in the sky in the moon pictures. This has been attempted to be explained away by saying that the camera's exposures simply did were not set to allow starlight in. 'There's really no mystery to it', the debunkers say, 'go out in your yard some night and take a bunch of pictures of trees and houses and things, but leave a lot of sky in view. You won't see any stars in 99 percent of the pictures.' Well, you know, I tried it and by golly, it's true, you can't. The stars are so indistinct as to be invisible. Problem is, it makes the moon pretty indistinct too. Just a big bright round blur with none of its surface features visible. Yet the Earth is in crystal clear focus in the sky in the Apollo pictures, even when the foreground is what is being focused on. And yet still no stars. Hmmmm.
Furthermore, light behaves differently in a vacuum. With no atmosphere to diffuse the sun's rays into light pollution, the sky should have been lit up like a Lite-Brite with a thousand points of light, far more brilliant than seen from Earth. Taking this into account, it's even harder to believe that none of the Apollo photos show any stars.

I can't see a thing in this helmet
I own a high-altitude air force pilot's helmet, the closest thing to an actual space helmet one could have. I tried it on and was struck by something interesting : my breath fogged it up immediately and I couldn't see a thing. So how did the NASA space suits prevent this problem? There could not be any sort of air-blowing device, as with a car windshield defogger, because an air-exchanging system cannot work in a vacuum. Space helmets currently employ a special glass that prevents fogging, but this did not exist in the era of the Apollo missions.
With the alleged water-cooled cool temperature inside the suit and 265-degree heat outside the suit, condensation should have formed on the glass faceplate even without the astronaut's breath. (The astronauts' mouths are not covered in any way under the helmet, by the way.)

The bloody gloves fit....a little too well
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. Yet the gloves the astronauts wore are made of pliable material containing no devices which would aid the astronauts in the dextrous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. I have viewed these gloves myself at the Smithsonian Institute. Such gloves are impossible to use, for the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dextrous work whatsoever when pressurized.

There is plenty of film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their time on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... which would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.
So.... if they weren't in a vacuum, where were they?

Footprints lead to the truth
This one's been floating around out there for while amongst NASA-doubters. We all know about the famous footprints of Neil Armstrong on the moon, and there plenty more left by the various Apollo crewmen. Problem is, in order for soil to retain a footprint, there must be moisture. A significant amount of it, in fact. Yet NASA insists there is no moisture on the moon, except for a few pockets of recently-discovered ice shaded in edges of craters. The idea of moisture in the moon soil that Armstrong trod upon is impossible, given what we know about the intense daytime heat well beyond the boiling point of water. And yet, there the footprints are. Maybe these photographs weren't really taken on the moon....
Walk on the beach sometime in the hottest, dryest sand you can find. Your footprints will barely be distinct. Only in the moister sand approaching the water do your footprints hold an exact impression. Even in the finest, most particulate sand you can find.
And speaking of that fine dust-like sand on the moon's surface, ever wonder why, in a low-gravity environment, huge clouds of it aren't kicked up with every step the astronauts take?

Här är ett utdrag ur en intressant artikel om Van Allen bältet:

THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier

It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van AllenReport had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.

Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claimings and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."

"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen throughhalls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?

Om nu Van Allen bältet är så ofarligt för astronauter, för det måste det ju vara eftersom de som varit på "månen" inte hade drabbats av någon strålning, hur kommer det sig då att ingen enda av de färder ut i rymden som skett efter de s.k "månlandningarna" har passerat Van Allen bältet?


Sen har vi ju den berömda presskonferensen med 3 av astronauterna efter den första "månlandningen."

Efter att ha ufört världshistoriens största tekniska bedrift tycker man att de skulle se åtminstone lite glada och stolta ut. Istället ser de ut som skamsna hundar.

Sorry boys jag är inte övertygad.

Quote:

fan vad du hetsar.......
Du vet precis lika lite om vad som hände då som någon annan här, så alltså tror du oxå en massa....eller?
Prova att vara lite ödmjuk kanske.