Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I've never really got into that moon stuff, but after even basic research one this is clear, the footage and images are indeed fake, this does not prove they did not go, radiation could easily have destroyed the film as there was no shielding on their craft plus the temp of 250 degrees on the moon in sunlight, the film the crew had according to Kodak melts at 150 degrees.

SO they may or may not have gone to the moon as far as I could tell, but the footage and photos are 100% fake.
There was not even one particle of dustdisturbed into the moon lander ffs, there would have been a crator from the booster biug enough to swallow the lander and no dist anywhere on the lander pads, nothing. Pristine. Nonsense.

 

and in case ye are wondering, those are my type of cheapshots, same ridicule different media

 

Large Hadron Collider

• NEWS 2 December 2015
  
  LHC might soon see hints of new quark dark matter particle
  Physicists have so far failed to find dark matter, but research into a separate mystery has unearthed a quark-like particle that could reveal its secrets
  

 

This is one of my favourites about the lies about the moon landing, whether true or not this is a complete lie
This family picture is meant to be sitting on the moon in 250 degrees of heat and much radiation, wrapped in 1960s bog standard plastic for 40 years

please log in to view this image

Nonsense, physically impossible. There are a lot of grey areas of that subject but some stuff is easily shown to be nonsense

 

#conspiracy

 

Being serious for a moment, where is the lie?
Is it impossible to leave a photo on the moon?

 

No-one is saying it's still intact and as it was left though.

He photographed it when he put it on the surface in 1972

 

Tobes you killed the Everton board, don't kill my thread

 

Still the same question. Why is a family photo left on the moon "easily shown to be nonsense"?

 

Are you saying the footage from all Apollo missions was fake?


Ps any news on that upcoming court case re AIDS being man made?

 

You ****ing dolt. Are you saying any photographs taken in space must be fakes because of radiation? Damn good job they didn't take the film out of its thermally-shielded housing and expose them to the direct ****ing sunlight.There's been zillions taken in earth orbit that even the cranks don;t deny. And the descent engine would be at @10% power in 1/6th gravity when it landed. Is that Ralph Renee's ****ing idiotic leaf-blower experiment I see popping up its 'self-trained' head? Look at the satellite pictures of the landing sites of 11. 12 and, especially, 15 (I say 15 especially because of the particular make up of the regolith of the Hadley Rile) and you'll see blast marks all right, left by the ascent engine as it blasted off, as opposed to the the descent engine hovering down at slow speed after the majority of its velocity had been countered at higher altitude when most of the fuel was expended.

You only have to point to the fact that not one serious scientist has ever given any credence to the moon-landings conspiracy dogshit. The friutcakes had to resort to calling Kaysling a rocket scientist (he was a librarian) and Ralph Renee a particle physicist (he's a 'self-trained engineer', whatever that is). If one iota of this cack was true, why wouldn't a Hawking, Greene, Close or suchlike be jumping up and down on the story of the century, knowing full well, if the cranks were right, that in time it would be proven that NASA simply didn't do it?

As for the Van Allen Belts - Van Allen worked for NASA and called the radiation argument of the cranks to be 'entertaining nonsense'. Even some of the actual astronauts such as Bill Anders were a hundred more times qualified to talk about radiation and particle physics than the likes of Kaysing and Renee. But explain this one to me: the position of the missions was plotted and followed by anyone (including the Soviets) who had radio telescopes, primarily by tracking the radio traffic between the crew and Houston (or Parkes observatory, or several other over the globe). That telemetry still exists, not only at Jodrell Bank but at other places, including Russia. How did they fake that? Did the fiendish NASA ping up the astronauts' voices to the unmanned Apollo - and how the **** did they mange that without every radio telescope picking up that signal leaving earth in the first place? Did they have a pre-recorded tape recording on the command module? That must have taken some foresight when they read out all the sports results and daily news to the crew every day. Perhaps, with it being NASA like, they fixed all those in advance too...

Anyway Sis, this is my territory - bring it on.

 

I am sure he will bring on yet more C+P

 

Then I'll get my retaliation in first:

Photographic film melts at 150 F (65 C). Therefore you can't use it to take photos on the moon.
This would be a problem only if there was a way for the film to be heated. Since the film wasn't in direct sunlight it wouldn't have been heated.

The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb.

please log in to view this image

David Groves, PhD, has shown that the extreme heat of the lunar environment would alter the colors in the film used to take the Apollo pictures. [Bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 540]
Dr. Groves' study is seriously flawed.

First, Dr. Groves assumes that when NASA says the lunar surface temperature at the Apollo landing sites varies from 180 F in the sun to -180 F in the shade, this means the Hasselblad cameras and film also reached this temperature. In fact, the temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Since the film magazine was covered with polished aluminum it would have absorbed very little radiant energy from the sun. Further, Hasselblad confirms that additional shield plates were added to the Apollo magazines to enhance their thermal insulative properties.

Second, Dr. Groves assumes that the film was subject to constant extreme heat for an average of four hours, corresponding to the average duration of a lunar EVA. Since the only possible method of heating would be absorption from sunlight, this would require the astronauts to stand facing the sun continuously for four hours. But of course that's not what they did. They were quite active, alternating between sunlight and shadow, turning toward and away from the sun constantly.

Now a cold object placed in the sunlight will begin to warm. It will not immediately leap to its hottest temperature. Similarly, a hot object removed from sunlight will radiate away its heat and become cool again. It can take quite a while for objects to reach these various equilibrium temperatures. The magazine alternated between sunlight and shade while it was attached to the camera, and was stored away from sunlight when not attached. It is highly unlikely the magazine ever reached either extreme of its temperature band, which is not the 180 F to -180 F range quoted for the lunar rocks and dust. And the film itself was never in direct sunlight and so would have absorbed absolutely no radiant energy.

Attempting to simulate the thermal conditions of the lunar environment, Dr. Groves uses the only mode of heat transfer notpertinent to space.
Third, Dr. Groves uses an oven to heat the film. This is completely absurd. An oven uses primarily convective heat transfer: the element heats the air in the oven, and the air then transfers the heat to the material being cooked. But because there is no air on the moon, there is no such convective heat transfer. Dr. Groves has chosen the only mode of heat transfer which doesn't occur on the moon!

Without a fluid medium to convectively transfer any heat from the magazine to the film itself, only two modes of heat transfer are possible: radiant transfer from the inner surface of the magazine to the film itself (the amount of which would be small in this scenario), and conductive transfer from the magazine case through the winding mechanism to the film itself. This is a very limited path of conduction.

In any case, Dr. Groves' baking the film in an oven at 180 F for four hours is largely unrepresentative of the conditions in which the Apollo photographic film was used and stored. It is baffling to see such unsophisticated and flawed analysis issued under the guise of professional science. We struggle to understand how even the most basic principles of thermodynamics seem to find no place in Dr. Groves' study.

please log in to view this image

If film gets too cold it will crack and the emulsion will flake off. The bitter cold of space would ruin the film.
We can point out that conspiracy theorists can't agree on whether the film is subjected to intense heat or intense cold in space. But to answer the question directly we point out that the Apollo film was manufactured with Kodak's Estar base. This base is an extra-thin polyester (not celluloid) material formulated for high-altitude (i.e., cold temperature) aerial photography, especially photoreconaissance.

The magazine casings were coated with aluminum. While this would reflect away most of the light, it would absorb enough to keep the film within its operating temperature.

 

Charlie Duke's. Would be probably destroyed by now. This was taken seconds after he placed it there. April '72. Where in all the ****ing ****ery of **** did you get the ****ing idea that anyone is ****ing claiming that this was taken 40-odd years after it was left there? I mean this is idiomatic of the total headfuckery of you mongs. It just defies any dispassionate logical reply at all.

No wonder NASA or any of the astronauts would waste their time to piss on your God awful excuse of a theory.

 

To add a little to that: Photography, printing and colour theory is one of my (precious few) areas of expertise, though not so much the technical hardware side of it.
I've never seen any so-called photographic "anomaly" put forward by conspiracy theorists that can't be explained fairly easily given the conditions. Also, people don't seem to realise that in the pre-digital age hardly any photographs, of any sort, made it to publication without being tarted up- either to compensate for printing shortcomings or simply for aesthetic reasons.
Down the years, I've had my hand in everything from fish fingers to Barbara Cartland.
Just because a photo shows signs of tampering doesn't mean it was fake- it was routine in those days.

 

Did you get the fish fingers through having a hand in Barbara Cartland

 

I wore gloves.




Boxing gloves.

 

I like it when people bother to get all of the claims together for "global warming" into a montage
More rain less rain more snow less snow, its warm, it is cold, more Malaria less malaria, it is all global warming

A theory that explains everyting, explains nothing.

 

"These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment." - Karl Popper - Science as Falsification.

http://stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Explains why so many believe the pseudoscience of global warming and why every thing confirms the theory, that's how pseudo science works, it is unfalisfiable, like say saying it can only be falsified in 20 years, then 100 yearts when the "20 years" didn't pan out between 1980 and 2000. Now it's 2100 and not global warming it is now "climate change".

Chinese dysansties were brought down by climate change, they must have had SUVs

 

@donga kloppo

If you believe that people traveled through the VA belt without shielding in a metal tube unshielded, then you are completely ignorant.

When electrons hit metal they produce x rays, if the apollo missions went through it, for hours the astronauts would have been bombarded with x rays inside that tube. Given how xrays from our mahines are bad mmmk, for single doses, I'd imagine being bombarded for hours was something that would damage your body.

But you "believe" I get that, objectivity is not something you are friendly with, hell no

The Orion mission is investigating the van allen belt because NASA will not send astronauts through the belt, not until they can shield them and the equipment as the equipment builds of electrical charges from the electrons all through the apace craft, something they could not hope to mitigate in the 60s. The 1960s piece of crap would have been like a power pylon going through the two (sometimes 3) belts.
NASA interview on Orion, ignore the title of the video, the guy never says that, but listen to what he is saying.
YOu cant sit in a metal tube with electrons going through it. "we must solve this problem before we send astronauts" in reference ot radiation. SOmething the apollo missions never even considered 60 years ago.

You really need to read up on the va belt and some physics lad. Otherwise you are just regurgitating stuff from debunk sites as usual, never thinking.

The whole batter excuse from the missions is a joke too, their batters, 1960s 70s batteries powered all that **** and they had "cooling in their suits" ****ing hilarious.

Taking pictures of their own feet when they cant bend at the waste or move the camera strapped