can you list what are the strongest conspiracy that cannot be explained?

for instance, the shadows, no stars
Surface temperature of the moon
below -200 C in the shadow
above +200 C under the light





and, all the conspiracy theories in the videos

natgeo have a compilation of moon haox claim and explaination.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...res/photo3.html

photo of the landing site

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...-imaged-by-lro/

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jul 19 2009, 12:38 AM

I'd be glad if you could explain
1. How they survived through the Van Allen radiation belt with virtually no shielding
2. Howcome their camera still worked in extreme temperatures on the surface of the moon. The tape would have melted
3. How come after 40 years with super computers and advanced technology, NASA is still struggling to walk on Mars. It is virtually the same type of alleged technology to land and walk. The only difference is the distance

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 19 2009, 11:15 PM

Hmm, if im not mistaken they put some special thing to make the flag appear as it is flapping. Saw on CNN.

I doubt the moon landing. (Im not saying its not true. Just doubt).

And the mythbuster thing, just proves that it CAN be done here on Earth. It has actually hits back at them.

1. You can survive the Van Allen radiation belt, as long the exposure time is short enough. In this case, they had exposure in terms of hours, not days.

More here: http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

2. You're assuming that the temperature of the camera would immediately jump up to 200c, when in fact, heating is always a time dependent process, and the same applies with cooling.

3. Because the whole Apollo 11 launch to landing on Moon and back to Earth took 8 days. A one way trip to Mars takes 8 months. There was no need to recycle food/waste on the Apollo missions; this is essential instead for a mission to Mars, which increases complexity a lot. There is also a loss of political will to fund such programmes; there is no longer any space race to push for so much funding; the Apollo mission is an exception, not the rule when it comes to funding

distance by itself is a big enough issue to tackle IMO

Oh yea?

How long was the Hiroshima blasted? Seconds? Minutes? Days? Months?


The radiation was blasted out in spherical movement in a few seconds and dispersed.



Cities away from Hiroshima blast also suffered from radiations

They suffered from weird diseases and dying for several generations.
skin cancer, weird diseases, mutation, loss of hair and endless others



Again, how long was the radiation dispersal?
It dispersed out at the speed of light yet it still managed to ionize the human DNA.




LOL..Several hours in the bowl of charged particles can literally cook you.

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 20 2009, 12:06 PM

this should clear up some doubt
link

you made it seems like the astronauts were wearing civilians clothings while up there, and is equally succumbable to what the poor atomic bomb victims suffered from back down on earth.

Well according to physics, it requires several feet of LEAD box to survive through Ven Allen Belt. The astronauts where wearing a millimeter shielding

If you're a physics student you would know how many inches of lead would stop a single beam of gamma ray.
gamma rays require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50%.


You can do the math if the intensity is sooooooo high

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 20 2009, 02:04 PM

Sigh... http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Darling, I am a physics student. You do not need to stop gamma rays. Getting hit by gamma rays do not kill you, but they do increase the chance of you suffering down the line from cancer or something. You'd need a massive massive dose to actually kill you immediately.

And if you knew your physics better, you'd know that gamma rays aren't remotely close to being the main source of radiation in the Van Allen belts because the belts are formed mainly by trapped charged particles in the Earth's magnetic field, which photons would easily traverse. And again, the shielding need not protect from all radiation. Heck we are exposed to radiation every single day we walk on the surface of the planet, and heck even if we were 10 miles underground we'd still get some (albeit a lot less).

You have ignored the fact that the atomic bomb explosion had other sources of radiation, namely the highly unstable (and hence highly radioactive) daughter products, and concentrated exclusively on gamma rays only. Breathing in the 'radioactive wind' would probably have been the most dangerous thing to do in a nuclear explosion event, because the daughter products are still highly radioactive. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase...fisfrag.html#c1

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp11.asp (talks about the rays emitted - but mainly concentrating on the close to explosion site effects, not further away

This post has been edited by bgeh: Jul 22 2009, 04:50 PM

I think its all abt the camera exposure. The surface illumination were too strong and overexposing the shot. Stars are lost in the background as an effect. Most orbital satelite photos also do not exhibit stars for similar reasons.

Try taking ur video cam out in a starry night and capture it with a bright floor as a foreground. I dont think u'll get the stars recorded. Video cameras in the 60s are low-res and makes it worse to capture a minute star with little lights emitting power.

Telescopes are somehow good at capturing stars.....well one thing is because its highly sensitive n its huge.

---

Added on July 22, 2009, 11:44 pmIm waiting for the Lunar Orbiter to come up with 3x the resolution in the coming weeks.

The ones they have on the Lunar landing sites now are too low-res coz its far.

If the photos are clear and without doubt, then it will rest the case for the conspirators.

This post has been edited by maranello55: Jul 22 2009, 11:44 PM

I believe the moon landing did happen, but the way they accomplished it is way beyond what anyone thinks. And there are many strange stuff on the moon which NASA never revealed to the world right till today ~ as well.

It seems we will all get a much bigger picture of the true state of affairs in the coming 1-3 years, but till then, keep your fingers crossed, as all this is just endless speculation, I'll admit...

the moon is reflecting light from sun so camera cannot capture dark background with proper exposure, like how hard it is to see a sky full of star with the light pollution in the city. optical telescope also effected by the light pollution there is movement to reduce light pollution from our cities

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/d...p_Problems.html

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jul 23 2009, 07:16 PM

think moon landing in religious way.. my opinion says it was all fake

if there is strange stuff on the moon that nasa never revealed, how do you got to know about it?

I'm sorry but we are at a science discussion here.
But I do agree with you.
1969, Apollo 11, fake.