Posted on 06/17/2015 2:27:35 PM PDT by Marcus
Edited on 06/17/2015 11:33:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Updated: Added unedited and actual excerpt of the Examiner article.
According to a Tuesday article in the Moscow Times, a spokesman for Russia’s Investigative Committee named Vladimir Markin suggested that an international investigation be mounted into some of the “various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972.”
Markin would particularly like to know some of the missing moon rocks went to and why the original footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing was erased.
Markin hastened to add that he is, of course, not suggesting that NASA faked the moon landings and just filmed the events in a studio...
Article continues here: http://www.examiner.com/article/russian-official-calls-for-international-investigation-of-the-apollo-program
Poster's version below:
A spokesman for Russia’s Investigative Committee named Vladimir Markin suggested that an international investigation be mounted into some of the “various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972.” Markin would particularly like to know some of the missing moon rocks went to and why the original footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing was erased. Markin hastened to add that he is, of course, not suggesting that NASA faked the moon landings and just filmed the events in a studio
Hey Markin, you commie son of a bitch. We’ll investigate NASA when you reveal to us how many of your Cosmonauts you lost in blown-up launches or who were sent off to their deaths in space, unannounced and unmourned.
As Hillary would say, “CALL ME”. I’m using the RED phone just for you.
We landed on the moon using computers a tenth as powerful as a cell phone - and took off without an external structure to hold the craft steady. What’s to doubt?
Thanks for sharing. But I'm curious, exactly how far beyond stupid? Because if stupid turns out to be elliptically non-Euclidean, I should be able to curve around and intersect with the truth far past what is currently understood.
I ask because an elliptical solution would make your opinion an estimate of my recognition of reality, instead of merely being a rude insult designed to trash any particular point I made through emotional association - and thereby hide your inability to provide a legitimate rebuttal. You see, I'm trying to find a way not regard you as an @ss.
my GF says i’m never useful :)
It's odd the original tapes went missing - and the moon rocks... Also the Cape Canaveral team stood back from their computers at one point and let an unknown team come in for the landing... Did Walter Cronkite and Willy Ley walk off with the goods??
Not true. The cameras were encased in a special enclosure. Have you ever seen an underwater enclosure for cameras?
I guess the Russian never saw
Apollo 18 the real story.
Their hackers just haven't been able to find it yet.
Yeah, it's plastic with rubber seals. Last about thirty seconds on the moon before melting, freezing and then cracking into dust.
There's a link to a discussion of the moon camera on ansel's post #17.
If you want to comment without just making things up, that'd be great.
I just no longer think we sent PEOPLE to the moon - I think it was remote equipment. (Talisker)
First it was the camera, then it’s the Radiation Belt, now it’s this little bombshell.
Where to start...where to start.
I’m guessing that since you believe people didn’t land on the moon (just probes and equipment) then you must explain the live coverage, pictures and film of the astronauts on the lunar surface. I’d take that you believe it was all faked (ie: a sound studio)?
How so, considering the characteristics of (1) low gravity, (2) lunar dust displays (3) Apollo 15 “hammer vs feather” display (4) zero atmosphere, (5) photographs (shadow angles, pictures in shadow, no stars, etc.,) and (6) floating in zero G.
FYI: Not all of the pictures were “pristine and pure”. A little digging in the NASA archives will show less than perfect photos.
In 1969, the tech wasn’t there to fake the lunar landings.
Apollo and the Van Allen Radiation Belts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEylTGOlQ8
Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
Reactions on lunar gravity.
How the Apollo Flags “Flapped in the Breeze”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtkIs0RkrAc
Proof We Landed on the Moon: It’s In the Dust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfSoWb6W54
Hammer throw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdr_gj20Gc4
Lunar gravity
Various lunar gravity examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE
Apollo 15: Hammer & Feather drop (Astronaut Dave Scott)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gucr_OfzQ6M
Vacuum is must easier to make a seal for than underwater devices since vacuum is only 15psi less than what we normally experience rather than hundreds or thousands of PSI at water depth. If we can seal underwater devices, we can seal for space. Lunar temperatures are hot, but not like an iron foundry.
Environmental conditions for the cameras was the same as for the space suits. The space suits had to made to dump extra heat because the astronauts' bodies generated more than was absorbed from the environment. Cameras had reflective bodies and internal insulation, especially around the film magazines.
If you consult the online documentation, you would find that there were film safes for unexposed and exposed film storage and requirements for the amount of time that film could remain in the cameras. Remember that surface time was only a few hours. The rest of the time the film was in the command module.
Another excellent point made by an Apollo astronaut: “Russia would have been thrilled to prove those landings were faked. The full might of the KGB could only verify the authenticity”.
From Yahoo Answers:
The temperture usually given for the Moon is the SURFACE temperature. In a vacuum there is no ambient, therefore the surface temperature is irrelevant to the camera. In the vacuum of space the major source of heat is radiant solar heat, and you can protect against this by making the outer surface reflective. Check the cameras on Apollo. They did indeed have reflective outer casings.
The temperatures on the moon were quite moderate because all Apollo missions were scheduled to be on the Moon at the “lunar morning”. The surface was already pre-heated for some days but not as hot as it would be at the lunar moon or afternoon a week later.
(1) low gravity
Film slowed down (but not enough, jumps don't correlate with how high they'd go if they were in true 1/6 gravity)
(2) lunar dust displays
Large low-pressure room, film slowed down, also dust didn't go high enough to properly represent 1/6 gravity)
(3) Apollo 15 “hammer vs feather” display
Large low-pressure room, for the feather as close to vacuum as possible.
(4) zero atmosphere
Pump it out. Probably can't get to zero, but who knows? What if it's done in a converted subterranean military chamber - blast doors on either side could bear something very close to actual vacuum.
(5) photographs (shadow angles, pictures in shadow, no stars, etc.,)
LOL, that's on my side - many, many problems with those things discussed everywhere.
(6) floating in zero G.
Low Earth orbit with blacked-out windows -as far as perhaps they actually went before splashing back down a week later. Slip-ups on the bright Earth outside a window when they were supposedly halfway to the moon have already been found.
---
I admit being shocked and pissed when I finally decided I no longer believed the standard story. But unlike most tinfoil wearers, I don't have a "thing" about it. What I think is that the whole push for the moon was for certain political purposes. And so, being political, when the technology didn't prove up to snuff, they just lied about it. I don't see this as unusual or rare. A bummer, yes, but hardly incomprehensible. The government has nothing but contempt for the People, it lies to them as a matter of course.
And more lies are always necessary continue to support the original lie. For example, there's a long scene in the movie Apollo 13 where they've turned off the power and it's freezing cold - when the truth is that they'd be roasting in a tin can. That's WHY the fuel had to be mixed in the first place, and the spacecraft rotated, because otherwise one side would heat up. What they needed was A/C units to cool them off through radiator panels. So why lie about this fundamental issue in the movie? I mean, it's huge.
Well, how about the same problem on the moon? How did those guys stay cool? Their backpacks had to provide power and A/C, but then where did all the heat go? Supposedly it would blow out as steam, but then you have to carry around water as well, and they had no umbilicals. And they certainly didn't have giant radiator panels sticking out from them. Nor do any photos show the backpacks releasing steam - as they did in training videos.
People don't realize how much heat is a problem in space. The International Space Station has all sorts of panels sticking out that everyone thinks are solar panels. Wrong. A huge number of them radiate heat away from the station, to keep the crew from being cooked. In fact, heat control is a huge part of what they do each day, making sure the panels are angled appropriately. But no one talks about this.
I'm not saying they don't have recirculating A/C units - now. But they go on space walks and then when there's a problem they almost drown, because of the water they take with them to cool off. And they recharge those units in the station. But on the moon, fifty years ago, sitting in a capsule the size of a closet? How did they cool off with no water? Or recharge their units with what power?
Nah. Too many problems with the story. It's always something crucial that NASA treats trivially or never mentions, over and over again, thing after thing. It's like watching a Clinton lie unravel layer after layer after layer without end, but everyone just shrugs.
Whatever. It's not like it matters at this point. Maybe the Muslims that now represent NASA's mission will find a way there - and then start throwing rocks down on us.
What you’re saying has either been already covered on this thread, or is so illogical I’m not wasting my time answering it. “Hardened” cameras? Why “hard”? “Iron foundry”? 230 degrees is plenty hot for plastic film thanks. “Space suits made to dump heat”? Yeah, with steam jets - see any of those on the photos? “Cameras with internal insulation”? Vacuum IS insulation - physical connection of “insulation” would just increase the conduction of heat.
You just make things up. Go away.
If Im not mistaken that still photo was from an early animated movie...that I saw...at a birthday party.... in my early childhood.
that of course PROVES that the moon landings were real/.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.