Moon landings

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Bad science now Pap?

 

The reason why they didn't die is because the radiation levels were well within tolerable limits and the Moon was not subject to any significant 'Solar Flare' activity during the Apollo missions. Contrary to the myth, you just don't need walls of lead to protect you in these conditions - a few millimeters of steel (as found on the LEM) was more than enough shielding.

 

The average dose recieved was in the order of 1 rem only. For the record it is reported that the Apollo crews did suffer a unusual number of cataracts as a result of their exposure.

[pap]

Pap do you genuinely believe there was a conspiracy or are you just playing Devils advocate?

 

I believe there could have been, and I think I've been clear on my stance. Proved to a decent standard, I'm happy.

 

The bloke I linked has a better and cheaper standard of proof. He'd be happy enough if he could get images of the landing sites from the VLT in Chile. They claim they can resolve detail as finickity as the headlamps on a car. Not much of an ask, is it?

[pap]

Bad science now Pap?

 

The reason why they didn't die is because the radiation levels were well within tolerable limits and the Moon was not subject to any significant 'Solar Flare' activity during the Apollo missions. Contrary to the myth, you just don't need walls of lead to protect you in these conditions - a few millimeters of steel (as found on the LEM) was more than enough shielding.

 

The average dose recieved was in the order of 1 rem only. For the record it is reported that the Apollo crews did suffer a unusual number of cataracts as a result of their exposure.

 

Read the linked article. Covers a lot of your proof.

[Big Bad Bob]

No it's not. If we had to use a building material analogy, I'd say one of the planks has fallen from your edifice.

 

You too insisted this could not be done without a man. The moment you are proved wrong, you constrain your set of conditions.

 

"You can't get a retroreflector on the moon without a human. I don't think you understand the robotics of the time. Oh, what I meant to say was you can't get a certain type of reflector onto the moon without a human"

 

I paraphrase, but that's a decent enough summary of your behaviour on this matter.

 

Juggling sand? FFS, mate - you can't even keep your mockery to one thread.

 

I've highlighted the appropriate word above, that being ON e.g. on the surface of the moon, not on a vehicle roving the moon.

 

I think you'll agree they are very much different technologies!

 

Honestly I think you're so wanting to believe that the Lunar landings were faked that you're using sematics and pedantics to try and convince yourself.

[Big Bad Bob]

I do have a post ready to go for Horley here, but yep, I do think radiation is a huge issue. The Soviets did too. Their attitude to putting a man on the moon involved waiting until it was safe to do so. Horley mentions Van Allen himself saying that the belts are not that dangerous. That's very nice, but a bit of scientific analysis would be preferable.

 

Move past the contested Van Allen belt, and you get to the moon itself. No magnetic field and no atmosphere, the two things that keep Earth from being an irradiated dustbowl.

 

This bloke, Jarrah White, lists three smoking guns, of which the radiation is one. Well worth a read.

 

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

 

lead lined suits and lead impregnated visors.....

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've highlighted the appropriate word above, that being ON e.g. on the surface of the moon, not on a vehicle roving the moon.

 

I think you'll agree they are very much different technologies!

 

Honestly I think you're so wanting to believe that the Lunar landings were faked that you're using sematics and pedantics to try and convince yourself.

 

I don't think he can comprehend the difference between the need to adjust the alignment of a permanently fixed reflector, and the obvious utter non utility of doing so when a mobile platform is employed.

 

A bit too technical perhaps .....

[pap]

I've highlighted the appropriate word above, that being ON e.g. on the surface of the moon, not on a vehicle roving the moon.

 

I think you'll agree they are very much different technologies!

 

Honestly I think you're so wanting to believe that the Lunar landings were faked that you're using sematics and pedantics to try and convince yourself.

 

The point stands. Retroreflectors have gotten all the way to the moon, without human assistance in deployment or setup. Still being used today.

 

You accuse me of pedantry when you can't even concede this point.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But you don't have a point because the US and Soviet reflectors are completely different designs.

 

You are tying to compare Chalk with Cheese.

[Whitey Grandad]

There is no cheese on the moon. I think we can all agree on that?

[pap]

But you don't have a point because the US and Soviet reflectors are completely different designs.

 

You are tying to compare Chalk with Cheese.

 

Only in the sense of Betamax reflectors vs VHS reflectors. You don't know what they actually look like. The information is secondhand and comes from a single government agency. Keep plugging away at this one though.

 

This is like a British Rail excuse. "sorry mate, wrong type of reflector on the lunar surface".

[The Kraken]

I love it when pap gets the bit between his teeth!

 

To be fair pap, you really should be getting batted out of the park on this one, what with the sheer weight of available evidence, conjecture, photographs, video and whatever else that suggest the moon landings did indeed happen. But I feel Charlie and his pals are dropping the ball far too often and thereby weakening an otherwise very strong argument.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Only in the sense of Betamax reflectors vs VHS reflectors. You don't know what they actually look like. The information is secondhand and comes from a single government agency. Keep plugging away at this one though.

 

This is like a British Rail excuse. "sorry mate, wrong type of reflector on the lunar surface".

 

But I do know what they look like because I've seen the photographic evidence of the actual devices in question, and I understand how they work because I've taken the trouble to look it up. Now don't bother replying with your catch-all 'the evidence has been falsified' claptrap unless you can provide any evidence - that's any evidence at all - to support your suppositions.

[pap]

But I do know what they look like because I've seen the photographic evidence of the actual devices in question, and I understand how they work because I've taken the trouble to look it up. Now don't bother replying with your catch-all 'the evidence has been falsified' claptrap unless you can provide any evidence - that's any evidence at all - to support your suppositions.

 

I've seen a picture of a unicorn. Doesn't make it real, even if NASA published it.

 

What really makes me laugh is that in other threads, I get the sense that you're keen on your history. I say again. Secondary evidence coming from a single agency. Primary evidence is massively important. Corroboration is equally important with second-hand evidence. Forget about the moon landings for a second. On principle, how seriously would you take any piece of secondary evidence from a single organisation and the only eyewitnesses are members of that organisation?

[pap]

I love it when pap gets the bit between his teeth!

 

To be fair pap, you really should be getting batted out of the park on this one, what with the sheer weight of available evidence, conjecture, photographs, video and whatever else that suggest the moon landings did indeed happen. But I feel Charlie and his pals are dropping the ball far too often and thereby weakening an otherwise very strong argument.

 

I don't really think the point-insult point-insult approach is helping much. The only person defending the moon landings even close to burying me yet is Horley. First, because he makes good points. Second, he isn't being a tube.

[The Kraken]

This video is pretty good.

 

 

The pendulum one looks good; the other two, less so.

[Hamilton Saint]

I've seen a picture of a unicorn. Doesn't make it real, even if NASA published it.

 

What really makes me laugh is that in other threads, I get the sense that you're keen on your history. I say again. Secondary evidence coming from a single agency. Primary evidence is massively important. Corroboration is equally important with second-hand evidence. Forget about the moon landings for a second. On principle, how seriously would you take any piece of secondary evidence from a single organisation and the only eyewitnesses are members of that organisation?

 

Are you aware that there were radio telescopes (independent of NASA) in Australia that tracked Apollo spacecraft flights to the Moon (trans-lunar injections)? Primary evidence from a non-NASA agency.

[Hamilton Saint]

And did you check out the Bad Astronomy website (Phil Plait)?

[Hamilton Saint]

Check out this website, which has lots of information about third-party (non-NASA, non-US government) evidence of the Apollo missions to the Moon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

Key evidence: dating of Moon rocks (via hundreds of independent experiments) puts then 200 million years older than any rocks ever found on Earth; and independent data received from laser light fired at reflectors on the Moon - reflectors that must have been placed there by astronauts.

Edited 13 December, 2012 by Hamilton Saint

[pap]

Are you aware that there were radio telescopes (independent of NASA) in Australia that tracked Apollo spacecraft flights to the Moon (trans-lunar injections)? Primary evidence from a non-NASA agency.

 

Do you mean Parkes Observatory? If so, yes, I am aware. This is the world leading radio telescope commissioned by NASA to track Apollo and relay signals.

 

If NASA put them in their employ to monitor the Apollo missions, I'd suggest Parkes don't qualify as a non-NASA agency, at least in its capacity at the time.

[pap]

Check out this website, which has lots of information about third-party (non-NASA, non-US government) evidence of the Apollo missions to the Moon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

Key evidence: dating of Moon rocks (via hundreds of independent experiments) puts then 200 million years older than any rocks ever found on Earth; and independent data received from laser light fired at reflectors on the Moon - reflectors that must have been placed there by astronauts.

 

On retroreflectors; catch up. Much to Chapel End Charlie's and Big Bad Bob's annoyance, I think we've firmly established that retroreflectors can and have gotten to the moon without humans putting them there.

 

The point about rocks only really works if you can guarantee me that there isn't 750lb of moon rock already kicking about on Earth.

[PhilippineSaint]

On retroreflectors; catch up. Much to Chapel End Charlie's and Big Bad Bob's annoyance, I think we've firmly established that retroreflectors can and have gotten to the moon without humans putting them there.

 

The point about rocks only really works if you can guarantee me that there isn't 750lb of moon rock already kicking about on Earth.

 

 

As the moon is supposedly originally part of the Earth that is going to be difficult to prove either way

[Hamilton Saint]

On retroreflectors; catch up. Much to Chapel End Charlie's and Big Bad Bob's annoyance, I think we've firmly established that retroreflectors can and have gotten to the moon without humans putting them there.

 

The point about rocks only really works if you can guarantee me that there isn't 750lb of moon rock already kicking about on Earth.

 

Well, there you are. Your condescending attitude reflects the fact that NOTHING will convince you. You've already made up your mind. That's the way conspiracy-theorists work.

 

By the way - what was Apollo 13 all about, then?

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Do you mean Parkes Observatory? If so, yes, I am aware. This is the world leading radio telescope commissioned by NASA to track Apollo and relay signals.

 

If NASA put them in their employ to monitor the Apollo missions, I'd suggest Parkes don't qualify as a non-NASA agency, at least in its capacity at the time.

 

Seeing this reminds me Jodrell Bank tracked Apollo 11 - I'm pretty sure there's an interview with Bernard Lovell somewhere where its mentioned

[pap]

Well, there you are. Your condescending attitude reflects the fact that NOTHING will convince you. You've already made up your mind. That's the way conspiracy-theorists work.

 

By the way - what was Apollo 13 all about, then?

 

I'll 'fess to the condescension, but cut me a little slack, Hamilton. I've already said I could be convinced. I quite like this chap Jarrah's idea. He wants them to use the Very Large Telescope in Chile to get a shot of the landing sites. It's capable of resolving lunar detail much better than the LRO. It has been in operation since 2006. I'm a little surprised that the telescope hasn't published pictures of mankind's greatest achievement.

 

I'll not trouble you with the official account of Apollo 13, save to illustrate a couple of things on the public record. First, public appetite for Apollo missions was already diminishing by Apollo 12. People were moaning about I Love Lucy being moved off TV to cover the telecast.

 

The pro-hoax viewpoint posits that the events of Apollo 13 were staged to renew flagging interest in the public by including a moving human story. Another view is that NASA knew they couldn't perpetuate the fraud forever, so Apollo 13 was the near-miss they needed to justifiably withdraw from space travel.

[trousers]

I quite like this chap Jarrah's idea. He wants them to use the Very Large Telescope in Chile to get a shot of the landing sites. It's capable of resolving lunar detail much better than the LRO. It has been in operation since 2006. I'm a little surprised that the telescope hasn't published pictures of mankind's greatest achievement.

 

There's already a big telescope that can take close up hi-res photos of the luna landing sites? Why on Earth (pun intended) haven't they taken any photos in the ensuing 6 years?

 

If something's so easy to prove why not prove it...?

Edited 14 December, 2012 by trousers

[saint si]

There's already a big telescope that can take close up hi-res photos of the liner landing sites? Why on Earth (pun intended) haven't they taken any photos in the ensuing 6 years?

 

If something's so easy to prove why not prove it...?

 

I don't think it's that simple - these massive telescopes are not just point and shoot cameras with a massive lens on them.

 

Even just a cursory glance at wikipedia provides some clues as to why it would be no use for providing imagery of the moon:

 

Because of the many mirrors involved in the optical train, about 95 percent of the light is lost before reaching the instruments at a wavelength of 1 µm, 90 percent at 2 µm and 75 percent at 10 µm.[30] This refers to reflection off 32 surfaces including the Coudé train, the star separator, the main delay line, beam compressor and feeding optics. Additionally, the interferometric technique is such that it is very efficient only for objects that are small enough that all their light is concentrated. For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted.

 

Additionally, there is also an economic argument - these telescopes are mega-expensive investments, and a valuable scientific resource. Spending (i would guess) hours on what would be nothing more than a vanity photo (i.e. contribution to the advancement of knowledge), instead of trying to learn more about the cosmos, in order to dispel a few internet conspiracists doesn't seem like the greatest use of this resource.

[pap]

I don't think it's that simple - these massive telescopes are not just point and shoot cameras with a massive lens on them.

 

Even just a cursory glance at wikipedia provides some clues as to why it would be no use for providing imagery of the moon:

 

Because of the many mirrors involved in the optical train, about 95 percent of the light is lost before reaching the instruments at a wavelength of 1 µm, 90 percent at 2 µm and 75 percent at 10 µm.[30] This refers to reflection off 32 surfaces including the Coudé train, the star separator, the main delay line, beam compressor and feeding optics. Additionally, the interferometric technique is such that it is very efficient only for objects that are small enough that all their light is concentrated. For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted.

 

Additionally, there is also an economic argument - these telescopes are mega-expensive investments, and a valuable scientific resource. Spending (i would guess) hours on what would be nothing more than a vanity photo (i.e. contribution to the advancement of knowledge), instead of trying to learn more about the cosmos, in order to dispel a few internet conspiracists doesn't seem like the greatest use of this resource.

 

Dunno, Si.

 

The ESO say they can do it.

 

http://amber.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/spip.php?article154

[PhilippineSaint]

I don't think it's that simple - these massive telescopes are not just point and shoot cameras with a massive lens on them.

 

Even just a cursory glance at wikipedia provides some clues as to why it would be no use for providing imagery of the moon:

 

Because of the many mirrors involved in the optical train, about 95 percent of the light is lost before reaching the instruments at a wavelength of 1 µm, 90 percent at 2 µm and 75 percent at 10 µm.[30] This refers to reflection off 32 surfaces including the Coudé train, the star separator, the main delay line, beam compressor and feeding optics. Additionally, the interferometric technique is such that it is very efficient only for objects that are small enough that all their light is concentrated. For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted.

 

Additionally, there is also an economic argument - these telescopes are mega-expensive investments, and a valuable scientific resource. Spending (i would guess) hours on what would be nothing more than a vanity photo (i.e. contribution to the advancement of knowledge), instead of trying to learn more about the cosmos, in order to dispel a few internet conspiracists doesn't seem like the greatest use of this resource.

 

Get one of the scientist's to do a homer in his lunchtime swing it round a few quick snaps and Bobs you uncle. can't really see the problem.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've seen a picture of a unicorn. Doesn't make it real, even if NASA published it.

 

What really makes me laugh is that in other threads, I get the sense that you're keen on your history. I say again. Secondary evidence coming from a single agency. Primary evidence is massively important. Corroboration is equally important with second-hand evidence. Forget about the moon landings for a second. On principle, how seriously would you take any piece of secondary evidence from a single organisation and the only eyewitnesses are members of that organisation?

 

I asked for any evidence of the vast and gloriously unlikely conspiracy you propose - as can be seen above none was forthcoming. You demand primary source evidence - as if I'm in a position to abandon my job, fly to the USA, raid the NASA archives, and deliver the booty to your doorstep. Even if I could do that, all you would then say is that the proof I have brought you is all fabricated anyway! Can you not see just how unreasonable an attitude that is?

 

Supposition noun

1. something that is assumed to be true without proof

2. the act of assuming or supposing something

 

Where is your CONVINCING evidence of this vast 40 year conspiracy you allege? Why is it unfair that I ask you to provide hard evidence of its existence? Is not the onus on you to prove your case, rather than on everyone else to waste their time trying to prove a negative? Would not any reasonable person agree that there is a key difference between supposing something might be true, and then proving that it is.

 

But lets move on. Please answer two simple questions.

 

1 - If man did not land on the Moon, was this series of monumental sci-fi movies that NASA must have made to dupe us all shot in the open desert somewhere, or on some huge sound stage?

 

2 - If the danger of Solar radiation means that no manned spacecraft could have safely traveled to the moon, than (presumably) you believe that the Apollo Command Capsule never left orbit. In that case how do you explain why Soviet Missile tracking, numerous international space observatories, and the tens/hundreds of thousands of amateur astrologist's that certainly exist worldwide never noticed this?

[pap]

How's about you answer some questions first, Charlie. I note with interest that you have nothing to say on the character of your evidence.

 

But assuming you are actually interested in proof and suchlike, there are videos which go into a lot more detail than I have here. Would you like me to post them?

[pap]

2 - If the danger of Solar radiation means that no manned spacecraft could have safely traveled to the moon, than (presumably) you believe that the Apollo Command Capsule never left orbit. In that case how do you explain why Soviet Missile tracking, numerous international space observatories, and the tens/hundreds of thousands of amateur astrologist's that certainly exist worldwide never noticed this?

 

Seeing as you don't read links, here's an excerpt from that article I linked earlier

 

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

 

And on the Russian side, for the most part the Soviets had relied heavily on Jodrell Bank just to track their own moon-bound spacecrafts because they lacked the capability to do it themselves (this was discussed in the BBC series, The Planets). Although later in the early 60s they were able to build deep space network tracking facilities with a 100million kilometre range, none of these radio telescopes were tuneable to the 2.3GHz (2300MHz) signals used by Apollo. Only at the last minute in November 1968 did they manage to equip their TNA-400 * facility in Crimea with suitable receiving equipment.

And even then, because NASA did not supply them with the ballistics data, Soviets were limited to listening to it during the time Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 were supposedly in lunar orbit.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Oh I think the record shows that I've had plenty to say on the nature of the evidence - too much maybe. Please post your videos after you have answered the two simple questions put to you.

[pap]

Oh I think the record shows that I've had plenty to say on the nature of the evidence - too much maybe. Please post your videos after you have answered the two simple questions put to you.

 

I'll just post a vid. Give you something to foam over for a few hours.

 

This video was done by a chap called David S Percy.

 

It was made in 2000, features some stunning crimes against fashion, is rather dry - but frankly, I prefer that approach.

 

[video=youtube_share;sKainIQiaKA]http://youtu.be/sKainIQiaKA

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Going to work now so I don't have 3 hours spare at the moment - I promise you I'll watch it later. In the meantime you can take at look at this:http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-8.html

 

Now don't forget to answer the questions will you.

Edited 14 December, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[trousers]

Why did this never happen....?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-on-Moon.html

[trousers]

[pap]

Going to work now so I don't have 3 hours spare at the moment - I promise you I'll watch it later. In the meantime you can take at look at this:http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-8.html

 

Now don't forget to answer the questions will you.

 

Is that a debunking? Seems more like a series of ad hominem attacks. Par for the course.

[pap]

 

What's all this, skip? Bit o' context, me ol' china.

[pap]

Nvm trousers. Rome from 600km up on GeoEye, eh?

 

The LRO is a ton closer to the lunar surface at all times. Yet the pics are crap.

[PhilippineSaint]

 

And I thought the yanks only left a little bit of junk on the moon ?

[Lets B Avenue]

And I thought the yanks only left a little bit of junk on the moon ?

 

The Moon wasn't built in a day.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just watching the programme on C5+1. It got to the bit about the crosshairs in photos (and I'd seen this issue before) whereby the astronauts are supposed to be behind the crosshairs which are there to line up the cameras; but in 4 or 5 shots there is obvious photo manipulation and the crosshairs appear (in places) behind certain images and astronauts.

 

What's the answer to that one? There's no way those photos could have been taken as they appear without photographic manipulation.

 

I watched that programme last night and wasted another hour of my life. Noting but a load of dimwits saying 'believe me, it was all faked' and 'ooh, it was ever so difficult, far too difficult for me to understand'.

 

The crosshairs appear to 'disappear' when they are swamped by saturated white surfaces. It's nothing other than overexposure off the photographic emulsion in those areas.

 

Ok then Pap. We've spent long enough on this, let's take the conspiracist points one at a time and we'll try to convince you. Please pick one to start.

[pap]

Since you mention photos, Whitey. How's about this one?

 

There was no special protection on the cameras, no special protection on the standard film. This has been confirmed by the people who provided both (Hasselblad & Kodak).

 

Van Allen belt radiation. Lunar surface radiation. Yet the photos are pristine, almost studio quality.

 

Now take a look at this NASA report (page 9, specifically). The entire report is about the effects of space radiation on photography, produced to support the shuttle missions.

 

http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf

 

So, NASA are concerned enough about the effects of space radiation on photography to produce a report on best practices for the shuttle. Why is that? After all, they allegedly went all the way to the moon and returned with pristine footage, in the late '60s. That's a problem sorted, surely?

[trousers]

Nvm trousers. Rome from 600km up on GeoEye, eh?

 

The LRO is a ton closer to the lunar surface at all times. Yet the pics are crap.

 

Maybe NASA get their moon photos developed at Boots? You know, where all the fuzzy bits come back with a sticker on them telling you just how bad a photographer you are...

[Whitey Grandad]

Since you mention photos, Whitey. How's about this one?

 

There was no special protection on the cameras, no special protection on the standard film. This has been confirmed by the people who provided both (Hasselblad & Kodak).

 

Van Allen belt radiation. Lunar surface radiation. Yet the photos are pristine, almost studio quality.

 

Now take a look at this NASA report (page 9, specifically). The entire report is about the effects of space radiation on photography, produced to support the shuttle missions.

 

http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf

 

So, NASA are concerned enough about the effects of space radiation on photography to produce a report on best practices for the shuttle. Why is that? After all, they allegedly went all the way to the moon and returned with pristine footage, in the late '60s. That's a problem sorted, surely?

 

I wouldn't call them pristine, but that report doesn't say that they would be ruined, just that colour negative films were more likely to be affected that positives, which I believe was the type used on Apollo? At the time of the landings there was a lot of talk about monitoring solar flares and maybe having to abort the mission or EVA if there were an eruption. They tell us that airport x-rays won't affect your photographs but I don't believe that. All radiation will have some effect but the real question is how significant.

 

It would have been easy for a faker to have stuck the slides in an x-ray for a few minutes if they had wanted to.

[Whitey Grandad]

There's already a big telescope that can take close up hi-res photos of the luna landing sites? Why on Earth (pun intended) haven't they taken any photos in the ensuing 6 years?

 

If something's so easy to prove why not prove it...?

 

No earth-based telescope can give results sufficiently detailed of the moon's surface. If they could have, they would have, but they haven't.

[trousers]

No earth-based telescope can give results sufficiently detailed of the moon's surface. If they could have, they would have, but they haven't.

 

Can't they twist the one that took a nice holiday snap of Rome around a bit so it points at the moon?

[PhilippineSaint]

Can't they twist the one that took a nice holiday snap of Rome around a bit so it points at the moon?

 

Where is Google Moon when you need it?

[pap]

I wouldn't call them pristine, but that report doesn't say that they would be ruined, just that colour negative films were more likely to be affected that positives, which I believe was the type used on Apollo? At the time of the landings there was a lot of talk about monitoring solar flares and maybe having to abort the mission or EVA if there were an eruption. They tell us that airport x-rays won't affect your photographs but I don't believe that. All radiation will have some effect but the real question is how significant.

 

It would have been easy for a faker to have stuck the slides in an x-ray for a few minutes if they had wanted to.

 

And yet, independent tests show that even at low levels of radiation, film is degraded.

 

The report is for space shuttles, which haven't even ventured into the belts ( the one time they got close, things got very squirly ).

 

The film would have had a tough time surviving the dosage levels establshed by Van Allen and his team. The radiation situation was actually made a lot worse by the US and Russia. Both nations detonated nukes in outer space.

 

So if at low levels, film is degraded - then what chance does regular film stand of getting through a 500k mile round-trip which involves a journey through a radioactive sh!tstorm in a poorly shielded craft?

[Big Bad Bob]

Nvm trousers. Rome from 600km up on GeoEye, eh?

 

The LRO is a ton closer to the lunar surface at all times. Yet the pics are crap.

 

Although Google uses the word satellite, most of the high-resolution imagery of cities is aerial photography taken from aircraft flying at 800–1500 feet rather than from satellites; while most of the rest of the imagery is in fact from satellites.

 

I thought everyone knew that??