15-11-2010, 01:48 AM
ISSUE #1
There seems to be a pattern to the claims made about the hoaxing of the moon landings. The temperature issue is a good example. The claim is that “the temperature on the moon ranges from 250 degrees in full sun, to -180 degrees in full shade – how the heck could any 1960s technology protect a fragile human being from those sort of temperatures?” But, as I only found out recently, the story is that the moon’s day lasts for 2 weeks, as does its night (corresponding to the 28 days between each full moon), and the 250 degree figure is reached after the sun has been shining on the same spot for 7 or more full days, and the coolest temperature is reached deep in the lunar night. The full story is that the missions were planned so that they always landed on a spot that was experiencing “early morning,” so the truth is they never had to endure anywhere near the -180 to 250 degree changes in temperature.
So the pattern is, particular details are swooped upon and taken completely out of context in order to make the moon missions appear entirely unlikely.
*
The first claims Jack White presents are to do with the “missing” rover tyre tracks. Some pictures have tyre tracks, but a lot don’t. Burton shows a picture which suggests the mechanism by which the rover “covers its own tracks” – the mesh of the tyres picks up and then drops material behind it.
Do we believe it?
Well surely, if the landings were faked, there would have been a lot of thinking gone into “continuity” issues – making sure they don’t show things that couldn’t have happened if the missions were genuine, making sure one scene captured on film didn’t contradict any other scene. So you would think, if they were doing these scenes on some sound stage, that tracks for the rover would be high on the list of things to make sure were present in the images released to the public. You would think that every scene with the rover in it would have rover tracks, and astronaut footprints, and nothing else. You would think that it would be more than just one person’s job to make sure they didn’t mess up the details of the fakery. Is it believable that they could release so many photos which seem to be impossible given that they fail to have the tracks that any reasonable person would assume would be present?
To me this is another case of the “common sense” view being revealed to be hyperbole once the details of the situation are fully examined. (Common sense tells you that man can't withstand -180 to 250 degree temperature swings given only 1960s space suit technology!) Yes, the lunar rover should leave tyre tracks. No, not all pictures of the lunar rover show tyre tracks. Rash conclusion: The moon landings were faked!!! The actual truth once the details are taken into account: The tyres of the rover proved to be surprisingly suited to redistributing dust they picked up so that it effectively covered its tracks in many instances.
There seems to be a pattern to the claims made about the hoaxing of the moon landings. The temperature issue is a good example. The claim is that “the temperature on the moon ranges from 250 degrees in full sun, to -180 degrees in full shade – how the heck could any 1960s technology protect a fragile human being from those sort of temperatures?” But, as I only found out recently, the story is that the moon’s day lasts for 2 weeks, as does its night (corresponding to the 28 days between each full moon), and the 250 degree figure is reached after the sun has been shining on the same spot for 7 or more full days, and the coolest temperature is reached deep in the lunar night. The full story is that the missions were planned so that they always landed on a spot that was experiencing “early morning,” so the truth is they never had to endure anywhere near the -180 to 250 degree changes in temperature.
So the pattern is, particular details are swooped upon and taken completely out of context in order to make the moon missions appear entirely unlikely.
*
The first claims Jack White presents are to do with the “missing” rover tyre tracks. Some pictures have tyre tracks, but a lot don’t. Burton shows a picture which suggests the mechanism by which the rover “covers its own tracks” – the mesh of the tyres picks up and then drops material behind it.
Do we believe it?
Well surely, if the landings were faked, there would have been a lot of thinking gone into “continuity” issues – making sure they don’t show things that couldn’t have happened if the missions were genuine, making sure one scene captured on film didn’t contradict any other scene. So you would think, if they were doing these scenes on some sound stage, that tracks for the rover would be high on the list of things to make sure were present in the images released to the public. You would think that every scene with the rover in it would have rover tracks, and astronaut footprints, and nothing else. You would think that it would be more than just one person’s job to make sure they didn’t mess up the details of the fakery. Is it believable that they could release so many photos which seem to be impossible given that they fail to have the tracks that any reasonable person would assume would be present?
To me this is another case of the “common sense” view being revealed to be hyperbole once the details of the situation are fully examined. (Common sense tells you that man can't withstand -180 to 250 degree temperature swings given only 1960s space suit technology!) Yes, the lunar rover should leave tyre tracks. No, not all pictures of the lunar rover show tyre tracks. Rash conclusion: The moon landings were faked!!! The actual truth once the details are taken into account: The tyres of the rover proved to be surprisingly suited to redistributing dust they picked up so that it effectively covered its tracks in many instances.