|
In Reply to: Hey WC could I ask you a favour? posted by lydia on October 13, 2002 at 16:53:58:
People believe what they want to no matter what you say. If anyone were really interested, maybe it's best to simply point them to where to find the information for themselves.
There will be no end to it, but I took a look at his posts, and I'll answer a few things here. What I won't do is get into a discussion about it here or anywhere else after this. I'm busy and it's not my priority.
I'd suggest a visit to NASA to look at the space suits up close, to touch and feel them and see them in action. The water cooling system does work. The gloves look the way the do when pressurized.
Next, look into the mirrors which were placed on the moon--how did they get there? They are too delicate to have been slung there or positioned by automated landing craft. The mirrors had to be manually placed and adjustable to millionths of a degree, so you could bounce lasers off of them and they'd end up being reflected to the same spot on earth. They were part of experiments for measuring the distance of the earth to the moon using triangulation and time delay techniques.
The facts about the Van Allen belts are wrong--it ain't that thick. Radio astronomy would not work the way it does if it were the dimensions described--while sending signals into space, there would be too much bounce and reflection, dampening, distortion, etc from such a large inteference.
For the film in cameras to melt the heat has to be transfered through heat-conducting surfaces. A camera built with minimal channels of heat-conductivity will work fine for a limited time, just like a thermos will keep outside temperatures from seeping in for hours. Incidentally, a film camera WAS burned through misuse. On earth you can point a camera directly at the sun, and it will cause some damage, but it won't fry the whole thing. On the moon, where there is no protection from direct radiation, pointing a camera at the sun will melt it. I'd suggest a look into this piece of evidence.
The Lunar lander with its thin walls, was NOT exposed to the Van Allen belt. It was shielded until release during a moon orbit, safely out of the Van Allen belt.
About the positions of the sun and the seemingly unmatching shadows on the lunar surface, crumple up a bed sheet and use a single lamp as a light source, and maybe standing toy soldier or something. You'll see how shadows can seem to indicate the angle of the light is from a totally wrong source.
Then there is the fact that Moon rock brought back to earth is of a different geological make up than anything found on earth. I could go on and on!
Finally, I'd suggest befriending some of the wonderful people who were part of the ground crew of the Apollo missions. They could tell you lots, and show you lots of evidence.
