User talk:121.220.199.57

I see that you're still evading

I'm still waiting on that scientific evidence you supposedly have proving the landings are fake. Give me five points, proved scientifically, which prove the landings to be fake. You have yet to provide. I'm still waiting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

10. The artificial lighting in the color photographs depicting the hoax.

9. The untestedness of these LEM modules in unmanned conditions

8. The unlikeliness of live TV broadcast equipment traveling to and functioning on the moon at a time and place where they barely fit inside purpose-built trucks

7. The extreme heat on the moon rendering the photographic equipment useless as a result of melting

6. Van Allen radiation belts

5. The thoroughly debunked footage from a so-called Apollo mission where an astronaut drops objects from body height to demonstrate how slowlier they fall in smaller gravity but the speed and the distance the balls travel prove that this image was filmed on earth's gravity and merely displayed at half speed.

4. The super-fake photos depicting the Surveyor probe on the moon, which btw loox like a discarded prop from Wizard of Oz and the least likely man-made thing to have actually soft landed on the lunar surface.

3. The fact that this misinformation bombardment of the late 60s has prevented mankind from doing anything other than orbiting their planet by means of space travel ever since then.

2. The inability and persistent reluctance of NASA to recreate a replica Apollo mission or at least send independently and closely monitored probes to photograph the alleged landing sites despite repeated promptings, requests, and even offers of financial assistance on my part.

1. And the list goes on and on..

Those were the reasons you posted on my talk page, and, as someone who takes science very seriously, let me tell you that absolutely none of those reasons are even close to being scientific, take for example the radiation belts: The effects of the radiation can be circumvented with lead aprons/suits. Secondly, there is no extreme heat on the moon. If that were the case, they repairing our orbital space stations would be impossible, because they would be subject to exactly the same heat. Thirdly, your assumption that the photographic technology they used could not withstand the temperatures is unfounded, don't you think they realized the magnitude of what they were facing, and adapted their technology accordingly?

In fact, some of those above 'reasons' contradict each other, for instance, how is it that you know the exact temperature on the moon, or in space, for that matter. Did you perhaps take into account the space is in fact, a vast amount of space, and as we all know(but I'll explain it just for you), space has almost no particles in it, hence why sound cannot travel through it, although, most of the 'heat' that you speak of comes from the UV rays, and other rays that are emitted from the sun, but, as already explained, humans have technology to prevent those rays from harming us. In case you got lost in what I said, the element Lead can block radiation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Look.. Reason no 5 up there is glaring scientific evidence for my money that this shit was fully fake. You may doodle away in your free time trying to imagine how they could have implemented the super inferior technological infrastructure of 1969 to experiment with the inhumane idea of testing out moon landing devices on live subjects when they have never succeeded in landing or returning anything else on an extra-terrestrial body, and then somehow came up with this LEM lander (which btw at closer inspection of its color photos loox like has been largely constructed of aliminium foil and plaster) and made it all work for Aldrin and all. Let's put this LEM back on the drawing board. Let's dig up the blueprints and try blasting it into the sky with crash test dummies inside. You'll see what a horribly stupid idea it was to even suggest that these hastily designed potentially explosive capsules get field tested on actual human beings.. On a distant environment where no other human will be able to help them in the event of things going wrong. And then you have the audacity to broadcast this deadly dangerous, scientifically unsound experiment to the whole globe? Only fakers could have done this. --121.220.199.57 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Surface temperature

During the lunar day, the surface temperature averages 107°C, and during the lunar night, it averages -153°C.[39]

Eitherway the temperatures are too extreme for the suxesfull operation of ordinary Hasselblad cameras that were used as the prehistorical texts indicate..

Hasselblad cameras in space

A closeup view of the Skylab space station taken with a hand-held 70mm Hasselblad camera using a 100mm lens and SO-368 medium speed Ektachrome film.Several different models of Hasselblad cameras were taken into space, all specially modified for the task.[8]

The Hasselblad cameras were selected by NASA because of their interchangeable lenses and magazines. Modifications were made to permit ease-of-use in cramped conditions and while wearing spacesuits, such as the replacement of the reflex mirror with an eye-level finder.

Modifications by NASA technicians were further refined and incorporated into new models by Hasselblad. For example, development of a 70mm magazine was accelerated to meet the space program.

The first modified (in fact simplified) Hasselblad 500C cameras were used on the last two Project Mercury missions in 1962 and 1963. They continued to be used throughout the Gemini spaceflights in 1965 and 1966.

A general program of reliability and safety was implemented following the Apollo 1 fire in 1967, addressing such issues as reliability and safe operation of electrical equipment in a high-oxygen environment.[9]

EL electric cameras were used for the first time on Apollo 8. A heavily modified 500 EL, the so called Hasselblad Electric Camera (HEC) was used from Apollo 8 on board the spacecraft. Three 500EL cameras were carried on Apollo 11. An even more modified Hasselblad EL Data Camera (HDC), equipped with a special Zeiss 5.6/60 mm Biogon lens and film magazines for 150–200 exposures, was used on the moon surface on the Apollo 11 mission. All following NASA missions also had Hasselblad cameras on board. The photographic equipment and films used on the five subsequent flights were similar to that taken on Apollo 11. On Apollo 15, the 250mm telescopic lens was added. During the Space Shuttle period cameras based on the 500 EL/M, 553 ELX, 205 TCC and 203 FE have been used.[10][11]

As you can see there is no mention of any modifications by NASA or otherwise carried out on these machines for them to operate in way below freezing or above scorching temperatures.

Consider this.. If we were to recover and put on these astronaut outfits worn by Armstrong and such they should then give us enough insulation to withstand temperatures exceeding 107°C for hours at end. I find this extremely unlikely. All this equipment has to be tested out by independent regulators before the full extent of the hoax can be scientifically documented.

Here is an idea:

Take a Hasselblad camera and put it in your microwave for 5 minutes. Then try taking pictures with the molten mess after it has cooled down. That experiment in itself should convince you that Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin were never on the moon.

If you are still not satisfied then try taking the most heavily modified camera by NASA that has allegedly been to the moon and back and expose it to +100 or -170 degrees celcius. See how long it remains operational. Even exposure to 45-50 celcius for several minutes at end would take these devices out of commission. Mark my words. Apollo was a disgusting hoax that still stands in the way of genuine space travel by the human race. --121.220.199.57 (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you purposely ignore where I stated that equipment would be modified in order to be able to be used under space conditions? Who exactly filled your head with these ideas anyway.

But back to my original argument, you still have yet to provide five scientific points. Your argument that a regular, unmodified camera can withstand harsh conditions is invalid.

To the suits, it's called internal air conditioning. Sure, the suits had their own supply of oxygen, but that isn't the only thing they contained.

But all that aside, why do you even care if it's a hoax or not. It doesn't affect you, or any of us, in any way, shape, or form.

Also, I'm not going to argue with you about this, and instead request a range block on your IP, as this discussion is going nowhere fast, and you're only here to push your point of view.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Block my IP all you like. I care big time if it's a hoax or not. It affects all of us big time why not? It prevents further attempts at landing people on the moon by merely becoming this endlessly rehashed baloney by Gwen Gale's and other misguided miscreatures of this planet. --121.220.199.57 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you purposely ignore where I stated that equipment would be modified in order to be able to be used under space conditions? Who exactly filled your head with these ideas anyway

I'm telling you. Take the most heavily so-called modified Hasselblad camera and expose it to +100 degrees celcius. It won't work. Don't even bother trying it. It's a heavy-duty fallacy that suggests it has actually been tried and worked.

That isn't a legitimate reason to care. As Gwen has said, sending things to space is quite expensive, so unless you become an accountant for NASA, there is no possible way you can say otherwise. But all that aside, we rely on several core policies here, the most important being Verifiability. To the point, you can't post your truth unless it can be attributed to significant, reliable, third-party sources independent from the subject.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, have you ever tried using a normal camera under water? Have noticed that it doesn't work?

My point being, well freaking duh that it doesn't work, unmodified for the environment, that is. They used cameras modified for the heat, period.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya well, my contention is that there were no cameras modified to the extent of withstanding such extreme temperatures. As for the price of sending ppl to space I offered NASA a hand with that. The truth is priceless. Money is of no importance. Had NASA been in a position to verify the authenticity of these "Appaller" missions they would have done so long ago at my expense and made me look like a total dork who doesn't know what he's saying. --121.220.199.57 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you have enough money to meet what is required for such an attempt.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and actually, money is of a great deal of importance. The fact of the matter is that there is no gain of going to the moon again, it isn't cost effective. There is zero profit, and as to why money matters, it matters because it would be money better spent on military munitions and equipment, versus a pointless endeavor that would only serve to shut all of you conspiracy theorists up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a conspiarcy theorist. I am a scientist and freedom fighter. You are the conspiracy theorist for arguing that the Appaller Hoax was not a hoax at all. I told you that I offered the money for clarification. NASA's lack of response is only indicative of the fact that no clarification is to be made. It simply underlines the fact that these Appaller missions were as fake as I suggested.