On May 8, 9:24 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:

Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

The following used to be free, but they are not now.

http://www.moonmovie.com/

They very much answer all your questions in a subjective manner.

Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen Belts.

Going through Van Allen Belts would probably not kill you in a few
days, but it will damage a lot of your DNA through high energy
protons. However, it will definitely blind you in a mere few hours
even with the pathetic shielding of Apollo command module (0.25g/
cm^2).

I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and they weren't
in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

The prolonged radiation is above the Van Allen Belts where the sun’s
solar wind along contributes to 20kJoul/m^2/year of radiation at
earth’s orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

On top of that, you have to add in cosmic rays.

On May 8, 10:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 3:10 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
It is not up to me to find out what happened. shrug

So you have no theory at all??

That is correct. I don’t have enough information to tell you exactly
what happened. I am no conspiracy whacko. However, from the data
which reflects why Professor Roberts called as the results of
experimentations with error bars, I can assure you that manned moon
missions cannot have happened. My discussions are so much within the
implementations of scientific methods. You are just asking for
conspiracy theories.

You need to get through your thick skull that the hoax of manned moon
missions have nothing to do with piecing together what exactly
happened. Once again, I can assure you that manned moon missions
cannot have happened.

End of story.

Not quite. It is time to investigate how NASA was able to fool you,
et al. shrug It is only faith that keeps you from realizing the
truth. It is some brain washing on their part. You are a fine
example of the soulless slave in Orwell’s “1984”. shrug

You mean how MI5/CIA and DARPA/NASA along with the USSR snookered and
seemingly dumbfounded the supposedly educated world. That took some
kind of serious inside media job, with shark like teeth, don't you
think.
. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 10:25 pm, BradGuth wrote:

You mean how MI5/CIA and DARPA/NASA along with the USSR snookered and
seemingly dumbfounded the supposedly educated world. That took some
kind of serious inside media job, with shark like teeth, don't you
think.

Hey, it is all up to you conspiracy whackos to straighten it all out.
Using scientific method, I can only tell you the credibility of manned
moon missions and nothing more. shrug

On May 8, 10:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 9:24 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:

Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

The following used to be free, but they are not now.

http://www.moonmovie.com/

They very much answer all your questions in a subjective manner.

Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen Belts..

Going through Van Allen Belts would probably not kill you in a few
days, but it will damage a lot of your DNA through high energy
protons. However, it will definitely blind you in a mere few hours
even with the pathetic shielding of Apollo command module (0.25g/
cm^2).

I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and they weren't
in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

The prolonged radiation is above the Van Allen Belts where the sun’s
solar wind along contributes to 20kJoul/m^2/year of radiation at
earth’s orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

On top of that, you have to add in cosmic rays.

On top of that you'll have to add in the unavoidable saturation of
gamma and hard-X-rays coming off our naked/anticathode moon, that'll
make our Van Allen badlands seem relatively DNA safe.

Why do you suppose there's still nothing of any science instruments as
station-keeping within the moon's L1?
. - Brad Guth

On 2008-05-09, Michael Moroney wrote:
If the camera settings were such that the surface appeared light
gray, the space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed.

From what I can see, the images were somewhat overexposed. On top of
that, I expect that the balance was shifted to more clearly show
details. That's normal procedure in virtually every type of
photography. What the picture shows is never exactly what the eye
sees. As well as that, neither cameras nor eyes respond linearly to
light levels.


Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen
Belts. I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and
they weren't in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space. Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.


- Tim

On May 8, 10:34 pm, Tim Little
wrote:
On 2008-05-09, Michael Moroney wrote:

If the camera settings were such that the surface appeared light
gray, the space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed.

From what I can see, the images were somewhat overexposed. On top of
that, I expect that the balance was shifted to more clearly show
details. That's normal procedure in virtually every type of
photography. What the picture shows is never exactly what the eye
sees. As well as that, neither cameras nor eyes respond linearly to
light levels.

Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen
Belts. I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and
they weren't in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space. Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.

- Tim

Remember that each camera had its polarized optical element, of which
should have made the lunar surface look darker, not lighter, and most
certainly not as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated.

Your subjective science on radiation is noted. Got anything
objective, such as from the moon's L1?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 10:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space.

No, it does not. 2 REM is unrealistically low.

Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.

Particles in Van Allen Belts have very high energy. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts

On May 8, 9:34*pm, Tim Little wrote:
[snip]

Both of these guys are very malicious idiots. Any science you bring to
the table that doesn't support their position will be rejected.

For example - note kooby's claim about year long exposures, and read
the definition of the rem.

On May 8, 10:43 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 10:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:

I seem to recall a site indicating about 2 rem, which seems consistent
with the known particle fluxes at various energies and thickness of
material between the astronauts and space.

No, it does not. 2 REM is unrealistically low.

Virtually all of it is
comparatively low energy charged particle radiation, and that doesn't
penetrate well.

Particles in Van Allen Belts have very high energy. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts

The to/from trek through a combined 150,000 km worth of Van Allen
badlands took a good 13 hours, though perhaps only 10 hours worth was
sufficiently nasty enough to count those multiple rads per hour.

Only a polar exit/return trajectory could have minimized their Van
Allen dosage, and supposedly they didn't have that option.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 10:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 8, 9:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:
[snip]

Both of these guys are very malicious idiots. Any science you bring to
the table that doesn't support their position will be rejected.

For example - note kooby's claim about year long exposures, and read
the definition of the rem.

GSO average dosage of 2e3 Sv/yr while shielded by 2 g/cm2 or 5/16"
aluminum is not bogus.

That's only 200,000 rad/yr, as nearly 23 rads or rem if you like per
hour.
.. - Brad Guth