Moon Walkers.

[picowatt]

A picture is worth a thousand words, ----- even if none of then are right!

It appears to be increasingly important to prove the moon landings were fake.
What is there to be gained?

Blistered paint from heat! Why only some spots?
More likely a retouched area that blistered form outgassing in the vacuum.

It appears that some are trying to outsmart a group of rocket scientists that put more total hours into a project than a single person could over their lifespan.
If you dedicated your life to first studying all the aspects of these space missions and all the issues of space flight, then you would likely understand the pictures much better.
Missing moon rocks? In fact many of the real moon rocks were destroyed in test, ended up in a personal collection, not displayed as the real rock was stolen or feared might be and many other happenings.

So how does this story end when for every proof of fakery there are several additional proofs it was in fact real.
You really think that only the US was able to monitor the mission and no other country intercepted the video directly from its source as real time proof.

If you do then you probably were not old enough to understand the state of the world at that time or simply played to many video games and cannot distinguish reality.

Very well said...

[picowatt]

That is correct PW,and the reason for my question. All three pictures i posted are of the command module,so i am just asking as to how that can be,as the ones that look like the command module is covered in duct tape,is as they were leaving earth on the way to the moon. The last picture is taken when they arrive at the moon,and are now in lunar orbit. The other pictures in the earth orbit section,also show big chunk's broken off around the window frame's,but when they get to the moon,we see a nice shinny,well built command module with no broken window frame's. How can this be?.

Brad

"Broken window frame", seriously?  Even with all that money available, is it your theory that they could not even afford a decent looking "mock-up" for their Stanley Kubrik'esque production?  Don't you think the Russians have had their imaging experts look at all aspects of Apollo?  I would wager even the Chinese are looking at everything Apollo as something to improve upon for their upcoming manned moon missions (although I see even they are being called out as fakers regarding their current space program, it never ends...).   

A lot of engineering went into everything Apollo, more than most can even begin to comprehend.  Even strips of tape were laid down according to a drawing.  When you see something you think to be unusual, you can rest assured it is only because you do not understand exactly what or why it is.

However, although we may strive for perfection, it is rarely achieved...

PW

[Nink]

Looking at another close up of the service module in lunar orbit,we can see blistering of paint arount
the circled areas. This would mean some vary warm temperatures some where along the journey to the moon.

I am no rocket scientist just a dumb engineer but I would suggest if you look at the nozzle directly to the right of the paint blistering and ask yourself where the heat coming out of that nozzle when burning would hit the surface of the service module you maybe able to hazard at a  guess as to why the paint is blistering.  Maybe they were doing a blast demo for the cameras.

[picowatt]

I am no rocket scientist just a dumb engineer but I would suggest if you look at the nozzle directly to the right of the paint blistering and ask yourself where the heat coming out of that nozzle when burning would hit the surface of the service module you maybe able to hazard at a  guess as to why the paint is blistering.  Maybe they were doing a blast demo for the cameras.

That is very unlikely.  The reaction control thrusters only fire in short bursts and are not aimed at the ship.

PW

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Okay here we go....

I did not run with it-->i did what you do every time you spend your time looking for other peoples mistakes, i corrected your incorrect attempt at explaining as to why the flag wavered. To say that the moons gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with it--well that just go's to show how stupid you can be some times. If it was the same sort of thing in a different situation,you would tear strips of those trying to peddle such rubbish. But as it is to do with the moon landing's that you firmly believe in,all your sense of reality has been put aside,and you now resort to idiotic explanations to try and justify the impossible <--this can be clearly seen,and hence my saying-the need to believe out weighs the need to know the truth.

The moon's gravity has "nothing to do with it" because you can ignore it and still make a valid case.  Even if there is no gravity, if a 130 kg mass hits the ground at a certain speed there will be a big thud.  I am intentionally simplifying because you can in this case.  I am ignoring the astronaut's legs acting as a spring.  I will repeat to you that you bringing up the equivalent weight of the astronaut in the moon's gravitational field is ridiculous because the important thing to realize is that it's the combined mass of the astronaut and his space suit that counts and not his weight.  If you can't acknowledge this then you are just being ridiculous.

I wasn't aware that the space suit was giving off gas to keep the astronaut cool like PW explained.  I have to admit that I never thought about how the space suit disposed of excess heat even though I knew that there was a water lining up against the astronaut's skin to remove heat and prevent him from sweating.  There are only so many things that you can ponder.

Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.  I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.

See, it's not that hard to admit that you are wrong.   Are you up to the challenge?

Absolute rubbish MH,and you know it. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that your talking crap. So now it is up to you to prove your theory. Now you need to go and find on the world wide web,proof of your ridiculous claim. Go watch the video again MH,and point out the pole moving. You will not find one shred of evidence to back up your stupid claim,just like there is no evidence to back up NASA's and the governments claim that man walked on the moon.

There is still some merit to what I said and even though I am now siding with PW's explanation, you can't be 100% sure.  There is nothing for me to prove.  I don't know the geology of the moon's surface.  I know they did these types of tests, I believe most moon missions left seismographs in place.  You seem to be arguing that what is essentially a sound wave traveling through the upper surface of the moon's crust is "absolute rubbish."  Have you ever experienced an earthquake or do you believe that's all Hollywood special effects?  One more time, your line of "anti-reasoning" is baffling.

To bad the flag's were not made from nylon 6 MH--another misdirection.
Quote:  Dennis Lacarrubba, whose New Jersey-based company, Annin, made the flag and sold it to NASA for $5.50 in 1969, considers what might happen to an ordinary nylon flag left outside for 39 years on Earth, let alone on the moon. He thinks for a few seconds. "I can't believe there would be anything left," he concludes. "I gotta be honest with you. It's gonna be ashes."
Quote: For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon's environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing

I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make here.  I think it boils down to this:  A nylon flag was planted on the moon.  It looked fine for the week or less that the astronauts where there, but over an extended period of time the sun's rays, especially the UV rays, degraded the flag and washed out the colours.  Big deal.

MH-if you cant tell what that type of nylon material looks like when it's right in your face,then you need an optical check. But im guessing you did not use the link i provided,or did any research of your own to check out other close up shot's of the flag. You would have done the opposite to what you are telling me to do,and just sat in your rocking chair,and waited for others to do the work for you

I am willing to bet you that nylon, rayon, cotton, or woven plastic fabric, or woven metal fabric would all look essentially identical in a photograph.  But that's something that you seemingly can't grasp or will refuse to acknowledge.  I have done my fair share of work and if anybody wants to cut corners and not do research take a look in the mirror because you do that quite often when you do an experiment.

A bad scientist is like the many we have to day--dare not step out of the field of science into the realm of reality. A bad scientist is one that is bias as to what he thinks is correct,and what actually is correct. Have you not ever bought an off the shelf nylon flag MH? How is the resolution of the pic below?--meet your need's MH. And wait until you get a gander at the next set of pics MH--im guessing you will not see the very obvious duct tape plastered all over the CSM-the space craft that is suppose to have carried man to the moon and back,and then survive the extreme heat of re entry.

You definitely need to step into the realm of reality.  Horror of horrors, "duct tape."  Note you are saying "obvious duct tape" because you are falling into your trap again.  You are cutting corners and saying it is "duct tape" without actually knowing what it really is.  It's the heat shield that has to survive the extreme heat of reentry, not the duct tape.

Of course you wont read the thread verbatim,and that is why you make continual mistakes.

If I make a mistake I'll acknowledge it.  If you make a mistake you turn blue, and there have been many.

MileHigh