Crosswords1 min ago
Conspiracies - The Moon Landings And The Men In Black
88 Answers
I don't know who believes these or not, but there are a couple of things that weren't mentioned in both of these. Firstly, with the moon landings, we see fantastic photos that are alleged to have been taken on the moon. Anyone who knows anything about photography will tell you that even small doses of radiation will totally destroy photo film, yet the cameras used are seen openly mounted on the front of the astronauts. How could the film survive all the radiation throughout the missions? This is something that has never been mentioned. Now, "The Men In Black". We are told that they always appear after UFO sightings and will intimidate people into withdrawing claims of sightings and making them sign affidavits that they will never talk about what they saw. Apparently nobody knows who the men in black are or who they work for, so where do the affidavits go? They must be filed somewhere. I'm just, like, saying. Y'know?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.@10ClarionSt
//Ask anyone who lost their holiday snaps going through airport security due to exposure to the scanners.//
Logically, medical X-ray strength should be only enough to discriminate between tissues or material of the densities pertinent to the medical complaint. Even tiny fillings block the rays completly, showing white (film was unexposed), teeth and bone in gray shades and anything passing through soft tissue only is fully exposed, black.
Airport scanners must, therefore, be more powerful or, if weaker, it is the fact that exposure is continuous, on the conveyor system so even the centre of the film reel is over-exposed.
EDDIE51 has already corrected your "low, medium and high" misunderstanding. I actually thought you were joking when you said that.
But he didn't classify X-rays as radiation. Which is unusual because NASA expressed concerns about how little we understood (then) of radiation away from the shielding of earth's magnetic field. Leaving earth orbit for the first time (Apollo 7 & 8) was a step into the unknown.
Earth orbit exposes everything to X-rays direct from the sun but the camera casing should be enough to block most of it.
EDDIE51 didn't mention Cosmic radiation but neither did you. At worst, it might make small scratch-like traces on films but *not* blanket fogging or overexposure of entire films.
To anyone who still thinks the moon landings were faked and declined to accept the laser reflectors as evidence, would you accept the challenge of scouring the planet for anything chemically identical to moon mission rock samples and giving us the location of the site (please leave enough material behind for scientists to dig their own sample, so they don't have to damage yours)?
//Ask anyone who lost their holiday snaps going through airport security due to exposure to the scanners.//
Logically, medical X-ray strength should be only enough to discriminate between tissues or material of the densities pertinent to the medical complaint. Even tiny fillings block the rays completly, showing white (film was unexposed), teeth and bone in gray shades and anything passing through soft tissue only is fully exposed, black.
Airport scanners must, therefore, be more powerful or, if weaker, it is the fact that exposure is continuous, on the conveyor system so even the centre of the film reel is over-exposed.
EDDIE51 has already corrected your "low, medium and high" misunderstanding. I actually thought you were joking when you said that.
But he didn't classify X-rays as radiation. Which is unusual because NASA expressed concerns about how little we understood (then) of radiation away from the shielding of earth's magnetic field. Leaving earth orbit for the first time (Apollo 7 & 8) was a step into the unknown.
Earth orbit exposes everything to X-rays direct from the sun but the camera casing should be enough to block most of it.
EDDIE51 didn't mention Cosmic radiation but neither did you. At worst, it might make small scratch-like traces on films but *not* blanket fogging or overexposure of entire films.
To anyone who still thinks the moon landings were faked and declined to accept the laser reflectors as evidence, would you accept the challenge of scouring the planet for anything chemically identical to moon mission rock samples and giving us the location of the site (please leave enough material behind for scientists to dig their own sample, so they don't have to damage yours)?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.