Chinese spacecraft Chang'e-3 lands on moon

[Halwick]

China's unmanned spacecraft Chang'e-3 lands on moon Saturday Dec 14 and deploys lunar rover.

http://www.space.com/23971-china-moon-r ... ccess.html

In the photos of the Chinese rover as it rolls onto the lunar surface NOTE there are NO stars visible in the sky. There were no stars visible in the Apollo 11 photos. This was one of the primary argument the 1969 moon landing was a hoax.

Ergo, the Chinese landing is a hoax too? Does anyone believe this landing was real or staged?

[HouseMD]

China's unmanned spacecraft Chang'e-3 lands on moon Saturday Dec 14 and deploys lunar rover.

http://www.space.com/23971-china-moon-r ... ccess.html

In the photos of the Chinese rover as it rolls onto the lunar surface NOTE there are NO stars visible in the sky. There were no stars visible in the Apollo 11 photos. This was one of the primary argument the 1969 moon landing was a hoax.

Ergo, the Chinese landing is a hoax too? Does anyone believe this landing was real or staged?

You won't see stars on most footage taken from the moon. You would have to have an exposure time so long that the moon itself would be washed out. Take a photography course at your local community college and you'll realize why anyone pushing the stars argument is an idiot. Also you might learn some really cool things about photography and get to take pictures of naked women. Just sayin'.

http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonP ... nPics.html

[Ghost]

.

[Halwick]

Mr. Ghost, I agree with you that the U.S. no longer has the competitive or political will to accomplish anything that involves risk and diverting funding away from entitlement programs.

The Chinese will land their man (or woman) on the moon, raise the Chinese flag and claim territorial rights. The U.S. will passively sit back as you suggested.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is now like a turtle: it pulls in its head when threatened or challenged.

Mr. HouseMD, thanks for pointing out that a short time exposure would not pick up the images of low magnitude stars and providing a excellent link demonstrating the effect of shutter speed on night photography. I am familiar with general photography and astrophotography. I was being facetious about citing that point as I still see the moon hoax supporters (including Mr. Winston) propagating that argument as the basis the Apollo 11 landing never happened.

When I saw the Chang'e-3 photos and the lack of star images above the horizon, I wondered whether HA posters like Mr. ALIBABA (author of the post "U.S. Never Landed on the Moon - Apollo Moon Hoax"), Winston, Zboy1, Jester, et al, believe the Chang'e-3 landing is a hoax for the same reasons.

So, Winston, et al, do you believe this landing to be a fake?

[Winston]

Mr. Ghost, I agree with you that the U.S. no longer has the competitive or political will to accomplish anything that involves risk and diverting funding away from entitlement programs.

The Chinese will land their man (or woman) on the moon, raise the Chinese flag and claim territorial rights. The U.S. will passively sit back as you suggested.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is now like a turtle: it pulls in its head when threatened or challenged.

Mr. HouseMD, thanks for pointing out that a short time exposure would not pick up the images of low magnitude stars and providing a excellent link demonstrating the effect of shutter speed on night photography. I am familiar with general photography and astrophotography. I was being facetious about citing that point as I still see the moon hoax supporters (including Mr. Winston) propagating that argument as the basis the Apollo 11 landing never happened.

When I saw the Chang'e-3 photos and the lack of star images above the horizon, I wondered whether HA posters like Mr. ALIBABA (author of the post "U.S. Never Landed on the Moon - Apollo Moon Hoax"), Winston, Zboy1, Jester, et al, believe the Chang'e-3 landing is a hoax for the same reasons.

So, Winston, et al, do you believe this landing to be a fake?

Dude, first, don't put false words in my mouth. I NEVER cited the lack of stars in moon photos as an argument for the moon hoax. That is a straw man. Look at my Conspiracy Trilogy Report. It contains 35 arguments for the moon hoax. NONE of them have anything to do with lack of stars in the Apollo photos. Have a look please:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

That's not an argument anyway. Go outside at night and try to take photos of the stars with your camera and see if they show up. Duh. If you can't do it from your home, then why would you expect there to be stars in photos on the moon?

Where are the photos taken by this Chinese craft on the moon?

No moon hoax supporter ever argued against the unmanned lunar landings. They only argued against the manned lunar landings. You are making another straw man.

Tell me this: On the moon, if you stand in the shadows, the temperature goes down to -250F, and if you stand in the sun, the temperature goes to +250F. At these temperatures, the film in the camera would be destroyed. Kodak says that their film can only withstand temperatures up to 150F. So how did the Apollo film survive such extreme temperatures?

The moon landing believers have never addressed this.

Furthermore, the Apollo spacesuits and Hassalbad camera had NO protection from such extreme temperatures. If you question NASA about this, they will avoid you. Why does truth need to hide from honest critical questions?

[HouseMD]

Mr. Ghost, I agree with you that the U.S. no longer has the competitive or political will to accomplish anything that involves risk and diverting funding away from entitlement programs.

The Chinese will land their man (or woman) on the moon, raise the Chinese flag and claim territorial rights. The U.S. will passively sit back as you suggested.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is now like a turtle: it pulls in its head when threatened or challenged.

Mr. HouseMD, thanks for pointing out that a short time exposure would not pick up the images of low magnitude stars and providing a excellent link demonstrating the effect of shutter speed on night photography. I am familiar with general photography and astrophotography. I was being facetious about citing that point as I still see the moon hoax supporters (including Mr. Winston) propagating that argument as the basis the Apollo 11 landing never happened.

When I saw the Chang'e-3 photos and the lack of star images above the horizon, I wondered whether HA posters like Mr. ALIBABA (author of the post "U.S. Never Landed on the Moon - Apollo Moon Hoax"), Winston, Zboy1, Jester, et al, believe the Chang'e-3 landing is a hoax for the same reasons.

So, Winston, et al, do you believe this landing to be a fake?

Dude, first, don't put false words in my mouth. I NEVER cited the lack of stars in moon photos as an argument for the moon hoax. That is a straw man. Look at my Conspiracy Trilogy Report. It contains 35 arguments for the moon hoax. NONE of them have anything to do with lack of stars in the Apollo photos. Have a look please:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

That's not an argument anyway. Go outside at night and try to take photos of the stars with your camera and see if they show up. Duh. If you can't do it from your home, then why would you expect there to be stars in photos on the moon?

Where are the photos taken by this Chinese craft on the moon?

No moon hoax supporter ever argued against the unmanned lunar landings. They only argued against the manned lunar landings. You are making another straw man.

Tell me this: On the moon, if you stand in the shadows, the temperature goes down to -250F, and if you stand in the sun, the temperature goes to +250F. At these temperatures, the film in the camera would be destroyed. Kodak says that their film can only withstand temperatures up to 150F. So how did the Apollo film survive such extreme temperatures?

The moon landing believers have never addressed this.

Furthermore, the Apollo spacesuits and Hassalbad camera had NO protection from such extreme temperatures. If you question NASA about this, they will avoid you. Why does truth need to hide from honest critical questions?

You clearly don't understand how radiative heat works in a vacuum. Basically, there are no molecules touching the camera or the astronaut, so the only thing that heats it is direct solar radiation. Most of this heat is not lost, as you are not touching any molecules that can sap heat from you, so you slowly warm up in your suit over long missions mostly due to the fact that you're burning energy into your suit that has nowhere to go. The heat from solar radiation has enough energy to heat the surface a of the camera a bit, but since there are no molecules transferring heat to the equipment directly, only photons, the camera would heat very slowly, an effect mitigated by the fact it was likely metal and could disperse heat very effectively to its cool side. With little to no air between the camera's lens and film, there would be no way for heat to radiate to the inside of the camera until the outside was significantly hotter, which would take forever in a vacuum but would eventually occur. And I've spoken with one of the engineers that designed the system for dealing with temperatures personally. It was (and still is) called the LCVG, which was hooked up to a pump and venting system in that big ass pack on the back of the astronaut's suits. We still use the same system to this very day for EVA at the ISS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Coo ... on_Garment

Seriously, physics, chemistry, biology, organic chemistry, calculus, and logic should be required courses in high school so that people don't run around spouting BS that makes sense only to people that have never taken a first semester of advanced science coursework. I would really encourage you to take some classes so that you can learn which arguments are ridiculous and which are not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iyFw8UF85A

The video above describes exactly what is wrong with you not understanding science. It is your responsibility as a member of a democracy and as a responsible citizen to understand it.