Scientifically proving NASA went to the Moon (or not)

Did NASA put men on the Moon and return them to Earth, or was it all a giant hoax? There are scientific ways of proving that they did. Here is one.

Traces of radiation damage

By calculating the expected amount of radiation damage from Apollo Mission equipment's Earth-Moon orbit, and comparing it with its the actual radiation damage using an electron microscope, it would be possible to scientifically prove NASA went to the Moon.

The picture below was taken using an electron microscope of a space helmet after being in space for an extended period. It shows the traces of very high energetic particles that constantly bombard the astronauts and their space equipment - microscopic damage invisible to the naked eye and conventional photography. So energetic particles, in fact, that they go straight through spacecrafts, and can pose a real health threat to biological life after prolonged exposure.


Electron microscope image of a space helmet

In space, you are constantly bombarded with these particles, which increase the closer you come to the Van Allan Radiation Belt, which protects the Earth and is located between the Moon and Earth. Although the radiation is random in dispersion, the aggregated amount over time is quite consistent and scientifically predictable.

Using publically available research data from the extensively studied radiation in and around the Van Allan Radiation Belt - and other natural space radiation - it should be quite predictable to calculate the amount of radiation damage Apollo space equipment should have gone though; this because we know both the Apollo missions Earth-Moon orbit and the exposure time they had at all the different locations in space. The radiation damage on Apollo equipment currently available on Earth, should still be quite visible using an electron microscope, like the image above. If the amount of radiation damage equals the calculations it could be used as scientific proof that at least the equipment went to the moon. Fortunately, there is Apollo Mission equipment both in private and public hands - perhaps one of these sources could be convinced to hand over their collections for a non-intrusive investigation?

-MM

There's an awsome video on you tube by a film maker. He goes into detail showing how it would have been harder to fake the video then to go to the moon.

Fact is the all the worlds governments had put billions of dollars into rocket science for decades. Not for nasa type organizations. But for missle technology.


While at the same time film making was in its infancy. Hollywood had just really started. So film technology was waaaaayyy behind rocket tech. It's hard to imagine that after watching pacific rim last night but... Look at the best Hollywood was doing at the time.

reply to post by MerkabaMeditation


Im sure that man has been to the moon, there was one thing that I thought was odd though. The images, of the surface of the moon, taken by Jade Rabbit seemed to show more rocks on the surface then any of the nasa vids of Luna. The nasa pictures and video seemed to show more of a sand like surface, where as China's Jade Rabbit showed what looked like a really rough gravel/sad like surface.

Now that could be because they were in different areas of the moon, but non the less I thought that was just a little odd.

reply to post by MerkabaMeditation


When I asked Phage to bring some pics showing construction of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), this is one of the links he brought. You can thank him later.

LEM photos

reply to post by ArtemisE

Thats pretty cool, whats the name of the vid?

We should also look to see what techniques were uses in films within a year or so AFTER the moon landing(s) to see if there is a corralation between the two.. Maybe they developed something just for that then used it shortly after in hollywood. I say that because all the documentries I have seen on the subject always talked about what was done before and at the moment in hollywood instead of showing what new techniques hit hollywood shortly after. That would be interesting to know I think.

Dont get me wrong I share the same point of view as you. I'm just trying to look at it from both sides for the sake of the thread.

ArtemisE
While at the same time film making was in its infancy. Hollywood had just really started. So film technology was waaaaayyy behind rocket tech. It's hard to imagine that after watching pacific rim last night but... Look at the best Hollywood was doing at the time.

I don't know about Hollywood being in its infancy. The film 2001: A_Space_Odyssey's special effects were made from June 1966 until March 1968 - and they are quite convincing, even by todays standards. Mind you, this was 3 years before Apollo 11 (allegedly) landed on the Moon.



-MM

reply to post by MerkabaMeditation


Now all you gotta do is prove that helmet was actually on the moon

Would be great to see the mentioned video. Hope someone has a link ?

reply to post by MerkabaMeditation


m.youtube.com...


Here's the link to the film maker who busted the theory...IMHO.

He really breaks it down. This guys a film pro.

kloejen
reply to post by MerkabaMeditation

 

Now all you gotta do is prove that helmet was actually on the moon

Would be great to see the mentioned video. Hope someone has a link ?

edit on 13/4/2014 by kloejen because: (no reason given)

By calculating the expected amount of radiation damage from its Earth-Moon orbit, and comparing it with the actual radiation damage using an electron microscope, it would be possible.

-MM

intrptr
reply to post by MerkabaMeditation

 

When I asked Phage to bring some pics showing construction of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), this is one of the links he brought. You can thank him later.

LEM photos

Nice pictures. Although, we would need images from an electron microscope of the LEM to make a study as radiation damage is to small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye or by conventional photography.

-MM

reply to post by MerkabaMeditation


He takes 100% from the film tech at the time. Goes into how you would do slow motion back then and what equipment was top of the line at the time.

reply to post by ArtemisE


Thanks for the link to the video.

He is claiming that high speed camera's was not invented in 1969? That is true. They were invented in the 1950s.

In 1950, Morton Sultanoff, an engineer for the U.S. Army at Aberdeen Proving ground, invented a super high-speed camera that took frames at one-millionth of a second, and was fast enough to record the shock wave of a small explosion.[13]

source
Add 19 years of refinement of this technology, and slow motion by over cranking is not possible?

I read an article some years ago, about how someone proofed the lunar landings was real, by using a photo taken on the journey to the moon, showing a incoming hurricane at the exact day. I'll see if i can dig it up.

reply to post by MerkabaMeditation

Although, we would need images from an electron microscope of the LEM to make a study as radiation damage is to small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye or by conventional photography.

Not to mention that would also need to go to the Moon to do so.

reply to post by kloejen


He didn't say it wasn't possible... Just that at the time it would be easier just to go.

Phage
reply to post by MerkabaMeditation

 

Although, we would need images from an electron microscope of the LEM to make a study as radiation damage is to small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye or by conventional photography.

Not to mention that would also need to go to the Moon to do so.

Other Apollo Mission equipment would do quite fine - it does not have to be a piece of the LEM. Some examples would be; the astronaut's suits, cameras, hammers, etc.

-MM

MerkabaMeditation

ArtemisE
While at the same time film making was in its infancy. Hollywood had just really started. So film technology was waaaaayyy behind rocket tech. It's hard to imagine that after watching pacific rim last night but... Look at the best Hollywood was doing at the time.

I don't know about Hollywood being in its infancy. The film 2001: A_Space_Odyssey's special effects were made from June 1966 until March 1968 - and they are quite convincing, even by todays standards. Mind you, this was 3 years before Apollo 11 (allegedly) landed on the Moon.

-MM

edit on 13-4-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

The only fault with your post was 2001 was not made in Hollywood. It was Shepperton Studios England.

reply to post by alldaylong


Yes you are right but that shows that film makers had the ability to create special effects that looked real enough BEFORE the launch of apollo.

snypwsd
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Yes you are right but that shows that film makers had the ability to create special effects that looked real enough BEFORE the launch of apollo.

That is how I read the questions too - did the film makers at the time of Apollo 11 missions have the skills to fake a Moon landing, Hollywood is just a location.

I'm surprised how little attention this post has gotten from serious Apollo Mission hoax researchers/debunkers - one would have thought they would be delighted to (finally) have some empirical data to use as scientific evidence? I guess they rather keep guessing, then? ...

-MM