Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: turbonium1

So we failed to go to the moon by 2020? I know I sometimes forget what year it is so I checked my calendar and, yep, it's 2016. How can something fail to do something by a timeframe that hasn't arrived yet?

Also, the Apollo 11 mission astronauts suffered from some radiation poisoning. Look it up. That's why they want better shielding, so there is minimal risk to the astronauts.

Just like 30 years ago, seat belts and airbags weren't required in a car. Now they are. Why? To keep the driver and passengers safe.

The same equipment that got used on the Apollo missions were tested and found not to be as safe as NASA would like. That's why they're developing newer technologies.

Got enough straws for a hat yet?

a reply to: turbonium1

NASA tried to land a man on the moon by 2020, and failed.

Erm, what year do you think it is now?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

You really have no idea what Eye's Wide Shut is about do you, because it has nothing to do with Apollo 11?

It is about secret societies, but please show where it has anything other than the release date that ties it into Apollo 11?

The title of it, as I said.

You won't find anything else, and he probably meant it to be that way, so we know it was linked by the title, alone.

a reply to: turbonium1

NASA tried to land a man on the moon by 2020, and failed.

No they landed one, or should I say more than one on the moon well before 2020.

We know today that aluminum is a lousy radiation shield within the deep space environment. That's why any manned craft going to deep space will not be made of aluminum, nothing like the Apollo craft were. What does that tell you about Apollo going to the moon without any idea of how radiation loves going through thin aluminum shells?

Yes we know that today, but in the 60's we didn't have the same knowledge we have today about it. It tells me we researched and found better ways to protect astronauts in space.

You might want to use the internet to look at things other than ridiculous conspiracy theory sites that are clueless.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

NASA tried to land a man on the moon by 2020, and failed.

Erm, what year do you think it is now?

The plan was to go by 2020, and it failed.

They don't wait until 2020, and then say 'It failed!'

It was known to fail well before 2020....so please look into exactly why that would be possible...

As it was here...

a reply to: turbonium1

How can something in the future be over already? What are you talking about?

a reply to: turbonium1

The title of it, as I said.

You do know the movie was an adaptation of a book from 1926...correct?

Eyes Wide Shut is a 1999 erotic thriller film based on Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Traumnovelle (Dream Story) transferred from early 20th century Vienna to 1990s New York.

en.wikipedia.org...

SO all you have is the title...your going to have to do better than that.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

You really have no idea what Eye's Wide Shut is about do you, because it has nothing to do with Apollo 11?

It is about secret societies, but please show where it has anything other than the release date that ties it into Apollo 11?

The title of it, as I said.

You won't find anything else, and he probably meant it to be that way, so we know it was linked by the title, alone.

so let me get this straight.. assume that we know nothing about the movie "Eyes wide shut" no launch date no director.

if a movie that came out with the title "Eyes Wide Shut" you will automatically assume that it is linked to Apollo 11.. even though you dont know the director and you dont know the release date..

so you are pretty much basing everything on the title ONLY..

thats kind of like saying you check your time and noticed it at 16:11 and then assume Apollo 11 was hoaxed because the time is telling you so.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

Yes we know that today, but in the 60's we didn't have the same knowledge we have today about it. It tells me we researched and found better ways to protect astronauts in space.

You might want to use the internet to look at things other than ridiculous conspiracy theory sites that are clueless.

I'm using their own research papers for this, in fact.

The papers state aluminum is a very poor radiation shield within deep space, and makes it even worse than before.

This is why they will not use aluminum for manned craft going to deep space - not at all.

Those who claim it is only meant for long-term missions is wrong, because the papers don't claim such a thing at any time. The papers mention long-term missions, as something we'd like to have in future. No mention of any other missions as being safe with aluminum shielding, at any point. Less hazardous doesn't mean aluminum can work, in any way.

a reply to: turbonium1

The papers state aluminum is a very poor radiation shield within deep space, and makes it even worse than before.

Not exactly. Your sources will say that GCRs create brehmstrahlung, which complicates the radiation environment. That is not quite the same thing as making it work. Shielding for long term spaceflights will need to incorporate layers that can decelerate GCRs, then absorb or divert the daughter particles. Technically feasible, and irrelevant given the short term nature of the Apollo missions.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'm using their own research papers for this, in fact.

Nope. From your posts in this thread you are misrepresenting what the research papers say.

Find any papers from the Apollo era, or any Apollo data, or indeed any data at all, that say the radiation they received was excessive or that the shielding they had was inadequate.

To return briefly to the Kubrick nonsense and Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick was involved in drawing up the marketing strategy for EWS in the sense that he was very specific about what shots should be in the advertising campaigns, how long the adverts should be and how those TV adverts should be placed, and what information should be given out in press packs.

It was specifically chosen for a summer release to give it the best possible chance of a serious adult audience in the face of the usual teen movie and lightweight comedy fodder. He also wanted to hit the peak European box office period of Summer.

Have a guess at what the peak movie going days are and then see what day July 16 fell on in 1999.

There is absolutely no evidence that Kubrick specifically wrote in July 16th into any contract, and indeed this would have been very difficult to do given that the film over-ran its original shooting target by 210 days (it was a 300 day shoot instead of a 90 day one).

In summary, there is plenty of evidence that Kubrick wanted to maximise his audience, there is no evidence whatsoever that he was dropping veiled hints at something in which he had absolutely no involvement.

Personally, I blame Capricorn One for the moon hoax believers. We know that there a segment of the American public that think soap operas are real....so why not people believing a movie was real?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

The papers state aluminum is a very poor radiation shield within deep space, and makes it even worse than before.

Not exactly. Your sources will say that GCRs create brehmstrahlung, which complicates the radiation environment. That is not quite the same thing as making it work. Shielding for long term spaceflights will need to incorporate layers that can decelerate GCRs, then absorb or divert the daughter particles. Technically feasible, and irrelevant given the short term nature of the Apollo missions.

No, the sources say exactly what I told you, that aluminum is a poor radiation shield within deep space.

And here is the proof...

Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of astronaut risk.

Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonable shield material a few years ago is now considered a poor candidate for future spacecraft construction.

In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut..This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield.

Aluminum is now estimated to be of little value in protection from the galactic rays, and further code improvement is expected to further detract from aluminum as a useful shield material.

During the past several years of shield code development, it has been established that aluminum space structures would make poor shields for human occupants. The need to look at new ways of constructing spacecraft is now evident because current estimates indicate aluminum to be an ineffective protection material."

www.cs.odu.edu...

..aluminum has been shown to be a poor material for spacecraft construction since secondary radiations create an additional hazard and any improved protection occurs only at very large depths.

www.stfc.ac.uk...

It can't be any clearer that that.

And the sources never claim it is bremsstrahlung, as you suggest.


They say future manned spacecraft will not be built of aluminum, for any deep space missions. They do not exclude short-term missions, as you suggest. Nor do they say it applies to only long-term missions, either.

Of course, Apollo-ites like you keep insisting that it only applies to long-term missions, despite none of the sources saying it. Not at all.

It's not reality, though.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'm using their own research papers for this, in fact.

Nope. From your posts in this thread you are misrepresenting what the research papers say.

Find any papers from the Apollo era, or any Apollo data, or indeed any data at all, that say the radiation they received was excessive or that the shielding they had was inadequate.

So you're argument is..

None of the Apollo-era papers, or Apollo-era data, indicate that Apollo could not land men on the moon, right?


In other words, if they had hoaxed it, then they would have shown us the data to prove that they did, indeed, hoax it!!!!


Good one, really...

originally posted by: turbonium1

They say future manned spacecraft will not be built of aluminum, for any deep space missions. They do not exclude short-term missions, as you suggest. Nor do they say it applies to only long-term missions, either.

Of course, Apollo-ites like you keep insisting that it only applies to long-term missions, despite none of the sources saying it. Not at all.

It's not reality, though.

they actually do..

since they are talking about the ANNUAL limits and how to maintain exposure below those ANNUAL limits by use of different shield material and thickness..

if someone was using say 5g/cm^2 of aluminium as shielding (he is stuck with this) can you think of a way at all to lower your exposure to be under the prescribed limits?? or how that person can stay under the annual exposure limits when he only has this shield?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
To return briefly to the Kubrick nonsense and Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick was involved in drawing up the marketing strategy for EWS in the sense that he was very specific about what shots should be in the advertising campaigns, how long the adverts should be and how those TV adverts should be placed, and what information should be given out in press packs.

It was specifically chosen for a summer release to give it the best possible chance of a serious adult audience in the face of the usual teen movie and lightweight comedy fodder. He also wanted to hit the peak European box office period of Summer.

Have a guess at what the peak movie going days are and then see what day July 16 fell on in 1999.

There is absolutely no evidence that Kubrick specifically wrote in July 16th into any contract, and indeed this would have been very difficult to do given that the film over-ran its original shooting target by 210 days (it was a 300 day shoot instead of a 90 day one).

In summary, there is plenty of evidence that Kubrick wanted to maximise his audience, there is no evidence whatsoever that he was dropping veiled hints at something in which he had absolutely no involvement.

From an article written on Jan. 22, 1999...

Okay, so the real gamble may be EW betting that Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut — which has been put on hold more times than Corey Feldman’s agent — will actually debut July 16.
...

Nancy Kirkpatrick, senior VP of publicity for Warner...

”Stanley helped pick [the date]! We’re not concerned about that at all,” exults Kirkpatrick.

www.ew.com...


I don't know at this point whether or not the release date was specifically written into the contract, but the fact is Kubrick picked (or 'helped pick') the July 16, 1999 release date. That's proof Kubrick intended to release it on that specific date, from WB itself...

The film was actually finished before Kubrick died, on Mar.7, 1999. He showed the final cut of EWS to Warner, and was dead 4 days later, of an apparent 'heart attack'. (not at all suspicious, merely a coincidence, I'm sure...)


Anyway, the point is that Kubrick DID select the release date of his film, and it WAS released on that date.

He wanted a film that - again - he had titled 'Eyes Wide Shut', to be released on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11's launch.

If he had worked with NASA to hoax Apollo 11's moon landing, then the title he chose, and the release date he chose make perfect sense.

But you don't want it to make perfect sense, you only think up lame excuses for it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

From an article written on Jan. 22, 1999...

Okay, so the real gamble may be EW betting that Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut — which has been put on hold more times than Corey Feldman’s agent — will actually debut July 16.
...

Nancy Kirkpatrick, senior VP of publicity for Warner...

”Stanley helped pick [the date]! We’re not concerned about that at all,” exults Kirkpatrick.

www.ew.com...

"Stanley helped..." is not the same as "Stanley insisted on.." now is it? "Stanley helped.." is in complete agreement with what I wrote.

I don't know at this point whether or not the release date was specifically written into the contract,

But it didn't stop you claiming that he did.

but the fact is Kubrick picked (or 'helped pick') the July 16, 1999 release date. That's proof Kubrick intended to release it on that specific date, from WB itself...

No it isn't. It's proof that Kubrick helped. He was involved in a marketing strategy that wanted a summer release. July is summer.

www.wsj.com...

Anything you add to that is your own spin on it, and again it is only of significance if you believe he was involved in producing Apollo footage, which he wasn't.

The film was actually finished before Kubrick died, on Mar.7, 1999. He showed the final cut of EWS to Warner, and was dead 4 days later, of an apparent 'heart attack'. (not at all suspicious, merely a coincidence, I'm sure...)

It had been shown to quite a few people - including theatre owners at the ShoWest convention in March '99 - long before release. It was premiered in LA on the 13th. None of these dates are moon related.

He was 71. Old people die.

Anyway, the point is that Kubrick DID select the release date of his film, and it WAS released on that date.

No, the point is that you have no proof he selected that date and no proof that he was involved in producing Apollo footage.

He wanted a film that - again - he had titled 'Eyes Wide Shut', to be released on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11's launch.

If he had worked with NASA to hoax Apollo 11's moon landing, then the title he chose, and the release date he chose make perfect sense.

But you don't want it to make perfect sense, you only think up lame excuses for it.

It doesn't make sense because he had nothing to do with Apollo, and again you have no proof that he selected that date or that his title refers to anything other than the psychological interaction between the film's central characters.

originally posted by: choos
they actually do..

since they are talking about the ANNUAL limits and how to maintain exposure below those ANNUAL limits by use of different shield material and thickness..

if someone was using say 5g/cm^2 of aluminium as shielding (he is stuck with this) can you think of a way at all to lower your exposure to be under the prescribed limits?? or how that person can stay under the annual exposure limits when he only has this shield?

They are talking about annual limits, and long-term missions in deep space.

When they talk about aluminum shielding, they say it is a poor material for deep space missions. They do not say it is a poor material for ONLY long-term missions.

They say future manned spacecraft will not use aluminum shielding for deep space missions.

They do not say only for long-term missions, at all.


They are saying ALL manned spacecraft going into deep space will not be built with aluminum shielding, and they are saying aluminum is a poor shield against deep space radiation, PERIOD.


You are just trying to put words in their mouth, to fit your argument. The fact is that they did not say it. YOU did!


These papers are about how to shield astronauts against deep space radiation.

They would all know about Apollo's data, which shielded astronauts in deep space, right?

But they don't use Apollo's data, as you can see from the papers.

Think about it - if they went into deep space, with no harm from the radiation in any way, and had data to prove it, wouldn't the papers include the Apollo data, and take it from that point?

If you go into deep space for 5 days, and collect data on the radiation within deep space, which shows x amount of radiation exposure over that time, within that spacecraft.

And if you collect data on 8 more missions of a similar period in deep space, you confirm your findings are accurate, right?


Now, if you want to go on much longer missions in deep space, like a year or so, would you ignore all the data collected from the 9 short-term missions, and just start it all from (almost) scratch? Or, would you consider it might be a tad relevant to your research?

You see, having data from ACTUAL manned missions in deep space allows you to extrapolate ANNUAL radiation exposure in deep space. Who knew??

Now, what was the exposure of Apollo astronauts over each mission? Let's say over 5 days, it was x amount of radiation exposure.

Multiply this amount by a factor of 70, and you'll get the total ANNUAL amount of exposure. For a 'long-term' mission, that is.


They didn't use the data from Apollo missions, and extrapolate it over a year.

They ignored it, which tells you just what they think about your great Apollo data.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They are talking about annual limits, and long-term missions in deep space.

When they talk about aluminum shielding, they say it is a poor material for deep space missions. They do not say it is a poor material for ONLY long-term missions.

they are considering shielding for long term missions in the reports..

The long-range strategic outlook for the “Human
Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise” is to
“open the space frontier to international human expansion
and commercial development.” In order to accomplish
these ends, “We look to the Space Technology
Enterprise (STE) to develop revolutionary advanced
technologies critical to establishing a sustained human
presence in space”

www.cs.odu.edu...
the introduction from one of your reports.

Deep space exposure estimates
using LET-dependent quality factors result in
exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum
depending on shielding. A large potential impact exists
on the career of a space worker for whom annual exposure
limits (table 1) are currently 0.5 Sv/yr for the LEO
environment with additional total career exposure limits
that depend on age and gender
www.cs.odu.edu...

and more..

They say future manned spacecraft will not use aluminum shielding for deep space missions.

They do not say only for long-term missions, at all.

they do.. you have only read the parts that you want to hear.

They are saying ALL manned spacecraft going into deep space will not be built with aluminum shielding, and they are saying aluminum is a poor shield against deep space radiation, PERIOD.

read the whole article properly..

why would they estimate exposures of 1 SIEVERT PER YEAR at solar minimum and then state the current YEARLY limit for LEO exposure is 0.5 SIEVERT PER YEAR??

you are being intellectually dishonest.

You are just trying to put words in their mouth, to fit your argument. The fact is that they did not say it. YOU did!

everything in both articles you posted are looking at ways of decreasing the exposure so that the criteria of meeting the prescribed LEO annual exposure limits can be satisfied.

and not to mention your second article you linked to is specifically about long term radiation exposure.. ill just copy and paste the heading of the article since it doesnt get more clear:

Mars Radiation Risk Assessment and Shielding Design for
Long-Term Exposure to Ionizing Space Radiation
ntrs.nasa.gov...

These papers are about how to shield astronauts against deep space radiation.

They would all know about Apollo's data, which shielded astronauts in deep space, right?

But they don't use Apollo's data, as you can see from the papers.

Think about it - if they went into deep space, with no harm from the radiation in any way, and had data to prove it, wouldn't the papers include the Apollo data, and take it from that point?

the total exposure received during the Apollo missions (longest being 12 days) was well under ALL the prescribed limits.

If you go into deep space for 5 days, and collect data on the radiation within deep space, which shows x amount of radiation exposure over that time, within that spacecraft.

And if you collect data on 8 more missions of a similar period in deep space, you confirm your findings are accurate, right?

the data that they are using in the articles are YEARLY data.

by extrapolating Apollo radiation accumulated data they are assuming that they are travelling through the VAB every twelve days or so for ONE WHOLE YEAR..

Now, if you want to go on much longer missions in deep space, like a year or so, would you ignore all the data collected from the 9 short-term missions, and just start it all from (almost) scratch? Or, would you consider it might be a tad relevant to your research?

Apollo data is irrelevant to this study because Apollo data lasts only 12 days during a solar maximum with two traverses through the VAB.

but if they were considering long term missions, that level of reading will not be accurate unless the mission is planned to traverse the VAB every twelve days.

You see, having data from ACTUAL manned missions in deep space allows you to extrapolate ANNUAL radiation exposure in deep space. Who knew??

if you want the wrong figures sure go ahead.

Now, what was the exposure of Apollo astronauts over each mission? Let's say over 5 days, it was x amount of radiation exposure.

Multiply this amount by a factor of 70, and you'll get the total ANNUAL amount of exposure. For a 'long-term' mission, that is.

as explained above it wont work like that..
but if you think thats how data works then im glad you are not in a position to design anything.

They didn't use the data from Apollo missions, and extrapolate it over a year.

They ignored it, which tells you just what they think about your great Apollo data.

they havent completely ignored it, it is just IRRELEVANT for their purposes..

edit on 8-2-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)