Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: turbonium1

many 'nauts developed cataracts. its hard to imagine all of those cataracts coming from filming the landings in a hollywood basement, wouldn't you agree ?

At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space, according to a 2001 study by Francis Cucinotta of NASA's Johnson Space Center (see journal references below). Of those 39 astronauts, 36 had flown on high-radiation missions such as the Apollo Moon landings. Some cataracts appeared as soon as 4 or 5 years after the mission, but others took 10 or more years to manifest.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

the radiational multiphasic density flux within atmospheric flight chambers generate asymetrical resonance wave signatures resulting in the classification of airline crewmembers as radiation-exposed individuals

a reply to: syrinx high priest


Just about everyone on Statins get the cataracts since just about everyone is on them, that's a bit flawed.

a reply to: anonentity

please point out the part of the study you have an issue with, random facts don't cut it

a reply to: Misinformation

note where it says high radiation missions.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

since you speak with so much conviction.. in order for you to prove your point you need to prove to me you understand the problem.

so ill ask again:

how long will it take for a person (male) to receive 1Sv dosage from exposures to GCR's?

until you can answer this simple question your argument cannot move forward.

failure to provide an answer proves you do not understand the problem.

Actually, you do not understand the problem...

We don't know the effects of GCR radiation exposure beyond LEO, nor how to shield humans in that environment.

Here is an article discussing it. Note the title...


Space Radiation: The Number One Risk to Astronaut Health beyond Low Earth Orbit


The space environment beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) contains several types of ionizing radiation. Most of the energetic particles found in interplanetary space are from the solar wind, which produces a constant flux of low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation. For missions outside of LEO, galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) will contribute a significant portion of the radiation dose accumulated by astronaut crew members. GCR ions originate from outside our solar system and contain mostly highly energetic protons and alpha particles, with a small component of high charge and energy (HZE) nuclei moving at relativistic speeds and energies [1]. In addition to GCR, unpredictable and intermittent solar particle events (SPEs) can produce large plasma clouds containing highly energetic protons and some heavy ions that may cause a rapid surge of radiation both outside and within a spacecraft.

Future human spaceflight missions potentially include Moon bases, rendezvous with a near-Earth object (NEO), such as an asteroid, and, eventually, habitations on the surface of Mars. For current space missions in LEO, the shielding provided by the Earth’s magnetic field attenuates the major biomedical effects of space radiation exposures. The risks of space radiation will, however, become more onerous, as future spaceflight missions to an NEO or Mars require extended transit beyond the protection of the Earth’s magnetosphere.

In 2006, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) issued a report entitled, “Information Needed to Make Radiation Protection Recommendations for Space Missions Beyond Low-Earth Orbit” [2]. The report contains a comprehensive summary of the current evidence for radiation-induced health risks and makes recommendations on areas requiring further experimentation to enable future space missions beyond LEO. Specifically, the report states “Current space radiation guidelines pertain only to missions in LEO and are not considered relevant for missions beyond LEO. The acceptable levels of risk for space exploration beyond LEO have not been defined at this time and need to be dealt with before sending manned missions to colonize the moon or to deep space, such as a mission to Mars” [2]. Moreover, the NCRP report emphasizes the need for identifying and validating biomarkers for reliable early detection of adverse effects, improving radiation biodosimetry by providing accurate estimates of cumulative radiation doses and identifying increased personal risks for individual astronauts, due to genetic predisposition to the effects of space radiation.

Subsequently, in 2008, the National Research Council released another report “Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration” [3]. The expert authors found that the “lack of knowledge about the biological effects of, and responses to, space radiation is the single most important factor limiting the prediction of radiation risk associated with human space exploration” [3].

Exposure to charged particles representing a wide array of atomic numbers, energies, dose rates and resulting secondary radiation cascades can induce health effects that are associated with both SPE and GCR exposures. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has identified four primary biomedical risks that may pose significant health concerns for astronaut crews exposed to the interplanetary radiation environment during exploration missions. These four space radiation risks are carcinogenesis, degenerative tissue effects, CNS decrements and acute radiation syndrome [4,5,6,7].


2. The Pernicious Interplanetary Space Radiation Environment
Radiation outside of LEO is composed of a toxic milieu of GCR and particles (predominantly protons) expelled from the Sun during SPEs. This mixture of radiation modalities represents the most significant physical impediment to safe human space exploration.

2.1. Galactic Cosmic Radiation
The fluence of ionized nuclei that make up GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle and decreases by a factor of two during solar maximum [10]. The GCR fluence rate and spectrum outside of LEO have been generally characterized through measurements made by unmanned spacecraft, such as the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft that, over the period December 2011 through July 2012, carried the Mars Curiosity rover to the red planet [11]. Recent evidence has therefore demonstrated that the absorbed dose and dose equivalent from incident particles can be well estimated in advance of future exploration class space missions.

The large ionization power of GCR ions makes them a major health threat to astronauts and constitutes one of the most important barriers impeding plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. GCR particle energies are sufficient to penetrate several centimeters of biological tissue or other organic and inorganic materials. Shielding only partially reduces the doses experienced inside a spacecraft, given the penetrating ability of HZE ions [8]. While thicker shielding could in theory provide more protection, deploying a sufficient mass of shielding into space is limited by the practical capabilities of current spacecraft launch systems.

During transit outside of LEO, every cell nucleus within an astronaut would be traversed, on average, by a hydrogen ion every few days and by heavier HZE nuclei (e.g., 16O, 28Si, 56Fe) every few months [12]. Therefore, in spite of their low flux, HZE ions constitute a deleterious biological threat and contribute a significant amount to the cumulative GCR dose that astronauts will incur outside of LEO.



Space radiation is the number one risk to astronaut health on extended space exploration missions beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere. Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


They are saying Apollo's missions in deep space (with humans) were so short, they were 'vanishingly' short amounts of time!!

Apollo's missions were just too short, and that's the whole problem here, really!!


It is simply nonsense. Short missions are not even defined as a period of time. No missions are ever excluded, in fact.


Show me any recent papers that use Apollo data as genuine data, if you can....

I'd love to see it!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

since you speak with so much conviction.. in order for you to prove your point you need to prove to me you understand the problem.

so ill ask again:

how long will it take for a person (male) to receive 1Sv dosage from exposures to GCR's?

until you can answer this simple question your argument cannot move forward.

failure to provide an answer proves you do not understand the problem.

Actually, you do not understand the problem...

We don't know the effects of GCR radiation exposure beyond LEO, nor how to shield humans in that environment.

so you are saying it COULD be dangerous?? since we dont know the effects??

do you know what IS dangerous and IS linked to cancer but people still do it everyday?? smoking.

are cigarettes a hoax??

Well, only 24 humans have gone beyond LEO, on the Apollo missions....short amount of time, so let's all move right along now, folks!

The data is ignored, same as all of it is, not a word...

once again before you go on this tirade,

how long does it take for a person to accumulate 1Sv dosage of GCR's in deep space??

and a direct quote from your article:

Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

Apollo is nothing more than a trivial footnote, at best... as I've told you, over and over again...

Excuses don't work.

hey you remember when you said this:

They are saying that aluminum shielding, 40-50g/cm2 thickness, would protect humans against GCR radiation for one year, within deep space.....right? Is it their claim, or not? You think it is their claim, as you cite it for your argument. If so, then explain why they say aluminum is a poor shielding material within deep space, and may even intensifies the hazard, therefore, no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

heres a snippet from your own article you just posted:

While thicker shielding could in theory provide more protection, deploying a sufficient mass of shielding into space is limited by the practical capabilities of current spacecraft launch systems.

i bet you still dont get it.. so you better go take your own advice, excuses wont work.

also i better highlight a part of the conclusion you quoted also since it flies straight against your argument

Space radiation is the number one risk to astronaut health on extended space exploration missions beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere. Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

so basically your whole argument that short missions are not exlcuded is directly dealt with in your own article you posted. and it just so happens to be what everyone has been telling you.

still going to hold onto your excuse that whatever missions so and so are not excluded?

oh i should also add

The acceptable levels of risk for space exploration beyond LEO have not been defined at this time and need to be dealt with before sending manned missions to colonize the moon or to deep space, such as a mission to Mars

if the upper limits for deep space missions havent even been defined then can you answer my question:

how long will it take a person that is exposed to GCR's in deep space before he reaches the prescribed limits??

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You haven't actually quoted anyone that says what you claim they said, or provided the answer to the questions I've asked you repeatedly.

Surely you have the information to hand, seeing as you seem so convinced by it? In which case why not provide it?

I've quoted them several times, already.

What - specifically - do you think I have not quoted them on?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

since you speak with so much conviction.. in order for you to prove your point you need to prove to me you understand the problem.

so ill ask again:

how long will it take for a person (male) to receive 1Sv dosage from exposures to GCR's?

until you can answer this simple question your argument cannot move forward.

failure to provide an answer proves you do not understand the problem.

Actually, you do not understand the problem...

We don't know the effects of GCR radiation exposure beyond LEO, nor how to shield humans in that environment.

so you are saying it COULD be dangerous?? since we dont know the effects??

do you know what IS dangerous and IS linked to cancer but people still do it everyday?? smoking.

are cigarettes a hoax??

Well, only 24 humans have gone beyond LEO, on the Apollo missions....short amount of time, so let's all move right along now, folks!

The data is ignored, same as all of it is, not a word...

once again before you go on this tirade,

how long does it take for a person to accumulate 1Sv dosage of GCR's in deep space??

and a direct quote from your article:

Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

Apollo is nothing more than a trivial footnote, at best... as I've told you, over and over again...

Excuses don't work.

hey you remember when you said this:

They are saying that aluminum shielding, 40-50g/cm2 thickness, would protect humans against GCR radiation for one year, within deep space.....right? Is it their claim, or not? You think it is their claim, as you cite it for your argument. If so, then explain why they say aluminum is a poor shielding material within deep space, and may even intensifies the hazard, therefore, no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

heres a snippet from your own article you just posted:

While thicker shielding could in theory provide more protection, deploying a sufficient mass of shielding into space is limited by the practical capabilities of current spacecraft launch systems.

i bet you still dont get it.. so you better go take your own advice, excuses wont work.

also i better highlight a part of the conclusion you quoted also since it flies straight against your argument

Space radiation is the number one risk to astronaut health on extended space exploration missions beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere. Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

so basically your whole argument that short missions are not exlcuded is directly dealt with in your own article you posted. and it just so happens to be what everyone has been telling you.

still going to hold onto your excuse that whatever missions so and so are not excluded?

They don't exclude ANY missions!

You assume they are excluding Apollo missions, when in fact, nothing at all was ever excluded...

If they actually have excluded Apollo missions, what reason(s) are given for excluding those missions, in the document?

No exclusions are mentioned, or even implied. And, no reason(s) are given, if they somehow HAD meant it as an exclusion!!

An exclusion is defined clearly in any scientific paper, it is an absolute requirement, in fact....

You've assumed they are excluding something without saying it, and this is just wishful thinking, on your part!

They don't even talk about the only data we have from ACTUAL deep space manned missions, right? You seriously think that would happen, because the missions were short, so they now have no use for any of the Apollo data, since they are planning on only long missions now, for future missions are all to be long missions, as we know!!


So who needs reality, anyhow!

24 humans on short missions in deep space is no comparison to years-long missions, and that's why Apollo's data is worthless to the experts!!

But data from LEO, and unmanned probes, we can extrapolate for deep space data, as a guesstimate of the actual data, which is not Apollo's actual data, which is worthless to use, because the missions were short, as we know!!


Amazing logic, for sure...

The whole problem is that every paper has to imply Apollo was genuine, knowing it was not ..

That's why they talk about missions to Mars, or long-term missions, and not short missions, like Apollo's...it is taboo...

a reply to: turbonium1

knowing it was not ..

It was.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The whole problem is that every paper has to imply Apollo was genuine, knowing it was not ..

That's why they talk about missions to Mars, or long-term missions, and not short missions, like Apollo's...it is taboo...

According to you, the person with no evidence, but plenty of speculation.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They don't exclude ANY missions!

You assume they are excluding Apollo missions, when in fact, nothing at all was ever excluded...

you know apart from in the conclusion where they say .. ill just quote it:

Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

If they actually have excluded Apollo missions, what reason(s) are given for excluding those missions, in the document?

in the conclusion where they say:

Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.

gosh how many times do i have to repeat it??

No exclusions are mentioned, or even implied. And, no reason(s) are given, if they somehow HAD meant it as an exclusion!!

An exclusion is defined clearly in any scientific paper, it is an absolute requirement, in fact....

do i really need to post it again?

You've assumed they are excluding something without saying it, and this is just wishful thinking, on your part!

i havent assumed anything, the paper you quoted from is saying that the longest Apollo mission spent negligible time exposed to GCR's.. do i really need to quote it again??

They don't even talk about the only data we have from ACTUAL deep space manned missions, right? You seriously think that would happen, because the missions were short, so they now have no use for any of the Apollo data, since they are planning on only long missions now, for future missions are all to be long missions, as we know!!

are you really this dense?? no wait dont answer that.. i guess i have no choice but to keep requoting he same thing over and over so here it is yet again:

Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium

originally posted by: turbonium1
24 humans on short missions in deep space is no comparison to years-long missions, and that's why Apollo's data is worthless to the experts!!

correct, well the dumbed down version is..

basically what you want to do is take a survey of 20 people and use those findings from those 20 people to estimate the results of the general population of 3 million..

But data from LEO, and unmanned probes, we can extrapolate for deep space data, as a guesstimate of the actual data, which is not Apollo's actual data, which is worthless to use, because the missions were short, as we know!!

Amazing logic, for sure...

please provide sources for your claim.

what they are doing is using LEO LIMITS and radiation data from deep space such as the mars science... ill just quote from your own article:

The GCR fluence rate and spectrum outside of LEO have been generally characterized through measurements made by unmanned spacecraft, such as the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft that, over the period December 2011 through July 2012, carried the Mars Curiosity rover to the red planet

any hoax enthusiast want to address the baysinger and kaminsky observations ?

link

I asked Baysinger whether he found anything that NASA edited out – comments about things going wrong, the astronauts being loose with their language, or exclamations about meeting aliens! He said no – absolutely everything was transmitted to the public on TV. In fact he said, “that was kind of disappointing”. Part of the idea of this project was to hear the unedited “real story”, and it turned out there was nothing edited out.[iv] Indeed, Rutherford’s story (click here for hi-resolution version which you can read) makes no mention of hearing anything unusual.

Dr Paul Bennewitz, an electronics specialist, electronically intercepted radio and video frequencies that appeared to be extensive communications between piloted ships and ground controllers, although subsequent evidence exposed that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations had been feeding him hoaxed transmissions associated with a disinformation campaign.

Anatomy of a government disinformation program

apparently a portion of amateur radio operators are excessively enthusiastic and consider whatever they hear legitimate...

a reply to: Misinformation

Especially when they have already been shooting their mouths off and are specifically targeted.

Do you have any evidence that Baysinger was specifically targeted by anyone, or why? Do you have any explanation as to how Baysinger was able to point his antenna at the moon and hear only Armstrong and Aldrin's comments?

originally posted by: Misinformation

apparently a portion of amateur radio operators are excessively enthusiastic and consider whatever they hear legitimate...

He then began intercepting radio and video transmissions that he believed were used by the UFOs and involved different ET races. He traced these transmissions to a base located under the Archuletta Mesa, near Dulce.

pity how he was able to trace the source of the signals.

and when other amateur radio operators try to locate the apollo signals they find it originates from the moon.

Do you have any evidence that Baysinger was specifically targeted by anyone, or why?