Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: Misinformation

No source provided, so this isn't evidence. Doesn't actually say what you want it to say, so doesn't support you either.

If you fail to provide an actual source and context, I'm just going to assume you made it up yourself as you have with other material in the past.

the Air Force Office of Special Investigations had been feeding him hoaxed transmissions associated with a disinformation campaign.

a reply to: Misinformation

No source given again, so it's not reliable information, particularly as you are joining two completely different things together to imply something that is not true.

Post links to your sources, then it wouldn't matter that they were illegible as we could go see it in its proper context.

Why are you so scared of linking to your sources?

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
any hoax enthusiast want to address the baysinger and kaminsky observations ?

link

Paul Bennewitz electronic communications expert and UFO investigator

Former special agent for the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations Richard Doty claimed that in the 1980s he was tasked with hoaxing documents and feeding false information to UFO researchers, including Bennewitz

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


Mirage Men

You have still not provided sources for your press cuttings and are dishonestly trying to link two different areas.

Here's some useful information for you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution...Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website.

originally posted by: choos

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.

So it's mentioned once, and that's your idea of an exclusion??

They don't say anything is excluded, you've made it up!!

Your endless denial won't change that...

originally posted by: choos

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..

It's not the same thing as a survey, whatsoever..

Examples of actual manned missions in deep space are not ignored because of 'too few people', as a survey would need more people, that's a silly analogy...

To only use estimates is absurd, if actual measurements exist, right?

Sure.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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.

So it's mentioned once, and that's your idea of an exclusion??

They don't say anything is excluded, you've made it up!!

Your endless denial won't change that...

what do you mean that dont say anything is excluded??

the article YOU posted says that the longest Apollo mission spent an insignificant amount of time exposed to the interplanetary radiation medium.

and what this business about its mentioned once and thats my idea of an exclusion??
where in any of your articles does it say or even show that the longest Apollo mission would be impossible???
where in any of your articles does it say or show that even one week of exposure to deep space radiation would mean humans in deep space for one week would be IMPOSSIBLE???

so lets just assume your argument about how it is mentioned "once" where has it mentioned that one week or more in deep space would be deadly or impossible for humans???? so even if we assume this little point of yours (which is still wrong) its still "one" more than you have ever brought.

It's not the same thing as a survey, whatsoever..

you clearly missed my point..

do you know anything about data sample size???? because you are demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge about statistics and even data.

Examples of actual manned missions in deep space are not ignored because of 'too few people', as a survey would need more people, that's a silly analogy...

you see you just dont get it... its not about too few people.. its about the LENGTH OF TIME THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THIS RADIATION..

To only use estimates is absurd, if actual measurements exist, right?

Sure.

oh ofcourse we should only use data from genocide, lets expose millions of people to lethal amounts of GCR's so that we can study it and prove to you that Apollo was really fake.

great idea sadist.

originally posted by: choos

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

They are not saying humans can go into deep space, on short missions. They don't exclude missions, in any way. None.

Apollo's missions were a "vanishingly" short amount of time in deep space.

Why it's 'vanishing', nobody knows!!

To you, this is excluding short missions!?!


As if...

originally posted by: turbonium1

They are not saying humans can go into deep space, on short missions. They don't exclude missions, in any way. None.

they are not saying humans CANT go into deep space, on short missions also.

only you are

Apollo's missions were a "vanishingly" short amount of time in deep space.

Why it's 'vanishing', nobody knows!!

you cant even twist their use of vanishing to your advantage.. how embarassing..

just shows how desperate you are..

To you, this is excluding short missions!?!
As if...

and to you its "im going to ignore this as hard as i can"




p.s. you are so fixated on your oversight that you havent even replied to what i was saying..

ie. "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..." - turboinium1

my reply to that was that you are wrong the GCR data as "estimates", what they are using is data from missions like the Mars Science Laboratory which had been collecting GCR data for about 7 months NOT 12 days.
the only data they are using from LEO are the LIMITS from LEO.

you got so desperate trying to hand wave your way out of the word "vanishing" that you replied to something else.

a reply to: turbonium1

Please provide any evidence you have, from any source, that the Apollo astronauts would have received, and did receive, a lethal dose of radiation.

You may remember you have been asked this before.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Please provide any evidence you have, from any source, that the Apollo astronauts would have received, and did receive, a lethal dose of radiation.

You may remember you have been asked this before.

m.youtube.com...

Around 335 to 345... "We must solve these challenges BEFORE we send PEOPLE through spaxce."

There's your proof! If they had already been through there during Apollo what would be left to solve???

NASA fan boys go home

a reply to: RockofTruth

The Apollo missions took a high inclination trajectory for TLI, minimizing exposure.

Let's now overlay the trajectory on flux maps of the VARB (resizing to match scale). The first map shows the electron flux and the next two maps show the proton flux at two energy levels. As you can see, Apollo 11 easily avoided the areas of highest flux, thereby minimizing the exposure. As before, the red markers indicate the time in 10-minute increments. The far edge of the electron belt was reached in about 90 minutes, the inner zone was traversed in about 30 minutes, and the region of the most energetic particles was skirted in just about 10 minutes.

www.braeunig.us...

originally posted by: choos


you see you just dont get it... its not about too few people.. its about the LENGTH OF TIME THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THIS RADIATION..

No, they must first know it's effects are to humans, in order to plan on how we might protect humans from those effects, in future missions...

This applies to ALL manned missions into deep space...NO exceptions.

They say a long-term mission has more exposure than a shorter mission...IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE EXCLUDING SHORT MISSIONS!!

You wish it did, but this is simply not the reality!


Think about it...

If we went into deep space for a few days, nine times, safely...

What effects did they claim it had on the Apollo astronauts, at the time, or many years after? None, right?

If not, then show me proof of it...


Assuming no effects, then...

At what point would they have known it WOULD have any effect on humans in deep space?


It is the same environment. The same hazards must also exist within that same environment. The exposure to the hazards may vary, of course. So....

Apollo didn't know about it, or measure it, so they were never in deep space...obviously.

They can't go into deep space and not know the hazards, or measure them, as they exist!


Assume 3 days in deep space averaged 0.4 units of GCR exposure. If it was too small to measure, Apollo is toast. What would be 'safe', when they can't even measure the hazards??

originally posted by: choos

they are not saying humans CANT go into deep space, on short missions also.

only you are

All missions into deep space, without exception.

This means short missions can't be done yet, nor can any others.

a reply to: turbonium1

They can't go into deep space and not know the hazards, or measure them, as they exist!

You mean they can't determine long term exposures without long term measurements.
www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: RockofTruth

That's not evidence, it's a line that has been deliberately misinterpreted and taken out of context by people who have no actual clue about the subject.

He is discussing a completely new spaceship, full of far more electronics and far more sensitive equipment probably than the entire Apollo spacecraft collection combined, in a part of the VAB that Apollo never went anywhere near.

What people like you and turbonium need to provide are numbers. Actual numbers. There have been countless probes and actual spaceships from numerous countries that have been to the moon (and back) and recorded radiation data before, during and after Apollo. Find me anything in the data from those missions that answers the question I put.

"NASA fan boys"?

Really? Pathetic.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, they must first know it's effects are to humans, in order to plan on how we might protect humans from those effects, in future missions...

you must be insane.. and how do you propose that mankind finds out the effects of long term GCR exposure to a human is??

because that requires the death of thousands of human test subjects..

how do you think they know so much about radiation exposure limits??

This applies to ALL manned missions into deep space...NO exceptions.

the first people to go super sonic also a hoax??

They say a long-term mission has more exposure than a shorter mission...IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE EXCLUDING SHORT MISSIONS!!

but it does mean that THEY WILL BE EXPOSED TO IT LESS!!!

x-rays are deadly, there are many documents detailing the dangers of x-rays.. people go to the doctors to get x-rays done everyday..

im assuming you think real life is a hoax also now?

If we went into deep space for a few days, nine times, safely...

What effects did they claim it had on the Apollo astronauts, at the time, or many years after? None, right?

If not, then show me proof of it...

mostly none.. because they spent NEGLIBLE TIME EXPOSED TO IT!!!!!! ill say it a million times if i have to..

let me ask you a similar question, what effects do people claim the had from x-rays at the doctors, at the time, or how many years after?? (the sample size is immensely larger)

Assuming no effects, then...

At what point would they have known it WOULD have any effect on humans in deep space?

probably several months being constantly exposed to it (of which no human has ever done), and that is to assume that being exposed to GCR's will have any effect whatsoever..

It is the same environment. The same hazards must also exist within that same environment. The exposure to the hazards may vary, of course. So....

except for the giant elephant sitting next to you, the one holding the sign saying EXPOSURE TIME.

Apollo didn't know about it, or measure it, so they were never in deep space...obviously.

prove they didnt know about it.. they knew what GCR's were before Apollo.. they even attributed he "shooting star phenomena" to them.. but ofcourse you and your opinion are much more grandiose.

They can't go into deep space and not know the hazards, or measure them, as they exist!

ah huh, so like all those pilots that died while going super sonic in their trans sonic aircraft is actually a hoax??

Assume 3 days in deep space averaged 0.4 units of GCR exposure. If it was too small to measure, Apollo is toast. What would be 'safe', when they can't even measure the hazards??

if its too small to measure how do you know they are toast???
you are still trying to say that if someone receives a dose of x-rays over 3 days that is so small that it cannot be measured that guy is toast.

a reply to: turbonium1

you are not reading what im writing..

they are NOT saying that humans CANT go into deep space (ie. its 100% impossible), on short missions also.

they are suggesting that it would be best if they didnt STAY there with our current level of technology.

unless you can quote them saying so?? because in your own papers they do say that current technology allows human to survive in deep space for a year using aluminium as thick as ~45g/cm^2.

I'll try phrasing my question differently for turbonium.

At what point would they die?

You have the Apollo trajectory both through the VAB and on to the moon.

Pick the point at which they would be dead.