An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by pepsi78

In the entire history exept the so called apolo lunar misions no maned craft went above or in to the belt.
what i dont want to belive is not that it didint kill them but no simtoms
no burns that is not posible.
what i agree on with you is that yes the shoot could of been pictured from the side

To be fair unless you really understand the radiation and it's effects - what is your basis for that assumption?
If you look back there are plenty of links to articles - some of them independent to the Moon mission one way or another - which explain it all.
Problem is people think of radiation as being simple and just extremely bad - there are different types which can be shielded by different materials in varying thicknesses.
If you read up about them you'll find that a lot of these things are just out of context, an exaggeration or even just lies.

The comments from the program I quoted are correct, but they are talking about the event which we showed you links to. The program makers have simply edited them in with the Narrator telling you what they want you to believe - it is relatively clever work, it's all psycology of the human mind.


The only other thing that Rene said was:

obviously the only shielding they had was the literally paper thin outer hull of aluminium; And their suits consisting of glass fibre, some aluminium fibres and silicon rubber.

This is mixed in with a Hoax Believer and his opinion he is stating as fact and the Narrator once again informing you that Rene says the craft would have needed 6ft of lead shielding...
Once again one wonders why they don't show him saying that.
What he does say is what the craft consisted of, which we already know - it's not secret.
We are simply led to believe that he is saying it in the context of it not being enough. In reality the context is unknown and well hidden by the program makers, they tell you what they want you to think.
And considering they set out to make a program to sell the idea the Moon landing were a hoax - no prizes for which way they would try to swing it.

He might have been saying it in the context of "how ridiculous some of these theories by uneducated people are and that they are wrong because..."

..obviously the only shielding they had was the literally ......

Get the picture?

If you are going to believe the narrator then what's the point of having 'experts' on there anyway.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Let's delve a little into the program and the makers - Nash Entertainment (whose website is still under construction...)
(oh.. and note the 'entertainment' bit)

www.nashentertainment.com...

Producers of such fine programs such as:

MR. PERSONALITY
Fox / Nash Entertainment / G-Man Group

WHO WANTS TO MARRY MY DAD
NBC / Nash Entertainment

FOR LOVE OR MONEY (Host Casting)
NBC / Nash Entertainment
www.katywallin.com...

Three years after an ESPN documentary helped land Fritz Pollard in the NFL Hall of Fame, there's word a feature version of the gutsy gridiron giant's life story may be in the works.
Reality maven Bruce NashBruce Nash, who teamed up with John Moffet to produce the doc, is in the process of pitching a feature take on the life of the man some call the Jackie Robinson of football. Nash has been making a concerted push into features, most recently selling Revolution the baseball-themed pitch "To Wally Ward" (Daily Variety, Jan. 7).
www.variety.com...

Let's look at Craig Titley - one of the co-executive producers:

1. Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (2005) (completed) (characters)
2. Cheaper by the Dozen (2003) (screen story)
3. Scooby-Doo (2002) (story)
4. See Spot Run (2001) (adaptation)
5. Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001) (TV)
www.imdb.com...

Emm. these people look extremely well qualified in these matters..

Actually the narrator,Mitch Pileggi, is - seing as he used to be in charge of the X-files!

www.imdb.com...

I expect these guys are wetting themselves laughing at all the suckers fell for the show, I know I am!


[edit on 9-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

He would incrmininate that what they had was insuficient but never the less about the 6 feet lead plate it is true he does not say it him self it is just acording to him and it was quoted by the guy that speaks over the image but right after that he incriminates that what they had was not suficent, that is a incrimination you can look from what ever point of view
you like it will still be the same and it was quoted by him and not from the guy from fox.
His face has he speaks about it is not so positive it's like sayng with a look on his face it would not be inof.

After that he talked about the solar flare the bigest one in the 20 th century why would he even mention the flair in this documentary, it is ovius
that he was makeing a remark on it cause of the misions.
The point is not what they dont say is what they say and how they say it.
The two of them say it in a way like almost pointing the finger at the mision.




And now i ask a qestion.
Why would the craft not suffer damage short circuits etc.
If satelites get damaged from it all the time and brake down why would the apolo misions be so difrent.
Are you implyng that the radiation tha offen create problems for satelites
never penetrated the walls of the module.
i want you to answer me
1 did the radiation penetrate the wals of the craft?
2 why didint it cause short circuits and other navigation anomalyes?
[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
He would incrmininate that what they had was insuficient but never the less about the 6 feet lead plate it is true he does not say it him self it is just acording to him and it was quoted by the guy that speaks over the image but right after that he incriminates that what they had was not suficent, that is a incrimination you can look from what ever point of view
you like it will still be the same and it was quoted by him and not from the guy from fox.
His face has he speaks about it is not so positive it's like sayng with a look on his face it would not be inof.

Three words for that: Punctuation. Try it.

After that he talked about the solar flare the bigest one in the 20 th century why would he even mention the flair in this documentary, it is ovius
that he was makeing a remark on it cause of the misions.

Maybe it was mentioned because had one that size occurred during a manned Lunar mission it would have posed a threat. Could it really be just that simple?

They DIDN'T say that. You can edit ANYTHING together to make it seem the way you want. You've fallen for it hook line and sinker, the program makers can edit what they want in whatever order they want.
If you watch 'Dark side of the Moon' then you will see Buzz Aldrin apparantly implying that they didn't go - or so the program makers would have you believe - though that program was an admitted (even at the time) hoax designed to show how anything anyone says and a certain style of programming can be made to portray whatever viewpoint you want.

Will someone else explain to this guy, because I tihnk I'm going to lose my infinite patience soon..

Originally posted by pepsi78
And now i ask a qestion.
Why would the craft not suffer damage short circuits etc.
If satelites get damaged from it all the time and brake down why would the apolo misions be so difrent.
Are you implyng that the radiation tha offen create problems for satelites
never penetrated the walls of the module.
i want you to answer me
1 did the radiation penetrate the wals of the craft?
2 why didint it cause short circuits and other navigation anomalyes?

It takes many years for it to affect the circuits. They were in space for no more than a couple of weeks during Apollo. They also flew when the Sun was relatively inactive and didn't encounter any solar flares.

So be it agent smith , than the space suttle can have a joy in the belt
can seat for days there and it wont have any efect, i just dont buy that.
I am going to search for the dark side of the moon documentary and see it my self i didint get to see that one.
I rest my case

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

This is going on far too long. Please see clavius.org and read the Radiation chapter.

You'll see that the VA Belts only emit electron radiation.. not gamma radiation. Electron based radiation is dangerous, but very EASILY shielded against. The Soviet's knew this too. You see every hoax beleiver seems to think there is lots of gamma radation up there.. the type of radiation during atom bomb explosions, the type of radiation that needs meters of lead shielding. Well your going to have to learn some basic science... that is NOT the kind of radiation the astronauts had to deal with. The thin aluminium hull was the best way to protect against electron radiation. End of story..

[edit on 9/11/05 by SteveR]

Originally posted by SteveR
This is going on far too long. Please see clavius.org and read the Radiation chapter.

You'll see that the VA Belts only admit electron radiation.. not gamma radiation. Electron based radiation is dangerous, but very EASILY shielded against. The Soviet's knew this too. You see every hoax beleiver seems to think there is lots of gamma radation up there.. the type of radiation during atom bomb explosions, the type of radiation that needs meters of lead shielding. Well your going to have to learn some basic science... that is NOT the kind of radiation the astronauts had to deal with. The thin aluminium hull was the best way to protect against electron radiation. End of story..

You are rong but i dont want to link it to the mision any more it will take forever.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The Earth actually has two radiation belts of different origins. The inner belt, the one discovered by Van Allen's Geiger counter, occupies a compact region above the equator (see drawing, which also includes the trajectories of two space probes) and is a by-product of cosmic radiation. It is populated by protons of energies in the 10-100 Mev range, which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts. Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region.

Aluminium wont do it

Originally posted by pepsi78
Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region.

Way to read your own information!

Originally posted by pepsi78
You are rong but i dont want to link it to the mision any more it will take forever.

I am wrong? Pepsi, clavius.org is not "rong."

Oh and I'm highlighting two parts of your quote.

"on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts."

"Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region."

Originally posted by pepsi78
So be it agent smith , than the space suttle can have a joy in the belt
can seat for days there and it wont have any efect, i just dont buy that.
I am going to search for the dark side of the moon documentary and see it my self i didint get to see that one.
I rest my case

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

A) Your case is hopelessly flawed I'm afraid.
B) You seem to have conceded on the timing of the solar flare (August '72) against the Apollo missions (A16, April, A17, December).
C) You still can't use spell check. Please do. It looks bad otherwise.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by pepsi78
You are rong but i dont want to link it to the mision any more it will take forever.

I am wrong?

Pepsi, clavius.org is not "rong."

Oh and I'm highlighting two parts of your quote.

"on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts."


"Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region."

And why do they tend to stay out , cause of the radiation level ohhhhh now that we have found that out how about seating around the camp fire and singing that song, can you belive they put a man on the moon there nothing out there to see(exept dedly radiation )


Of course they tend to stay away from it since it would penetrate the walls
of the suttle but no not the sardine can that the astronauts traveled by.

Read what it says i dont care what other material is on that site
it says black on white
"It is populated by protons of energies in the 10-100 Mev range, which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts."



[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
And why do they tend to stay out , cause of the radiation level ohhhhh now that we have found that out how about seating around the camp fire and singing that song...

Mhm. Maybe you missed the point. The Apollo trajectory took them through the safest part of the VA belts, and the rocket's hull did indeed protect them against the electron radiation for the short duration. If you haven't learned already, the thin aluminium hull was a very appropriate shield against electron radiation.

Of course they tend to stay away from it since it would penetrate the walls
of the suttle but no not the sardine can that the astronauts traveled by.

If your trying to make a comparison between the Shuttle craft and the Apollo rockets then know this. The shuttles maintain orbit. The rockets do not.

Read what it says i dont care what other material is on that site

Selective reading will do you no good. Please read clavius.org, it will explain everything to you. I ain't gonna answer your questions until you've read it through, because this is getting pointless. Please make the effort, okay?

"It is populated by protons of energies in the 10-100 Mev range, which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts."

The apollo hull was designed to shield against radiation during the short trip through the VA belts. There was no prolonged exposure. The broken satellites you or someone mentioned have been sitting up there for years.

The effects of radiation are cumulative.

[edit on 9/11/05 by SteveR]

I have my opinions you have yours , i was talking about the belt increase by 1000x that was the point of the hole discution but i will not go over it again , just flip the pages back and ceck my posts.
I was clameing my point with 2 phisicists.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
I have my opinions you have yours...

You may have your opinions, but we have our facts from credible sources...

I was clameing my point with 2 phisicists.

Who had their statements taken out of context and then the out of context statements taken even more out of context. Now that's what I call credible!

Ralph Rene is also a self-taught physicist, he's actually a carpenter by trade. I'm a scientist by the same definition, and so are the other people here effectively - so you might wish to pay as much attention to us - and also the numerous qualified physicists that agree with our opinions.

You might also want to look up the definition of 'prolonged' as you seem to be missing out on the meaning of one of the crucial parts of your quote:

Prolonged

1. To lengthen in duration; protract.
2. To lengthen in extent.

dictionary.reference.com...

[edit on 10-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by pepsi78
I have my opinions you have yours , i was talking about the belt increase by 1000x that was the point of the hole discution but i will not go over it again , just flip the pages back and ceck my posts.
I was clameing my point with 2 phisicists.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

You still have not proven that the 1000X happend during the Apollo 16 mission. If what you are saying is true then there should be multiple sources that show it not just the FOX doc.

lest look at our multiple sorces shall we?
NASA; exploration.nasa.gov...

It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.

NAP; www.nap.edu...

In August 1972 the Sun produced a “sudden and spectacular resurgence of solar activity,” as the staff at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Space Environment Center called it. It was just a matter of luck that Apollo astronauts were not caught up in that resurgence.

EVEN THIS HOAX SITE DOESN'T DENY IT!!!
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions.

EDIT;
Also this article by Geoffrey Landis (His page at Wikipedia shows his experties) states;

Note that NASA's 30-day exposure limit is 25 REM. The terrestrial occupational limit for radiation workers is 5 REM/year. The median lethal dose is 450 REM. According to a Bioastronautics Data book, you have about a 10% chance of death at half this (counting death within 60 days of exposure, that is; there is also delayed death by radiation-induced cancer, about 1E-6 per REM absorbed.) "Vomiting and nausea in about 10-50% of personnel" but "no deaths anticipated" for 100-200 rads. According to that Bioastronautics Data book, "little" flares can give you 50-200 rads of skin dose of over 30 MeV protons. (REMs and rads have about the same danger at this energy level.)

...snip....

the worst of the Apollo missions gave the astronauts about 1 REM, as it happens. That came from the Van Allen belts, not from the sun or from Galactic Cosmic Rays.

Ok now you go....




[edit on 10-11-2005 by Halfofone]

RADIATION.
The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak
So you must ceck it out.


This makes the belt look like a picnic

The Moon surface is baldly exposed to cosmic radiation, some of that type of radiation is very hard to block with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.


why?
More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays.
So it has nothing to do with the sun.

Note aluminium wont protect you from gamma radiation and no suit will protect you 100% .
Only thik leded walls will.

the value remains the same in rad, R or rem for this class of radiation(gamma and x ray) . For other types of radiation, their values differ by a factor

Exposures to the astronauts on the moon calculated before the trip.(gamma radiation)
980 rem for feet
700 rem for the skin
200 rem for blood for organs
200 rem for the eyes

Facts
Amount of radiation and how it would afect humans.
600 rads in one day =dedly to human
400 rads in one day = havy burns and sevier siknes
100 to 200 rads per day = nausea and vomiting



Failure atempts.

Antempts by man wich resulted in failure before the first the so called first misson to the moon and after.

08/1958 Pioneer0 Launch failure Orbiter to obtain lunar orbit; ended just 77 seconds after liftoff when the rocket's first stage exploded

09/1958 Luna1958A Launch failure Impactor to impact the lunar surface; ended when rocket exploded shortly after lift-off

10/1958 Pioneer1 Failed to achieve lunar trajectory Orbiter to obtain lunar orbit; Pioneer 1 did manage to returned data on the Van Allen Belt and micrometeorite impacts before re-entering Earth's atmosphere

10/1958 Luna1958B Launch failure Impactor to impact the lunar surface

11/1958 Pioneer2 Failed to achieve lunar trajectory Orbiter to obtain lunar orbit

12/1958 Luna1958C Launch failure Impactor to impact the lunar surface

12/1958 Pioneer3 Launch failure Probe to flyby the moon

01/1959 Luna1 Flyby Impactor -radio equipment
-tracking transmitter
-telemetering system
-magnetometer
-geiger counter
-scintillation counter
- micrometeorite detector
to impact the lunar surface (failed)
achieved first lunar flyby

03/1959 Pioneer4 Flyby Probe to flyby the moon
passed within 60,000 kilometers (37,300 miles) of the Moon, returned data on lunar radiation levels, then entered a solar orbit

06/1959 Luna1959A Failed to reach earth orbit Impactor to impact the lunar surface

08/1961 Ranger1 Engine failure in Earth orbit Probe -two channels
-channel 1 - 2 full scan cameras (1 wide angle camera, 1 narrow angle camera)
-channel 2 - 4 partial scan cameras (2 wide angle cameras, 2 narrow angle cameras)
to test the feasibility of going into a parking orbit around Earth before heading out to the Moon. A parking orbit would give engineers time to calculate a much more accurate trajectory for the spacecraft to follow to the Moon.
Ranger 1 made it into low Earth orbit. Its engines failed and it re-entered Earth's atmosphere
01/1962 Ranger3 Failure Lander as for Ranger1
Ranger 3 missed the Moon and ended up in a solar orbit
04/1962 Ranger4 Computer failure Lander as for Ranger1
to take close-up images of the Moon before impacting with its surface
after computer failure, crashed on the farside of the moon
10/1962 Ranger5 Failure Lander as for Ranger1
to take close-up images of the Moon before impacting with its surface
solar cell failed shortly after launch and the spacecraft missed the moon by 720 kilometers (450 miles)

01/1964 Ranger6 Failure Impactor as for Ranger1
to take a series of images on approach to the Moon, up to the point of impact
spacecraft's cameras failed and no pictures were returned. Ranger 6 crash-landed in the Sea of Tranquility

give me a breake they could not fly a kite and you wanted them to get on the moon be serios please......

Not to metion the lem crashed right before the big mision armstrong catapulted him self tight before it crashed .


The moon is a hoax wake up
The radiation factor would not alow the mison to be a succes



[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I don't get your point of haphazzardly posting all the mission information. Really now, what were you trying to accomplish?