Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Yeas. My auntie was the gal whose job was the keep the astronauts "happy" in the studio. She told me she did all kinds of things.

Originally posted by FoosMThats what we have been told. But look at the numbers. Apollo went to the moon and still managed to have, in some cases, lower exposures than LEO missions.

And now you're directly contradicting Jarrah's assertion that the VAB dosage would've been killer.

Originally posted by Denali

According to him we really did get to the moon, but the video was filmed in a studio.

If they had been showing a live video feed from the landing and something were to go horribly wrong (god only knows what could have been there/happened), having a live video of it would be one of the worst things that could happen. People at home could have potentially been watching the brutal and gorey death of those men. Also, other countries (Russia) would see what had happened and there is no telling what the response from them might have been.

Have you seen this documentary/mockumentary?

Google Video Link

Thats the basis their investigation.
That men did land on the moon, but the video was faked... incase of:

Dark Side of the Moon is a French documentary by director William Karel which ...originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick. The tone of the documentary begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger, which lend credence to the story.

reply to post by FoosM

Have you seen this documentary/mockumentary?

What's that scraping noise? The bottom of the barrel?

As for "My Uncle/Grandfather/Brother-in-law worked for the government and told me...." That is the classic preamble to an Urban Legend. It is then followed by the "truth" about UFO's, the Kennedy Assassination, the Moon Landings, "FEMA camps," or what you will. The single most dangerous part of the mission was the launch. It was broadcast live. If NASA were willing to risk the entire population of the planet watch three astronauts get blown up on the launch pad, there was nothing to be gained by faking the transmissions from the Moon. After all, if they did have an accident, how would they explain why the astronauts never returned?

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
Its setting the bar so high that they can have an excuse to say, its not possible after spending all kinds of tax dollars. Or simply fake it, LOL.

Almost right. It's setting the bar so far out in time that the present administration can bask in the aura of manned space exploration without having to do the heavy lifting of actually paying for it. A time honored tradition practiced by both sides of the aisle.

edit on 21/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: fix quote indentations

So then why would the scientific community lie about the dangers of radiation? There is plenty of hurdles to overcome, but scientists have told us the mars mission is impossible until they solve the radiation issue.
How does that make any sense?

To block radiation would require exotic solutions or heavy materials, either one drives up the cost of the missions. Its the most expensive hurdle to overcome. So if scientists would say, radiation can be controlled, that would mean the program does not have to be that expensive!

Apollo is already proof that deep space travel is possible. If you can land on the moon, you can go the next step to mars or an asteroid. Its akin to making an airplane, and it succesfully travels over land, but you are afraid to try to fly it over an ocean!

reply to post by FoosM

Its akin to making an airplane, and it succesfully travels over land, but you are afraid to try to fly it over an ocean!

No FoosM, it is akin to holding your breath underwater for three minutes and holding your breath underwater for three days. Think about it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its akin to making an airplane, and it succesfully travels over land, but you are afraid to try to fly it over an ocean!

No FoosM, it is akin to holding your breath underwater for three minutes and holding your breath underwater for three days. Think about it.

I believe your analogy is incorrect.

Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

reply to post by Denali
Evidence-wise the story is a bit weak to do any real lifting, but the point is relevant in as far as it demonstrates how the 'how could so many people keep a secret' is also too vague to do any lifting. That people sign secrecy wavers is clearly the case. This in itself is incentive to withhold potential evidence. More to the point an individual doing their part in a production, which might seem questionable in a broader context ( i.e. providing fake video of a historical event ) may themselves be convinced of the veracity of the actual event ( either because it did happen or because they have been told it did happen and believe it ) if they are given a plausible reasoning behind the necessity of the deception ( such as guarding the public from exposure to the horror of an astronaut moon misadventure ). As to what they could gain by it were there real moon-explorers who were killed or in peril, it seems to me that the ability to reflect on a specific tragedy and control the manner in which news of it is released, is itself a tangible advantage in a case where the whole world is watching.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its akin to making an airplane, and it succesfully travels over land, but you are afraid to try to fly it over an ocean!

No FoosM, it is akin to holding your breath underwater for three minutes and holding your breath underwater for three days. Think about it.

I believe your analogy is incorrect.

And I know your belief is wrong.

Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

Why don't you look it up for a change, along with those solar flare/SPE numbers you have failed to produce?

reply to post by bansheegirl


Just to point out that the whole studio filmed theory has been killed many times already. You should probably just read the thread.

reply to post by MacTheKnife
Let us not underestimate the value of the Moon as a forward base for any other expedition into the solar system. Serious, sustained exploration requires solid infrastructure and the moon has everything necessary, including a favorably shallow gravity well, for starting out to Mars or even the asteroids from. In addition a suitable observatory set-up like the proposed Dark Ages Lunar Interferometer ( DALI ) on the far side, can only help when it comes to exploring farther afield or for furthering our understanding of our neighbours. Imagine a tracking system alongside it for guiding remote probes and for providing good intelligence for their flight paths. An earth-facing observatory on the nearside would provide benefits as well, and could have an extended life-span compared to the satellites currently doing that job.

reply to post by PsykoOps
Have read the thread. The point was not studio versus moon, but rather the weakness of relying on a vague statement like 'there were too many people involved to keep a moon hoax a secret' to explain away the question of studio versus moon. The quantity of people involved does not matter. The linkages between them, information each group of people had, and how they were led to interpret that information, does matter. The story brought forward about the person who believed a moon simulation was employed as a legitimate sidebar to an actual landing ( whether it is true or not, that's not the point ) demonstrates one plausible means by which people can be working on an element of a deception but still believe they are forwarding an actual historical event, and can believe in the veracity of that event whole-heartedly even though they themselves have helped to perpetuate the deception ( if in fact there was one, which is not a given ). Another example would be scientists asked to simulate what will later be undertaken in actuality. They may be providing legitimate data that helps an actual event to happen or they may be providing data that will be used to convince people that event happened ( when it did not ).

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM

 

This document seems to give different figures for the average measured and "effective" doses received than yours - note that it is averaged over all missions, and not just 1 or 2.

yeah like 10 missions when only 6 landed on the moon.
But how are the numbers different. ?

Err......they have different numbers - today my brain is musch and I am having trouble getting equivalents - hence I said "they SEEM to be different" - perhaps you could comment on how they are not?

Also I found this bit of interest -

However, for outpost missions to the moon lasting about 180 days or Mars missions expected to last from 600-1000 days, effective doses from GCR will be much higher (Table-5) than past space missions because of the absence of the magnetic protection provided by the Earth from lower energy GCR components and longer duration of the missions. In addition, a significant probability would exist for one or more large solar particle events.

Perhaps you would like to comment on why you think none of these concerns are actually real.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeas. My auntie was the gal whose job was the keep the astronauts "happy" in the studio. She told me she did all kinds of things.

Pics or it didn't happen..

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeas. My auntie was the gal whose job was the keep the astronauts "happy" in the studio. She told me she did all kinds of things.

Pics or it didn't happen..

I believe that was Auntie Appeases Apollo. It actually preceded Debbie Does Dallas.

reply to post by bansheegirl
CONTENTS PAGE 1 : (0001-A) WWu777 introduces Jarrah and his videos (0001-B) joeroxor expresses interest ( 0001-C) -PLB- compares Jarrah's style to Mythbusters (0001-D and E ) WhiteDevil013 expresses interest and responds to -PLB- saying efforts need to be made (0001-F) Mr.Mask expresses interest (0001-G) -PLB- claims that Jarrah neglects the leveraging effect of the flag and also neglects such elastic attributes as the moon soil may have (0001-H) CHAOS expresses interest (0001-I) freemanx expresses interest and points out that Mythbusters used Portland Cement along with charcoal to dim down the reflectivity, whereas Jarrah uses only Portland Cement (0001-J) pieman takes issue with Jarrah's claim that an electrically charged balloon in normal atmosphere and gravity will have the same effect as a statically charged astronaut in low gravity in near vacuum (0001-K) hoghead cheese mentions Kubrick and asks if the C in the photo is a hair then why is there a matching C on the soil (0001-L) lpowell0627 expresses interest (0001-M ) WWu777 offers up more Jarrah videos (0001-N) AliensAreDemons suggests the moon-hoax was fabricated to provide plausibility when in the future pretend aliens are employed as part of a more extended plot (0001-O) CHAOS offers support for suggestion to invite Jarrah to thread (0001-P) WWu777 chats a bit (0001-Q) john124 responds to question as to why LRO aerial photos of moon are far less accurate than Google Earth, He responds that Earth photos are taken at low altitude by airplanes and are therefore more detailed (0001-R) leasahtheseer expresses interest (0001-S) darrman wonders what more recent stuff might be underfoot ? (0001-T) tylermbell comments on the second voice often heard in Jarrah's videos. PAGE ENDS

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

Why don't you look it up for a change, along with those solar flare/SPE numbers you have failed to produce?

The question wasnt directed towards you, so I dont know why you need to respond to my post. But since you did, why didnt you just provide the information I was asking:

Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

reply to post by FoosM


the apollo sheilding did not block all radiation - it simply reduced the dose to an accepted level

if you want an analogy for radiation exposure - the simpliest on that even you should be able to understand is the humble sunbed

people have been injured using them too long source

as the link states - the reccommended limit for the establisment in question was 6 minuites , the victim exposed ferself for 20 - and required hospital treatment

simples , even simples enough for you

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
Its setting the bar so high that they can have an excuse to say, its not possible after spending all kinds of tax dollars. Or simply fake it, LOL.

Almost right. It's setting the bar so far out in time that the present administration can bask in the aura of manned space exploration without having to do the heavy lifting of actually paying for it. A time honored tradition practiced by both sides of the aisle.

edit on 21/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: fix quote indentations

So then why would the scientific community lie about the dangers of radiation? There is plenty of hurdles to overcome, but scientists have told us the mars mission is impossible until they solve the radiation issue.
How does that make any sense?

To block radiation would require exotic solutions or heavy materials, either one drives up the cost of the missions. Its the most expensive hurdle to overcome. So if scientists would say, radiation can be controlled, that would mean the program does not have to be that expensive!

Apollo is already proof that deep space travel is possible. If you can land on the moon, you can go the next step to mars or an asteroid. Its akin to making an airplane, and it succesfully travels over land, but you are afraid to try to fly it over an ocean!

What lies ? Who has said that "mars mission is impossible until they solve the radiation issue" ? Last I heard the risk is somewhat uncertain.

Originally posted by FoosM
Tell me, based on the performance of Apollo, how long could those astronauts actually have stayed on the moon if radiation was the only issue? 2 more weeks? 2 more months? 2 years? When would they have gone over their yearly dose of radiation?

edit on 21-7-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

It'll depend on who you ask. The long term effects of long exposures to GCR is not known. I've seen estimates that with Apollo capsule levels of shielding, it would be 3 years before a lifetime limit would be reached due to GCR alone. Of course that's not the whole story. I'd have to look up LM vs CSM shielding effectiveness to give you a better idea.

An even then it would something more of a guess than a hard limit. NASA has a set of standards they use. The NRC has a different criteria for "nuclear workers" and yet a another set for the public at large re: exposure. So whose limits do you want to use ? How much risk of death ... or what type of sickness ... are you willing to take ? We are much more risk intolerant society today. I could go on a long rant about how various Safety Nazis are ruining the free world but it would be waaaay OT.

Lastly we wouldn't use the same design as an Apollo capsule for long duration missions outside of near Earth space so any conclusions drawn from the above to some hypothetical Mars or NEO mission are a bit of apples and oranges. And how you think this ties back to the topic of this thread is lost to me ATM.