Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by cestrup

I'm afraid I don't know about that. Like I said, I'm no expert. (But unlike some on here I'm not afraid to say "I don't know" rather than ignoring any question that I don't know the answer to...)

But we do know how much radiation each astronaut was exposed to, because they each wore a personal dosimeter. In every case the dose was comfortably less than the recommended safe exposure set by the US Atomic Energy Commission for nuclear workers. Were they exposed to radiation? Yes. Would I want to fly through the Van Allen belts on a regular basis? No. Although to be quite honest I would happily trade off a slightly increased risk of cancer for the chance to go to the moon, and I suspect many people would feel the same.

reply to post by Rob48


Here's where some of the issue stems IMO. Let's pretend it was all done in a studio and nobody went through the belt. Then the data you provided would be fluffery. So, until an independent source sends a man into the belt, the jury is out. And I'm not trying to offend your responses, because they're great. I'm merely stating that we need some other verifiable sources.

reply to post by cestrup


Oh there is plenty of data out there. It's quite a hot topic because the belts also affect commercial satellites, so there is plenty of research being done.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Van Allen belts, but as ever with Wiki, check the sources. No link as I'm on my phone now but as an example, it's estimated that a lightly shielded satellite in an orbit that takes it through the belts would experience about 2500 rem per year. A short term exposure of 100 rem is enough to cause acute radiation sickness, so clearly no human is going to travel in such a satellite for anything like that length of time.

But of course the Apollo missions crossed the belts rather than orbiting within them, so they only spent a few hours in the zone of high radiation.

Divide 2500 by 365 and you get approx 6.8 rem per day. The average dose per person on earth is about 0.6 rem per YEAR.
So you can see that spending, say, four hours in the belts will give you very roughly twice as much radiation as spending a year on earth. This is of course using a lot of assumptions but I think we can agree that it's within an order of magnitude.

So, not a place to hang around, but also not something that's going to kill you. Spend four hours there and you maybe only treble your dose of radiation for the year.

FoosM

Hey SJ good to see you still active!
I didnt see that picture before, please give me some insight on the issue.

Here's the situation: Dick Gordon is allegedly taking 16mm moving film of the lunar module (Intrepid) while he is inside the Apollo 12 command module (Yankee Clipper). He points his camera out one of five windows. We know from the Apollo 12 70mm image catalog that at least 2 out of 5 windows were fouled.




In this image there are 3 arrows pointing directly at the window reflections. These are the window reflections that I am interested in. Do you see how the window reflections on the right side of the image seem to overlap the window... the reflections seem to extend over into the black portion of the frame...



If a someone was shooting images through a window I can understand how it is possible to have a reflection of the photographer on the negative. There are only 2 pieces of glass that could cause reflections... the window (which may or may not be fouled) and the lens on the camera.

In my opinion, there should be a window reflection on the 16mm film, reflected from the window itself. But, the reflections, in this case, are exceeding the boundary of the window. How can there be reflections in the dark area (to the immediate right side of the window boundary)? And how did those "out of bounds" reflections get on the 16mm negative?

You will have to watch the video very closely to see how quickly it happens. I am wondering if there was a glass plate in front of the window...? I am wondering why Dick Gordon's image has reflections that shouldn't be there? I am wondering if Dick Gordon really took that picture?

edit on 3/27/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

How do you know that the dark area is the edge of the window (ie the edge of the glass) and not just a dark area (part of the body of the craft perhaps?) visible through the window? I'm just going by the image you posted so forgive me if I am missing something obvious.

Also why doesn't ATS like the word "window"?

Edit: OK, I'm having a look at the video now.
Are you using the fact that a reflection of an astronaut shooting the video is visible in the window was evidence AGAINST the video being shot by an astronaut? That logic seems slightly off.

For anyone who wants to have a look, a good time to see these effects is from about 6:40 onwards in this video.

Here's a pic of an Apollo command module.

Look at the windows. They are triple glazed, with two inner panes and an outer heatproof pane, separated by quite some distance (by the thickness of the craft walls). What happens if you look through a multi-pane window at an oblique angle? Part of the frame beyond the inner pane blocks your view. That's my guess at what you're seeing here: the reflection is on the inner pane, closest to the camera. But the view to the outside is of course only what can be seen through the outer aperture, so some of those reflections show up against the dark outer window surround.

By the way, you said:

There are only 2 pieces of glass that could cause reflections... the window (which may or may not be fouled) and the lens on the camera.

which is demonstrably incorrect. There are three panes of glass in the window, together with the lens of the camera, for a total of four pieces of glass. If you are going to throw wild accusations around, at least try to get your elementary facts correct.

Perhaps you could also explain why a video shot on Earth, or wherever you claim this was taken, would show a reflection whereas a video shot in space would not? Do you not think they might use the same command module to shoot fake videos, if they were going to, to avoid discrepancies like this? Or are the laws of optics somehow different in space than on Earth?

cestrup
reply to post by Rob48

 

Rob, did Dr. Van Allen ever officially recant his findings in the 1950s that had him believing astronauts would have to have plenty of protection against the radiation encountered in the belts? I mean, like scientific papers and not just a signiture on a paper. Thanks!

This was covered alot earlier in this thread actually He never said it would kill astronauts to travel through the belt.What he said is it is a concern which it is you have to take radiation exposure into account for long missions for example the flight to mars. But apollo was for such a short duration exposure was minimal. In a six day mission they received 2 rads.According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. So as we can see its no where near lethal.The other thing is it takes less than an hour to travel through if there was 300 rads of radiation in the Van Allen belt we would have seen it our atmosphere would glow just like a night light because this is ionized plasma. Similar to a phosphorescent bulb it caused by ionized protons and electrons in the solar wind.Or to put in in simple english you would have to have almost no knowledge of science to believe the Van allen belts capable of killing an astronaut.

dragonridr
Or to put in in simple english you would have to have almost no knowledge of science to believe the Van allen belts capable of killing an astronaut.

Well you *could* quite easily kill an astronaut by putting him on a space station that was orbiting within the Van Allen belts. I reckon a month or two would leave him in a pretty bad way, and a year ought to finish him off

But the Apollo mission just passed through quickly. It's the difference between dashing across the street in the rain, and walking round the block all day in a monsoon.

Rob48

FoosM


Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.
Im sure many will say that Apollo skipped the "bad" part of the rings. So there you have people admitting there are "bad" parts.
But NASA stated at least on Apollo craft went through the "bad" part with no ill effects, lol. And when I investigated it, I found that the trip took longer than people say.

Say what? The trip took longer than people say? How is that possible when the time of launch, time of landing, time of leaving the moon and time of splashdown are all matters of public record and easily verified?

You can't just throw out a claim like that without backing it up.

Oh I have backed it up and made people acknowledge that I was correct.
And please, stop these hand-waving tactics. I was saying that the traversal through the belts
themselves took longer than people have stated.

FoosM

Rob48

FoosM


Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.
Im sure many will say that Apollo skipped the "bad" part of the rings. So there you have people admitting there are "bad" parts.
But NASA stated at least on Apollo craft went through the "bad" part with no ill effects, lol. And when I investigated it, I found that the trip took longer than people say.

Say what? The trip took longer than people say? How is that possible when the time of launch, time of landing, time of leaving the moon and time of splashdown are all matters of public record and easily verified?

You can't just throw out a claim like that without backing it up.

Oh I have backed it up and made people acknowledge that I was correct.
And please, stop these hand-waving tactics. I was saying that the traversal through the belts
themselves took longer than people have stated.

How long did it take? What are your sources?

SayonaraJupiter

Sayonara - to further illustrate what I meant with the windows... the pics you posted yourself actually provide the answer.

You posted this image: AS12-50-7371.



Obviously this wasn't the exact window used, because this one is dirty, but it shows the construction of the windows nicely.

Let's compare.

Frame from the video.
Note the inner frame of the window at the top, and the outer frame visible through the inner pane of glass, blocking some of the field of view. The lunar horizon complicates matters slightly, but you can see the difference in focus: the window frames, close to the camera, are out of focus, while the distant objects such as the LM and the moon itself are much sharper. Note also where the reflection appears at the top right.



Now here is frame 7371 rotated to give a comparison. Again I am not saying this is the same window, but the windows share many common features. I have highlighted the same parts of the window, the inner and outer frames.



You can see that the position of the outer frame is a fairly close match to the dark cut-off area in the top right of the video frame, and that the inner pane of glass is clearly in front of this area. This is exactly where the reflection shows up in the video frame. QED.

Why, you might ask, is the red window frame not visible in that dark area like it is in frame 7371? Well, you can see from the shadows that the sun is off to the right of the picture, so the inner frame will be in rather deep shadow. Also, the camera is exposing for the bright moon, further darkening the frame.

FoosM

Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.

thin walls?? after a quick search

Structure

The CM consists of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure (heat shield).

The inner structure is of aluminum sandwich construction which consists of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varies from about 1-1/2 inches at the base to about 1/4 inch at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure-basically the crew compartment-is the part of the module that is pressurized and contains an atmosphere.

The outer structure is the heat shield and is made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varies in thickness from 1/2 inch to 2-1/2 inches.

Part of the area between the inner and outer shells is filled with a layer of fibrous insulation as additional heat protection.

Thermal Protection (Heat Shields)

The interior of the command module must be protected from the extremes of environment that will be encountered during a mission. These include the heat of boost (up to 1200 degrees F), the cold of space and the heat of the direct rays of the sun (about 280 degrees below zero on the side facing away from the sun and 280 degrees above zero on the other side), and-most critical-the intense temperatures of entry (about 5000 degrees).

The heat of launch is absorbed principally through the boost protective cover, a fiberglass structure covered with cork which fits over the command module like a glove. The boost protective cover weighs about 700 pounds and varies in thickness from about 3/10 of an inch to about 7/8 of an inch (at the top). The cork is covered with a white reflective coating. The cover is permanently attached to the launch escape tower and is jettisoned with it at approximately 295,000 feet during a normal mission.

The insulation between the inner and outer shells, plus temperature control provided by the environmental control subsystem, protects the crew and sensitive equipment during the CM's long journey in space.

The principal task of the heat shield that forms the outer structure is to protect the crew from the fiery heat of entry-heat so intense that it melts most metals. The ablative material that does this job is a phenolic epoxy resin, a type of reinforced plastic. This material turns white hot, chars, and then melts away, but it does it in such a way that the heat is rejected by the shield and does not penetrate to the surface of the spacecraft.

The ablative material controls the rate of heat absorption by charring or melting rapidly. this dissipates the heat and keeps it from reaching the inner structure.

The command module enters the atmosphere with its base down; this is covered by the aft heat shield which is the thickest portion.

The heat shield varies in thickness: the aft portion is 2 inches and the crew compartment and forward portions are 1/2 inch. Total weight of the shield is about 3,000 pounds. The heat shield has several outer coverings: a pore seal, a moisture barrier (a white reflective coating), and a silver Mylar thermal coating that looks like aluminum foil.

The heat shield panels are produced by Aeronca Manufacturing Co., Middletown, Ohio, and the ablative coating was developed and applied by Avco Corp., Lowell, Mass.
www.apollosaturn.com...

did you guess again??

reply to post by Rob48

OK, confession time. I screwed up my second graphic there. I knew something was bugging me. That's what comes of trying to do a graphic in a rush in between real work.

I labelled the window frames wrong in the annotation of frame 7371. When I rotated it I ended up mistaking the reflection of the inner frame in the outer glass for the actual outer frame. It doesn't affect the explanation for the reflection, but it does make me look bad.

What I should have labelled was more like this - except I don't have a decent image-editing program on this laptop, only Paint, so I can't rotate the image to match up properly. The inner panes of glass are on a plane with the inner, red-rimmed frame. The outer pane is the dirty, streaky one that is more or less flush with the outer wall of the module. Between the two you can see the thickness of the window assembly which is where the reflections show up in the video. You can get an idea of just how big the gap between panes is by looking at how far the reflection of that red inner frame (the one that threw me before) is from the frame itself.



Hopefully you can still see what I meant to illustrate. You'll have to imagine that the view through the window is slightly more angled than in this photo, but even from this angle you can see how the thickness of the window unit between the inner and outer panes would account for a dark area in the video footage, where you can still see reflections in the inner pane of glass. Judging by the video footage, the 16mm cam was quite a lot closer to the window than the still camera used to take this photo, which would of course increase the apparent size of this window "recess".


Anyway, now I have answered the query about the reflection, I'll throw this one out to Foos or Sayonara. Seeing as you brought up the Apollo 12 16mm footage, go and take a look at it again. Specifically, watch from 5:30 to 11:30 on this video.

That's six whole minutes of uninterrupted footage, clearly hand-held, which starts out with the LM fairly distant and ends with the LM docking with the command module. All the while the surface of the moon is visible, moving past far below and clearly at a great distance from the LM. Surface features on the moon appear over the horizon as the spacecraft orbit. The view rotates (around the 7:00 mark) as the two modules approach for docking.

I defy anyone to watch that whole sequence and accept that it can have been taken anywhere but lunar orbit. I know that nowadays we're all blasé about special effects, CGI etc etc, but this was 1969. This is several minutes of analogue 16mm film, in other words several thousand individual photographs, individual negatives that we can still examine today. It shows vast swathes of the moon passing by below, clearly at a distance. Clearly the LM is much closer than the moon, as demonstrated by the relative motion. The whole thing is totally other-wordly. How could this possibly have been faked? It would be tough enough to make it look good in 2014, let alone 45 years ago.

reply to post by Rob48

Also why doesn't ATS like the word "window"?

That "window" thing was bugging the crap out of me this morning! I searched, It's a forum bug, and it was already reported here: USE THIS THREAD: for bug reports related to the new ATS.5/3 cut-over on 9/9/13
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see that the position of the outer frame is a fairly close match to the dark cut-off area in the top right of the video frame, and that the inner pane of glass is clearly in front of this area. This is exactly where the reflection shows up in the video frame. QED.

Thanks Rob48. I appreciate your explanation about the window perspectives, the number of pieces of glass involved, and I accept it without any further objection.

And I will say this so that other people in the thread can read it and take hint hint : I really appreciate the fact that you did NOT litter your responses with insults. Welcome to ATS.

reply to post by Rob48

I defy anyone to watch that whole sequence and accept that it can have been taken anywhere but lunar orbit. I know that nowadays we're all blasé about special effects, CGI etc etc, but this was 1969. This is several minutes of analogue 16mm film, in other words several thousand individual photographs, individual negatives that we can still examine today.

Here is the kicker Rob48, we are looking at somebody's youtube video upload. We were never looking at the real deal. The 16mm films have been locked up for ages. Armed security guards. Deep freezers. Why should we trust anonymous pirates who upload NASA films to youtube? We shouldn't. How do we know the upload is authentic? We don't.

That's how evidence is handled in a court of law, so, we all ought to maintain some standards in our source material, especially in Apollo threads. Wouldn't you agree?

I will admit that I occasionally rely on a youtube video to assist my argument. But at some point we all have to remember to ask, ask ourselves, is this original source material and what if it's not?

Where do you stand on the ethics of photojournalism? Is it okay for NASA to have legal contracts with ASU to digitally remove the cross-hairs from Apollo images?

Rob48
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You really are obsessed with the man. Ok, I'll bite, it was Richard Milhous Nixon.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. US politics is not my strong suit. Are you perhaps implying that Nixon set up a fake program back in the 1950s, which JFK then inherited and must have known about when he made his famous pledge to go to the moon, and JFK never said a word about it? If I discovered a massive plot carried out by my main election rival then I think I might try to make some political capital out of it, don't you?

Anyway, back to Apollo. Let's apply some Jupiter logic.

Apollo 8 was obviously genuine, because it was before the evil genius Nixon took control. So we know that Apollo was capable of taking men to lunar orbit and bringing them back safely.

Apollo 9: what say you on Apollo 9? It launched on March 3, which is what, six weeks after N-day. Tricky. If it was fake, that's a heck of a quick turnaround. Six weeks to plan and carry out a fake version of a mission that had already been announced in detail. If it was genuine, then hey - as well as circumlunar flight being possible, the genuine LM and PLSS both work just as they should. It's almost starting to look like we could just actually go to the moon and save ourselves some bother!

Apollo 10: the dress rehearsal. Nixon and his eccentric pal Howard had almost four months to get this one off the ground (or should I say pretend to get it off the ground? Where did the rocket that blasted off in Florida actually go if not out to the moon?) Was this one a fake or not? I'm confused.

Apollo 11: definitely fake, according to you.

So at what point did the great switch happen? Please explain in detail how the timeline worked in your world, where Nixon was pulling the strings.

I responded to you here www.abovetopsecret.com...
I made a thread that is specifically about Nixon and the Apollo program.
Nixon's Apollo: Howard Hughes and the Apollo Hoax

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


SJ, thanks for your comments on the reflection issue. Nice to have somebody acknowledge an explanation and all too rare in this thread.

A shame that you then spoil it slightly by claiming that the whole 16mm film might be faked, but with no evidence to back up when or how it was faked!

Where do I stand on the ethics of photojournalism? I say: enhancing or cleaning up an image is fine AS LONG AS:

a) You are open and don't hide the fact that that you have altered the image, and

b) You preserve the original alongside the modified image.

NASA passes on both counts. These new versions of the Apollo images with the reseau marks removed seem to create quite a stir, with people claiming that the original photos are being altered, which of course they are not!

What they are doing is rescanning the original negatives in better quality using modern scanning equipment, saving the original, raw, untouched file which anyone will be able to access (and also of course preserving the negatives as well)...


...and THEN producing a cleaned-up version from that. A separate copy. The original is not modified. Let me repeat that: the original negatives are not being modified in any way. Neither are the original scans. Both the original and the "no-crosshairs" versions will still be there. Nobody is taking them away.

This is exactly what you should do with digital images. When photographers save their images they should always save the raw file, then create a separate copy and work only on that copy. That way the original image file is always there, untouched.

This is exactly what is being done, and yet to read some of the nonsense on here you would think that NASA are letting the university fire up Photoshop, let loose with the clone tool and then set fire to the original negatives!


On the Nixon front, thank you for the link. Looks like a lot of reading there when I have the chance Nobody can accuse you of not putting the hours in, anyway...

reply to post by Rob48

...and THEN producing a cleaned-up version from that. A separate copy. The original is not modified. Both the original and the "no-crosshairs" versions will still be there. Nobody is taking them away.

We can agree to disagree on this one! My view is that NASA/ASU are in a violation of the ethics of photojournalism. NASA's involvement with the ASU/CGI images reflects poorly on NASA's overall integrity, with regard to Apollo. If I were presenting this to a grand jury I think that they would agree that NASA's CGI alterations of Apollo images is indeed a red flag for Nixon's Apollo.

reply to post by Rob48

...and THEN producing a cleaned-up version from that. A separate copy. The original is not modified. Both the original and the "no-crosshairs" versions will still be there. Nobody is taking them away.

Surprisingly, NASA is removing the cross-hairs but they are leaving the film blemishes intact! Why go through the effort to CGI the cross-hairs "out" but then they leave the blemishes "in"? Is it because they are trying to hide what's on the real negatives?

In my opinion, we have to strongly challenge these NASA/CGI images. Is it okay for me to add a Hitler mustache on Nixon? Would I lose credibility if I added a Hitler mustache to Nixon? Adding or subtracting information from historical images is a theme from George Orwell's 1984 nightmare. NASA is altering historical images. It is a red flag and it is an indefensible violation of the ethics of photojournalism.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I'm not sure that a jury would agree with you there. All they are doing is making a nice new set of images IN ADDITION to the ones we already have.

It's no different from my wedding photographer taking his photos and enhancing and "prettying them up" to make a nice wedding album. He still sent me all 650+ original RAW files on a memory stick. The fact that he made nicer-looking copies for display purposes doesn't indicate that my wedding didn't take place, or that I actually married someone else, or got married in a different place to where I say I did!

Edit: as to why they would take the crosshairs out but leave the blemishes in, I would imagine that this is because the crosshairs are a known object. We know the exact size and position of the crosshair grid (that is the whole point of them) whereas film blemishes are random.

It's easy to remove a fixed known object from a photo, but how do you easily distinguish a random film blemish from a random mark that is present in the scene itself? It would be much harder and potentially lead to errors.


We don't have to "strongly challenge" these versions. If you don't like the new versions, then keep using the original versions! It's hardly Orwellian to provide people MORE choice, is it now?

reply to post by Rob48

SJ, thanks for your comments on the reflection issue. Nice to have somebody acknowledge an explanation and all too rare in this thread.

I re-watched that segment like a dozen times. It is a tricky segment. It takes some concentration to figure out exactly what is going on there. There is a command module manoeuvre which changes the whole perspective, and the window pane, as you pointed out, is actually there, reflecting Dick Gordon inside the command module, in lunar orbit.

However, 2 of the 5 windows on the Apollo 12 command module were fouled. So, is it possible for us to establish what window Dick Gordon was using to film the 16mm segments?

Here is a side question: Does NASA serve these videos on .gov servers or do we have to rely on youtube videos from here on out?