Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter
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?

You dont know the answer i thought you were supposed to be the expert. Well let me show you a neat place on the internet have fun and explore.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


In theory it should be possible to work out which window it was filmed from, shouldn't it, based on the view it ends up showing of the docked LM? I assume the orientation of the two modules in the docked position is fixed so that view would show which window it was.

But I am not familiar enough with the design of the modules to be able to do that, and unfortunately real work means I don't have time to look it up at the moment. Maybe someone else reading will know?

Also you raise a good point about the 16mm film. I had a quick look on the NASA site and couldn't find it. There is some 16mm footage of the landing on there, but I couldn't see the ascent and docking footage we are talking about, which is a shame as it is a lovely view.

It is available via archive.org though.

reply to post by dragonridr

Can you find the 16mm Apollo 12 footage we are talking about? I think SJ does have a point here. A minor point, and not evidence of anything sinister of course, but still a point.

I can't find it on either NASA.gov or asu.edu.

The A12 Surface Journal does have video clips, but only the landing from the 16mm camera as far as I can see.

If I'm wrong please do point me to the right place!

cestrup
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.

edit on 27-3-2014 by cestrup because: (no reason given)

The whole radiation thing is very complicated because its difficult to get straight answers.
And that raises red flags. But this is what we are looking at:

The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 µm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead)

en.wikipedia.org...

There was no lead shielding for the Apollo or Mercury craft. And lead shielding is what everyone had issues
with because of the weight involved. Apollo's and Mercury's shielding were very similar. And I think Mercury's was even better.

So what can hurt and kill you:

A dose of under 100 rad will typically produce no immediate symptoms other than blood changes. 100 to 200 rad delivered in less than a day will cause acute radiation syndrome, (ARS) but is usually not fatal. Doses of 200 to 1,000 rad delivered in a few hours will cause serious illness with poor outlook at the upper end of the range. Doses of more than 1,000 rad are almost invariably fatal.

en.wikipedia.org...(unit)

100 MEV can deliver over 1 rad (absorbed radiation dose) a second. So, just going with 100 MEV, astronauts would be absorbing over 100 rads in two minutes- and we are talking up to and over 400 MEV in heavy parts of the belt!

And thats just the proton belt.

choos

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

Get back to me when you do a real search with the real numbers.

reply to post by FoosM

Last response from me for a little while as I'm meant to be working!

You can't just take raw numbers for unshielded space and extrapolate.

You also need to take into account that (1) the translunar injection trajectory was planned to avoid the high flux areas, and (2) of course the module was shielded. Not with lead of course but even thin aluminium will, while not blocking all radiation, significantly reduce it.

Look forward to continuing this discussion later.

First of all, has anyone noticed what a perfect studio landing ? Has anyone noticed who was filming the take off ? Has anyone noticed that NASA officially stated that they lost the original video ? The video was faked because NASA said it was a recreation. Anyone who thinks they took that POS contraption to the moon will believe anything they are told. I like the way some of the ATSrs are so confident that we really went even with a fake video That they ADMITTED WAS FAKED..

lotusfoot
First of all, has anyone noticed what a perfect studio landing ? Has anyone noticed who was filming the take off ? Has anyone noticed that NASA officially stated that they lost the original video ? The video was faked because NASA said it was a recreation. Anyone who thinks they took that POS contraption to the moon will believe anything they are told. I like the way some of the ATSrs are so confident that we really went even with a fake video That they ADMITTED WAS FAKED..

edit on 28-3-2014 by lotusfoot because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by lotusfoot because: (no reason given)

Not one of those statements is true. You are either a bad liar or completely delusional.

FoosM

cestrup
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.

edit on 27-3-2014 by cestrup because: (no reason given)

The whole radiation thing is very complicated because its difficult to get straight answers.
And that raises red flags. But this is what we are looking at:

The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 µm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead)

en.wikipedia.org...

There was no lead shielding for the Apollo or Mercury craft. And lead shielding is what everyone had issues
with because of the weight involved. Apollo's and Mercury's shielding were very similar. And I think Mercury's was even better.

So what can hurt and kill you:

A dose of under 100 rad will typically produce no immediate symptoms other than blood changes. 100 to 200 rad delivered in less than a day will cause acute radiation syndrome, (ARS) but is usually not fatal. Doses of 200 to 1,000 rad delivered in a few hours will cause serious illness with poor outlook at the upper end of the range. Doses of more than 1,000 rad are almost invariably fatal.

en.wikipedia.org...(unit)

100 MEV can deliver over 1 rad (absorbed radiation dose) a second. So, just going with 100 MEV, astronauts would be absorbing over 100 rads in two minutes- and we are talking up to and over 400 MEV in heavy parts of the belt!

And thats just the proton belt.

Have you recently experienced a head injury? That is the only reason I can think of that you would dare bring up the radiation issue. Since you seem to have completely forgotten, let me remind you that Russian sources, sources that no less august a personage than Jarrah White Himself consider to be unimpeachable, have declared that only a couple of millimeters of aluminum is sufficient shielding for a quick crossing of the Van Allen Belts:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do you keep providing opportunities to expose Moon Hoax proponents as deliberate liars and con artists?

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So either NASA has made a big mistake, or NASA is lying.
But those three photos are impossible to make in 4 seconds.
In the face of this clear evidence, if you want to keep being conned,
then thats something you have to live with.

It has been explained to you over and over and over again that it is perfectly possible to take three photographs in the space of four seconds. It was also pointed out to you, three years ago, that the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is not intended to provide precise timings of events during the mission. The times are simply a way of indexing, like the pages in a book. Why do you keep repeating the same debunked nonsense? It really isn't helping you to make your case. Please go out and find some actual original evidence. This thread is getting boring again.

I can't understand why people find this thread boring. After this post in only 2 day's we almost had 100 posts more and the moonlanding Hoax is very alive and kicking. If this goes on (and it looks like it), this thread wil even get bigger then the other big thread, which was stopped 'Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Yesterday i watched a good interview with Marcus Allen, almost 100 minutes talking about the moonlandig Hoax :

reply to post by webstra

I can't understand why people find this thread boring.

Because you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

reply to post by lotusfoot

They admitted they lost the video? Really?

We are talking about 16mm footage from Apollo 12 here.

I can only assume that you have got yourself completely muddled and are making a reference to the "lost" Apollo 11 live video transmissions, a favourite HB sacred cow.

Totally different camera : that one was a slow-scan video camera. Not a cine film camera. And the footage isn't lost anyway. You can still watch it today. The only tapes that were lost were the SSTV data backup which wouldn't be playable on any existing equipment today anyway. The actual images were recorded and survive to this day.

I've seen some ignorance in my time but this is quite impressive, lotusfoot.

Please could you also give us a link to where NASA admitted to faking or recreating video footage from ANY Apollo mission and passing it off as genuine. That would truly be news worthy! I can't believe nobody else on earth noticed that announcement

reply to post by FoosM


Because lead shielding in space will kill you faster than no shielding at all.

Rob48
reply to post by FoosM

 

Last response from me for a little while as I'm meant to be working!

You can't just take raw numbers for unshielded space and extrapolate.

You also need to take into account that (1) the translunar injection trajectory was planned to avoid the high flux areas, and (2) of course the module was shielded. Not with lead of course but even thin aluminium will, while not blocking all radiation, significantly reduce it.

Look forward to continuing this discussion later.

NASA admitted that at least one of the Apollo missions went through the hotzone of the belt.
Second issue, the belts are always in flux. So conditions can be worse, or better depending on
the solar cycle (solar flares, etc). Unfortunately, for Apollo, they planned missions during the solar cycle at its peak.

"We expected to see a fairly placid radiation belt system," Baker says. "Instead, we see that the belts have been extraordinarily active and dynamic during the first few weeks. We're looking in the right places at the right times."

Aluminum was not sufficient to block all types of radiation that Apollo would have came across.
As a matter of fact, in some cases it could make things worse.

And, of course Apollo had windows.
So how do you explain this statement:

Date

ecember 7, 2012
Source:NASA
Summary: Just 96 days since their launch, NASA's twin Van Allen Probes have already provided new insights into the structure and behavior of the radiation belts that surround Earth, giving scientists a clearer understanding about the fundamental physical properties of these regions more than half a century after their discovery.

"This is the first time we've been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts," Mazur said. "We're able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate." Particles at that energy level are known to cause a range of damages to spacecraft, from physical degradation to instrument malfunctions and false readings.

So, now they have been able to properly measure the belts?
That means they had no idea what was going on up there in the 1960s.

And now they are finding particles that they cant to this day shield against?
Particles so energized they can pass through half-inch thick aluminum?

What did you state Rob?

of course the module was shielded. Not with lead of course but even thin aluminium will

A thin wall of aluminum?

I know, people are going to say they didn't spend a lot of time in the belts.
They didn't have to to get an instant dose of death!





www.sciencedaily.com...

Zaphod58
reply to post by FoosM

 

Because lead shielding in space will kill you faster than no shielding at all.

Point is, with the different types of radiation, its practically impossible to find the right
shielding. Planet Earth got it right.

reply to post by FoosM


You don't need perfect shielding. You need shielding that blocks the worst of the radiation. Apollo had that.

reply to post by FoosM

So, now they have been able to properly measure the belts?
That means they had no idea what was going on up there in the 1960s.

Simply wrong. It means they knew quite a bit in the 1960s and we know even more now. In any event, the fact that Christopher Columbus knew nothing about hurricanes does not mean that he was unable to cross the Atlantic.

And now they are finding particles that they cant to this day shield against?
Particles so energized they can pass through half-inch thick aluminum?

There are energetic particles from space zipping through your body at this very moment, despite electromagnetic shielding and 200 kilometers of atmospheric shielding. Deal with it.

FoosM

choos

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

Get back to me when you do a real search with the real numbers.

but that certainly does not describe "thin" now does it.. and that is only the inner shell and the outer shell..
there is also firbous insulation in between the two shells..
not to mention all the hardware inside the inner shell..
the clothing they wear..
the entire CSM and lunar module attached to the CM with all of the fuel
and consumables inside the tanks..

hardly thin

Zaphod58
reply to post by FoosM

 

You don't need perfect shielding. You need shielding that blocks the worst of the radiation. Apollo had that.

No, sorry they didnt.
And they didnt even have full knowledge of what to expect.

reply to post by FoosM


And you have hard numbers to prove it, right? Or is it more "because I said they didn't".