Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Phage

You should try it before you start asking what you think are "gotcha" questions.

Far from it, I just feel they are the most relevant in the "hoax" locker!!!
I'm not here to be argumentative but to learn from the sources others trust!!!
Most of the time


Peace Phage!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

During the 1960's, leading up to the manned moon missions, the Van Allen belts were studied extensively. If you do a search using "google scholar" you can finds hundreds of scientific papers dealing with the radiation belts from the appropriate time period.

Add to that the fact that radiation in general had been extensively researched for many decades and it is pretty safe to assume that the apollo technical team knew what they were doing.

The radiation problem that all the hoax advocates want you to believe is very easy to debunk for yourself if you know where to look. Hundreds of articles with hard data pointing to there being no problem...a handful of of dubious characters on the internet with no hard data saying there was a problem.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Sayanara, I have accepted your challenge to a debate. I am awaiting your choice of a specific topic. Why are you ignoring that all of a sudden?

DJW this is my offer, it remains the same, it has not changed since p.215 of this thread. Why ask me to pick a specific topic when I have generously given you the advantage of choosing one? Are these terms somehow unacceptable to you?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The key word there is "transient".

In any case, there's a lot of misunderstanding about the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

If there had been a coronal mass ejection event or similar at the wrong moment then yes the astronauts would have received a bigger dose of radiation but we are still not talking "instant death" levels. The human body evolved amid a constant sea of background radiation and is pretty adept at repairing DNA damage. Think of it as a calculated risk. The astronauts knew the risks and were prepared to take them in order to reach the moon. Would you or I have been that brave?

a reply to: mrwiffler
Even Doctor (or is he a professor?) Van Allen who first discovered and mapped the famous radiation belts has said all this stuff about the dangers to astronauts from travelling through "his" belts has been blown up out of all proportion.Floating in space inside the V/A belt wearing just a pair of Speedos for six months might make you sterile ( your blood would of course have boiled away after about 30 seconds),but nothing worse than that.(Some or all of the previous statement may have been fabricated for comic effect).
I also remember reading that using lead as shield for this type of radiation is actually bad because it turns it into Xrays (which are of course a lot more dangerous),and the most effective barrier is aluminium or water.Is this correct anyone please?

originally posted by: Imagewerx
a reply to: mrwiffler
Even Doctor (or is he a professor?) Van Allen who first discovered and mapped the famous radiation belts has said all this stuff about the dangers to astronauts from travelling through "his" belts has been blown up out of all proportion.Floating in space inside the V/A belt wearing just a pair of Speedos for six months might make you sterile ( your blood would of course have boiled away after about 30 seconds),but nothing worse than that.(Some or all of the previous statement may have been fabricated for comic effect).

You can read Van Allen's reply to these questions on this forum thread:

cosmoquest.org...

Technically the Soviets discovered the belts, but the political situation meant that Van Allen was able to publish more easily.

There were many lunar probes that returned radiation data before Apollo, including ones by the Soviets with live biological specimens.

I also remember reading that using lead as shield for this type of radiation is actually bad because it turns it into Xrays (which are of course a lot more dangerous),and the most effective barrier is aluminium or water.Is this correct anyone please?

Bremsstrahlung is the term you're looking for there.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Sayanara, I have accepted your challenge to a debate. I am awaiting your choice of a specific topic. Why are you ignoring that all of a sudden?

DJW this is my offer, it remains the same, it has not changed since p.215 of this thread. Why ask me to pick a specific topic when I have generously given you the advantage of choosing one? Are these terms somehow unacceptable to you?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

How about: "President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings?"

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Thanks OBM,I've learnt a new word today .

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Secondly is the material actually 2mm of aluminium?
Again it's highly troubling to believe that a crushed can of fizzy drink is sufficient shielding from radiation...
Even with limited knowledge of Science this would be quite unbelievable so again I have my reservations about this!!!

A fizzy drink can is a lot thinner than 2mm! Typical wall thickness of a drinks can is less than 0.1mm (source) so 2mm is actually quite a thick piece of metal by comparison.

a reply to: mrwiffler

Appreciate the info pal!

I'll be sure to check out google scholar as soon as I can!

You make a good point about radiation from an Earth POV, I'm sure that would be a good risk assessment to experiment with in any case!!!

Peace Wiffler!!!

a reply to: Rob48

Makes sense pal!
CME's would obviously be very dangerous but probably not a common occurrence and can probably be tracked prior to reaching the magnetosphere!!!

Still a few queries about this but I'll be sure to read up on it further before sharing my questions!!!

Peace Rob!!!

Edit: I'd love to have been an astronaut to be fair, dying from radiation poisoning would be a small price to pay to get a 15 minute look at Earth from Space!!!
So to answer your question I guess I would have been brave enough, probably just not smart enough to be a candidate!!!
Unless they do an "Everyman Candidacy" like Homer Simpson I'm probably never gonna get the chance!

a reply to: Rob48

Crushed being the optimum word in my proposition!

However I do see where you're coming from pal!!!
My queries are more about Aluminium being the choice when it's quite fragile, so I'd imagine not the best shield against radiated protons that penetrated a module and spacesuit and retinas of astronauts who were seeing white lights at a close proximity to the VAB!!!
Gold I'd believe, that's probably what all the adverts are buying people's Gold for long term


Peace Rob!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

aluminium is hardly fragile..

also it wasnt chosen for being best to shield against radiation..

it is light weight and strong (main points), reflects light and heat well..

So I just read a bit on Project Morpheus the new lunar lander NASA is building. Ummmm..it's 2014 and they are still having issues keeping it stable, yet want me to believe in the 60's they built one capable of landing men and lifting off men from the moon's surface???????

The Wright brothers built the first plane and since then planes have gotten bigger, faster, more efficient, more reliable, etc... so how is it NASA builds a lunar lander in the 60's with 60's technology and today in 2014 we aren't even close too and definitely not any better than almost 50 years ago??? Are we to believe NASA just doesn't have the brains needed to far exceed the guys who worked for them in the 60's?

IMO, Project Morpheus helps prove the lunar landing was BS!!!
morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: IroncladFT

a bit of topic i know but i have always wondered what they made these parachutes of if Venus is so hot do the ruskies lie too

The entry sphere weighed 1,560 kg (3,440 lb) and the surface payload 660 kg (1,455 lb).
Venera 9 measured clouds that were 30–40 km thick with bases at 30–35 km altitude. It also measured atmospheric chemicals including hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, bromine, and iodine. Other measurements included surface pressure of about 90 atmospheres (9 MPa), temperature of 485 °C,

a reply to: IroncladFT
Looks like it worked just fine.

Morpheus is not a lander, lunar or otherwise. It is a test bed. Its purpose is to help in the development of autonomous landing systems capable of hazard avoidance as well as new propulsion systems for landings on the Moon, planets, and asteroids. In some regards it is more advanced than the Apollo landers. But they worked just fine too.

morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: IroncladFT

That are some very very good questions you are asking.

NASA has lost the original moon footage tapes and also most of the moon rocks and perhaps other items related to these missions as well, thus it seems like they have lost the knowledge and technology they once used to land there also.

Also might I remind you all about the recent Chinese moon rover that was using "state of the art" 2014 technology. It couldn’t take the heat on the moon and got fried after just a day up there.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Sayanara, I have accepted your challenge to a debate. I am awaiting your choice of a specific topic. Why are you ignoring that all of a sudden?

DJW this is my offer, it remains the same, it has not changed since p.215 of this thread. Why ask me to pick a specific topic when I have generously given you the advantage of choosing one? Are these terms somehow unacceptable to you?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

How about: "President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings?"

OK. I'll take it. Who do you want for the 2 mods? And then we can settle the general structure of the debate. Settling the terms of the debate can be public or private conversations I will let you decide on that. No hurry, I realize it takes time to get responses from mods.. tothetenthpower (supermod) has added me to fighter status so I'm ready to go.

a reply to: helius

NASA has lost the original moon footage tapes and also most of the moon rocks

Some original recordings of transmissions from the Moon. Not exactly lost, they were reused. But there are plenty of copies.
Most of the Moon rocks are lost? Really? Most of 841 pounds are gone?

It couldn’t take the heat on the moon and got fried after just a day up there.

Chang'e 3 landed on December 14. It shutdown subsystems due to heating on the 16th but was later reactivated. It was not "fried", it continued to make observations but control problems kept the rover from roving. It finally died when a panel which was supposed to retain heat during its third lunar night failed to deploy. It froze to death.

originally posted by: helius
a reply to: IroncladFT



That are some very very good questions you are asking.

No, they are questions asked by someone who hasn't done enough research on the subject.

NASA has lost the original moon footage tapes

Nope. Some of the Apollo 11 landing tapes are missing, and yet we have footage from TV stations all around the world, as well as the receiving stations, as well as all the other missions.

and also most of the moon rocks

Nope. Some of the organisations NASA sent samples to are unable to account for some of the material they received. This is completely different and nothing to do with NASA.

and perhaps other items related to these missions as well,

Made up stuff.

thus it seems like they have lost the knowledge and technology they once used to land there also.

Conjecture based on made up stuff. Clearly they haven't as there is a lander there right now, as well as several probes that have landed on Mars.

Also might I remind you all about the recent Chinese moon rover that was using "state of the art" 2014 technology. It couldn’t take the heat on the moon and got fried after just a day up there.

Nope. For one thing, a lunar day is not the same as an Earth day.

For another the probe is still doing stuff. The rover isn't. The rover did not fry, it froze, the actual lander worked up to and beyond its expected capabilities. The bits that stopped working are not bits that were present on Apollo. Apollo landers did not have to survive a month, just a few days at most. Russian probes also managed to work just fine on the moon.