Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Rob48

No, YOU are the one damned by technology of the future.

You and the rest of the dwindling band of hoaxers are the ones who will be left without a leg to stand on when, as they surely will be, the sites are revisited.

What will you do then? And that's a serious question.

Will you publicly admit you were wrong?
Will you just ignore it and pretend you never believed in the hoax anyway?
Will you invent some new and even more convoluted story to maintain your belief?

You'd be better of trying to claim that, for instance, the Hindenburg never existed. That burnt up and there is virtually nothing left. All we have are pictures and news reports. But all the physical evidence of Apollo still exists right there on the moon, just waiting. Denying it is a very foolhardy game.

Technology is shredding what remains of the Apollo story.

Aluminum spacecraft have now been proven not only worthless against radiation in deep space, but actually hazardous to astronauts! NASA didn't know that, when they supposedly flew all those missions. Your heroic astronots that say how safe it was in their thin aluminum shells flying them to the moon and back!

Well, so much for your spacecraft being legit.

a reply to: turbonium1

Not my spacecraft, not my astronauts. I have nothing to do with NASA, or even the USA. However as I have previously stated, my family are involved in space science quite intimately and have worked for ESA and Matra Marconi. Are ESA in on the scam too? How about all the commercial satellite operators and satellite insurers?

You are failing to answer the question again, and still showing a massive misunderstanding of how shielding works.

You keep on saying that aluminium is dangerous but you totally misunderstand the source you are quoting it from.

Based on your calculations, what would be the radiation dosage for the crews of the Apollo modules on their short trips to the moon? Come on Mr Radiation Expert.

Put up the calculations or shut up.

originally posted by: choos

because NAA was a contractor.. NOT NASA.. NASA was already critical of NA.. the fires of apollo 1 occured and someone needed to take the blame.. would it be NASA or NAA?? Barons report is damning to the safety standards of NA.. naturally NASA would WANT the report from Baron to be seen as it would implicate the substandard safety procedures from NA.

in case you didnt notice after the fire incident it was NASA vs NA.. and Baron's report was critical of NA safety procedures.. get it?

An excerpt from the first report...

Does NASA know or realize that every spec that we have is inadequate for the task being done? Do they really know that they are changed constantly to comply with the output of quality of the part or system being tested? Are they fully aware of the compromising position that NAA has put the program in? Do they know that of the great number of people we have working on the hardware are not satisfied with their own work and the work of others? NASA is not aware of the vast snags that go on in receiving inspection. Do they really know where all the parts and materials come from? I believe that all these questions can be answered with the word "No."

history.nasa.gov...

You still think the report isn't damning to NASA, and Apollo?

He says every spec they have for the CM is faulty.
He says those faulty specs are constantly 'changed' to put out quality parts or system testing.
He says most of them are dissatisfied with their own work, and the work done by others.

He also says NASA does not know about it, whatsoever.

Do you think NASA isn't to blame for any of this, and the NAA alone is to blame?

NASA is ultimately responsible for it, in the end.

NASA chose NAA to build the Apollo Command Module.

NASA came up with the specs.

NASA gave the specs to NAA.

It is up to NASA to make sure NAA follows those specs in building every part, and that each and every system is tested properly, throughout the entire process.

NASA didn't give a s#%t about it, though.

Why not?

NASA ignored it, as if they knew it was never meant to be a real Command Module....

originally posted by: choos
and you assume kaysing and sibrel were completely unwatched by TPTB during this time?? kaysing who may or may not have had knowledge about the hoax would just be trusted out in the public?? this from the organisation that has managed to keep the secret for over 40 years???

you make them sound incompetent..

Why would they be watched?

What reason(s) would they have for watching these two people?

Tell me exactly why they'd have been on their radar...

a reply to: turbonium1

I love the way that you are providing evidence of the fact that NASA was trying to cover up the report by quoting from the report hosted on NASA's own website.

Do you really not realise how idiotic your argument is?

Now, how about those radiation calculations, Mr I Know Better Than Every Spacecraft Engineer In The World?

We're waiting.

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's funny, because they NOW say that aluminum is one of the worst materials one could choose for a spacecraft in the VAB and beyond to deep space

Did you know that?

Source...

www.cs.odu.edu...

here you go again.. same argument as at the start of the very same thread..

whats the difference between apollo and this report?? *hint it has something to do with exposure time.

your report even has the estimated exposure for ONE YEAR incase you are wondering.. at solar minimum when GCR's are at their max..

As I said, that's in LEO. The inner VAB begins at 1000 miles altitude.

Source..

Try another one...

VAB begins at 1000 miles?? did you get that from your link?? because your link disagrees..

The inner belt, extending from approximately 400 km to 18,400 km (measured from the equator) consists mainly of electrons with maximum energy of 10 MeV.
anstd.ans.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> anstd.ans.org...

originally posted by: Rob48

Not my spacecraft, not my astronauts. I have nothing to do with NASA, or even the USA. However as I have previously stated, my family are involved in space science quite intimately and have worked for ESA and Matra Marconi. Are ESA in on the scam too? How about all the commercial satellite operators and satellite insurers?

You are failing to answer the question again, and still showing a massive misunderstanding of how shielding works.

You keep on saying that aluminium is dangerous but you totally misunderstand the source you are quoting it from.

Based on your calculations, what would be the radiation dosage for the crews of the Apollo modules on their short trips to the moon? Come on Mr Radiation Expert.

Put up the calculations or shut up.

This claim is not mine, it is the scientists who claim it.

I have shown you who said it. If you question the claim, then ask the people who made the claim.

Perhaps your anger has gotten the better of you, to forget who actually made the claim.

Take a deep breath, it's nothing to get riled about...

a reply to: turbonium1

If you're going to make the claim, it is YOU who should ask the scientists if they think Apollo was impossible, rather than twisting their words to try to back up your claims.

That is a favourite tactic of Jarrah White: quote mining to come up with sentences that taken in isolation make it look like scientists support his claims. When asked, of course, the scientists will tell you that White is talking rubbish.

But fine, I will call your bluff.

Give me some names of scientists who you claim support your position, and the quotations you are basing your claims on, and I will contact them myself. That is a direct challenge.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You still think the report isn't damning to NASA, and Apollo?

you really need to read that quote again..

Why would they be watched?

What reason(s) would they have for watching these two people?

Tell me exactly why they'd have been on their radar...

oh i dont know..
kaysing who was working for rocketdyne and then leaves the company.. you know, the person who claims to have knowledge about the hoax of which NASA does not want to get out.. NASA just lets this person with so much knowledge out into the world un-monitored

and sibrel, claims footage was accidentally sent to him.. FROM NASA.. which would be before he made his first movie

a reply to: Rob48
All the physical evidence of Apollo still exists right there on the moon, waiting

that is an extraordinary claim ,, what extraordinary evidence do you have too back up this extraordinary claim....will we be waiting an extraordinary period of time ...

a reply to: Misinformation

Well who do you think has come and taken it away, Will Robinson?

a reply to: Rob48

there is an overwhelming general consensus that the apollo manned moon landings were hoaxed for various reasons...

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Rob48

there is an overwhelming general consensus that the apollo manned moon landings were hoaxed for various reasons...

You posted this exact sentence a few days ago. It hasn't suddenly become true in the meantime.

a reply to: Misinformation
No.

Other common conspiracies — such as whether a UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico (21 percent said yes), or the moon landings were faked (7 percent said yes), or that Paul McCartney died in a car crash in 1966 (5 percent said yes) — have little implications for people's everyday lives.

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: Phage

not sure what your trying too instil,,but ya shouldn't put too much stock into poll results,,just look at the last ATS MA Flight 370 poll results....

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Rob48

there is an overwhelming general consensus that the apollo manned moon landings were hoaxed for various reasons...

About 7 to 10+ years ago, right after that FOX TV show came out about the Moon landing hoax, that was probably the most recent height of the Moon conspiracy. However, since the "evidence" that show presented had been systematically debunked, and I think most people whose curiosity was piqued by that show have since come to realize that the evidence they presented was bunk.

So maybe a few people might have seen that show and said "Yeah -- that seems fishy; they need to explain [put specific hoax claim here]". However, after those claims have been debunked, most of those people aren't saying that anymore.

a reply to: Misinformation

An ATS poll does not use valid sampling techniques.

You are a member of a very small minority.

a reply to: Phage
An ATS poll does not use valid sampling techniques

well ya heard it here first folks,, theres no validity in ATS polls,,so █████ for █████ █████....


but the polls you refer too have no validity either,,,other than the fact most of these issues have little implications for people's everyday lives

- self-identified Democrats and Republicans
-asked 137 students
-sampled 1,247 registered American voters by telephone

it was a ███ █████ too try to use poll results to defend your paradigm,,, █████ ███ time █████ █ █ █████ █████ forum , █████ where the █████ █████

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Rob48

there is an overwhelming general consensus that the apollo manned moon landings were hoaxed for various reasons...

Not sure where you are from, but in my neck of the woods, 99.99% of the people I ask, say we went to the Moon!

I would like to see some figures or some proof of your claim.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

If you're going to make the claim, it is YOU who should ask the scientists if they think Apollo was impossible, rather than twisting their words to try to back up your claims.

That is a favourite tactic of Jarrah White: quote mining to come up with sentences that taken in isolation make it look like scientists support his claims. When asked, of course, the scientists will tell you that White is talking rubbish.

But fine, I will call your bluff.

Give me some names of scientists who you claim support your position, and the quotations you are basing your claims on, and I will contact them myself. That is a direct challenge.

The claim I said was not mine, that I said was the claim of the scientists, was about aluminum. You should already have known that, because you were the one who challenged me on it....

originally posted by: Rob48
You keep on saying that aluminium is dangerous but you totally misunderstand the source you are quoting it from.

That is the claim I said is not mine, it is the claim of the scientists.

I've cited a few sources already, but here's another one for you...

"..the NUCFRG2 database shows a substantial increase in cell transformation rate with increasing shield thickness and emerging databases mainly resulting from the shuttle flight experiments carry us well above the peripheral collision limit indicating that aluminum construction may be harmful to the astronaut’s health."

"The possible hazard poised by aluminum space construction is clear. While the experimental database on nuclear reaction products in space and the biological response models are uncertain, these issues beg for resolution because of the current use of aluminum as the basic space construction material. This is especially true in a Mars or Lunar mission design where excess shield mass has such a large impact on mission cost as noted in the introduction to this workshop. It would be ironic to add substantial aluminum to the wall structure on the basis of reducing dose equivalent for these missions at substantial cost, while increased health risk to the astronaut is the result."

"As HZE in the GCR interact with a shield, they fragment and deposit energy at rates that depend on the nature
and energy of the incident particles, the nature of the shield material, and the depth into the shield. The relationships are complex, so that, in some instances, the "shield" can cause an increase in both the number of particles and the dose due to the production of secondary particle radiation. For example, the dose equivalent from HZE particles absorbed by a human behind a 1.3-cm aluminum shield, the traditional structural material for spacecraft, exceeds by 10% the dose equivalent in free space. This is due to a greater rate of energy transfer at the back side of the shield (a) by the projectile or its fragments after they have been slowed by their passage through the shield, (b) by secondary energetic nuclei and fragments generated in the shield, and (c) to a lesser extent, by secondary particles knocked out of the target material"

"Studies with the HZETRN radiation transport code [19, 20] for the GCR at solar minimum predicts that aluminum shielding will increase the total number of particles by a factor of 2 for shields of depth of 20 g/cm2 while liquid hydrogen shielding leads to a decrease of a factor of about 2 at the same depth."


www.kiss.caltech.edu...

Look at the comments in bold. The claim that aluminum is a very poor, even hazardous, shielding material is THE CLAIM OF THE SCIENTISTS.

So now you know how crappy aluminum shielding is in deep space.

This goes to the Apollo-ites claim that we had a 'good understanding' of the deep space / VAB environments...

"Shield evaluations using current methods indicate the advantage of using low mass materials for shielding
because of their optimal ability to reduce HZE ions and to reduce target fragment buildup. The quantification of
differences in proposed shielding materials such as carbon composites or aluminum is currently limited by the
uncertainties in biological risk models such that error determinations cannot be made with sufficient accuracy. In
fact, uncertainties in risk estimates are currently so large that selection of shielding materials is severely hindered."

"Exposure limitation requirements to maintain acceptable levels of risk are most uncertain because there is little experience in human exposure or even animal exposure for these types of radiations on which to base such exposure limits"

They actually mention the Apollo missions, briefly...

"Well over two decades have elapsed since the Apollo flights in which humans ventured beyond the earth’s
protective magnetic shield and entered interplanetary space. While these excursions were recognized to be subject
to space radiation hazards, their short duration tended to minimize the risks involved."

Why do they mention the Apollo missions? Just to say how Apollo's missions were short duration, which tended to minimize the risks involved?!?

They will also say Apollo was genuine, if you ask them. None will say it was a hoax.

They say aluminum is a poor radiation shield in deep space, and could make it even more hazardous to astronauts. But they don't mention that Apollo was made of thin aluminum sheeting!

Why not?

Because they all say Apollo was genuine, that's why.

So they try to dance around it with a few little comments, like they do here.

It is up to everyone else to connect the very obvious dots.



One more point...

"Enormous advances in the knowledge of the deep space environment, principally provided by measurements
from instrumented satellite platforms, have taken place since the era of the Apollo lunar flights. In addition,
significant improvements have been [1, 2] and continue to be made in predicting the phenomena associated with
high energy charged particle transport through various materials."

Of course, you'll still claim we had a good understanding on the VAB / deep space environment during the Apollo era.

That's why he said it was due to our satellites... after Apollo!

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Rob48

there is an overwhelming general consensus that the apollo manned moon landings were hoaxed for various reasons...

Maybe in the fantasy world you reside in this is true.

You edit your posts using "fear of TPTB" as the reason, this says a lot about your paradigm.

They're out to get you? They know you're on to something? They want to silence you? Thoughts like these are indicative of ego issues on your part.

Here in the real world there is a mountain of data verses a handful of refuted and erroneous "theories" regarding Apollo.

Personally I would avoid engaging an individual with such a dissonant and unstable take on reality, but this is ATS, a forum for everyone to express their views. However, you may command the sea to retreat all you like, but the tide will not turn for you Mr Canute, the water is reality, and hanging above it in the evening sky is the moon.