Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos

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

You seem to think Kaysing was shouting "Apollo was a hoax!' at Times Square and Grand Central Station before he published his book, or something!!

Apollo happened after he left Rocketdyne. Why do you think he would know about a hoax that didn't even exist yet??
That's nonsense. He saw it on TV, like everyone else. He wasn't involved with it by that time.

A lot of people worked on the Apollo program, and on various projects that led up to, and connected to, the Apollo program. Do you think they were all being watched by NASA, too?

No, just the 'suspicious' - looking ones were watched, right? You figure Kaysing would have looked 'suspicious' to NASA, I assume?

That's hilarious, really!!

Sibrel got the film from NASA, yes.

Oh, I see what you mean now! You are saying that NASA would naturally be very suspicious of anyone who requests Apollo film footage!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

You seem to think Kaysing was shouting "Apollo was a hoax!' at Times Square and Grand Central Station before he published his book, or something!!

well.. he as well as other HB seem to believe he had inside information.. naturally if someone had as much information as Kaysing allegedly had then it would be obvious to keep an eye on him.. you dont just let people leave your organisation with secrets unwatched when you are the most powerful organisation in human history..

Apollo happened after he left Rocketdyne. Why do you think he would know about a hoax that didn't even exist yet??
That's nonsense. He saw it on TV, like everyone else. He wasn't involved with it by that time.

thats almost like you are saying that Kaysing doesnt know what he is talking about?? almost like he is making up the claims?? is that what you are suggesting??

the person that HB call the "father of the moon hoax theories" or regarded as the initiator of the moon hoax theories.. didnt actually know about the hoax?? that says alot..

A lot of people worked on the Apollo program, and on various projects that led up to, and connected to, the Apollo program. Do you think they were all being watched by NASA, too?

naturally yes.. how else did NASA keep 400000 or so people quiet for over 40 years??

No, just the 'suspicious' - looking ones were watched, right? You figure Kaysing would have looked 'suspicious' to NASA, I assume?

Kaysing claims he had access to inside information and security clearances.. if that was true do you honestly believe that someone with security clearances will just be allowed to go in public unmonitored??

That's hilarious, really!!

Sibrel got the film from NASA, yes.

Oh, I see what you mean now! You are saying that NASA would naturally be very suspicious of anyone who requests Apollo film footage!!

he claims he got it accidentally.. even though its the exact same footage that everyone else was able to obtain publically.. he never presented footage that was never seen before.. infact.. more detailed footage has been available to the public than what Sibrel was able to show as sibrel cut out footage that would prove his arguments wrong..

also you missed my other question..

whats the difference between your reports about aluminium being a bad radiation shield and the apollo missions?? *hint something to do with exposure time.

a reply to: turbonium1

Ah, I'm glad you chose that one.

You quoted from another paper co-authored by Frank Cucinotta a year or so ago. (The lead author of both these papers, John Wilson, retired a few years ago.) You seem to think his papers support your position.

Cucinotta recently took a position at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

news.unlv.edu...

What is the biggest misconception about your field?
I think radiation itself is the biggest misconception. Many people are scared of it because of misinformation, or lack of facts. Most are uncertain about what is considered a low or high risk radiation exposure.

Gosh, that quote could almost have been written with you in mind, turbs!

What inspired you to get into your field?
I grew up during the Apollo missions and, like many kids of that time, was fascinated by space exploration. I kept that interest throughout my school years, excelled at science and math and pursued what interested me most.

Does this sound like a man who thinks he is disproving the Apollo missions?


Did you read the paper, or did you just do a CTRL-F for "aluminium"? It is not talking about short missions to the Moon taking a week or so. It is talking about future long missions when the astronauts will be in space for months or even years!

The uniqueness of the current workshop arises from the expected long duration of the missions without the
protective cover of the geomagnetic field in which the usually small and even neglected effects of the Galactic
Cosmic Rays (GCR) can no longer be ignored.

In prior manned space missions, the GCR have been considered negligible since the mission times were
relatively short and the main radiation concern was the very intense SEP events

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. The next stepping-stones in
space exploration are envisioned to be of much longer duration stays on the moon, and possibly semi-permanent
habitation on Mars. Such scenarios have forced much more detailed and concerted investigations of the potential
effects of prolonged exposure to the high energy space radiation environment.

You even quoted this part yourself and yet you somehow tried to twist it to SUPPORT your theory!

Can you really not tell the difference between the hazards of an Apollo flight, the longest of which was only 12 days long, and missions to Mars lasting several months each way? Do you not think you might need more effective shielding for a longer trip?

You don't seem to have a clue how radiation works. Do you still think Cucinotta et al support your ludicrous theory?

And just to put some numbers on those bare bones, this is from the previous paper you linked to: www.cs.odu.edu...

Deep space exposure estimates using LET-dependent quality factors result in exposures of as much as 1 Sv/yr near solar minimum depending on shielding. A large potential impact exists on the career of a space worker for whom annual exposure limits (table 1) are currently 0.5 Sv/yr for the LEO environment with additional total career exposure limits that depend on age and gender (ref. 4). The primary limiting factor in future deep space manned operations is anticipated to be the health risks associated with exposures to galactic cosmic rays.

Exposure is estimated at "as much as 1 Sv/yr".

The safe limit is considered to be 0.5 Sv annually.

The longest Apollo mission, Apollo 17, lasted 12 days, or about 0.03 years.

I think even the most numerically challenged among us can "do the math" and work out that the exposure for a 12-day mission is comfortably below the annual limit!

Likewise, we can trivially work out that a year-long trip to Mars is going to exceed the safe limits, so we will need better shielding than we had for Apollo.

Do you want to write to Prof Cucinotta and ask him whether he thinks aluminium would have killed the Apollo astronauts, or shall I?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48
NASA didn't have to study every facet of the belts. What it had to do was launch probes along the kind of paths that Apollo spacecraft would take on the way to the moon, and see whether the radiation levels would be a problem.

They did this, repeatedly, and guess what? The radiation wasn't a problem.

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

Source..

anstd.ans.org...

Try another one...

Turbonium, you seem to have a problem with reading. Either that or you assume that nobody else can read and catch you out in your lies.

Why did you tell me I was wrong about the ISS passing through the Van Allen Belts, and that "the inner VAB begins at 1000 miles altitude", and then provide a link to back up your claim which says no such thing? In fact, it confirms what I said is correct:

The inner belt, extending from approximately 400 km to 18,400 km

400km is about 250 miles. Not 1000.

Furthermore:

a dip in the inner belt down to approximately 200 km exists over the South Atlantic Ocean. The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), as this dip is called, is responsible for a large amount of radiation exposure during spaceflight and for the International Space Station (ISS).

Which is what I said.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read the links that you post as "evidence" to ensure that they don't actually prove you wrong. It might help your debating skills.

a reply to: choos

naturally yes.. how else did NASA keep 400000 or so people quiet for over 40 years??

The "gold standard" of the Apollo Believer... the 400,000 fallacy.

Here's the math.

400,000 - 12 = 399,988

That means 399,988 people did not walk on the moon.

I can't believe you choos after 292 pages of this thread you are still walking on those 400,000 piece of broken glass - we shattered that fallacy long, long ago. You don't have enough glue to put it all back together. Maybe you should sweep all that broken glass under the table like you do with the Apollo 12 Hasselblad pictures.

a reply to: Rob48

Turbonium, you seem to have a problem with reading. Either that or you assume that nobody else can read and catch you out in your lies.

So I guess that means you are really on the defensive now. Remember, the Russians have a glass ceiling altitude limit of 475km. I don't think one radiation expert is going to change that fact.

originally posted by: Gibborium

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.

In your neck of the woods there are people. You asked X number of people. 99.99% of the people you asked say we went to the moon.

The Question Is: How many people did you ask?

Wow! That sounds like a "plain folks" conspiracy, if you "ask" me

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

Turbonium, you seem to have a problem with reading. Either that or you assume that nobody else can read and catch you out in your lies.

So I guess that means you are really on the defensive now. Remember, the Russians have a glass ceiling altitude limit of 475km. I don't think one radiation expert is going to change that fact.

Pointing out blatant misrepresentation of sources is being "on the defensive"?

If there is a "glass ceiling" of 475km then why is there so much research taking place into manned long-duration deep-space flights?

And by "long duration" I mean 20 or 30 times longer than even Apollo 17.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

naturally yes.. how else did NASA keep 400000 or so people quiet for over 40 years??

The "gold standard" of the Apollo Believer... the 400,000 fallacy.

Here's the math.

400,000 - 12 = 399,988

That means 399,988 people did not walk on the moon.

I can't believe you choos after 292 pages of this thread you are still walking on those 400,000 piece of broken glass - we shattered that fallacy long, long ago. You don't have enough glue to put it all back together. Maybe you should sweep all that broken glass under the table like you do with the Apollo 12 Hasselblad pictures.

so you are claiming that only the 12 astronauts who walked on the moon hoaxed the moon landing.
which means you are claiming that Nixon was NOT involved.
which means you are also claiming that the 6 CMP who were orbitting the moon as the other two were walking on the surface of the moon were NOT involved with the moon landing hoax.
which means you are also claiming that the apollo 13 astronauts were NOT in on the moon landing hoax.

you claiming the 400,000 "fallacy" is the real fallacy..

How does a scientist know if the "zap pits" in Apollo lunar sample material were made by micro-meteorites or by Howard Hughes lasers? How can they tell the difference? Any papers out there?

What do the big boys have to say about that

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...

I'll offer a rational reason.

Reason #1 to was to make the moon landings successful. To preclude a global television tragedy / a US embarrassment / a spacecraft accident/ an opportunity for the Soviets to win more propaganda / any of these reasons would have put Nixon in a terribly bad spot in the summer of 1969 very early into his administration.

Nixon knew that Apollo 11 would be a perfect mission. That's why he 1. exploited the telephone call to the moon. That's why 2. he flew out to meet the crew on the carrier USS Hornet right after splash down. That's why 3. Nixon extended his Asian Victory Tour as the triumphant Conqueror of Space.

The timing of Apollo/Nixon's tour was coincidental with the break up of the Beatles...

The break-up itself was a cumulative process throughout 1969–70, Source wiki

In fact, the huge phenomenon of the Beatles was being usurped by the even huger phenomenon of Apollo... with Hughes and Nixon at the helm.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

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...

I'll offer a rational reason.

Reason #1 to was to make the moon landings successful. To preclude a global television tragedy / a US embarrassment / a spacecraft accident/ an opportunity for the Soviets to win more propaganda / any of these reasons would have put Nixon in a terribly bad spot in the summer of 1969 very early into his administration.

Nixon knew that Apollo 11 would be a perfect mission. That's why he 1. exploited the telephone call to the moon. That's why 2. he flew out to meet the crew on the carrier USS Hornet right after splash down. That's why 3. Nixon extended his Asian Victory Tour as the triumphant Conqueror of Space.

The timing of Apollo/Nixon's tour was coincidental with the break up of the Beatles...

The break-up itself was a cumulative process throughout 1969–70, Source wiki

In fact, the huge phenomenon of the Beatles was being usurped by the even huger phenomenon of Apollo... with Hughes and Nixon at the helm.

So your theory is they faked the moon landing to avoid embarrassment? Yet Apollo 1 burned up in a fire why did they fake a huge failure handing the Russians a big win. And in fact Russians at this point were sure they would reach the moon first unfortunately for them there catastrophe was even bigger killing most of the people they were counting on to get them to the moon.

Oh and now the beatles were involved i guess NIXON hated the beatles and apollo was used to destroy their band? OK i have an idea i think at this point you need to think real hard before you type because you are making little sense.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Ok im game prove to us a laser could be used to simulate a micro meteor impact.Should be simple all you have to do is explain how they used a laser to imbed the micrometeorite into the lunar sample. We cant even do that now with a laser we could use an accelerator like Cern but thats not a laser is it thats a particle accelerator? And the time it would take to pit a rock with millions of them makes it highly unlikely since to make just one would take years.

##SNIPPED##

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
How does a scientist know if the "zap pits" in Apollo lunar sample material were made by micro-meteorites or by Howard Hughes lasers? How can they tell the difference? Any papers out there?

What do the big boys have to say about that

You are clueless on lasers and what they do or you would even ask such a stupid question. See when you examine moon rocks you cannot only see the impact of the micrometeor but its still in the rock where it hit. So you can even test what it was that impacted the rock in most cases its metallic in nature and weighs less than a gram. You would have done better arguing they used a sand blaster only problem is not enough velocity.

Thanks Dragonrider, I'll just wait for some other opinions. Your opinion seems to be self deluded and irrational.

Ok im game prove to us a laser could be used to simulate a micro meteor impact.Should be simple all you have to do is explain how they used a laser to imbed the micrometeorite into the lunar sample. We cant even do that now with a laser we could use an accelerator like Cern but thats not a laser is it thats a particle accelerator? And the time it would take to pit a rock with millions of them makes it highly unlikely since to make just one would take years.

PS go after the ball and not the player not my fault you dont understand the difference but you dont need to start insulting shows your frustration figured you would be used to being proved wrong by now.

I have a Soviet source from a 1972 TASS report that says lasers were used to create it could be done. It says "Scientists use a laser beam for the effect of micromete-orites."

Do you know the guy I am talking about?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

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...

I'll offer a rational reason.

Reason #1 to was to make the moon landings successful. To preclude a global television tragedy / a US embarrassment / a spacecraft accident/ an opportunity for the Soviets to win more propaganda / any of these reasons would have put Nixon in a terribly bad spot in the summer of 1969 very early into his administration.

Nixon knew that Apollo 11 would be a perfect mission. That's why he 1. exploited the telephone call to the moon. That's why 2. he flew out to meet the crew on the carrier USS Hornet right after splash down. That's why 3. Nixon extended his Asian Victory Tour as the triumphant Conqueror of Space.

The timing of Apollo/Nixon's tour was coincidental with the break up of the Beatles...

The break-up itself was a cumulative process throughout 1969–70, Source wiki

In fact, the huge phenomenon of the Beatles was being usurped by the even huger phenomenon of Apollo... with Hughes and Nixon at the helm.

Providing reasons why you think they might have wanted to hoax Apollo is not in any way evidence that they did.

There are lots of reasons why I might want to rob a bank, but that doesn't mean I have or would ever do it.

And the Beatles? What?

I have a Soviet source from a 1972 TASS report that says lasers were used to create it could be done. It says "Scientists use a laser beam for the effect of micromete-orites."

Let's have the source, please, not one-line quotes with zero context.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
How does a scientist know if the "zap pits" in Apollo lunar sample material were made by micro-meteorites or by Howard Hughes lasers? How can they tell the difference? Any papers out there?

What do the big boys have to say about that

You are clueless on lasers and what they do or you would even ask such a stupid question. See when you examine moon rocks you cannot only see the impact of the micrometeor but its still in the rock where it hit. So you can even test what it was that impacted the rock in most cases its metallic in nature and weighs less than a gram. You would have done better arguing they used a sand blaster only problem is not enough velocity.

Thanks Dragonrider, I'll just wait for some other opinions. Your opinion seems to be self deluded and irrational.

Ok im game prove to us a laser could be used to simulate a micro meteor impact.Should be simple all you have to do is explain how they used a laser to imbed the micrometeorite into the lunar sample. We cant even do that now with a laser we could use an accelerator like Cern but thats not a laser is it thats a particle accelerator? And the time it would take to pit a rock with millions of them makes it highly unlikely since to make just one would take years.

PS go after the ball and not the player not my fault you dont understand the difference but you dont need to start insulting shows your frustration figured you would be used to being proved wrong by now.

I have a Soviet source from a 1972 TASS report that says lasers were used to create it could be done. It says "Scientists use a laser beam for the effect of micromete-orites."

Do you know the guy I am talking about?

We can simulate lots of things that doesnt mean you cant tell the difference between them however. Good example is movies simulate snow all the time but when you look at it you can tell its not snow. Or diamonds again we can simulate them but put it under a microscope low and behold not a diamond. Now the word your looking for is replicate not simulate please show me an article that replicated micro meteor impacts.

originally posted by: choos
well.. he as well as other HB seem to believe he had inside information.. naturally if someone had as much information as Kaysing allegedly had then it would be obvious to keep an eye on him.. you dont just let people leave your organisation with secrets unwatched when you are the most powerful organisation in human history..

Why would NASA need to watch him, when he left Rocketdyne in 1963? Apollo 11 (supposedly) landed on the moon in 1969. If he had still been working at Rocketdyne during that time, then you'd have an argument. But he was long gone by then, so you have no argument. Simple as that.

originally posted by: choos
thats almost like you are saying that Kaysing doesnt know what he is talking about?? almost like he is making up the claims?? is that what you are suggesting??

the person that HB call the "father of the moon hoax theories" or regarded as the initiator of the moon hoax theories.. didnt actually know about the hoax?? that says alot..

Kaysing was privy to technical documents prior to the Apollo missions, which made him aware of the many problems that were unresolved. Kaysing said...

"In the late '50s, when I was at Rocketdyne, they did a feasibility study on astronauts landing on the moon. They found that the chance of success was something like .0017 percent. In other words, it was hopeless."

So he did know what he was talking about.

originally posted by: choos
naturally yes.. how else did NASA keep 400000 or so people quiet for over 40 years??

So how many of them were killed by NASA because they were going to release inside information? Do you know?

originally posted by: choos
he claims he got it accidentally.. even though its the exact same footage that everyone else was able to obtain publically.. he never presented footage that was never seen before.. infact.. more detailed footage has been available to the public than what Sibrel was able to show as sibrel cut out footage that would prove his arguments wrong..

No, that's another Apollo-ite falsehood.

Sibrel released his film, 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon', which includes the never-before-seen footage, on Jan. 18, 2001.

Spacecraft Films released their film, 'Apollo 11: Men on the Moon', on Aug. 19, 2003. That's over two years after Sibrel had released his film.

Apollo-ites try and say it's always been available to the public, but they have no evidence for that claim.

Show me the evidence, if I'm wrong...

originally posted by: choos
whats the difference between your reports about aluminium being a bad radiation shield and the apollo missions?? *hint something to do with exposure time.

Aluminum IS a bad radiation shield in the deep space environment. That is a fact.

I've gone through these documents, and they do not say anything about aluminum being a bad radiation shield in deep space depending on exposure time!!

But again, show me the evidence where they say that, if I'm wrong..