Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: thesneakiod
When explorers first set out to conquer inhospitable places, Antarctica, the poles etc, it was obviously fraught with danger. And the people who got to these places could only stay for a limited duration. Over time, a couple of years at the most, explorers from other countries came and stayed a bit longer, and so on.

Up to present day, people now live and work and study in these conditions for months and months at a time. Mainly because of technology and logistics being as good as they are.

This should be the exact same scenario with the moon.

Except the moon is 250000 miles away and it takes quite a bit of effort to get there. Why not ask the people in the various Antarctic research stations how much they have to struggle to get every single penny of funding.

I can't for the life of me understand how the Russians (who at one point were neck and neck with USA to get there) can be so far behind still with their abilities to get to the moon.

Because of their political system contributed to their programme falling apart, then their political system fell apart.

Nor how, as quick as the Chinese or Indians are progressing, that they haven't yet put a man on the moon, seeing as they've been doing it longer than the USA were when they eventually went.

We have no idea how well the Chinese space programme is progressing because they don't tell us much, but we can be fairly sure the next feet on the moon will be Chinese. We can also be fairly confident that there will be people denying that they did it.

A venture to the moon in this day and age would be a hugely profitable enterprise for whatever country that announced they were going there. The rights for the TV coverage, the merchandise, they would make billions from it over years to come.

No, they wouldn't. The cost is very high, and it would tale a lot of time to recoup the investment. You go because it's there, not to make money,

The whole world would be watching. It would be one of the biggest events ever to happen ever in the modern age. The end results would far outweigh the initial costs.

The whole world was watching Apollo, and they never got their money back.

But there's not even a snifter of that happening.

In my opinion there are only two reasons why NO ONE has been back in over forty years. Either they found something on the moon originally that could or would be a potential danger to the human race, and warned or showed other countries who intern ceased to try themselves.

Or they simply didn't go in the first place....

There is nothing there to find. We know this because we went there to look.

reply to: onebigmonkey

You replied with answers like you know all about funding and reasons. But you don't it's just your opinion. Like it is mine. Compering Apollo with a venture of today is pointless. They would make billions in the long run, and I'd strongly disagree with you if you believe otherwise. I mean c'mon, simple disney films rake in millions from merchandise. A manned trip to the moon would rake in astronomical revenues.

My last point I pondered on, you actually gave a curt, almost sarcastic answer to it, as if you'd ever know either way.

Still no valid reason why no country has gone there since though....

originally posted by: thesneakiod
...They would make billions in the long run, and I'd strongly disagree with you if you believe otherwise. I mean c'mon, simple disney films rake in millions from merchandise. A manned trip to the moon would rake in astronomical revenues...

So you not only want the taxplayers to foot the bill for getting to the Moon, but you want those same taxpayers to pay a fee if they want to see the results of the moon landing (e.g., people paying NASA a fee to watch the news coverage of the landing, and paying a fee to NASA to find out any pertinent information about the landing). Plus you want NASA to sell the rights to McDonalds and Burger King to include little spaceship toys and astronaut action figures in their kids' meals.

I don't know about you, but if (as a taxpayer) I footed the bill to go to the Moon, I would want to see the results for free, rather than requiring me to order a pay-per-view of the Moon landing for $39.99, or buy a $9.00 ticket to see the Moon landing in a theater.

So it took the USA eleven years from launching their first satellite to landing on the moon. It's getting on for nearly thirty five years since the Chinese started. Nearly over forty years for Russia.

Are the USA really that ahead of everyone else when it comes manned moon landings. Highly unlikely.

China couldn't care less about the rest of the world. They don't care if the USA has already been there. So why haven't gone their in over thirty odd years when the USA took just over a decade?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's exactly my point. That's how they would take the money in. People will pay it. Would you honestly not pay £40 to watch it live? I bet you would. I despise pay for view stuff, I pay enough as it is. But I would definitely pay to see it.

originally posted by: thesneakiod
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's exactly my point. That's how they would take the money in. People will pay it. Would you honestly not pay £40 to watch it live? I bet you would. I despise pay for view stuff, I pay enough as it is. But I would definitely pay to see it.

They might...might...pay for it once.

And then, just like with Apollo, the novelty of it wears off, and the public stops caring enough to pay again.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: thesneakiod
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's exactly my point. That's how they would take the money in. People will pay it. Would you honestly not pay £40 to watch it live? I bet you would. I despise pay for view stuff, I pay enough as it is. But I would definitely pay to see it.

They might...might...pay for it once.

And then, just like with Apollo, the novelty of it wears off, and the public stops caring enough to pay again.

We stopped caring about it from about 14 onwards,maybe even earlier.We didn't watch it any more even though it was free,and had been relegated to the 'and finally.....' bit at the end of the news.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Instead of there being six missions, which was overkill, one would suffice.

It would work. Imagine a country announcing a year to the day they will set foot on the moon. It would fire everyone's imagination, especially those who didn't experience it first time around.

Those who did experience it, I can understand their "meh" attitude towards it. For the younger generation it would be "their" experience...

a reply to: thesneakiod

I did experience it,I was ten years old in 1969.We were on holiday in Devon and had just sat down for a meal when I heard Neil Armostrong's immortal speech coming from the radio in the next room.Up to that point I had no idea anyone would ever walk on the moon,when my Dad had explained what was happening suddenly I could think of nothing else.I collected all the Airfix models and all the newspaper colour supplements and read everything else I could find about the Appollo missions.Until they stopped talking about it on the news,like any ten/eleven year old with a short attention span I also found other things to interest me.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Nowadays, a ten year old would know exactly what was going on, especially with the fanfare of the announcement.

There would be countless documentaries, and updates and analysis leading up to it that would be way more advanced than forty years ago. The media would suck us all in.

Imagine astronauts on the moon in crystal clear HD.

a reply to: thesneakiod

Already been done China sent back HD from the moon notice the excitement ended quickly. Lasted a couple of news cycles and we moved on supplying HD from the moon isn't a big deal since now we can recreate it in a computer in an hour. There's no money to be made in just getting HD from the moon the money will be colonization. People going on vacation or mining and building a plant to manufacture spacecraft. All which require huge investment with no returns for decades.

This is why governments will have to build the resources to expand into commercial ventures. Even China who wants to use national pride as an excuse keeps getting delayed because of the costs inVolved

originally posted by: thesneakiod
a reply to: Imagewerx

Instead of there being six missions, which was overkill, one would suffice.

It would work. Imagine a country announcing a year to the day they will set foot on the moon. It would fire everyone's imagination, especially those who didn't experience it first time around.

Those who did experience it, I can understand their "meh" attitude towards it. For the younger generation it would be "their" experience...

one mission would be enough??

the Apollo program cost roughly 109 billion in 2010 dollars.. the highest grossing film ever is still under 5 billion.. you would need much much more than one mission as pay-per-view..

and to consider that a large majority would not bother with pay-per-view as within a few minutes there will be free versions from less legitimate sources..

The public lost interest because by the second or third mission they weren't doing anything interesting enough to keep us wanting to watch it. Messing with rocks for hours on end, regardless of were they where, is boring to a lot of people.

They could easily make it more exciting, like actually going to places of interest. Isn't there a crater that looks like it glowing most of the time? Go there. Let's see some of the mountains close up. Go to the remains of the Apollo landers to show the amazing feat that happened years ago. Let's see them walking round in HD. How about if there is anything strange on there, NASA must know about it, go there. Moon enthusiasts will
know what's there to see much better than I can.

I'm just saying there are reasons to go back, they might not be scientifically interesting, but it would be on a imagination level.

a reply to: thesneakiod

you are talking like money is no object..

originally posted by: thesneakiod
Go to the remains of the Apollo landers to show the amazing feat that happened years ago. Let's see them walking round in HD.

One of the Lunar X Prize groups might do this in the near future with a rover.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Clearly this is all you have: crossing the VAB is your "they did not have the technology", as this is the only thing you challenge.

Your challenge don't hold up.

Longer term missions are not just briefly mentioned in the introductions, they are specifically the topic of discussion.

Let's look at this one www.stfc.ac.uk...

What is the title?

Mars Radiation Risk Assessment and Shielding Design for Long-Term Exposure to Ionizing Space Radiation

Can we see a few clues there? I don't know about you but the words "Mars" and "Long Term" are pretty major hints that we are not talking about a fast jaunt through the VAB and a week or so in space.

The other article you use ntrs.nasa.gov... is also specifically looking at long term doses for astronauts based on modern standards for exposure. It doesn't just vaguely mention them, it refers to annual dosage rates for long term space workers.

You completely gloss over the fact that both these papers refer to long term exposure levels and just pick out the sentences where they say that aluminium is maybe not the best thing to use in that type of mission given that fancy new materials (and the key word there is "new") are available. Tell us what they should have used then.

You also managed to do some very skilled copying and pasting from an article revealing refinements in our understanding of the VAB. What they discuss are the very dynamic nature of the belts, how they change over a matter of hours as a response to intense solar events. How many of these intense solar events occurred during Apollo missions.

The quote you give about particles penetrating aluminium - which ones do they refer to? Very very very very high energy ones. How many of these are there likely to be? You're also assuming that any craft passing through the VAB would spend a long time in the zone to which the paper refers. The article says they build satellites to survive these problems - are they covered in a foot of lead?

You have, as usual, cherry picked quotes and references that suit your purposes, glossed over the bits that don't suit you and failed to deal with the fundamental issue of proving that Apollo did not cross the VAB, land on the moon and return again, or what the radiation levels would have been during that journey. You ignore the fact that dogs and turtles were given long exposures in space without being instantly fried, and that Gemini XI spent significant periods in the VAB without killing either astronaut, both of whom went on to crew Apollo 12.

Tell us what radiation levels would have been experienced during the Apollo missions. Here's a start:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Don't forget to chase up the references.

Aluminium was the construction material they used because it matched the design requirements of being both light and provided sufficient protection for the mission duration. It was not the only material involved in the spacecraft's construction. Apollo missions did not spend long enough in the VAB to suffer enough radiation to cause concern. You have failed to provide any evidence that they spent too long in the VAB and you have failed to provide any evidence that the radiation levels they would have experienced, or did experience, were any kind of problem.

If you look at pretty much any study of missions beyond LEO to (for example) Mars or asteroids or wherever the major concern is not what will happen to astronauts crossing the VAB, it is long term exposure to the risks of radiation in deep space. Apollo knew about that risk, had contingencies for it and had monitoring programmes in place to make sure they had enough warning to deal with any solar events that might occur. They put more effort into preventing micro-meteorite damage than they did radiation protection and for good reason - it's more likely to be a real and immediate danger, as opposed to radiation exposure that might cause illness at some point in the future.

Finally, you cannot include a time machine in your claims. You can't produce modern data and modern materials and say "well they should have known this and they should have used these". They didn't have them so couldn't have used them. They built spacecraft and designed missions and procedures based on knowledge they had and made informed judgements about what they considered to be acceptable risks. Changing levels of understanding and changing ideas of what constitutes 'acceptable risk' does not invalidate what went on before.

All you have is this big radiation bogeyman that you think is so important but we're all still waiting for you to produce actual numbers that prove Apollo couldn't have got to the moon without killing its crew. Jarrah tried that and failed miserably.

They don't say anything about short-term missions, or any mention of a time period...none.

The title and introduction refer to longer missions, like to Mars, as 'future' missions. Longer missions are exposed to more of this hazard, compared to shorter missions, as we know.

But they don't exclude any missions, be it short stay or long stay, right?

You assume they exclude short-term missions because they refer to longer missions, like to Mars, not to short-stay, Apollo-type missions.

You think they excluded shorter missions, since it wasn't specifically mentioned?

If they meant only a long-stay mission, they'd probably have mentioned it, within that same document...no?...

But they don't mention it anywhere, not once.

They'd know about the Apollo missions, so why wouldn't they make an exception for short-stays, like Apollo?

That's a big problem you have

Apollo can't fit in with the real world, anywhere....

originally posted by: turbonium1

They don't say anything about short-term missions, or any mention of a time period...none.

The title and introduction refer to longer missions, like to Mars, as 'future' missions. Longer missions are exposed to more of this hazard, compared to shorter missions, as we know.

You contradict yourself within a sentence, the rest of your post is you wriggling on a hook.

Please post evidence that the Apollo shielding provided inadequate protection from the VAB during the astronaut's brief passage through them. You have never done this, no matter how many times you claim to have done so.

Please tell us which technology was not available during Apollo that prevented astronauts landing on the moon.

You really think people wanted Shuttles after (supposedly) walking on the moon?!?

Most people really preferred to spend the next 40 years flying around in LEO?


In Apollo's fantasy world, we do..


However, in the real world, we certainly don't


You know it, too

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

They don't say anything about short-term missions, or any mention of a time period...none.

The title and introduction refer to longer missions, like to Mars, as 'future' missions. Longer missions are exposed to more of this hazard, compared to shorter missions, as we know.

You contradict yourself within a sentence, the rest of your post is you wriggling on a hook.

Please post evidence that the Apollo shielding provided inadequate protection from the VAB during the astronaut's brief passage through them. You have never done this, no matter how many times you claim to have done so.

Please tell us which technology was not available during Apollo that prevented astronauts landing on the moon.

As I said, look at what they're still trying to develop right now, and you'll have your answer .


Making excuses for it won't fly, not anymore...

Apollo can't point to one factor of being genuine, it all matches exactly to a hoax.