Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: HomerinNC
Couldn't be just that: a SIMULATOR to train for the landing, right?
We use simulators everyday fr training, the airlines, the military, doctors, EMS etc use training simulators to prepare themselves for different scenarios.
When you moon hoax people realize there is too much proof to ever deny we went to the moon?
Maybe you'll all deny ignorance one day, at least one can hope

Right, but if that is what it was, then why was it " discontinued soon after Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the moon before the 1960s were finished" ? (quoting from the article, at the very bottom)

Is it there today? Can people visit it like a museum?

a reply to: ContraTodo

The clue is in the sentence before the one to which you refer:

In theory the LOLA was brilliant, unfortunately though the device was not practical because after Apollo 11 in July 1969, NASA realised that there were no inherent problems in anticipating the lunar surface or landing.

This being the Daily Mail, it can not be relied on for historical accuracy - this from a NASA page

www.nasa.gov...

Unfortunately, such a simulation - although great fun and quite aesthetic - was not helpful because flight in lunar orbit posed no special problems other than the rendezvous with the LEM, which the device did not simulate. Not long after the end of Apollo, the expensive machine was dismantled."

So the machine was around throughout Apollo. There are images from a video shows the approach to Hadley Rille from Apollo 15 using LOLA, and here's a video showing the view during LOI:

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: ContraTodo

The clue is in the sentence before the one to which you refer:

In theory the LOLA was brilliant, unfortunately though the device was not practical because after Apollo 11 in July 1969, NASA realised that there were no inherent problems in anticipating the lunar surface or landing.

This being the Daily Mail, it can not be relied on for historical accuracy - this from a NASA page

www.nasa.gov...

Yes -- that last sentence in the Daily Mail story was a bit ambiguous.

Described by author James Hansen in his book, 'Spaceflight Revolution - NASA Langley Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo', as no more than a fairground ride, the LOLA was discontinued soon after Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the moon before the 1960s were finished.

I think what they meant was:

"Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the Moon before the 1960s were finished"

and NOT:

"LOLA was discontinued before the 1960s were finished".


As the link from NASA pointed out by 'onebigmonkey' states:

Not long after the end of Apollo, the expensive machine was dismantled.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Good video... Which reminds me of this video...

Shepard hits the golf ball and says, "Miles and miles and miles..." regarding the distance the golf ball travelled. As you can see in the video, he hits a fair amount of sediment when he hits the ball. The ball goes on for miles and miles but the sediment settles back down fairly quickly (which doesn't look right to me). Like your video demonstrates, the two objects react the same to the gravity. So how does he hit two objects with the same instrument at the same time and get two vastly different results?

Why does a golf ball hit on Earth travel hundreds of meters, while the clod of dirt plops to the ground nearby?Because of the resiliency and compactness of the structures. The golf ball is a resilient solid, the lunar dust acts as a liquid.

This is the perfect example of Moon Hoax believers being puzzled by something they see in lunar videos that they could also observe on Earth!

Yes along with how shadows fall,how they can point in different directions with one light source and no stars in photographs, they seem to walk about with their eyes firmly closed!

originally posted by: wmd_2008[/post]
originally posted by: DJW001[/post]
originally posted by: [post=19062256]Vroomfondel
a reply to: [post=19061515]Arbitrageur

Good video... Which reminds me of this video...

Shepard hits the golf ball and says, "Miles and miles and miles..." regarding the distance the golf ball travelled. As you can see in the video, he hits a fair amount of sediment when he hits the ball. The ball goes on for miles and miles but the sediment settles back down fairly quickly (which doesn't look right to me). Like your video demonstrates, the two objects react the same to the gravity. So how does he hit two objects with the same instrument at the same time and get two vastly different results?

Why does a golf ball hit on Earth travel hundreds of meters, while the clod of dirt plops to the ground nearby?Because of the resiliency and compactness of the structures. The golf ball is a resilient solid, the lunar dust acts as a liquid.

This is the perfect example of Moon Hoax believers being puzzled by something they see in lunar videos that they could also observe on Earth!

Yes along with how shadows fall,how they can point in different directions with one light source and no stars in photographs, they seem to walk about with their eyes firmly closed!

Careful guys, don't stoke yourselves too hard now. This thread is about DISCLOSURES. Do you have any DISCLOSURES?

Why hasn't Putin ordered a circumlunar mission to break the Russian Glass Ceiling? Why hasn't Putin sent Pussy Riot into space to show the world that the radiation belts are not a problem and cosmic radiation is not a problem and to prove - once and for all that space is safe for human circumlunar missions?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Your post doesn't disclose anything other than a new obsession.

If you want disclosure you can try looking at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and Apollo Flight Journal, which is full of documents, transcripts and photo and video support for the factual basis of the Apollo missions. There are many NASA sites that also provide huge amounts of information,

You can also try your local library and get the wealth of books that discuss every aspect of the mission, as well as first hand accounts by those involved. You can even go and listen to presentations by those people, not just astronauts but people from Mission Control. You can go to a university library and read the vast numbers of technical research publications by scientists all over the world who have carried out studies on Apollo samples and data. You can look at studies by people like me who have examined every photograph and piece of video and found nothing at odds with the statement that Apollo happened as described in the history books.

You can look at all this data, or you can spend your time obsessing about metadata. You can discuss the missions or you can discuss the people at the periphery with no involvement other than glory hunting. You can join in an ongoing debate or you can try to desperately shoehorn in your own personal hobbyhorse when people haven't been discussing your favourite subjects for a while.

The truth about Apollo has been disclosed for decades.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

`

Why hasn't Putin ordered a circumlunar mission to break the Russian Glass Ceiling?

He has. Boy, are you going to be embarrassed in a few years.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

`

Why hasn't Putin ordered a circumlunar mission to break the Russian Glass Ceiling?

He has. Boy, are you going to be embarrassed in a few years.

TASS on Friday obtained a detailed — though as yet unapproved — strategy for moon missions between now and 2050.

So did the program get approved? Or is Putin too scared to do what Nixon had done 43 years ago?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

The truth about Apollo has been disclosed for decades.

Fairy tales from the Nixon first term 1968-1972.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

`

Why hasn't Putin ordered a circumlunar mission to break the Russian Glass Ceiling?

He has. Boy, are you going to be embarrassed in a few years.

TASS on Friday obtained a detailed — though as yet unapproved — strategy for moon missions between now and 2050.

So did the program get approved? Or is Putin too scared to do what Nixon had done 43 years ago?

so what you are suggesting is that your russian glass ceiling is only known about by Putin, since roscosmos has no problems with it..

considering roscosmos have no russian glass ceiling and only Putin has the russian glass ceiling, you believe your russian glass ceiling must be a psychological glass ceiling in Putins mind.

originally posted by: choos

before you said they are not using aluminium anymore on future spacecrafts.. therefore you are wrong.


you missed my point.. you said future spacecrafts will not be built with aluminium due to radiation protection reasons.. and yet the very next spacecraft they are building is made from aluminium..


whether or not they use aluminium as radiation shielding is not my point.. my point is you claimed it would no longer be used because it was deemed too deadly to use and yet the very next spacecraft is made from aluminium even if it might have something else to protect it from particle radiation the spacecraft is still made from aluminium.

No, look at what I said....

"The sources clearly state, repeatedly, that aluminum is not only a poor material for shielding GCR radiation, it actually makes it more hazardous to astronauts in the spacecraft. Our future spacecraft will not be built with aluminum shielding, for that very reason."

You even quoted me on that, in your own post.

You can keep on trying to spin it over and over, but you've already proven my own case, so you might not want to go there.


Maybe you didn't realize what I said, which means you didn't read my quote before posting it. That's not much better than spinning it, really.

No matter....as (I hope) you now grasp my actual points about this.... right?




They have built the Orion spacecraft with aluminum...

So what?

originally posted by: Kr0nZ
reply to post by filosophia

 

NASA has already announced they plan to go back to the moon within the next 10 years, AND STAY THERE, but I suppose you all think they are going to fake that too.

I also don't think a Moon Hoax disclosure is coming, because there is nothing to disclose. But there's no way to prove that to the hoax believer.

mate if they can get through the van allen belt and sustain human life in the process in the next ten years i will personaly buy you a bottle of dom perignon.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They have built the Orion spacecraft with aluminum...

So what?

So Orion is using aluminum, if gcr's were as deadly when using aluminum as you believe why is Orion built primarily from aluminum, you even said no future spacecrafts will be using aluminium, what's the magic shielding that will block 100% of gcrs?

originally posted by: choos

have you been paying any attention to what anyone was saying about how Apollo avoided the more dangerous areas of the VAB in your years as a hoax believer or have you always kept your fingers in your ears??


the Apollo craft didnt go through the most intense areas, it went through the outer edges which isnt always practical depending on target location..

We know that NASA has to study the VAB "before they can send a manned spacecraft through it".

You tell me that Apollo didn't actually fly through it, as they avoided the most intense areas by staying along its "outer edges", which is far less intense!

That was done on all 9 missions, which makes it 18 times in total, going back and forth...


So why are they now saying NASA has to study the VAB before they can send a manned spacecraft through it....?


If we flew around the edges all 18 times, as you say, then NASA would not need to study it, before they can send manned missions through it. NASA needs to, which means you are clearly wrong here.

Do you see them mention exclusions to their statement? Or that it's applicable to specific, certain areas of the VAB, only?

No.

You made that up, to excuse Apollo's goofball fantasy..... obviously.

a reply to: turbonium1

You conveniently ignored this bit:

it went through the outer edges which isn't always practical depending on target location

The target location was always the same. Other missions may have different targets. If am going to London there would be no point researching what is involved in getting to Norwich.

Do you have any evidence that Apollo didn't go through edges of the VAB? Do you have any evidence that says the trajectory they took would have provided an instantly lethal dose of radiation? Do you have any evidence at all about anything?

Are you disputing the Chandrayaan data that shows perfectly acceptable radiation levels on its passage through the VAB on the way to the moon? Are you disagreeing with the entirety of the world's experts in the subject?

What technology didn't they have in the 1960s? You're on record as saying you're happy that Surveyor missions happened as advertised and they actually landed on the moon. How come you don't think they have the technology to get to the moon?

originally posted by: turbonium1

We know that NASA has to study the VAB "before they can send a manned spacecraft through it".

and they did, unless you believe Gemini 11 was faked?

You tell me that Apollo didn't actually fly through it, as they avoided the most intense areas by staying along its "outer edges", which is far less intense!

That was done on all 9 missions, which makes it 18 times in total, going back and forth...

you didnt know??

So why are they now saying NASA has to study the VAB before they can send a manned spacecraft through it....?

the author of the article is saying that.. you are attributing what the author said to NASA.

If we flew around the edges all 18 times, as you say, then NASA would not need to study it, before they can send manned missions through it. NASA needs to, which means you are clearly wrong here.

how does NASA know where the edges are?? how does NASA know where the most intense areas of the VAB are??

NASA wants to further study the VAB so they can further understand it.. everybody knows how to get a human past it already.. everybody except hoax believers..

think of a hula-hoop on fire on the ground.. you are standing in the middle of it.. how are you going to get out without getting burnt?? is stepping/jumping over the hula-hoop on fire impossible for you to do?? you are making it seem like this is impossible..

even the most basic animals know that if there is a fire along its path it can simply go around it.. so why is it that hoax believers believe that the only way past is to go right through the middle of it??

Do you see them mention exclusions to their statement? Or that it's applicable to specific, certain areas of the VAB, only?

No.

You made that up, to excuse Apollo's goofball fantasy..... obviously.

no you are reading the authors OPINION and making that as a statement NASA themselves made, which is what im pointing out to you..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The target location was always the same. Other missions may have different targets. If am going to London there would be no point researching what is involved in getting to Norwich.

They say NASA has to study the VAB before they can send a manned mission through it, as we know.
They do NOT say this would only apply to any possible future manned missions (which have "different targets" than Apollo (supposedly) did, and even though all 9 Apollo missions had "different targets"!).

If you have any evidence they are talking only about missions with "different targets" than Apollo, please show me. Otherwise, we'll all know that you are just making it up.

I have other problems with your argument to bring up, but I'll wait for your reply to the above...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Do you have any evidence that Apollo didn't go through edges of the VAB? Do you have any evidence that says the trajectory they took would have provided an instantly lethal dose of radiation? Do you have any evidence at all about anything?

There is no evidence they DID go through the edges of the VAB, which is your claim, to begin with. If you can't prove the original claim, then it's not up to me to DISprove it.

If they did not go through the edges, do you actually believe they would have left any evidence of it?
There is no way we will ever find direct, hard evidence which proves the Apollo craft didn't go through the edges of the VAB. Do you expect to see documents with "FAKE APOLLO RADIATION DATA" stamped on them? Don't be absurd.

What we CAN do is assess whether or not any of the Apollo missions could have gone through the VAB, period.

We can look at what their own statements mean for Apollo missions. When they say NASA has to study the VAB before they can send a manned mission through it, for example.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Are you disputing the Chandrayaan data that shows perfectly acceptable radiation levels on its passage through the VAB on the way to the moon? Are you disagreeing with the entirety of the world's experts in the subject?

The experts are saying that the VAB must be studied before we can send a manned mission through the VAB.

YOU are the one who is disagreeing with the experts on this. I completely agree with them.

The experts are also saying aluminum is a very poor radiation shield in deep space, and even makes it worse of a hazard for humans.

YOU are the one who disagrees with the experts on that, while I completely agree with them.

As for the Chandrayaan data, please cite your sources...


Anyway, I found an interesting comment, about the mission...

Radiation Dose Monitor Experiment

Study the radiation hazards during the Moon exploration through the CHANDRAYAAN ? 1 mission. Data obtained will be used for the evaluation of radiation environment and radiation shielding requirements on future manned Moon missions.

The general purpose of the present proposition is to study the radiation hazards during the Moon exploration through the Chandrayaan-1 mission. Data obtained will be used for the evaluation of radiation environment and radiation shielding requirements on future manned Moon mission.


www.chandrayaan-i.com...

The Chandrayaan-1 mission was studying the radiation of the LUNAR environment., just as NASA's probes are now studying the radiation of the VAB environment. How many more studies will it take before you get a clue?

Of course, the C-1 mission also intended to use their data to help evaluate radiation shielding requirements for future manned moon missions, once again showing us what the experts really think about Apollo's radiation shielding...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
What technology didn't they have in the 1960s? You're on record as saying you're happy that Surveyor missions happened as advertised and they actually landed on the moon. How come you don't think they have the technology to get to the moon?

By their own words, and by their actions.

A manned craft has to shield a crew from the hazardous environment beyond LEO. While it's true we've developed adequate protection for unmanned craft going into deep space, THEY STATE we have yet to develop adequate protection for a manned craft meant to go into that same (deep space, or beyond LEO) environment.

THEY STATE IT. IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Since we know adequate shielding required for such missions has yet to exist, it cannot have existed 40 years ago, obviously.

They have sent probes into the VAB for that very reason.

THEIR OWN WORDS ARE CONFIRMED BY THEIR ACTIONS.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why is it that everytime you always try your best to avoid the topic of duration??

Gcr data in deep space exists, it has been collected, you continually deny this why?

You always say aluminum intensifies gcrs but you always fail to quantify this statement, why?

If you truly believed that aluminum will intensify gcrs to the point that it makes 14 days in deep space impossible then you should have no issues proving this, and yet you have never once shown us your calculations, you continually rely on your conjecture because you cannot comprehend what scientists are showing you.

It is not obmonkey that doesn't agree with the experts it is you who is deliberately misinterpreting what they are saying to continue your fantasy.

And the trajectory of each Apollo mission can be plotted from the transcript of you know what to do, Apollo 11 has already been done so by Rob braeunig, but ofcourse you will ignore this since it proves you wrong again.

www.braeunig.us...

One of the major human health issues facing future space travelers venturing beyond low-Earth orbit is the hazardous effects of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)," NASA wrote in a press release.

"Exposure to GCRs, immensely high-energy radiation that mainly originates outside the solar system, now limits mission duration to about 150 days while a mission to Mars would take approximately 500 days. These charged particles permeate the universe, and exposure to them is inevitable during space exploration."

m.phys.org...

Limits of about 150 days exposed to gcrs, and yet you believe 14 days is impossible?

originally posted by: turbonium1

They say NASA has to study the VAB before they can send a manned mission through it, as we know.

'They' also did this before Apollo and during the USSR's planning for their lunar missions, but do continue...

They do NOT say this would only apply to any possible future manned missions (which have "different targets" than Apollo (supposedly) did, and even though all 9 Apollo missions had "different targets"!).

Apollo's target was the moon. Always.

If you have any evidence they are talking only about missions with "different targets" than Apollo, please show me. Otherwise, we'll all know that you are just making it up.

You have been given many links in this thread, and you have supplied some yourself, that show that the next planned space vehicles intended to go beyond LEO are multi-purpose vehicles with a variety of missions planned for them, not just lunar landings. I am not jumping through hoops at your command to provide evidence you've already been given. Read the thread.

I have other problems with your argument to bring up, but I'll wait for your reply to the above...

The only problems you have are word blindness and reading comprehension. Why wait? If you have a point, make it. If you have evidence, provide it.

There is no evidence they DID go through the edges of the VAB, which is your claim, to begin with. If you can't prove the original claim, then it's not up to me to DISprove it.

You have been given ample evidence of the Apollo trajectories through the edges of the VAB, and we have had discussions about how long those trajectories took. To pretend you haven't seen them is dishonest at best. I am not jumping through hoops at your command to provide evidence you've already been given. Read the thread.

If they did not go through the edges, do you actually believe they would have left any evidence of it?
There is no way we will ever find direct, hard evidence which proves the Apollo craft didn't go through the edges of the VAB. Do you expect to see documents with "FAKE APOLLO RADIATION DATA" stamped on them? Don't be absurd.

In other words, even if I had done your bidding, you still wouldn't believe it. What is the point? The fact that the Apollo data that do exist show complete accord with every other readings taken in the same environments won't do either I guess.

What we CAN do is assess whether or not any of the Apollo missions could have gone through the VAB, period.

We can look at what their own statements mean for Apollo missions. When they say NASA has to study the VAB before they can send a manned mission through it, for example.

They did study it before Apollo, during Apollo, after Apollo and now, not just the US but every other nation with space faring ambitions. You on't stop studying something once you think you've found out what it is. You keep studying until all the data are in that meet your requirements. Do you have any data that prove Apollo astronauts could not have got through the VAB? What do you think should have happened to them? What radiation levels do you think they should have received and why are they different to what is reported? Gee, do you think it's because they used an appropriate trajectory, the CSM had adequate shielding and that you're completely wrong?

The experts are saying that the VAB must be studied before we can send a manned mission through the VAB.

Yeah you said that, why are you ignoring the studies done by the US and USSR before Apollo? The experts also say that people landed on the moon. Which ones are you cherry picking to believe and why?

YOU are the one who is disagreeing with the experts on this. I completely agree with them.

Show me where I disagree with them. The same experts you claim to agree with also say we went to the moon.

The experts are also saying aluminum is a very poor radiation shield in deep space, and even makes it worse of a hazard for humans.

Aluminium, and only aluminium, isn't the best radiation shield for long term missions. Show me where Apollo only used aluminium. Suggest a different source of shielding that they would have had available.

YOU are the one who disagrees with the experts on that, while I completely agree with them.

Show me where I disagree with them. The same experts you claim to agree with also say we went to the moon.

As for the Chandrayaan data, please cite your sources...

The source, and its findings, were given a few pages ago in this thread. Conveniently you seem to have missed it. I am not jumping through hoops at your command to provide evidence you've already been given. Read the thread.

...snipped for post length..

The Chandrayaan-1 mission was studying the radiation of the LUNAR environment., just as NASA's probes are now studying the radiation of the VAB environment. How many more studies will it take before you get a clue?

Of course, the C-1 mission also intended to use their data to help evaluate radiation shielding requirements for future manned moon missions, once again showing us what the experts really think about Apollo's radiation shielding...

And also to work out the accumulated doses during the duration of a mission. Getting a clue there? What did they find? Do they prove you right or not?

The lunar radiation environment was also studied by Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, and Soviet Luna and Zond probes before and during the Apollo missions. They didn't find anything impossible about a human being landing and working on the moon for short duration missions.

Your suggestion that once you study something you never study it again shows you know nothing about how science works.

By their own words, and by their actions.

Their words and actions show they landed on the moon

A manned craft has to shield a crew from the hazardous environment beyond LEO. While it's true we've developed adequate protection for unmanned craft going into deep space, THEY STATE we have yet to develop adequate protection for a manned craft meant to go into that same (deep space, or beyond LEO) environment.

THEY STATE IT. IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Show us where they say they have 'yet to develop' shielding. Working on new shielding for new craft and new mission types does not mean they had none before. Show us how Apollo's shielding was inadequate, with actual numbers.

Since we know adequate shielding required for such missions has yet to exist, it cannot have existed 40 years ago, obviously.

They have sent probes into the VAB for that very reason.

THEIR OWN WORDS ARE CONFIRMED BY THEIR ACTIONS.

Nope, that is not what it means. You fail at science and the interpretation of scientific papers.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


In other words, even if I had done your bidding, you still wouldn't believe it. What is the point?

That pretty much sums up any and all arguments with Moon hoax fetishists.