Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Really?

Really??

That's the best you have? What something was called and 2 hours of stupid?

dorkmission.blogspot.co.uk...

www.badastronomy.com...

I see he's still claiming to be a NASA advisor, which is a nice play on words as all he's ever done is advise about NASA - not for.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Hundreds of people saw each Command Module land and the contents removed

then according to your hypothesis, everything that egresses from the atmosphere has sojourn on the moon ...

once again ,,the propagandists have exposed their lack of evidence to sustain their paradigm,,,

a reply to: Misinformation

That's just the kind of non sequitur that shows your lack of knowledge and your willingness to twist what has actually been said into some made up nonsense. Not everything that leaves the atmosphere has been to the moon, for you to claim that is what I said is a stupid and deliberate misinterpretation of what I wrote.

It was in response to a piece of garbage that has been doing the rounds on the internet claiming the CM wasn't big enough for all the stuff in it. The video is a lie, and it easily disproven by the fact that hundreds of witnesses have seen exactly what came out of the CM, and hundreds of witnesses and pages of documentation know how the CM was built and what went in to it. All that is available for you to read about, look at and watch. There is also ample documentation and evidence, corroborated by scientists and lunar observers from many many countries over many decades, that proves that the Apollo Command Module took astronauts to the moon and returned them safely to Earth. You have absolutely nothing that proves otherwise.

Provide some evidence, go on, I dare you. Provide some actual evidence that is verifiable, undebunkable, and not full of falsehoods, misrepresentations and lies.

I am not a propagandist for anyone, but I'm happy to call out videos like the one SJ posted for what they are: lies produced by liars.

The main problems we have to solve for a manned moon landing, long held in secret, are slowly being revealed, now..

originally posted by: turbonium1
The main problems we have to solve for a manned moon landing, long held in secret, are slowly being revealed, now..

Your specificity is positively frightening.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The main problems we have to solve for a manned moon landing, long held in secret, are slowly being revealed, now..

The problems that needed solving for a manned lunar landing were solved, publicly, and with more documentation than you have ever read.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you are confusing long term mission shielding with short term mission shielding of HUMANS..
and lumping it all together with what this guy is saying about shielding the ELECTRONICS onboard Orion..

you even realised he is talking about shielding the electronics.. and now you are trying to twist in what they say about long term missions??

do you know what one extremely effective "shield" against radiation is?? exposure time..

You claim there is an exception for short missions, of up to 7 days maximum, right?

And it is your burden to try and prove this claim, right?

Do you see how broken your argument is?? Why would I, someone who believes all Apollo missions happened as they did, believe that aluminium only allows a maximum of 7 days??

You are now just talking jibberish and trolling me. You know full well that you are of the opinion that not a single Apollo lunar mission occurred because aluminium makes gcrs too deadly, that means you are of the opinion that 6 days in deep space with aluminum shielding is absolutely impossible.

Therefore it is your claim, you are the one with the opinion contrary to historical fact, the burden of proof lies with you!

You've seen the documents on aluminum. They confirm - aluminum is not only a poor radiation shield for the deep space environment, it actually makes GCR radiation more hazardous to a crew than before!

That is a fact.

But you still keep claiming that aluminum is adequate shielding, for a crew in deep space...

And those documents give the dose from gcrs with aluminum as shielding and the dose is still very very very low, somethjng you fail to understand. Unless you can prove to me that aluminum makes gcr dose very high you have no argument.
Get over it.

You claim it is adequate for short stays in deep space, of up to 7 days, maximum.

You are grasping at straws so much your argument is a complete mess..

If I claimed it was adequate for 7 days max then why do I believe Apollo 17 happened???

Get your arguments straight!! You are the one claiming all Apollo lunar missions were impossible because of gcr, this means you are claiming gcr are deadly for anything less than 6 days, your claim get it right troll.

Huge problem - their documents don't support a lick of your argument, whatsoever

No exceptions are mentioned in their documents, for any missions, for any duration.

Not a lick?? Because you cherry pick, when they say they are limited to about 150 days that doesn't count right?

Documents don't support that deep space exploration is currently limited to a maximum of 7 days because that is outright false.

For sure, the experts all knew Apollo is considered an exception to this, just as you consider it now.

They don't consider it an exception, and that's the reason they don't mention it.

They don't need to mention it, because they were all short term,

Every single document you have attempted to use is referring to long term protection but since you don't understand such documents you choose to cherry pick in an attempt to continue trolling.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
The problems that needed solving for a manned lunar landing were solved

the propagandists have yet too reconcile with the reality of the lack of radiation shielding , this apparent deficiency has facilitated inconsistencies, detracting from the veracity of the propagandists assumptions & hindering the achievement of an actual moon landing...once the propagandists procure this synthesis it will expedite a problem resolution ...

originally posted by: Misinformation

Not that this word salad makes any sense at all, but let's try and break it down:

the propagandists have yet too reconcile with the reality of the lack of radiation shielding ,

Absolute nonsense. not one science denier has ever come up with any figures that disprove the notion that Apollo's shields were inadequate. You are making that even more stupid by claiming they had none at all.

this apparent deficiency has facilitated inconsistencies,

There are no inconsistencies. Find one for us.

detracting from the veracity of the propagandists assumptions & hindering the achievement of an actual moon landing...once the propagandists procure this synthesis it will expedite a problem resolution ...

This is gibberish. Did a bot write this?

originally posted by: turbonium1

We can only speculate.

In a nutshell.

That is all you ever do.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Really?

Really??

That's the best you have? What something was called and 2 hours of stupid?

You are missing the point dude. Hoagland's 2-hour analysis of the Chinese lunar mission is some of the best lunar research material available.. you don't see NASA coming to conclusions... because NASA is never allowed to come to conclusions that's why we always have Never A Straight Answer from N A S A...

I think that Richard Hoagland and Phil Plait should have a face off. Phil Plait was a consultant on the Mythbusters episode #104 Moon landing hoax mythbustersresults.com...

Richard Hoagland has been documenting his narrative for 45 years... it is an alternative narrative... but it is very compelling. I think it would be pretty cool to hear these guys rap about the space narrative, what is hidden, what is going on, what is the future. That would be cool.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1
The main problems we have to solve for a manned moon landing, long held in secret, are slowly being revealed, now..

The problems that needed solving for a manned lunar landing were solved, publicly, and with more documentation than you have ever read.

Richard Nixon was the president for all 6 Apollo "moon" landings. It's all public knowledge. touché. It has all been documented.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1
The main problems we have to solve for a manned moon landing, long held in secret, are slowly being revealed, now..

The problems that needed solving for a manned lunar landing were solved, publicly, and with more documentation than you have ever read.

Richard Nixon was the president for all 6 Apollo "moon" landings. It's all public knowledge. touché. It has all been documented.

He was not President (not yet sworn in) when Apollo 8 broke your "glass ceiling".

But OK -- I agree that it is documented that he was president from 1969 to 1974.

originally posted by: choos

Do you see how broken your argument is?? Why would I, someone who believes all Apollo missions happened as they did, believe that aluminium only allows a maximum of 7 days??

You are now just talking jibberish and trolling me. You know full well that you are of the opinion that not a single Apollo lunar mission occurred because aluminium makes gcrs too deadly, that means you are of the opinion that 6 days in deep space with aluminum shielding is absolutely impossible.

Therefore it is your claim, you are the one with the opinion contrary to historical fact, the burden of proof lies with you!

"You know full well that you are of the opinion that not a single Apollo lunar mission occurred because aluminium makes gcrs too deadly"

Talking gibberish and trolling is your specialty, without a doubt.

I've never said this, and YOU "know full well" I have not. I am NOT "of the opinion", as you put it, or more like, as you twist it.

If I had really said it, then you would be able to quote me saying it. But you can't, so you twist what I really said, and try to pass it off as my.... "opinion".

I've told you repeatedly to stop twisting my arguments, but you go on doing it.

It only shows that you can't support your argument, to be so desperate.


YOU brought up the claim of short-stays,as proven with YOUR OWN QUOTES...

originally posted by: choos
actually no, aluminium is a good enough shield for short missions.. because the time of exposure is not high enough with regards to GCR's.. aluminium is not good enough for long term missions because simply the effective dose in one year approaches the limits set for one year and at times exceeds it.. you can look at the reports yourself..

originally posted by: choos
actually yes.. for short stays on the moon, excluding large SPE's they dont need shielding against GCR's.

there i said it.

p.s. prove me wrong.. provide the numbers which suggest GCR's are so high in deep space that a man cannot survive without getting sick in 6-12 days time.

and the numbers which show that inside an aluminium shell the radiation levels will exceed 4Sv since you believe they should kill or make astronauts sick within 6 days.

You claimed aluminum shielding is adequate for short stays, which you put at 6-12 days. Up to 7 days, then, would still be within your 6-12 days range, anyway.

You brought up the original claim, that short stays (of 6-12 days) in deep space/on the moon, can use aluminum shielding.

YOU have the burden of proving that claim.


The figures you've shown me are NOT proof, because, first of all, they are not even real figures, they are only 'guesstimates'.

You say we HAVE real figures, which show GCR radiation is safe for short stays, like Apollo...

The problem is not in getting the real figures, the problem is NOBODY KNOWS what the effects of GCR radiation are on humans, at ANY level.

If Apollo had real figures, then we'd obviously know what the effects of GCR radiation are on humans, over a period of 5-6 days, right? Sure. But you can't find anything to prove we know the effects on humans. Just because the Apollo astronauts claim to have been in deep space, so what? It is not proof of anything.

Aluminum would be considered adequate shielding on short stay missions. You believe they consider it adequate for such missions.

SHOW ME PROOF THEY NOW - AS OF TODAY - REALLY SAY THEY CONSIDER ALUMINUM TO BE ADEQUATE SHIELDING FOR SUCH MISSIONS

I've shown you documents on this issue, and they repeatedly say aluminum is not adequate shielding for ANY manned mission in deep space, period. THAT IS MY PROOF.

WHERE IS YOURS?

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've never said this, and YOU "know full well" I have not. I am NOT "of the opinion", as you put it, or more like, as you twist it.

If I had really said it, then you would be able to quote me saying it. But you can't, so you twist what I really said, and try to pass it off as my.... "opinion".

OK, so you're happy that aluminium is an acceptable shield for short term missions.

You claimed aluminum shielding is adequate for short stays, which you put at 6-12 days. Up to 7 days, then, would still be within your 6-12 days range, anyway.

You brought up the original claim, that short stays (of 6-12 days) in deep space/on the moon, can use aluminum shielding.

They did use aluminium shielding, and produced data from it, which you have access to. Lots of probes also produced data prior to apollo on radiation levels for short missions. You also have access to this. Your complaint is not the lack of data, it's that you don't believe the data. Belief is not enough - prove it wrong.

The figures you've shown me are NOT proof, because, first of all, they are not even real figures, they are only 'guesstimates'.

How do you know they aren't real? The figures produced by Apollo and by Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor and Zond are all real, but you don't like those ones so you will ignore them. Prove them wrong.

The problem is not in getting the real figures, the problem is NOBODY KNOWS what the effects of GCR radiation are on humans, at ANY level.

If you're going to argue that no-one knows the effects of GCR at any level then that does include your position as well. If no-one knows, this includes you.

If Apollo had real figures, then we'd obviously know what the effects of GCR radiation are on humans, over a period of 5-6 days, right? Sure. But you can't find anything to prove we know the effects on humans. Just because the Apollo astronauts claim to have been in deep space, so what? It is not proof of anything.

They do have real figures, because they went to the moon. Prove they didn't.

Aluminum would be considered adequate shielding on short stay missions. You believe they consider it adequate for such missions.

SHOW ME PROOF THEY NOW - AS OF TODAY - REALLY SAY THEY CONSIDER ALUMINUM TO BE ADEQUATE SHIELDING FOR SUCH MISSIONS

I've shown you documents on this issue, and they repeatedly say aluminum is not adequate shielding for ANY manned mission in deep space, period. THAT IS MY PROOF.

Stop shouting, it's ignorant and rude.

You have no proof, you only have modern assessments of risk based on modern studies and modern safety criteria.

The word risk is important and you need to find out what that means in terms of data analysis.

Show us your proof that Apollo had inadequate shielding for its missions. Show us your proof that Apollo astronauts should have received a fatal dose of radiation.

originally posted by: choos

Because you cherry pick, when they say they are limited to about 150 days that doesn't count right?

Right, it doesn't count. Claims need evidence to actually count, and your claim of 150 days has absolutely none.

originally posted by: choos
They don't need to mention it, because they were all short term,

That is nonsense.

What would a short term mission be, then?

They don't define what a short term mission would be, whether it be a week, or two weeks, or a month. But, whatever they consider a short term mission to be, you believe they don't need to mention them! They are all fine with aluminum shielding, because they are not mentioned at all!

Seriously, now...

They do not exclude any type of mission in deep space. They say we cannot do manned missions in deep space with aluminum shielding, period. That means ANY manned mission which goes into deep space, of ANY length, cannot, will not, use aluminum shielding.

A short term mission is not even defined as a specific length of time, so how do you know what they consider to be a short term mission is, much less know they don't need to mention them??

Your argument is utterly ridiculous, and you surely must know that, too.

originally posted by: choos
Every single document you have attempted to use is referring to long term protection but since you don't understand such documents you choose to cherry pick in an attempt to continue trolling.

You are the only one cherry-picking here. Much worse, you make up a bunch of crap that they don't even say! That they "don't need to mention"! What a joke!

Anything that is said in the document has to stand as is. You cannot invent something they "don't need to mention", or 'what they 'implicitly would have meant, without ever saying it'.

These documents stand as is.

You cannot revise them wherever you choose, or assume this or that is meant, just because your argument can't hold up if you don't change it.

a reply to: turbonium1

Still waiting for your proof that Apollo's shielding was inadequate and that the astronauts received a fatal radiation dose, or that any dose they received exceeded any levels considered acceptable at the time or at present.

Never mind your pointless semantics and goal-post moving over short or long term, show us proof that what actually happened didn't.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

You have no proof, you only have modern assessments of risk based on modern studies and modern safety criteria.

The word risk is important and you need to find out what that means in terms of data analysis.

Show us your proof that Apollo had inadequate shielding for its missions. Show us your proof that Apollo astronauts should have received a fatal dose of radiation.

I've shown you documents that repeatedly state aluminum is not only inadequate as a shield in deep space, it makes it even more hazardous than without any shield at all.

That is my proof that Apollo had inadequate shielding for its missions - because they SAY it is, in their documents.

You Apollo-ites just make up things they don't say it in the documents, and pretend they meant it that way.

I don't consider that proof.

You obviously seem to think it is.

We now know aluminum is not adequate shielding in deep space.

We now know the VA Belts are completely different than we'd always believed they were.

Both of these scientific discoveries have begun a methodical, inevitable unravelling of the Apollo hoax.

Our progress in science, and space, will make it virtually impossible to prop up the Apollo story, over the next decade, without a doubt.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've shown you documents that repeatedly state aluminum is not only inadequate as a shield in deep space,

For long term missions based on modern standards and risk assessments.

it makes it even more hazardous than without any shield at all.

No. You are misunderstanding how Bremsstrahlung works. The reason why Aluminium works as opposed to any of the heavier metals is because the Bremsstrahlung radiation it produces is less. You are also continiung to make the mistake of assuming that the only thing preventing any kind of radiation entering the CSM is aluminium. Other materials were present in the construction.

That is my proof that Apollo had inadequate shielding for its missions - because they SAY it is, in their documents.

Documents covering long term missions and analysing the risk. Other documents produced by the same organisations show Apollo astronaut dosages well within acceptable limits - even by modern standards. These same scientists and organisations say we went to the moon.

You Apollo-ites just make up things they don't say it in the documents, and pretend they meant it that way.

That would be you making up what people are saying. Show us anything in any document you have linked to, or any other document, that says Apollo's shielding was inadequate, or that the astronauts received a lethal dose of radiation. Any time you like.

I don't consider that proof.

Your standards are as irrelevant as they are wrong.

You obviously seem to think it is.

I consider your desperate clinging to the radiation argument as an admission that you have no answer to any of the other evidence around that proves Apollo astronauts went to the moon. You consider it your best proof, yet you are unable to produce any evidence that shows that Apollo's shielding wasn't up to the job, or that anyone designing shields for modern spacecraft thinks that Apollo's shielding wasn't adequate for the missions they did.

Apollo had radiation data available to them, they designed mission profiles, procedures and equipment that balanced radiation risk with spaceship design. You have absolutely no proof that they didn't.