Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.

Sounds great in front of a mirror on your soapbox, but it's meaningless hyperbole.

We know aluminium provides acceptable levels of shielding for short term lunar missions.

We know how to minimise exposure to VAB radiation by designing trajectories that avoid what was known to be the most intense regions.

There is no hoax to unravel, you do not understand the evidence you present that you think proves your case.

Consider this -

The documents that I've shown are trying to determine the effects of deep space radiation on humans.

Apollo (supposedly) proved it was safe for humans over a few days in deep space.

To ignore the only data in existence, and prefer to only use guesstimates which are not even real data, would simply not be done. It''s ridiculous.

Question: How is a guesstimate, without real data, and without humans, relevant to long term missions, but genuine measurements, with real data, and with humans in the environment, NOT worth mentioning?

Answer: When you're living in Apollo's fantasy-land....

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

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.

The documents say aluminum is inadequate shielding for manned missions in deep space. True.

Apollo was mostly built of aluminum, which is inadequate shielding for manned missions in deep space. True.

By that, the documents confirm that Apollo's shielding was inadequate.

It is the only possible conclusion to make.


They can't make it more clear, to anyone who is willing to connect the dots.

a reply to: turbonium1

The documents say aluminum is inadequate shielding for manned missions in deep space. True.

Medical sciences says that all human beings die. True.

Apollo was mostly built of aluminum, which is inadequate shielding for manned missions in deep space. True.

You are a human being. True.

By that, the documents confirm that Apollo's shielding was inadequate.

It is the only possible conclusion to make.

Therefore, medical science says that you are dead. That is the only possible conclusion to make.

They can't make it more clear, to anyone who is willing to connect the dots.

You are the most tedious fake Hoaxie around. Please take your act to Godlike Productions where it belongs.

originally posted by: turbonium1

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

but you are free to make claims that to date GCR's will kill anyone in any amount of time when aluminium is used in spacecraft construction?? you dont need evidence for this claim now do you?? double standards much??

That is nonsense.

What would a short term mission be, then?

you cant tell the difference between 2 weeks and several months??? Apollo have their stated time spent in deep space.. 14 days was the maximum 6 days was the minimum lunar missions.. compare that to a trip to mars which will take several MONTHS.. even a pre-schooler could work out which one is considered short term and which one is considered long term..

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!

they define missions to mars.. which will take several months using current propulsion systems.. are you really this clueless?

Seriously, now...

They do not exclude any type of mission in deep space.

think about this for a second.. if they dont exclude any type of missions you are claiming that spending anything more than a fraction of a second in deep space with aluminium is deadly..

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.

for long journeys ie. mars.. short travels and stays on the moon are safe as can be shown in the documents YOU attempt to quote from..

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??

most people including children under 10 years old can work out that 14 days would be considered short term when compared with 300 days.. but i guess thats too difficult for you to grasp?

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

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!

says the guy trying to quote from a document while ignoring the data that was used to reach the quote... funny troll.

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'.

somethings they dont need to mention.. you are basically trying to suggest that a report on rocket performance is required to explain newtons laws to its readers because if it doesnt it doesnt apply.. stop grasping at straws..
you need to accept that you dont have the capability to understand the report because it was not meant for your level of knowledge..

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.

you are the one trying to revise them.. the data contained in the report clearly shows that 14 days in deep space using aluminium as a shield is harmless.. the data contained in the report also clearly shows that it will take several months in deep space before the radiation becomes limiting..
you failed to understand it..
you tried to cherry pick quotes and ignored the data supporting the quotes..
and you continue to do so.. you are a troll.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Consider this -

The documents that I've shown are trying to determine the effects of deep space radiation on humans.

you see.. THAT is your problem.. solid proof right there that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENTS..

the documents you have quoted from are NOT trying to determine the effects of deep space radiation on humans..

a reply to: turbonium1

They can't make it more clear, to anyone who is willing to connect the dots.

Turbo, you should check out the Russian Glass Ceiling at 475km.

The international space altitude records are crucial to the Apollo narratives. The Russians simply *stopped* making altitude records in 1965 and they have stayed in low earth orbit for 50 years.

We can safely say that the only world leader capable of landing on the moon was Richard Nixon. Nobody can deny that Richard Nixon has been the only world leader in human history to talk on the telephone with astronauts on "the moon".

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

The documents say aluminum is inadequate shielding for manned missions in deep space. True.

Medical sciences says that all human beings die. True.

Apollo was mostly built of aluminum, which is inadequate shielding for manned missions in deep space. True.

You are a human being. True.

By that, the documents confirm that Apollo's shielding was inadequate.

It is the only possible conclusion to make.

Therefore, medical science says that you are dead. That is the only possible conclusion to make.

They can't make it more clear, to anyone who is willing to connect the dots.

You are the most tedious fake Hoaxie around. Please take your act to Godlike Productions where it belongs.

Better yet, let's take your pompous fool "act" over to where it belongs, into the garbage, and we'll immediately solve the whole problem.

You have written one of the most illogical, inane analogies I've ever come across, which is quite a remarkable feat of ineptitude.

For your analogy, the only possible conclusion to CORRECTLY make is that I will die, eventually, like everyone else who is alive today will eventually be "dead", one day.

It's not hard to grasp the significant difference here, is it?

a reply to: turbonium1

So, you admit that you can see the fallacy in my arguments, yet you refuse to admit you commit exactly the same fallacy in your own reasoning. You are not as stupid as you want us to believe I see.

Given that this thread serves no purpose beyond providing lulz to trolls, I submit that this thread be closed in the hopes that a genuine Hoaxie will open one that actually raises issues, rather than this one, which is now limited entirely to vague innuendo.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The international space altitude records are crucial to the Apollo narratives. The Russians simply *stopped* making altitude records in 1965 and they have stayed in low earth orbit for 50 years.

That is because they have been using exactly the same booster since 1965. When they have the N-1 man-rated, they will finally be able to go to the Moon.

a reply to: DJW001

Given that this thread serves no purpose beyond providing lulz to trolls

This is an entertainment site...why would you want to take away the entertainment ?

I submit that this thread be closed

why?...are you not being payed enough or is there no entertainment value to you ?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I find intellectual stimulation necessary for entertainment. I don't like the Three Stooges, either.

originally posted by: choos

but you are free to make claims that to date GCR's will kill anyone in any amount of time when aluminium is used in spacecraft construction?? you dont need evidence for this claim now do you?? double standards much??

I've never claimed that, as I've told you over and over again. Stop spewing this crap.

originally posted by: choos
you cant tell the difference between 2 weeks and several months??? Apollo have their stated time spent in deep space.. 14 days was the maximum 6 days was the minimum lunar missions.. compare that to a trip to mars which will take several MONTHS.. even a pre-schooler could work out which one is considered short term and which one is considered long term..

You can't grasp what I'm saying here, actually.

Of course, 6-14 days would be considered a short mission, and several months, or a year, would be considered a long mission.

What about a mission of 3-4 weeks? Would it still be considered a 'short' mission?

What about a mission of 5-6 weeks, or 7-8 weeks? Would you consider them 'short' missions, too?

At what point do you consider it to be a LONG mission?

And why would it go from being a 'short' mission to being a 'long' mission? Wouldn't there be any 'medium' duration missions in between?

The point is this - you claim these documents are only referring to aluminum being inadequate shielding on 'long' term missions, several months or longer, such as a Mars mission would be, and not to 'short' term missions, of 6-14 days, as Apollo (supposedly) was.

They don't exclude ANY missions, of ANY duration, in fact.

originally posted by: choos
think about this for a second.. if they dont exclude any type of missions you are claiming that spending anything more than a fraction of a second in deep space with aluminium is deadly..

No, I'm not claiming that.

I am taking the documents as is, word for word, exactly as they are MEANT to be taken, by the reader.

The documents didn't say aluminum will kill humans within a fraction of a second in deep space, nor do I claim it.

They DO claim aluminum is not only a poor shield in deep space, it makes the radiation even more hazardous than before. I claim it, too.

They DO claim no aluminum shielding will be used for manned spacecraft in deep space, for any future missions. So I claim it, too.

originally posted by: choos
for long journeys ie. mars.. short travels and stays on the moon are safe as can be shown in the documents YOU attempt to quote from..

No, the documents do not show those missions are "safe", not in any way, or in any statement, whatsoever.

The documents NEVER claim that aluminum shielding is "safe", for short missions, or any other missions, nor imply or suggest such a thing.

The documents note that for any manned missions in deep space, longer missions will have greater exposure to the hazards (ie: radiation) within the deep space environment, as compared to shorter missions.

To say longer missions are exposed to more hazards than shorter missions does not mean shorter missions are 'safe', in other words.

originally posted by: choos
most people including children under 10 years old can work out that 14 days would be considered short term when compared with 300 days.. but i guess thats too difficult for you to grasp?

Yes, and most 10 year-olds would also grasp that it does not have to be one or the other, of either a 6-14 days mission , or a 300+ days mission, but everything in between. I would hope that you have grasped this, as well.

originally posted by: choos
somethings they dont need to mention.. you are basically trying to suggest that a report on rocket performance is required to explain newtons laws to its readers because if it doesnt it doesnt apply.. stop grasping at straws..
you need to accept that you dont have the capability to understand the report because it was not meant for your level of knowledge..

It does apply to aluminum shielding, without a doubt. The documents claim aluminum is not adequate shielding in deep space. They state that no spacecraft we ever build in the future will use aluminum shielding, for any manned missions going into deep space.No exceptions are pointed out for your Apollo-type, 'short' missions.

a reply to: DJW001

Fair enough......a smoke and a drink always helps the entertainment value .....

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

So, you admit that you can see the fallacy in my arguments, yet you refuse to admit you commit exactly the same fallacy in your own reasoning. You are not as stupid as you want us to believe I see.

Given that this thread serves no purpose beyond providing lulz to trolls, I submit that this thread be closed in the hopes that a genuine Hoaxie will open one that actually raises issues, rather than this one, which is now limited entirely to vague innuendo.

There is no fallacy in my argument. I'm citing the statements within the documents, exactly as they are written.

Aluminum is not adequate shielding for any manned spacecraft going into deep space, in fact it's worse than no shielding at all because GCR radiation intensifies the hazard due to fragmentation of the radiation particles.

That is a fact, not a fallacy.

We will not build future spacecraft with aluminum shielding for manned deep space missions, because it is not adequate shielding, and makes it even more hazardous for humans than before, as I've explained above.

That is a fact, not a fallacy.


Deal with it.

originally posted by: turbonium1


Aluminum is not adequate shielding for any manned spacecraft going into deep space, in fact it's worse than no shielding at all because GCR radiation intensifies the hazard due to fragmentation of the radiation particles.

Nonsense. Not true. False.

All metals will produce Bremsstrahlung radiation. Aluminium produces much less than other metals because it is less dense. This is not the same as "Aluminium is worse than no shield at all", because it will stop some radiation getting through.

Yet again you present the fallacy that only aluminium was involved in the CSM construction. What was underneath the aluminium skin?

That is a fact, not a fallacy.

No, it is something misunderstand. If it is a fact you will have absolutely no problem presenting data that shows aluminium shielding is worse than no shielding at all.

We will not build future spacecraft with aluminum shielding for manned deep space missions, because it is not adequate shielding, and makes it even more hazardous for humans than before, as I've explained above.

False, not true.

Orion has aluminium in its construction. Orion is designed for longer term deep space missions.

Once again, because you seem to keep missing my repeated requests:

Please show any evidence you have, any at all, from any source you like, that shows that the Apollo shielding and mission planning did not provide adequate protection for astronauts for the duration of their missions.

Please provide any evidence you have, any at all, that demonstrates that the Apollo astronauts received a dose that exceeded safety standards - either those at the time or modern ones.

When you're ready. Any time you like.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Nonsense. Not true. False.

All metals will produce Bremsstrahlung radiation. Aluminium produces much less than other metals because it is less dense. This is not the same as "Aluminium is worse than no shield at all", because it will stop some radiation getting through.

Yet again you present the fallacy that only aluminium was involved in the CSM construction. What was underneath the aluminium skin?


No, it is something misunderstand. If it is a fact you will have absolutely no problem presenting data that shows aluminium shielding is worse than no shielding at all.


Orion has aluminium in its construction. Orion is designed for longer term deep space missions.

Once again, because you seem to keep missing my repeated requests:

Please show any evidence you have, any at all, from any source you like, that shows that the Apollo shielding and mission planning did not provide adequate protection for astronauts for the duration of their missions.

Please provide any evidence you have, any at all, that demonstrates that the Apollo astronauts received a dose that exceeded safety standards - either those at the time or modern ones.

As a hoax, the Apollo astronauts would not have encountered the hazardous radiation, since it is only found beyond LEO, so there would be no data to show you as it doesn't exist, obviously.

I've cited documents stating aluminum is not adequate shielding in deep space, and makes GCR radiation more hazardous by fragmenting through the material. Those are facts, there is no debating it.

If you want data on this, I suggest you should ask them for it, as they would best know where to get any of the relevant details on the matter, rather than me..

As for Apollo - show me the documents on its radiation shielding, if you can...

I've never seen any of it. Your group likes to say how Apollo is so well-documented, so why can't I find any Apollo documentation on the CSM's radiation shielding?

Orion has never sent humans beyond LEO, so you have no proof it can even fly past LEO with humans.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've never claimed that, as I've told you over and over again. Stop spewing this crap.

but you keep saying that Apollo is faked 100% because they used aluminium and GCR's would have made the Apollo lunar missions a space coffin..

so either.. GCR's are not as deadly as you believe it will be when aluminium is used or
GCR's will be so deadly that any use of aluminium is a death sentence in deep space..

make up your mind..

The point is this - you claim these documents are only referring to aluminum being inadequate shielding on 'long' term missions, several months or longer, such as a Mars mission would be, and not to 'short' term missions, of 6-14 days, as Apollo (supposedly) was.

The most constraining exposure limit is that for the BFO for which the 50 cSv/yr is not achieved until ≈30 g/cm2
www.cs.odu.edu...

so what you are telling me is that when they say that to limit dose to 50cSv per year they need ~30g/cm^2
it is definitely NOT considered short term because an Apollo lunar mission of a maximum 14 days is considered the same as one year??

They don't exclude ANY missions, of ANY duration, in fact.

so why are they using the dosage PER YEAR??

No, I'm not claiming that.

yes you are!! if it doesnt exclude ANY mission or ANY duration, then you are trying to tell me that they will reach their dose limits in ANY amount of time
basically saying they will exceed 50cSv in a fraction of a second.

I am taking the documents as is, word for word, exactly as they are MEANT to be taken, by the reader.

if so, you have conveniently skipped this sentence because it proves you completely and utterly wrong:
"The most constraining exposure limit is that for the BFO for which the 50 cSv/yr is not achieved until ≈30 g/cm2. "

The documents didn't say aluminum will kill humans within a fraction of a second in deep space, nor do I claim it.

you have suggested it, when you say that it "dont exclude ANY mission or ANY duration."

They DO claim aluminum is not only a poor shield in deep space, it makes the radiation even more hazardous than before. I claim it, too.

and they also show that GCR's, the radiation hazard you are talking about is very very very low level radiation.. so you have no point..

They DO claim no aluminum shielding will be used for manned spacecraft in deep space, for any future missions. So I claim it, too.

you might want to quote mine this claim.

No, the documents do not show those missions are "safe", not in any way, or in any statement, whatsoever.

yes they are.. it is because YOU dont know how to read a graph nor how to interpret a simple table.

all doses are given in cSv PER YEAR the absolute highest is 132 cSv PER YEAR which is about 0.36cSv PER DAY which is about 5 cSv for the longest Apollo lunar mission.. much much much below the prescribed limits..

The documents NEVER claim that aluminum shielding is "safe", for short missions, or any other missions, nor imply or suggest such a thing.

because 14 days in deep space makes GCR's inconsequential..

The documents note that for any manned missions in deep space, longer missions will have greater exposure to the hazards (ie: radiation) within the deep space environment, as compared to shorter missions.

thats pretty obvious.. something that you simply do not understand.. it takes several months of exposure before GCR's become the limiting factor.. the faster you understand this the better.

To say longer missions are exposed to more hazards than shorter missions does not mean shorter missions are 'safe', in other words.

but you know 100% absolute fact that Apollo lunar missions didnt happen because GCR's make short trips un safe..........

also are you trying to suggest that Apollo should have only occurred if it was completely risk free????

seriously.. GCR's are the least of their concerns in deep space for missions as short as Apollo.. you are grasping at straws

Yes, and most 10 year-olds would also grasp that it does not have to be one or the other, of either a 6-14 days mission , or a 300+ days mission, but everything in between. I would hope that you have grasped this, as well.

and most 10 year olds would be able to grasp that given dosage in per year intervals is considered longer than 14 days..

It does apply to aluminum shielding, without a doubt. The documents claim aluminum is not adequate shielding in deep space. They state that no spacecraft we ever build in the future will use aluminum shielding, for any manned missions going into deep space.No exceptions are pointed out for your Apollo-type, 'short' missions.

you dont understand how radiation exposure works.. its as simple as that..

you are basically trying to tell me that getting an x-ray or ct-scan is absolutely impossible because of a report on the Chernobyl exclusion zone saying its a hazard to live there.

originally posted by: turbonium1

As a hoax, the Apollo astronauts would not have encountered the hazardous radiation, since it is only found beyond LEO

Lies.. yet again you make "facts" up just like when you said centrifugal force doesnt exist without gravity or something like that..

they have ground based cosmic ray observatories..

so i guess you are required to believe that the ISS is fake also now.. because ISS has aluminium and if GCR's can be detected from ground based observatories the ISS is clearly exposed to them also..

so why can't I find any Apollo documentation on the CSM's radiation shielding?

because you have yet to grasp that any material acts as shielding against particle radiation.. you are looking for something specific titled "radiation shield" when your own skin can also act as shielding..
if you want documention on the CSM's radiation shielding you simply need to look at ALL the material that was used to construct it..

originally posted by: turbonium1

As a hoax, the Apollo astronauts would not have encountered the hazardous radiation, since it is only found beyond LEO, so there would be no data to show you as it doesn't exist, obviously.

So you don't have any data to show that Apollo's shielding was inadequate.

Understood.

However Apollo did return radiation data that matched perfectly well with radiation data supplied by Soviet and US probes in advance of Apollo.

Apollo went to the moon - there are mountains of evidence to prove that. You can't just ignore it because your narrow focus ends at LEO.

I've cited documents stating aluminum is not adequate shielding in deep space,

In long duration missions.

and makes GCR radiation more hazardous by fragmenting through the material. Those are facts, there is no debating it.

You have never debated anything, your position is unchanged no matter how little support it has. Please provide evidence that Apollo's aluminium shielding would have produced unacceptable levels of Brehmsstrahlung.

If you want data on this, I suggest you should ask them for it, as they would best know where to get any of the relevant details on the matter, rather than me..

No. You are the one making a claim, you need to back it up or shut up.

As for Apollo - show me the documents on its radiation shielding, if you can...

I've never seen any of it. Your group likes to say how Apollo is so well-documented, so why can't I find any Apollo documentation on the CSM's radiation shielding?

Because you aren't looking. Your failure to find data on Apollo's radiation shielding is not proof it had none or that it did not work.

Start with this one

ntrs.nasa.gov...

then go chase up the references.

Also, try google. Or better still, read a book.

Orion has never sent humans beyond LEO, so you have no proof it can even fly past LEO with humans.

And neither do you. But it has done radiation testing. Does it show anything inconsistent with data available at the time of Apollo?

Orion's capabilities are an irrelevant distraction - we are discussing Apollo. Orion has different mission profiles and different construction.