Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: turbonium1

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.

Like you, I made a series of factual statements and interpreted them in a way to reach a false conclusion, as you did. The importance of exposure has been explained to you countless times, yet you always seem to "forget" about it when making your arguments, just as I "forgot" that not all human beings are necessarily dead now.

a reply to: DJW001
exposure has been explained

Sensible individuals are more or less not definitely rejecting the hoax idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that the propagandists undeniably do or do not know where the radiation hazards shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where they aren't. Even if they weren't where they knew they were...

originally posted by: choos
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.

No..

THEY do not exclude any mission of any duration, in THEIR documents, therefore (by your argument), THEY "are trying to tell you that they will reach their dose limits in ANY amount of time".

THEY are trying to tell you that, according to your own argument!

originally posted by: choos
because 14 days in deep space makes GCR's inconsequential..

it takes several months of exposure before GCR's become the limiting factor...

Using aluminum shielding, correct?

They make no such claims in the documents I've cited on aluminum.

You have not shown me a single documents where they are making such claims, either.


If your claims are valid, as you contend, then why can you not provide even a single quote where they make such claims??


In fact, the only one I've seen making those claims so far...is YOU!


Do you have any quotes, to support those claims, or do you not?

If you do, it's time to show them. If not, then you obviously have just made it all up, and you're wasting my time by repeating it over and over again.

So which will it be?

a reply to: ppk55

'm here to set the record straight. Yes, we absolutely landed on the moon. This is fact. This theory, which attempts to denote one of humanity's greatest scientific achievements without a shred of evidence, is bogus. Let me tell you why, going through every piece of so called "evidence": 1. "Twinkle, Twinkle little star...how I wonder where you are!" Basic knowledge of photography quickly puts this in the bull# pile. Very simply, the exposure was too short! The moon is a gigantic reflective surface that bounces light from the sun (hence why you can see it at night). If the exposure was long enough to see the faint stars in the background, you wouldn't be able to see the astronauts! The reflective light from the moon would drown out everything in the foreground. They were there to film themselves on the moon, not to film stars! So the cameras were designed to have a very short exposure. In fact, in the vacuum of space the exposure would've had to be even shorter than that! Also, the stars wouldn't twinkle anyway. Twinkling is a byproduct of starlight filtering through our atmosphere. Since there's no atmosphere on the moon, they wouldn't twinkle! Thus, this "evidence" doesn't hold up at all.
A Game of Shadows-many lunar hoax theorists believe that the strange positioning of the shadows indicates TV lighting. The shadows seem to go opposite directions, which theorists contend is evidence of the double tv lighting. This one also utterly fails, for largely the same reason as the "star argument". Firstly, there ARE multiple light sources on the moon: The sun...and the MOON ITSELF! With all the reflected light and the light from the source (the sun), the shadows would have multiple light sources, thus explaining why their split in some pictures. Also, the moon is covered with weird surfaces. It's been bombarded with craters since it's birth. When the shadows form over these surfaces, they get weird and distorted. Having a shadow on a weird surface can change the way it looks. And having a shadow on a gigantic shining mirror to the sun can also change the way it looks! Thus, this argument is also complete nonsense.
Strange lights-Many hoax theorists have taken photos from Apollo and found strange lights in the background. They claim these lights are the TV lighting for the landing set. This ones also complete bull#, once again for the same reason as one and two. Anyone familiar with the filmography of JJ Abrams should know about lense flares. Basically, when a reflection of light passes through the camera, it creates weird flares. And all of the lense flares in the moon hoax were caused by the same thing: Once again, the moon is made of reflective materials. And it reflects light back from the moon. This reflected light causes lense flares. This argument is also complete and utter crap.
The film would've melted in the vacuum of space-Once again, bull#. The film was in a specially designed case that easily handled the radiation and absolute zero tempuratures of space. It was a special type of film designed by Kodak, and if you want proof then go into the archives. It's development is very well documented. (along with the development of the ENTIRE MOON LANDING, we'll get to that later).
The "C" Rock-In one photo, a rock can be seen which appears to have the letter C on it. This has lead to rampant speculation that the rock was a fake prop. Once again, nonsense. The photo was a loose piece of hair which landed on the film. Don't believe me? Zoomed in pictures of it clearly show a strand of hair. Go look it up.
"Star Spangled Banner"-the classic flag waving argument. I'm sure you've all heard it somewhere. "How would the flag wave in a vacuum?" the hoaxers ask. Well, firstly the flag waves because the astronauts are placing it in the lunar dirt! As they do that, THEY are waving the flag by moving the pole to put it in. "But then...it moves on it's own!" the hoaxers will claim. But that's actually what would happen. You see, in the vacuum of space there's no air resistance. Meaning that the momentum of waving the flag would continue for a few seconds after you planted it. Don't believe me? Scientists have actually taken American flags and waved them around in vacuum chambers...and they got the same exact same results as in the original footage.
"A conundrum of craters"-The next argument is that there would've been a blast crater from the lunar lander's boosters. So the lunar lander had 3000 pounds of thrust. Seems like a lot. However, it's actually almost nothing compared to the average fighter jet, which has about 22,000 pounds of thrust. Do you see jets making blast craters? No. Also, that 3000 pounds was being dispersed in the vacuum of space. This means there was even less! So there shouldn't be a blast crater at all. And there wasn't....so this argument is also a load of bullocks. How would a rocket be able to be powered by such little thrust? Well, the moon has only one sixth of earth's gravity, so they don't need nearly as powerful rockets as boosters for the decent. Pretty simple, eh? Moon hoaxers also say it didn't kick up any dust. This is also bull. Look at the actual footage! It does kick up dust! Seems the hoaxers pulled this right out of their ass. If you haven't watched the footage, don't declare it fake!
The footprint-this one is so stupid, it's actually hilarious. "The moon is a dry ball of rock! There isn't enough moisture for a footprint" How do you know the moon is so dry? BY LANDING ON IT, GENIUS! This one is so full of circular logic, it actually makes me bust a gut. If the moon landing was a hoax, why are you using knowledge that can only be proven by landing on the moon....to prove it's a hoax?! The logic here is so sloppy and bad, it probably takes the cake for stupid moon hoaxer arguments. Just think about it for more than 30 seconds. Also, the moon does have moisture. NASA found it when they bombarded it with a projectile and detected water ice in the shrapnel. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
"Lost Technology"-Why haven't we been back? It's not cause the moon landing was fake. It's simply due to one reason: Bureaucrats. The government just didn't want to spend the money. Nixon axed Nasa, took a huge dump all over our space program, and basically destroyed Nasa's budget with massive cuts. The sad truth is, NASA's budget is only 4 tenths a penny on the american tax dollar. If we just made it one penny, could you imagine what we could achieve? We'd return to the moon in no time. Also, we did not loose the technology at all. Tech developed during Apollo is still being used in space exploration all the time. The tech that we use in everything from rovers to the ISS had it's start in Apollo. Which means one thing: in order to believe Apollo is a hoax, you have to believe pretty much everything else NASA did was also a hoax. If so, then where all the testimonies? Where are the whistle blowers? 10,000 people worked on Apollo. The only person who was even remotely connected to the lunar program who made a hoax claim was Bill Kaysing. Kaysing was a "technical consultant" who was basically only vaguely connected to rocketdyne. Really? That's who you believe? Not the 10,000 other scientists who worked on the program? Give me a break.

a reply to: ppk55

www.badastronomy.com...
www.studyphysics.ca...
For a very thorough and high quality analysis, check out these links.
I do think that there very well may be more to the story. The idea of alien technology on the moon has gained scientific credibility: www.forbes.com...
I've actually begun to look into the stuff in George H. Leonard's book, all the material about alien artifacts in the photographs from Apollo, and the possible coverup. It would also fit into the Von Neuman device theory (www.abovetopsecret.com...)
So yes, I do think it's possible that there is a different truth than the official one, but that said the idea that it was a hoax is so absurd and laughable, not to mention immoral and excessively cynical (to be fair, that wouldnt matter if it was a decent theory, but as I've already shown the scientific evidence shows that "fake moon landing" theory is simply ridiculous. It's just such garbage, it blatantly refuses to accept the evidence....the fact that there is such a confirmation bias against one of mankind's greatest achievements is frankly distressing.

originally posted by: DJW001

Like you, I made a series of factual statements and interpreted them in a way to reach a false conclusion, as you did. The importance of exposure has been explained to you countless times, yet you always seem to "forget" about it when making your arguments, just as I "forgot" that not all human beings are necessarily dead now.

Apollo-ites are the only ones who have "interpreted them", in fact. They do not accept factual statements as they are written within the documents. They simply invent something out of thin air, which is not even said, or implied, in the statements. And we are supposed to believe the parts they invented out of thin air are exclusions to their written statements, which are well-known to the authors of the documents, and so, there is no need for anyone to mention it in their statements, and that's the reason they don't say it!

Nice try at twisting it around, though

a reply to: turbonium1

Apollo-ites are the only ones who have "interpreted them", in fact. They do not accept factual statements as they are written within the documents. They simply invent something out of thin air, which is not even said, or implied, in the statements. And we are supposed to believe the parts they invented out of thin air are exclusions to their written statements, which are well-known to the authors of the documents, and so, there is no need for anyone to mention it in their statements, and that's the reason they don't say it!

It's called "context." A statement can only be properly understood when it is taken together with other statements on the same matter. Liars take statements out of context to create false impressions. You consistently take statements out of context. Deliberately.

Yes, I am calling you a liar. Here is my challenge: if you genuinely believe that Apollo was a hoax, debate me in the debate forum. Loser will leave ATS for good. Deal?

Anyone who still believes they went to the moon will change their mind after watching this video:

youtu.be...

a reply to: moonloon

Great, another pseudo-Hoaxie.

a reply to: Conspiracytruths

I noticed you brought up the "dutch moon rock" so are you just an outright liar like your average hoaxer or just plain ignorant to reality? NASA had nothing to do with a Dutch art museum mislabelling a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock. You either couldn't be bothered to research the circumstances of that incident or you're just straight up lying. Why is it EVERY person who has ever pushed the moon hoax has either been shown to be a straight out liar (Jarrah) of just plain old dumb? (Ralph)

originally posted by: Conspiracytruths

it should be fairly obvious to anyone with eyes

The moon hoax fraud is only ever "obvious" to people who are looking/trying/wanting to believe in a bunch of horse manure.

Believe me when I tell you, you don't know squat about Stanley Kubrick, who he was and what type of person he was.

The fact that a bunch of self involved *bleep* try to hijack Kubrick's name and reputation and attach it to their own stunted notions is an insult to art, to humanity and to the man himself.

originally posted by: moonloon
Anyone who still believes they went to the moon will change their mind after watching this video:

youtu.be...

I can explain the lit-moon anomaly (or apparent anomaly)...

When we saw it 15% lit from the left, that was the view Wallace and Grommit had from Earth. However, when we saw the moon lit 25% from the right, that could have been after Wallace and Grommit's rocket swung far around to view it from another angle. They built a very good rocket, and it took them far.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No..

THEY do not exclude any mission of any duration, in THEIR documents, therefore (by your argument), THEY "are trying to tell you that they will reach their dose limits in ANY amount of time".

THEY are trying to tell you that, according to your own argument!

congratulations you have worked out what your own argument is..

that is what im telling you.. by YOU saying they dont exclude any mission duration YOU are arguing that Aluminium makes GCR's deadly in ANY amount of time which includes a fraction of a second..

and no THEY are not trying to tell me that.. it is you and only you.. because YOU are the one claiming that they dont exclude any mission or any duration when they have clearly shown they are using yearly intervals..

Using aluminum shielding, correct?

They make no such claims in the documents I've cited on aluminum.

You have not shown me a single documents where they are making such claims, either.

they have.. let me re-quote AGAIN from the article that you regularly quote from:

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...

there you go.. your article has claimed that about 30g/cm^2 of aluminium being exposed to GCR's during a solar minimum will take ONE YEAR to reach about 50 cSv..

If your claims are valid, as you contend, then why can you not provide even a single quote where they make such claims??

i have many times.. it is your own fault you chose to ignore it.

In fact, the only one I've seen making those claims so far...is YOU!

because you have your fingers in your ears, and a blind fold over your eyes..

If you do, it's time to show them. If not, then you obviously have just made it all up, and you're wasting my time by repeating it over and over again.

So which will it be?

i have multiple times.. you continually ignore it or choose to play ignorance.. either deliberately being dishonest or simple not understanding the reports..

and exactly where is your proof of your claims?? do you also believe that the ISS is fake?? what about x-rays and ct-scans?? or will you ignore these as well??

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: Conspiracytruths

it should be fairly obvious to anyone with eyes

The fact that a bunch of self involved *bleep* try to hijack Kubrick's name and reputation and attach it to their own stunted notions is an insult to art, to humanity and to the man himself.

Not to mention that the entire "theory" itself is a major insult to humanity and science, and all the great scientists and heroic astronauts that furthered mankind's dreams! It's basically taking great achievements and using lazy reasoning to profit off it...

originally posted by: moonloon
Anyone who still believes they went to the moon will change their mind after watching this video:

youtu.be...

It fails to address the most obvious aspect of the hoax,the wallpaper inside the craft would never be able to provide adequate shielding from the Van Allen radiation.Or would it?

a reply to: Imagewerx

Doesn't matter im sure the US government would have to cover it up. In fact I expect this video to disapear soon think about what this is going to do to the world cheese market. Could put companies like craft out of business if people learn the moon is made of cheese. They will have to deny they went to the moon and insread day the crashed into a cheese factory in Wisconsin.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wisconsin cheese factories are totally off-topic.

The Russians have never been above 475km in space altitude.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Russians have never been above 475km in space altitude.

All that shows is how inferior their space technology is compared to the USA's!