Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

The idea that the US was swimming in money in the 1960s and could just throw it around wherever they chose just isn't true. Despite an anual budget surplus that year, the overall US national debt in 1969 (as detailed here) was nearly $354 billion, so clearly something as expensive as Apollo is making a hefty contribution to that. All the other years of the Apollo program showed a budget deficit - in 1968 the debt grew by $21 billion.

Once they had landed the general public euphoria converted into one of "we've done that, why do we need to do it again". Songs like Gil Scott Heron's "Whitey's on the moon" epitomised the view of many that terrestrial issues were more pressing. To assume the cancellation of Apollo was a financial one alone ignores the politics behind it, and while the ongoing proxy war in Vietnam was seen as important, Apollo no longer was.

Once they had landed the general public euphoria converted into one of "we've done that, why do we need to do it again". Songs like Gil Scott Heron's "Whitey's on the moon" epitomised the view of many that terrestrial issues were more pressing. To assume the cancellation of Apollo was a financial one alone ignores the politics behind it, and while the ongoing proxy war in Vietnam was seen as important, Apollo no longer was.

This ignores the fact that Nixon was obviously a reptile-person. That single-handedly means we can all ignore this evidence, and the evidence provided and corroborated by literally hundreds of thousands of scientists over 50 years.

And if there's any doubt left, I think I once saw a picture that might have been photoshopped. And where were some fuzzy things in it that could have been UFOs or something.

You can trust me, I'm from the internet.

Originally posted by choos

if the KGB did do it, then the soviets would not have provoked that decision by the US.

What do you mean, the USSR "provoked" the US ? No idea what you're saying here...

Originally posted by choos

same purpose different vehicle.. R&D costs alot of money.. atm NASA doesnt have the budget to overcome the technological hurdles from the new vehicle. its so easy for someone who knows nothing to claim that its easy but this is an entirely new vehicle.. with entirely new issues.

just compare the budget from the apollo missions to the entire NASA budget now.

It is the significant lack of required technologies. The report clearly states this, repeatedly. You can ignore that fact, but you're just denying the truth.

If we have proven technologies for manned moon landings, there's no way it would be treated like crap so much. We'd treat it like gold. We'd build on it.

Not the case, clearly.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
The idea that the US was swimming in money in the 1960s and could just throw it around wherever they chose just isn't true. Despite an anual budget surplus that year, the overall US national debt in 1969 (as detailed here) was nearly $354 billion, so clearly something as expensive as Apollo is making a hefty contribution to that. All the other years of the Apollo program showed a budget deficit - in 1968 the debt grew by $21 billion.

Once they had landed the general public euphoria converted into one of "we've done that, why do we need to do it again". Songs like Gil Scott Heron's "Whitey's on the moon" epitomised the view of many that terrestrial issues were more pressing. To assume the cancellation of Apollo was a financial one alone ignores the politics behind it, and while the ongoing proxy war in Vietnam was seen as important, Apollo no longer was.

So Apollo is cancelled because - lack of money, and public apathy?

While Vietnam kept on going, because it had so much publicsupport!!?

That's why all the money went there, right?

Not quite...

reply to post by turbonium1


That's because, yet again, you don't bother to check what you read.

They would start with week long missions, and eventually work their way up to 180 day missions (that's moon time, not total space time).

The first missions will be week long missions for a crew of four. Once the habitat is set up 180 day missions are planned for scientists and astronauts.

www.allvoices.com...

This time, explorers are going back to stay. They will build an outpost in which they will live off the land like true pioneers and work for months at a time, gathering experience to guide a future generation on the way to Mars. “This isn’t the space shuttle, and it’s not Apollo. It’s the next step in sending more people farther into space, with more capability than ever before. It’s a greater challenge,”

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by turbonium1
So Apollo is cancelled because - lack of money, and public apathy?

Yes, you're doing well so far.

While Vietnam kept on going, because it had so much publicsupport!!?

That's why all the money went there, right?

Not quite...

Your hindsight is affording you wonderful clarity.

During this period of history the US was involved in an ideological battle against communism that it was fighting on every front you can think of: technological, political, and militarily in SE Asia.

The technological battle, with its stated aim of landing a man on the moon was important to national morale and the legacy of a popular and populist president. Once the US had rubbed the nose of the Soviets in it in July 1969 they had won that front - there was no need to continue it any more than they were committed to. That commitment was being scaled back all the way through the lunar landing phase of the Apollo missions - even before Apollo 11 landed.

The military front, however, was still ongoing and needed winning. History tells us how that turned out. Our predecessors did not have that prescient luxury.

We can disagree about the political undercurrents involved in Apollo all you like, but not one single part of that discussion supports the idea that the landings were faked.

I posted some solid evidence earlier in this thread of photographs showing details that the Apollo astronauts could not possibly have photographed without being on the moon. Odd that this is being ignored in favour of arguing over whether or not the USA's financial reach exceeded its grasp.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Originally posted by turbonium1
So Apollo is cancelled because - lack of money, and public apathy?

Yes, you're doing well so far.

While Vietnam kept on going, because it had so much publicsupport!!?

That's why all the money went there, right?

Not quite...

Your hindsight is affording you wonderful clarity.

During this period of history the US was involved in an ideological battle against communism that it was fighting on every front you can think of: technological, political, and militarily in SE Asia.

The technological battle, with its stated aim of landing a man on the moon was important to national morale and the legacy of a popular and populist president. Once the US had rubbed the nose of the Soviets in it in July 1969 they had won that front - there was no need to continue it any more than they were committed to. That commitment was being scaled back all the way through the lunar landing phase of the Apollo missions - even before Apollo 11 landed.

The military front, however, was still ongoing and needed winning. History tells us how that turned out. Our predecessors did not have that prescient luxury.

We can disagree about the political undercurrents involved in Apollo all you like, but not one single part of that discussion supports the idea that the landings were faked.

I posted some solid evidence earlier in this thread of photographs showing details that the Apollo astronauts could not possibly have photographed without being on the moon. Odd that this is being ignored in favour of arguing over whether or not the USA's financial reach exceeded its grasp.

edit on 17-8-2013 by onebigmonkey because: grandma

When in a debate if you cant win you are relegated to arguing side points in hopes people wont notice you lost the argument. It is blatantly clear we sent men to the moon there is a mountain of evidence to support this. The only thing conspiracy theorists have is pointing at the mistakes made and go see we didnt go. But when you undertake a goal on such a grand scale of course mistakes are made luckily most of them were harmless. With the exception of lives being lost in a fire during testing of rockets. Which if they just were going to fake it wouldnt have been necessary.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos
so you agree its a summary of the empirical data?

No!!!!!!!! It is a summary. The empirical data is not published in NASA's SP-368.

Empirical data consist of information that results from direct measurement, and summaries of that measurement count there.

The raw data for the results in the table can be found throughout the mission transcripts (which are transcribed from freely available mission audio) where the crews read back the measurements on their PRD equipment.

raw = empirical.
summary /= empirical.
summary /= raw.

Basic science ignorance.

I made the claim, the radiation summary table in SP-368 cannot be verified, therefore, it is not scientific. You must be able to show us a link to a peer reviewed, non-NASA funded, science paper that can confirm the summary table figures. Anything less is a scientific fraud.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos
so you agree its a summary of the empirical data?

No!!!!!!!! It is a summary. The empirical data is not published in NASA's SP-368.

Empirical data consist of information that results from direct measurement, and summaries of that measurement count there.

The raw data for the results in the table can be found throughout the mission transcripts (which are transcribed from freely available mission audio) where the crews read back the measurements on their PRD equipment.

raw = empirical.
summary /= empirical.
summary /= raw.

Basic science ignorance.

I made the claim, the radiation summary table in SP-368 cannot be verified, therefore, it is not scientific. You must be able to show us a link to a peer reviewed, non-NASA funded, science paper that can confirm the summary table figures. Anything less is a scientific fraud.

Your wrong any data obtained through observation is empirical data. No matter how you display that data.Since in order to get an average required observation it is indeed empirical data.

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience

So care to make any other half baked claims?

reply to post by onebigmonkey

The idea that the US was swimming in money in the 1960s and could just throw it around wherever they chose just isn't true.

Partially correct. "Swimming in money" is not a good description of US budgets in the 1960's. I agree with that and you noted some figures that seem plausible enough to back that up.

However, Nixon had $4 billion for Linebacker II. All discretionary - don't ever forget who is C-in-C during Apollo. "throw it around wherever they chose" is re-confirmed in history, countless times, mostly on the basis of national security and sometimes on the basis of national prestige.

Here is science guy Neil de Grasse Tyson confirming that space decisions are geo-political decisions and they are not science based decisions.

Who cancelled Apollo and funded Space Shuttle? Richard Nixon. And look what Tyson says about it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Space Shuttle Was Never About Science

Originally posted by turbonium1

What do you mean, the USSR "provoked" the US ? No idea what you're saying here...

your close mindedness towards anything not to your beliefs causes this..

if the KGB did plan the assassination and the US were lead to believe it was a lone mad man.. why would the soviets provoke the situation anymore to make them want to check even deeper?? the soviets would be absolutely glad that the US are blaming a lone mad man and not finding out it was the KGB.

It is the significant lack of required technologies. The report clearly states this, repeatedly. You can ignore that fact, but you're just denying the truth.

If we have proven technologies for manned moon landings, there's no way it would be treated like crap so much. We'd treat it like gold. We'd build on it.

Not the case, clearly.

with the orion yes it is the lack of technology because it is a brand new vehicle.. it is not an apollo craft.. technology directly comes from funding. without funding there is no R&D.. apollo did not have this issue as they had a much larger budget.

why do car companies spend so much R&D on new vehicles?? for example the Holden Commodore has been manufactured since around 1978.. yet in 2006 they spent $1 billion on developing new platform??? why did they spend so much on newer technology when older technology has been around for over a century??

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos
so you agree its a summary of the empirical data?

No!!!!!!!! It is a summary. The empirical data is not published in NASA's SP-368.

Empirical data consist of information that results from direct measurement, and summaries of that measurement count there.

The raw data for the results in the table can be found throughout the mission transcripts (which are transcribed from freely available mission audio) where the crews read back the measurements on their PRD equipment.

raw = empirical.
summary /= empirical.
summary /= raw.

Basic science ignorance.

I made the claim, the radiation summary table in SP-368 cannot be verified, therefore, it is not scientific. You must be able to show us a link to a peer reviewed, non-NASA funded, science paper that can confirm the summary table figures. Anything less is a scientific fraud.

but the empirical data (in the transcript just to make you happy) came from........ observation.. you have even stated that that is the empirical data.. so by claiming that the empirical data is in the transcript.. i guess you acknowledge they did go to the moon?

Originally posted by choos
but the empirical data (in the transcript just to make you happy) came from........ observation.. you have even stated that that is the empirical data.. so by claiming that the empirical data is in the transcript.. i guess you acknowledge they did go to the moon?

Having trouble finding any scientists who will support that summary radiation table, aren't you choos?

My suggestion for the Apollo Defenders would be to take a good look at that summary table and prepare an adequate defense for it.

As Nixon told Kissinger "Think big."

What would Neil deGrasse Tyson think of that radiation summary table? Would the astrophysicist, when all the chips were down, could he even defend it?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Having trouble finding any scientists who will support that summary radiation table, aren't you choos?

My suggestion for the Apollo Defenders would be to take a good look at that summary table and prepare an adequate defense for it.

As Nixon told Kissinger "Think big."

What would Neil deGrasse Tyson think of that radiation summary table? Would the astrophysicist, when all the chips were down, could he even defend it?

Maybe you're having trouble finding some scientists who disagree with that summary radiation table. Perhaps you could actually ask Neil deGrasse Tyson to see what he actually thinks of it, rather than speculate on what you think he might think, based on what you think you know about him.

Radiation data were collected by Soviet probes during the Apollo era and they have no problem with it. Radiation data was collected by US Ranger, Pioneer and Lunar Orbiter probes, and the results from those aren't disputed. Chinese, Indian and European probes collect radiation data and they also don't dispute the Apollo data.

The Apollo data can be replicated, providing you have the money to do it. If you don't believe the data presented during the missions you should find the (peer reviewed) evidence suggesting that these data are incorrect or provide your own figures (and the supporting material) to show what you believe the PRD readings should have been.

The Apollo data were collected on a lunar mission, and all the evidence supports them being exactly where they said they were. If you believe otherwise you need to demonstrate your arguments, not just say "I don't believe it, therefore they are incorrect".

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Having trouble finding any scientists who will support that summary radiation table, aren't you choos?

My suggestion for the Apollo Defenders would be to take a good look at that summary table and prepare an adequate defense for it.

As Nixon told Kissinger "Think big."

What would Neil deGrasse Tyson think of that radiation summary table? Would the astrophysicist, when all the chips were down, could he even defend it?

you didnt quite answer me though... you admitted that the summary tables came from empirical data which is in the transcripts.. so you admit that they did go to the moon and did collect the empirical data. you cant collect empirical data without being there, hence the name empirical data.

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

Maybe you're having trouble finding some scientists who disagree with that summary radiation table. Perhaps you could actually ask Neil deGrasse Tyson to see what he actually thinks of it, rather than speculate on what you think he might think, based on what you think you know about him.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is very outspoken about things like black holes, killer asteroids and trashing the legacy of the space shuttle. He's on TV quite a lot as a science commentator. Did you watch the video and see how Tyson skillfully reduced America's space program to a purely geopolitical origin and purpose while noting that the science program was only added on to sell it ?

Radiation data were collected by Soviet probes during the Apollo era and they have no problem with it. Radiation data was collected by US Ranger, Pioneer and Lunar Orbiter probes, and the results from those aren't disputed. Chinese, Indian and European probes collect radiation data and they also don't dispute the Apollo data.

You listed nearly all of them. Howard Hughes Surveyor. None of those probes you listed can confirm the Apollo PRD data. Can you cite a single science paper that says they do?

The Apollo data can be replicated, providing you have the money to do it.

Everybody is waiting for that demonstration to take place. 41 years and still no other demonstration like it. Besides all Apollo missions were constantly simulated and heavily practiced. The people at Mission Control had no way of knowing if it was real or a simulation.

The Apollo data were collected on a lunar mission, and all the evidence supports them being exactly where they said they were.

Not without the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes that are missing. What other evidence do you have that supports "them being exactly where they said they were."? If the Russians and so many others were independently tracking Apollo, how did they all lose track of Eagle & Orion? It seems like a coordinated effort is taking place to ignore the true purposes of the missing modules.

If you believe otherwise you need to demonstrate your arguments, not just say "I don't believe it, therefore they are incorrect".

How long would it take to scan through all the Apollo transcripts and gather all the PRD readouts from each astronaut, on every mission? That would be a full time job for a year... Unfortunately I don't have that much free time. There that's my excuse. What's yours?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I can help you real quick they all ways gave there dosimeter readings right before scheduled sleep time. so at most would take a couple of hours if you really wanted the readings. Or i all ready told you contact Johnson space center. Problem is even given these readings you will still claim its not correct so im not wasting my time.Its obvious your a troll since time and again people give you the data prove you wrong then a page or 2 later you bring it up again.

well its time you prove somethings like heres a good one since you seem to think the average dosage for Apollo is wrong prove it.Ill even tell you how There is programs that have ran radiation simulations for Apollo based off of data obtained through probes. In fact same data they use to shield satellites in orbit but i digress. So lets see some of those simulations and we can compare it to Apollos data and see if there is an anomaly. Ill give you a clue here scientists throughout the world have done this so if theres a problem should be easy for you to find.

If you cant prove the information wrong then that shows its correct right?

reply to post by dragonridr

There is programs that have ran radiation simulations for Apollo based off of data obtained through probes.

I think we've all seen enough simulated science in this thread but here you are recommending MORE of it for some reason. Do you think it helps your argument to talk about simulations as proof? No, it doesn't help at all.

Theoretical science experiments don't count in Apollo. What counts is putting a living, breathing man in the same shielded aluminum capsule and sending him back to the moon for a few days.

That's the kind of science that NASA claimed it could do when Nixon was president. We have already discussed the financials and the conclusion that Nixon had whatever amount he wanted, up to and including the $4 billion, to bomb the hell out of North Vietnam at the same time Apollo 17 was headed back from the "moon", this is the only correct conclusion.

Now 41 years later you want us to look at your dubious radiation simulations?

Originally posted by dragonridr
Here check out the data in the appendix even has breakdown of total badge exposure for every astronaut. Which means if you were to email johnson space center im sure they would email you the data since they have it graphed out.

www.ntrs.nasa.gov...

Dragon, if I agree with you over 85% of the time with less than a +/- 25% error what does that even mean? It's a load of scientific rubbish, don't you think?

The large number of nuclear fragmentation reactions
requires an extensive physical interaction data-base and the quantum multiple scattering
(QMSFRG) model provides an accurate data base agreeing with over 85% of the
measured heavy ion cross sections with less than +/- 25% error (Cucinotta et al., 2006)

Well, that's a quote straight out of your pdf. And it looks like that pdf is published by NASA. Where is the independent science confirming Apollo radiation levels?

Here's another nice quote out of your pdf.

there are no human data to estimate risks

I hate to say it but that pdf isn't worth the download because it's NASA scientists confirming NASA mythology. This is a Disclosure thread!
What did NASA disclose? no human data