Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo


GCR has been known about since 1912, was measured by Apollo 16

www.lpi.usra.edu...

and the interaction between GCR and surface material was measured by Apollo 17 in the Lunar Neutron Probe Experiment.

You don't design experiments to measure something you don't know exists.

Then there are the famous 'light flashes' which were attributed to GCR.

Again, if you're saying you don't know how dangerous it was, or how much of it there was, then you can't say that it would have made the mission impossible. Tell us how you think this would have stopped the Apollo astronauts getting to the moon.

If they measured GCR radiation during Apollo, why didn't they know that aluminum actually intensifies it?

They would surely have known that, if they were actually in deep space.

But they weren't in deep space, not knowing about this fact.


And no craft will ever use aluminum, for any future manned craft going into deep space.

Aluminum craft cannot shield humans in deep space, and that's why Apollo couldn't have gone into deep space, much less go to the moon, either.

a reply to: turbonium1

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you:

Bremsstrahlung was well known and discussed prior to Apollo was considered during the design of it.

Aluminium was not the only material used in construction.

Apollo astronauts were not risk averse cowards ignorant of the dangers.

You have not yet identified which part of the radiation spectrum reached levels that would either incapacitate the Apollo crew or the equipment and thus render the missions impossible, or when this incapacitation would have occurred.

You have not ever presented one shred of evidence that proves your case. You have also conveniently skipped over the bit where you were proven wrong about the lack of knowledge about GCR or their measurement.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Your sweeping generalisation is hopelessly wrong and presumably has been plucked out of thin air.

If you read the article I just posted it refers to Apollo data. Apollo samples and data are still being analysed today and the results are easy to find.

I've posted a few recent papers, and none of them ever use Apollo's data.

And for good reason -

These papers state aluminum is worse than no shield in deep space. And no spacecraft with a human crew will EVER be built of aluminum, for any deep space missions. None..

Do you understand why they do not EVER bring up Apollo, in any way? Think about it...

They state no spacecraft will ever use aluminum in manned deep space missions, because aluminum intensifies GCR radiation...

So if they had mentioned Apollo, an aluminum craft in deep space, that was perfectly safe and sound?

Having said aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space, Apollo would not work. It would have intensified the radiation, and that fact would clearly contradict the Apollo story.


At that point, Apollo would have to be resolved as an exception. And of course, you've gone to all lengths to pretend they are making it an exception. This is simply not the case, as I've explained to you, in detail.

Short missions would be mentioned as an exception, if they were. No exception was ever made, or implied. Period.

They talk about long missions, so that's your idea of short missions being an exception. No grasping at straws there, I'm sure!

a reply to: turbonium1

And no spacecraft with a human crew will EVER be built of aluminum, for any deep space missions. None..

Except for the only one currently in production, of course:

The CM will be built of the aluminium-lithium alloy used on the Space Shuttle external tank, and the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets.

en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

Yes, the lithium helps to lower the "z," making it superior to pure aluminum. Nevertheless, improved technology does not make earlier technology "wrong."

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you:

Bremsstrahlung was well known and discussed prior to Apollo was considered during the design of it.

Aluminium was not the only material used in construction.

Apollo astronauts were not risk averse cowards ignorant of the dangers.

You have not yet identified which part of the radiation spectrum reached levels that would either incapacitate the Apollo crew or the equipment and thus render the missions impossible, or when this incapacitation would have occurred.

You have not ever presented one shred of evidence that proves your case. You have also conveniently skipped over the bit where you were proven wrong about the lack of knowledge about GCR or their measurement.

It was mostly aluminum, and it couldn't work on any sort of deep space manned missions.

Again, I'm not talking about Bremsstrahlung here.

This is a different phenomenon, and only recently discovered. Look it up yourself, so you'll finally grasp that point.

Why do you think they are saying aluminum is now known to intensify GCR radiation? Because it is NOT Bremsstrahlung, which they knew already, for ages, like you just said.

Get it?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

And no spacecraft with a human crew will EVER be built of aluminum, for any deep space missions. None..

Except for the only one currently in production, of course:

The CM will be built of the aluminium-lithium alloy used on the Space Shuttle external tank, and the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets.

en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

Yes, the lithium helps to lower the "z," making it superior to pure aluminum. Nevertheless, improved technology does not make earlier technology "wrong."

This is an alloy, with some aluminum mixed with lithium....and is not aluminum, like Apollo had.

a reply to: turbonium1

Again, I'm not talking about Bremsstrahlung here.

Then what are you talking about? Could you link to a journal article?

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, they don't say anything is "negligible", for any duration in deep space, at all.

YOU are simply making things up, as usual...

so where exactly do they say they are not excluding Apollo???

YOU are simply making things up, as usual...

you will find that them not using Apollo data for GCR studys is because the dose received is negligible and so is the sample size.

They don't say it's possible, and that's the main problem here...

no thats your main problem with this..

you seem to think that if something is deemed UNSAFE it must mean that that activity cannot be done at all in any shape or form.

They said it was unsafe because there is data which proved it, based on their references noted in the paper...

there are many things that are unsafe.. such as skydiving, speeding, rock climbing, smoking cigarettes etc..

oh and what references in the paper?? as far as you are concerned all the data was fake to begin with..

What the?

you are basing your conclusions on the findings of a paper that is using fake made up data..

ie. the data being lebron james is a woman, and you reading an article about how lebron james is a woman.. therefore you have come to the conclusion that NBA is all fake..

It's not safe, that's the point..

They don't know exactly how unsafe - dangerous - deep space is to humans. That is what they are trying to find out, so we can one day go into deep space, with humans...

being unsafe doesnt make things impossible.. dont you get that??

speeding is unsafe, it is very possible to do..
smoking cigarettes is unsafe, also very possible to do..
visiting chernobyl is unsafe, also very possible to do..
cave diving is unsafe, also very possible to do..

get the idea yet?

Yikes!

They said it is not safe, that's why I mentioned it to you, as THEY said it was not safe, in their paper...

yes and cigarettes were deemed healthy when they were introduced.

THEY claimed it. I've pointed that out to you, over and over again, ad nauseum...

But now, trying to compare it to cigarettes, or LeBron James..... seriously??

yes i want you to justify how cigarettes were first sold and are still sold given their link to cancer.

they are unsafe, but i see people smoking daily..

originally posted by: turbonium1

GCR effects ARE unknown...

You ask me how they know it's a hazard to humans, but they don't know the effects of GCR on humans....

Knowing it as a hazard is based on their findings to date, which show it as hazardous to humans....

if the effects are unknown it cannot be classified as hazardous..

just like asbestos, before they realised it was hazardous it was never labelled as such.

Now, look closely at what they are stating, in the paper....

They say aluminum may be more hazardous to humans than before, because aluminum actually intensifies the GCR radiation...

of which you claim that they have no idea if GCR's are even dangerous to begin with.. so if GCR's have healing properties than aluminium making it worse would mean that aluminium would make GCR's heal someone even faster right?

"May" be worse?

They didn't know if it was worse, at the time, it "may" be...

Why would they have believed aluminum "may" intensify GCR radiation, if Apollo had 'proved' the exact opposite? That aluminum was good for short-stay missions, at very least.

because Apollo didnt prove anything about aluminium and its effects on GCR's.. (assuming GCR's have any effect on humans to begin with )

Apollo mission length was not long enough to receive effect from GCR's that could be studied.. get it through your skull.

Apollo's dosimeters were (supposedly) able to measure all forms of radiation in space, as one 'accumulated dosage' of all radiation, over the whole mission...

Not knowing what specific types of radiation exist in deep space, Apollo measures all of the radiation, in one entire lump sum total of all radiation, over an entire mission!

All types of radiation are the same, and lumped together, as one heapin' pile o' radiation! Don't know about this or that type of radiation, and shore 'nuff, we's don't need to know it...seein' how they're all 'bout the same thingamajig, anyhoo!

Right, of course!

coming from someone that doesnt understand exposure time sure makes this rant seem "credible"

Look at how they approached the LEO environment, and compare it to how they approached the so-called 'moon landings'...

LEO was near, and studied for years, and we had animals, etc. test the environment, long before any manned missions went forth.

Beyond LEO, the environment is far more unknown, and hazardous. So manned missions are good to go, no need to test it with animals, or whatever...they just know it's perfectly safe to send humans right away!


Who buys such crap??

so you think a human can spend more time in the VAB than they can beyond the VAB??

a reply to: turbonium1

This is an alloy, with some aluminum mixed with lithium....and is not aluminum, like Apollo had.

So, the Wright Flyer was wood covered in canvas. You claim that it never flew because canvas cannot be used to make an aircraft. As proof of this, you point out that no future aircraft will be made out of canvas. This sort of reasoning is whyt Moon Hoax threads are so boring. Now, if it's not brehmstrahlung that makes aluminum a bad shield against high energy GCRs, what is it?

originally posted by: turbonium1

This is an alloy, with some aluminum mixed with lithium....and is not aluminum, like Apollo had.

some aluminium mixed with lithium?????????????????

SOME ALUMINIUM MIXED WITH LITHIUM??????????????????????

SOME ALUMINIUM?????????????????

well... i guess you are the materials expert since you seem to know so much about how unsafe using any amount of aluminium in a GCR environment and specifically how you dont know if GCR's are hazardous at all.

p.s. mr materials expert.. please look up the general composition of aluminium-lithium alloy... some aluminium lolololololololololololololol

NASA's tending solutions to the radiation difficulty hasn't "lead" to complete viabilities essential for actual theoretical conclusions concerning the inconvenient intricacies of the astronomical particle propagation hazard.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, they don't say anything is "negligible", for any duration in deep space, at all.

YOU are simply making things up, as usual...

so where exactly do they say they are not excluding Apollo???

YOU are simply making things up, as usual...

you will find that them not using Apollo data for GCR studys is because the dose received is negligible and so is the sample size.

They don't say it's possible, and that's the main problem here...

no thats your main problem with this..

you seem to think that if something is deemed UNSAFE it must mean that that activity cannot be done at all in any shape or form.

They said it was unsafe because there is data which proved it, based on their references noted in the paper...

there are many things that are unsafe.. such as skydiving, speeding, rock climbing, smoking cigarettes etc..

oh and what references in the paper?? as far as you are concerned all the data was fake to begin with..

What the?

you are basing your conclusions on the findings of a paper that is using fake made up data..

ie. the data being lebron james is a woman, and you reading an article about how lebron james is a woman.. therefore you have come to the conclusion that NBA is all fake..

It's not safe, that's the point..

They don't know exactly how unsafe - dangerous - deep space is to humans. That is what they are trying to find out, so we can one day go into deep space, with humans...

being unsafe doesnt make things impossible.. dont you get that??

speeding is unsafe, it is very possible to do..
smoking cigarettes is unsafe, also very possible to do..
visiting chernobyl is unsafe, also very possible to do..
cave diving is unsafe, also very possible to do..

get the idea yet?

Yikes!

They said it is not safe, that's why I mentioned it to you, as THEY said it was not safe, in their paper...

yes and cigarettes were deemed healthy when they were introduced.

THEY claimed it. I've pointed that out to you, over and over again, ad nauseum...

But now, trying to compare it to cigarettes, or LeBron James..... seriously??

yes i want you to justify how cigarettes were first sold and are still sold given their link to cancer.

they are unsafe, but i see people smoking daily..

The first point you still don't get is that they are not talking about any exclusions.

This does not have an exclusion of 'less dangerous' than long missions'..

In your world, if they don't specifically say 'Apollo missions are NOT excluded'...then they are excluded!!

NOT to exclude something is actually excluding it!?!?

originally posted by: turbonium1

The first point you still don't get is that they are not talking about any exclusions.

This does not have an exclusion of 'less dangerous' than long missions'..

In your world, if they don't specifically say 'Apollo missions are NOT excluded'...then they are excluded!!

NOT to exclude something is actually excluding it!?!?

it does have the exclusion of less dangerous than long missions ( even you have previously admitted that shorter missions pose less threat than longer ones )

i have to ask, since its like you still dont understand, two scenarios
a/ i spend one hour exposed to GCR's behind aluminium
b/ i spend one year exposed to GCR's behind aluminium

which scenario is more likely to produce results that i have been affected by GCR's??
in both scenarios im going to be exposed to GCR's you are saying that in both scenarios i stand the exact same chance of dying. ( assuming GCR's have a bad effect on humans in the first place )

its like standing in a freezer, i can stand in the freezer for one hour and be very cold or i can stand in the freezer for a few days and could be dead. you are claiming that since standing in the freezer for a few days can be deadly therefore standing in the freezer for a few minutes will also have the same chances of me dying.

in your world getting an x-ray at the doctors is a hoax because they say exposure to particle radiation is unsafe.

You say they had no masurements of GCR which were relevant , as the missions were too short..the data was not used for that reason!

That would mean they know it is safe for those missions, it requires them to note it as an exception.

To make it known that short missions are safe...

They are required to state any exclusion, not being psychics like you are...


Future missions will not be built of aluminum ...

Testing a craft in LEO which is not even aluminum but rather an alloy

Apollo was aluminum, not an alloy..

Try again..

a reply to: turbonium1

They are required to state any exclusion,

Please cite the rule which specifies this requirement.
Is it in the Lunar Landing Skeptic's Handbook?