An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by pepsi78
Lisen to rem agent smith "man on the moon"mabe that song will open
up u'r view.
I dont know what more can i say, about the gamma i have answerd all of it.
what i think of the hole picture is "unstable"
that means maybe yes maybe no
i told you it can be the other way as well with some facts.
I guess i will never be sure of apolo.Maybe they went to the moon or maybe not.

How did I know that song would come up sooner or later! LOL
And what qualifications do you think that band has in such matters?
I'm not a qualified scientist and I don't know it all about the Moon landings, but I know enough about that and science in general to know that all the hoax claims that I have come across so far are uneducated drivel.

If that wasn't enough I have also had the privilege of having dinner with Buzz Aldrin and meeting Charlie Duke. That alone would have been enough for me in hearing first hand their accounts and also getting the oppurtunity to observe them unedited and without some mouthy moron talking over them with his worthless opinon on a crappy TV show.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Think realy deep.
I rest my case here.
This has taken alot for me all the research that i did took me 3 weeks
I was obsest by it in building a plausible theory cause i belived in it.
Maybe some one will show up with facts destroing it.
[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]

All of your points have been shot down without you seeming to register them! And you seem to have misinterpreted the research and refused to believe the counter-blasts that were sent your way, along with the far more comprehensive research that backs up the fact that we went to the moon safely and came back safely. Frankly a lot of your points have been highlighted by hoaxers and then shot down.
Occam's Razor is the correct logical premise for this matter. Don't make up complex theories about what happened, when you can use a simple truth in their place. We went to the moon. We had the technology. It was dangerous, but they made it back.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Darkmind]

Okay agent smith this is my last post for this day i am realy tierd just took a bath and off to sleep i go.

1 if there are gamma rays coming from the sun they are weaker (sun does not produce strong gamma unles solar storm ocurs)
2 particles hiting the shutle ( we have discused about cosmic rays hiting the shutle and i told you it is easy to block particles it is hard to block high gamma for the particle ray to produce gamma it has to hit another particle on the surface not aluminium or the shutle it is easely blocked by that has in nasa going to the moon on that site they say we can provide shielding for cosmic rays but we dont know about the gamma kind of hard duh.)
3 well what about the gamma produced in the atmosfere.(take any figure you like any and it will show you the same thing over and over the atmosfere will block gamma it will atenuate any other gamma that will pass and go any way you like+ i told you high level gamma with flux in earth's orbit is not posible the magnetic shield of the earth will scramble particles so there is no posibility in of a flux that will become dangeros)
now work on ruing it and that guy that said it does not hold water i'm in the post box so i didint look at his name.
prove it.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]
it was darkwater.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Ummm just for the record, The REM song 'man on the moon' is not about the moon landings its about comedian Andy Kaufman, who was so crazy and out there on SNL that he made Michael Stipe of REM think that he might be from the moon.

sorry about the off topic post but that bugged me.

edit the above post proves nothing, and has little to do with the moon.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Halfofone]

1. You should start a thread about this because it is again straying off topic..

Originally posted by pepsi78
1 if there are gamma rays coming from the sun they are weaker (sun does not produce strong gamma unles solar storm ocurs)

I know that, and nothing I have said has anything to do with it.

particles hiting the shutle ( we have discused about cosmic rays hiting the shutle and i told you it is easy to block particles it is hard to block high gamma for the particle ray to produce gamma it has to hit another particle on the surface not aluminium or the shutle it is easely blocked by that has in nasa going to the moon on that site they say we can provide shielding for cosmic rays but we dont know about the gamma kind of hard duh.)

Mate, in case you didn't notice I know more about the subject than you - you havn't told me any new information. I am talking about the cosmic particles interacting with the Earth's atmosphere and creating Gamma Rays - which are emitted in essence from the outer atmosphere if you like.
They would effect the ISS and shuttle as your moon gamma rays would on a moon mission. So if they don't count nor do yours.
If I am wrong on this and have misunderstood something please someone point it out to me before I make even more of a fool of myself.

I'm not talking about their effect on us here on Earth, so the attenuating ability of the Earth's atmosphere is meaningless in what I am talking about.

We can prove our case with:

1) Hundreds, maybe thousands of images
2) Dozens of videos and audio files
3) The word of the Russians in intercepting communications and tracking the craft (why would they lie?)
4) Thousands of pages of plans, detailed reports, lunar diaries, etc
5) The experiments still on the moon that send back data
6) Moon Rocks that have been analysed by independant labs
7) Museum pieces
8) One possible image of Apollo 15 landing site and more to come from the others soon:

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

what have you got exactly, other than a confused and complicated theory based on a subject you know little about?

Where's your evidence?

If someone was in court for murder and all the evidence tied up and they had the murder weapon - would you find them innocent because 1 witness thought they saw someone with a blue top when it was actually green, but they arn't completely sure?

Have you even bothered to glance through the thousands of images and pages of information, rather than look at the Hoax Believers warped and condensed version?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Okay the difrence on impact in atmosfere you must know where the procces thakes place and how many of them relise gamma.
Remember the magnetic shield?
Earth does not have a greate flux.
Plus when they travel in atmosfere up down left right do they travel free like on the moon?
If the space shuttle takes on fire when it gets back you can imagine that gamma rays no matter what direction they travel in are reduced in efect.

Agentsmith i want to know just like you the truth.
There is got to be a way so we can find out how that ecuation is done.

Man went on the moon, dot(if it make's you happy)

When you have come up with some figures from that information I gave you then we will have something to discuss. If you want to talk about the theory behind Gamma rays then start another thread, becasue this one has strayed away for long enough.

So unless you have come up with some concrete dosage figures from the info I gave you or you have some new evidence that hasn't been covered before there is nothing else to discuss on the matter for now.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay the difrence on impact in atmosfere you must know where the procces thakes place and how many of them relise gamma.
Remember the magnetic shield?
Earth does not have a greate flux.
Plus when they travel in atmosfere up down left right do they travel free like on the moon?
If the space shuttle takes on fire when it gets back you can imagine that gamma rays no matter what direction they travel in are reduced in efect.

What????




I have no idea what you are saying.

Please use a spell checker and try to write in sentences that make sense.

I looked for numbers on lunar gamma but couldn't find it, but I knoe where they can be found. Ranger 3.

The analysis of scientific measurements made by the Ranger III lunar probe showed that gamma-ray intensity in interplanetary space was ten times greater than expected, NASA reported. Measurements were taken by gamma-ray spectrometers on Ranger III after it was launched on January 26. NASA scientists, however, did not believe that gamma-ray intensity was "great enough to require any changes in the design of radiation shielding for manned spacecraft."

source



I just can't find the data anywhere I even searched throught the A History of Project Ranger pages but found only passing refrence to the fact that the gamma spectrometer was working, and sent back info. I'm sure it's out there.

Edit; ranger 5 also collected gamma data for 4 hours. but again there is a lack of actual data
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Edit, edit; Dr. James R. Arnold was the head of the gamma detection experiments.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Halfofone]

I found this reading from the EGRET instrument which is what Pepsi is basing his argument on (he is basing it specifically on the image).
The numbers are:

The Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory has detected gamma rays from the Moon as it passed through the instrument field of view several times between 1991 and 1994. The average flux, (4.7 \pm 0.7) \times 10^-7 ph(>100 MeV)/cm^2s, and the energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Although the same processes may occur on the Sun, EGRET does not detect the quiet Sun. The upper limit, 3.0 \times 10^-7 ph(>100 MeV)/cm^2s, does not contradict calculations of the expected solar gamma-ray flux. Thus, in high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun.
www.aas.org...

I asked about how you read it and how to calculate the dose on another board I came across and the response I got was (from two people):

If you had a gamma-ray detector that was 1 centimeter square in size that detected gamma-rays with energies greater than 100 million electron volts, in one second it would record on average a number of photons(the author originally had 'particle hits' but later pointed out it was probably photons) equivalent to 4.7 plus or minus 0.7 divided by 10000000.

.....

rem is not longer used. The new unit is the Sievert (Sv)
To calculate the dosis you need to calculate how much energy per mass has been absorbed.
D=(K*a*t)/r^2
D is the absorbed energy mer mass [J/Kg] Unit is the Grey (Gy)
K is the radiation constant of the nuclei (gamma ray at 1.3 MeV) = 2.52*10^-18 C m^2/kg
a is the activity of the of the nuclei in Becquerel [Bq]
t is the time your mass (body) has been exposed to the radiation
r is the distance from the source of the radiation

To get the dosis you need to muliply this with the "biological qualityfactor".
For alpha and beta RAy it is 1. For gamma rays it is 20.

*** I translated the names for constants etc. from german. I have no clue if I did use the correct words.
I hope you understand it nontheless.
apollohoax.proboards21.com...

Hope someone here with a bigger brain than me or a degree in astrophysics can work it out!

Someone on the other forum I asked for help from has kindly solved the problem and calculated the dosage in Gamma Rays from the moon that pepsi is concerned about (bold added for emphasis):

The Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory has detected gamma rays from the Moon as it passed through the instrument field of view several times between 1991 and 1994. The average flux, (4.7 \pm 0.7) \times 10^-7 ph(>100 MeV)/cm^2s, and the energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Although the same processes may occur on the Sun, EGRET does not detect the quiet Sun. The upper limit, 3.0 \times 10^-7 ph(>100 MeV)/cm^2s, does not contradict calculations of the expected solar gamma-ray flux. Thus, in high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun.
www.aas.org...

Nov 15, 2005, 7:20am, Joe Durnavich wrote:Here is how I interpret it:

If you had a gamma-ray detector that was 1 centimeter square in size that detected gamma-rays with energies greater than 100 million electron volts, in one second it would record on average a number of particle hits(?) equivalent to 4.7 plus or minus 0.7 divided by 10000000.

Bingo.


Let the nuclear physics class begin

1 MeV = 1.6E-6 ergs
1 erg = 1E-7 Joules

so 100 MeV = 1.6E-11 Joules -- the energy contained in one of these 'killer' rays

We need to make some assumptions since we don't have a specific test astronaut. Let's assume he masses
100 Kg and that he's lying down giving approx 1 square meter of area (2 high by 1/2 wide).

From the flux value given, let's take the worst case and call it 5.4E-7 particles/cm^2s or 5.4e-3/m^2s.
For our subject that means 5.4e-7 particles per second, or 466.5 particles per day (let's round that up to 500, making it a little more dangerous).

500 particles @ 1.6E-11 Joules energy each = 8E-9 Joules absorbed per day.

1 gray = 100 rad = 1 joule/kg, and assuming perfect absorption, 1 rad = 1 rem. This is the worst case, also making it sound more dangerous. After all, if these things can punch through feet of lead without stopping, most of them would pass through the subject without hitting anything...

8e-9 J/day / 100 Kg = 8e-11 Gy/day = 8e-9 rem/day = 8e-3 microrem/day, or about 3 microrem per year.

The recommended limit on radiation exposure for the general public is 100 millirem/year, the lunar gamma radiation is 30 thousand times smaller. This wouldn't even be a blip on most measuring equipment. For the Apollo missions, it was nothing. Again, the NASA recording is merely stating that it's one extra little thing to consider for long-term missions.
apollohoax.proboards21.com...

So regarding the bright EGRET image of the Moon - case solved - and it's not an issue.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Okay there were a lot of pages on this in this thread and to be quite honest i skimmed through it so if someone already said this oh well... Here goes : WHy do you really care whether the moon landing was fake or not? How does that possibly impact your life? I don't see the relative point here because whether who is right and wrong will not change anything except whether humans have been on the moon or not. For example I take neither side by saying it will not affect us at all if NASA did hoax it because we still have all the same technology ect. and the same goes if the moon landing wasn't faked. People why not pursue much more interesting debates this has no point to it at all. ANother reason is if this is a hoax who cares too many other things have been covered up by the government. Besides NOT a single government on this Earth hasn't covered something up because everybody wants to keep public image. SO this really is an utterly pointless debate no offense

Why does people discussing it impact your life so you feel you have to comment?
The point is that it's something that matters to people, I can't speak for the people that don't believe it but from my own personal point of view it's because I have a keen interest in Space and it's exploration - amongst many other things - and the Apollo landings were a landmark event in human history. It is probably one of the least destructive things we have accomplished and is the start of a path out to the stars. I guess some of us have an explorer instinct and even though I can't take part myself I do have a strong interest in space exploration.
I also think it's important that people know about what we can accomplish and I think it would be a tragedy if this achievement was remembered wrongly as being a con. There are enough negative things for people to worry about without taking away the positives.

It also gives us a goal to aim for and serves as ideal motivation for self-education. I have found out a lot of information, not just specifics to the Lunar program, since taking part in the discussion because I have had to conduct research to find answers.

If you don't see any point in it then move onto one of the many other threads on one of the many other forums.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

If the debate doesn't matter to you, why argue having it? Seems rather odd.

Something I think people keeping up with this might find interesting; Jack Blood a radio talk how host will be having Bart Sibrel on his radio show tomorrow Fri Nov 18. at or around 3:00-5:00 EST on his GCN radio show
It should be interesting because Jack does not buy into the hoax yet belives in a lot of other 'cover ups' like 911, and the plot towards a NWO.

If you don't know, Jack Blood can be heard on the internet through Winamp 'shoutcast radio' any of the GCN stations or by clicking the links here.
GCNLIVE.com

I'll be working at the time so I cannot call in but I hope that someone can the number to call in to the show is, toll free is 1-800-253-3139. Again his show runs between 3 and 5 EST. I'm not sure when Bart will be on but It's gonna be good.

To get a better Idea of who Jack Blood is visit his site HERE
Again He said on his show today he does not buy into the hoax but is a "patriot" and does buy into alot of consperacy.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Halfofone]

I am sorry I didn't mean to offend you. Actually I thought most of you guy s were so into the discussion that someone might have a heart attack whereas that was just to try to take away any stress this might inflicted in your life since there are people who will never believe that the moon landing is a hoax and some who will never believe it was real so again I didn't mean to affend you just it seemed like a pointless debate at the time (to me anyway) and my error would be based on the matter of perspective, a fatal one that I shouldn't have made, and I am sorry

The problem I am findings is a lot of the Moon landing naysayers never can say what proof is needed to bring them across to the otehr side. Nor will then look at NASA data regarding the event that disproves their theory, but will gladly use it to bring doubt to the whole program. They rather think the government and its orginizatiosn are evil and should be taken down.

If you listed a score card of human accoplisments, landing on the moon is one of the biggest, beacsue if we could do that over 30 years ago there should be no dobut we can do it again, and even land on other planets.

It is just are peiople willing to support that endevor and eventually break free from the limts of earth, and solve the proble of over population and resource depletion

Originally posted by maninblack
It is kind of to say the moon landings were faked,or else were would we have gotten moon rock from?
But I think more happend at the moon landing then we know.

www.ghost-pictures.org...