Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, that's another Apollo-ite falsehood.

Sibrel released his film, 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon', which includes the never-before-seen footage, on Jan. 18, 2001.

Spacecraft Films released their film, 'Apollo 11: Men on the Moon', on Aug. 19, 2003. That's over two years after Sibrel had released his film.

Apollo-ites try and say it's always been available to the public, but they have no evidence for that claim.

Show me the evidence, if I'm wrong...

Spacecraft Films isn't NASA! Why are you trying to present a commercial release on DVD by an unrelated company as if it has anything to do with the footage anybody has always been able to order from NASA? Exactly as Sibrel did. Where do you think he got it from? Where do you think all the other researchers pre-2003 got it from?

And if people didn't want to get it direct from NASA, they could buy the whole set on VHS (remember that?!) from Larry Haskin at Washington University as long ago as the 1980s.

Oh, sorry, you wanted evidence. OK. Usenet archives are a wonderful thing, as everything is dated:

*complete* Apollo videotapes available
1 post by 1 author

Henry Spencer
20/08/1994

Eric Jones sent the following, asking me to pass it on...
-------------
For those who might be interested:
about 5 years ago, Larry Haskin
at the Department of Earth and Plantary Science,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 made a complete
set of Apollo video tapes from the originals
and then made 80 sets of VHS copies and offered them,
at cost, to interested researchers. Each set contains
about 40 two-hour VHS tapes. He's
still got half of the sets left, needs to get
rid of them, and, in a phone
conversation, told me that he'd be receptive
to written, snail-mail inquiries. The price is
$US468 per set. That's his cost, which came out
of the department budget and needs to be recovered.

Eric Jones

Link for the above

Aluminum IS a bad radiation shield in the deep space environment. That is a fact.

I've gone through these documents, and they do not say anything about aluminum being a bad radiation shield in deep space depending on exposure time!!

But again, show me the evidence where they say that, if I'm wrong..

Absolute rubbish.

If you bothered to read my post here then you would have seen exactly where they say that.

This for example:

The next stepping-stones in space exploration are envisioned to be of much longer duration stays on the moon, and possibly semi-permanent habitation on Mars. Such scenarios have forced much more detailed and concerted investigations of the potential effects of prolonged exposure to the high energy space radiation environment.

Try reading reports before posting them rather than Googling keywords and assuming the content supports you!

originally posted by: Rob48
Did you read the paper, or did you just do a CTRL-F for "aluminium"? It is not talking about short missions to the Moon taking a week or so. It is talking about future long missions when the astronauts will be in space for months or even years!

The uniqueness of the current workshop arises from the expected long duration of the missions without the
protective cover of the geomagnetic field in which the usually small and even neglected effects of the Galactic
Cosmic Rays (GCR) can no longer be ignored.

In prior manned space missions, the GCR have been considered negligible since the mission times were
relatively short and the main radiation concern was the very intense SEP events

Well over two decades have elapsed since the Apollo flights in which humans ventured beyond the earth’s
protective magnetic shield and entered interplanetary space. While these excursions were recognized to be subject
to space radiation hazards, their short duration tended to minimize the risks involved. The next stepping-stones in
space exploration are envisioned to be of much longer duration stays on the moon, and possibly semi-permanent
habitation on Mars. Such scenarios have forced much more detailed and concerted investigations of the potential
effects of prolonged exposure to the high energy space radiation environment.

You even quoted this part yourself and yet you somehow tried to twist it to SUPPORT your theory!

Can you really not tell the difference between the hazards of an Apollo flight, the longest of which was only 12 days long, and missions to Mars lasting several months each way? Do you not think you might need more effective shielding for a longer trip?

Again...

- the documents state that aluminum is a poor radiation shield in deep space.

- the documents DO NOT STATE aluminum is only a poor radiation shield in deep space for long-duration missions.

If you disagree with these two points, show me the proof of your claim within the documents. If you have no proof, then you have no claim. Which is it?


As for Apollo, the documents only say they were short-term missions, which minimized the risks. That is it.

They do NOT tell us that Apollo was an aluminum craft.

If you think they meant aluminum was an adequate radiation shield for short-term missions to the moon, like Apollo (supposedly) was, then they would obviously have pointed that out!

They only say Apollo was a short-term mission, and say nothing about being an aluminum craft. The only possible reason that makes sense is that they cannot say it was an aluminum craft.

To mention it would contradict what they've said about aluminum. So they don't mention it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
well.. he as well as other HB seem to believe he had inside information.. naturally if someone had as much information as Kaysing allegedly had then it would be obvious to keep an eye on him.. you dont just let people leave your organisation with secrets unwatched when you are the most powerful organisation in human history..

Why would NASA need to watch him, when he left Rocketdyne in 1963? Apollo 11 (supposedly) landed on the moon in 1969. If he had still been working at Rocketdyne during that time, then you'd have an argument. But he was long gone by then, so you have no argument. Simple as that.

originally posted by: choos
thats almost like you are saying that Kaysing doesnt know what he is talking about?? almost like he is making up the claims?? is that what you are suggesting??

the person that HB call the "father of the moon hoax theories" or regarded as the initiator of the moon hoax theories.. didnt actually know about the hoax?? that says alot..

Kaysing was privy to technical documents prior to the Apollo missions, which made him aware of the many problems that were unresolved. Kaysing said...

"In the late '50s, when I was at Rocketdyne, they did a feasibility study on astronauts landing on the moon. They found that the chance of success was something like .0017 percent. In other words, it was hopeless."

So he did know what he was talking about.

originally posted by: choos
naturally yes.. how else did NASA keep 400000 or so people quiet for over 40 years??

So how many of them were killed by NASA because they were going to release inside information? Do you know?

originally posted by: choos
he claims he got it accidentally.. even though its the exact same footage that everyone else was able to obtain publically.. he never presented footage that was never seen before.. infact.. more detailed footage has been available to the public than what Sibrel was able to show as sibrel cut out footage that would prove his arguments wrong..

No, that's another Apollo-ite falsehood.

Sibrel released his film, 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon', which includes the never-before-seen footage, on Jan. 18, 2001.

Spacecraft Films released their film, 'Apollo 11: Men on the Moon', on Aug. 19, 2003. That's over two years after Sibrel had released his film.

Apollo-ites try and say it's always been available to the public, but they have no evidence for that claim.

Show me the evidence, if I'm wrong...

originally posted by: choos
whats the difference between your reports about aluminium being a bad radiation shield and the apollo missions?? *hint something to do with exposure time.

Aluminum IS a bad radiation shield in the deep space environment. That is a fact.

I've gone through these documents, and they do not say anything about aluminum being a bad radiation shield in deep space depending on exposure time!!

But again, show me the evidence where they say that, if I'm wrong..

Aluminum is great at stopping most radiation however the spacecraft wasnt made with just aluminum in fact most of it was a polymer very similar to fiberglass. And guess whats so ironic glass is great at blocking radiation thats why they use it with x ray machines. See there was alot more to the craft than just a piece of aluminum i suggest in the future you might want to check that out.

a reply to: turbonium1

Rather than trying to cherry-pick quotes out of context, why don't you actually ask these people whether aluminium was a problem?

I already provided figures to show that a long-term deep-space mission would expose astronauts to about 1 sievert per year.

The safety limit (which itself is based on a 3% increase in cancer risk - hardly instant death!) is 0.5 sieverts per year.

So do you see how a one-year mission would exceed the safety limit with current shielding technologies? By a factor of two.

The same figures will tell you that a six-month mission with current shielding would be just about acceptable, although obviously they would want to leave more of a margin for error.

If six months is OK, then why would TWELVE DAYS be a problem?

Seriously, if you don't understand this then why not write to Prof Cucinotta and ask him to explain it. He has been quoted as saying there is a lot of misunderstanding about radiation.

originally posted by: Rob48

Spacecraft Films isn't NASA! Why are you trying to present a commercial release on DVD by an unrelated company as if it has anything to do with the footage anybody has always been able to order from NASA? Exactly as Sibrel did. Where do you think he got it from? Where do you think all the other researchers pre-2003 got it from?

And if people didn't want to get it direct from NASA, they could buy the whole set on VHS (remember that?!) from Larry Haskin at Washington University as long ago as the 1980s.

Is that true? You are claiming it is true, right?

So now then, one more time, I'll ask you - show me proof of your claim.

I'm sure you wouldn't make that claim if you couldn't prove it, right?

originally posted by: Rob48
Absolute rubbish.

If you bothered to read my post here then you would have seen exactly where they say that.

This for example:

The next stepping-stones in space exploration are envisioned to be of much longer duration stays on the moon, and possibly semi-permanent habitation on Mars. Such scenarios have forced much more detailed and concerted investigations of the potential effects of prolonged exposure to the high energy space radiation environment.

Try reading reports before posting them rather than Googling keywords and assuming the content supports you!

Try reading what I asked you for -

Show me where these documents mention anything about aluminum being a bad radiation shield in deep space depending on exposure time!!

You show me they are investigating radiation for long duration missions. Then you say it proves your claim.

Do you have any proof for what I have asked you for, or not?

Which is it?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

Spacecraft Films isn't NASA! Why are you trying to present a commercial release on DVD by an unrelated company as if it has anything to do with the footage anybody has always been able to order from NASA? Exactly as Sibrel did. Where do you think he got it from? Where do you think all the other researchers pre-2003 got it from?

And if people didn't want to get it direct from NASA, they could buy the whole set on VHS (remember that?!) from Larry Haskin at Washington University as long ago as the 1980s.

Is that true? You are claiming it is true, right?

So now then, one more time, I'll ask you - show me proof of your claim.

I'm sure you wouldn't make that claim if you couldn't prove it, right?

No, I wouldn't. You must have missed my edit. If you did, here is the link again. If you had $468 back in 1994 then you could have purchased a full set of 40 VHS tapes that were made back in the late 1980s.

*complete* Apollo videotapes available
1 post by 1 author

Henry Spencer
20/08/1994

Eric Jones sent the following, asking me to pass it on...
-------------
For those who might be interested:
about 5 years ago, Larry Haskin
at the Department of Earth and Plantary Science,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 made a complete
set of Apollo video tapes from the originals
and then made 80 sets of VHS copies and offered them,
at cost, to interested researchers. Each set contains
about 40 two-hour VHS tapes. He's
still got half of the sets left, needs to get
rid of them, and, in a phone
conversation, told me that he'd be receptive
to written, snail-mail inquiries. The price is
$US468 per set. That's his cost, which came out
of the department budget and needs to be recovered.

Eric Jones

Show me where these documents mention anything about aluminum being a bad radiation shield in deep space depending on exposure time!!

Seriously, how simple can I make this?

The ENTIRE PAPER you quoted from is about shielding for prolonged deep-space missions.

www.cs.odu.edu...

The very first paragraph of the introduction makes that perfectly plain.

“We look to the Space Technology
Enterprise (STE) to develop revolutionary advanced
technologies critical to establishing a sustained human presence in space"

If you cannot understand the basic premise of the paper then why do you think you can understand what the quotes from it mean?

It is like quoting from a paper on oil tankers and using it to claim that you shouldn't build a racing dinghy from fibreglass. Utterly inappropriate.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Aluminum is great at stopping most radiation however the spacecraft wasnt made with just aluminum in fact most of it was a polymer very similar to fiberglass. And guess whats so ironic glass is great at blocking radiation thats why they use it with x ray machines. See there was alot more to the craft than just a piece of aluminum i suggest in the future you might want to check that out.

We already know aluminum is a poor radiation shield in deep space. You say it's "great at stopping most radiation", as if it somehow supports your argument or something!!

I'm quite aware of the materials which were used in the Apollo CM. I said it was primarily built out of thin aluminum sheeting. That is a fact.

So the majority of the craft is built out of a material that is a poor radiation shield, and even makes the radiation more hazardous to astronauts than otherwise. You're off to a great start.

Are you claiming the other materials used in the CM shell provided adequate radiation shielding in deep space?
Show me proof of that, if you can.

I bet you have no proof for that, right?

To you..

originally posted by: turbonium1

Are you claiming the other materials used in the CM shell provided adequate radiation shielding in deep space?
Show me proof of that, if you can.

I bet you have no proof for that, right?

To you..

Well of course we do. Every crew member carried four dosimeters which showed exactly how much radiation penetrated the CM shell.

These readings were regularly transmitted back to the ground.



(Data from 16 and 17 weren't available at the time of this report: the missing figures are 0.51 and 0.55 respectively. Source.)

Even the highest of those readings is 350 times lower than the mission limit.

Table above is from www.hq.nasa.gov...

What better way of demonstrating the shielding effect than putting a dozen radiation detectors (not to mention three biological ones!) inside the damn thing?


I have already shown that the shielding as used on Apollo would only be a problem for missions of six months or more, using the very same papers you used. Why do you continually fail to acknowledge this?

originally posted by: Rob48

No, I wouldn't. You must have missed my edit. If you did, here is the link again. If you had $468 back in 1994 then you could have purchased a full set of 40 VHS tapes that were made back in the late 1980s.

*complete* Apollo videotapes available
1 post by 1 author

Henry Spencer
20/08/1994

Eric Jones sent the following, asking me to pass it on...
-------------
For those who might be interested:
about 5 years ago, Larry Haskin
at the Department of Earth and Plantary Science,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 made a complete
set of Apollo video tapes from the originals
and then made 80 sets of VHS copies and offered them,
at cost, to interested researchers. Each set contains
about 40 two-hour VHS tapes. He's
still got half of the sets left, needs to get
rid of them, and, in a phone
conversation, told me that he'd be receptive
to written, snail-mail inquiries. The price is
$US468 per set. That's his cost, which came out
of the department budget and needs to be recovered.

Eric Jones

So you 'prove' your claim by pointing me to VHS tapes that cost nearly 500 bucks?

I said I want your proof. Do you know what proof is?

How can you claim to know the footage is on these VHS tapes, when you obviously haven't seen them yourself?

That's the real rubbish here.

Show me proof of this footage being available in public before 2001. If you are correct about it being available, then you will be able to prove it.

Back to you again..

a reply to: Misinformation

not sure what your trying too instil,,but ya shouldn't put too much stock into poll results

So where are you getting your figures from?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

No, I wouldn't. You must have missed my edit. If you did, here is the link again. If you had $468 back in 1994 then you could have purchased a full set of 40 VHS tapes that were made back in the late 1980s.

*complete* Apollo videotapes available
1 post by 1 author

Henry Spencer
20/08/1994

Eric Jones sent the following, asking me to pass it on...
-------------
For those who might be interested:
about 5 years ago, Larry Haskin
at the Department of Earth and Plantary Science,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 made a complete
set of Apollo video tapes from the originals
and then made 80 sets of VHS copies and offered them,
at cost, to interested researchers. Each set contains
about 40 two-hour VHS tapes. He's
still got half of the sets left, needs to get
rid of them, and, in a phone
conversation, told me that he'd be receptive
to written, snail-mail inquiries. The price is
$US468 per set. That's his cost, which came out
of the department budget and needs to be recovered.

Eric Jones

So you 'prove' your claim by pointing me to VHS tapes that cost nearly 500 bucks?

I said I want your proof. Do you know what proof is?

How can you claim to know the footage is on these VHS tapes, when you obviously haven't seen them yourself?

Because unless you are calling Larry Haskin a liar, it is the *complete* footage, and that post was written 20 years ago!

You ask for proof, and then you claim the proof isn't good enough!

You think I am making this stuff up? Look up "Haskin Apollo tapes" and you will find plenty of other sources to back this up.

And please answer my question: where do you think Sibrel got his footage from?

originally posted by: Rob48

Well of course we do. Every crew member carried four dosimeters which showed exactly how much radiation penetrated the CM shell.

These readings were regularly transmitted back to the ground.

(Data from 16 and 17 weren't available at the time of this report: the missing figures are 0.51 and 0.55 respectively. Source.)

Even the highest of those readings is 350 times lower than the mission limit.

Table above is from www.hq.nasa.gov...

What better way of demonstrating the shielding effect than putting a dozen radiation detectors (not to mention three biological ones!) inside the damn thing?


I have already shown that the shielding as used on Apollo would only be a problem for missions of six months or more, using the very same papers you used. Why do you continually fail to acknowledge this?

Is that supposed to be proof? Are you joking?

These documents are proof that aluminum is a poor radiation shield. That is what I'm asking you for. Actual scientific documents that show the OTHER materials used in the CM shell are adequate radiation shielding in deep space, at the thickness in the CM.

If you cannot show me this, then you have no claim at all..

originally posted by: Rob48

Because unless you are calling Larry Haskin a liar, it is the *complete* footage, and that post was written 20 years ago!

You ask for proof, and then you claim the proof isn't good enough!

You think I am making this stuff up? Look up "Haskin Apollo tapes" and you will find plenty of other sources to back this up.

And please answer my question: where do you think Sibrel got his footage from?

Sibrel says he got it from NASA, as I recall. Why?

As for the 'proof' of your claim, it is your burden to show it.

Saying it is on the VHS tapes, and asking me if I think the guy who made the tapes is a liar, does not help your case in the least.

Clearly, you have no proof for your claim.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

Well of course we do. Every crew member carried four dosimeters which showed exactly how much radiation penetrated the CM shell.

These readings were regularly transmitted back to the ground.

(Data from 16 and 17 weren't available at the time of this report: the missing figures are 0.51 and 0.55 respectively. Source.)

Even the highest of those readings is 350 times lower than the mission limit.

Table above is from www.hq.nasa.gov...

What better way of demonstrating the shielding effect than putting a dozen radiation detectors (not to mention three biological ones!) inside the damn thing?


I have already shown that the shielding as used on Apollo would only be a problem for missions of six months or more, using the very same papers you used. Why do you continually fail to acknowledge this?

Is that supposed to be proof? Are you joking?

These documents are proof that aluminum is a poor radiation shield. That is what I'm asking you for. Actual scientific documents that show the OTHER materials used in the CM shell are adequate radiation shielding in deep space, at the thickness in the CM.

If you cannot show me this, then you have no claim at all..

What could be a simpler proof than readings from INSIDE the command module? What data are you looking for, exactly?

Is this just going to be a festival of moving goalposts, or what?

Show me that the Apollo footage was available before 2003!

Rob48 shows a Usenet post from 1994 offering complete Apollo footage for sale on VHS tape.

"Not good enough - show me some more proof!"



"Show me the CM provided adequate shielding!"

Rob48 provides data showing the radiation dose inside the CM for all Apollo missions.

"Not good enough, show me some more data - I don't know what data, but I want it now!"



Now, could YOU please answer a question for me, which I have asked several times before.

Given the data from the paper you quoted, stating that the radiation dose in deep space missions would be 1 sievert per year, and given that the safe dose is considered to be 0.5 sieverts in any one year, why is a 12-day mission considered too dangerous, in your view?

You keep demanding data from me. Give me some data, please. Data, with numbers. Not out-of-context one-liners.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Are you claiming the other materials used in the CM shell provided adequate radiation shielding in deep space?
Show me proof of that, if you can.

I bet you have no proof for that, right?

To you..

sure.. assuming the estimates from your own report..
132cSv/year for 1g/cm thick aluminium sheet which penetrates 0cm and 91cSv/year at 5cm depth shielded by a spherical shell..

all we need now is the length of stay in deep space..

can you specify the amount of time that you want??
apollo 17 was the longest duration of about 12 days.. shall we use 12 days as an example??

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

Turbonium, you seem to have a problem with reading. Either that or you assume that nobody else can read and catch you out in your lies.

So I guess that means you are really on the defensive now. Remember, the Russians have a glass ceiling altitude limit of 475km. I don't think one radiation expert is going to change that fact.

100% govno, tovarich.

The Russians had no issue with sending cosmonauts to lunar distance -- they just never perfected their rockets and spacecraft in time to beat Apollo-8, then cancelled secretly and lied about it, to mislead the weak minded.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Are you claiming the other materials used in the CM shell provided adequate radiation shielding in deep space?
Show me proof of that, if you can.

I bet you have no proof for that, right?

To you..

sure.. assuming the estimates from your own report..
132cSv/year for 1g/cm thick aluminium sheet which penetrates 0cm and 91cSv/year at 5cm depth shielded by a spherical shell..

all we need now is the length of stay in deep space..

can you specify the amount of time that you want??
apollo 17 was the longest duration of about 12 days.. shall we use 12 days as an example??

I have an idea we have the data collected by curiosity on its way to mars.The dose equivalent for even the shortest round-trip with current propulsion systems and comparable shielding is found to be 0.66 ± 0.12 sievert. During Curiosity’s 253-day, 350-million-mile trip, the rover absorbed about half a sievert — an average of 1.8 thousandths of a sievert per day, mostly from cosmic rays. Obviously a mission like apollo is well under safety limits. Now what this data shows is without shielding the astronauts are 21 percent more likely to develop cancer than the person on earth.Since safety of the astronauts is an issue we have 2 choices shield them from radiation or make the trip faster.The third i guess would be allow the astronauts to receive higher doses knowing the increased odds of developing cancer.

Now we have the data if we want to look at it can be found here and registration is free.

www.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: turbonium1

If you search ebay you will find many original newspapers and magazines that contain stills from that footage - including TV footage shown the day before publication with time and location specific details in them.

I watched those TV broadcasts and have slides of them (again from ebay).

Popular newspapers also released 8mm and super8 film - here's a picture I just took of some I bought from ebay. I have national geographics with adverts for rhem and lots of books with stills in them. If you had the money all you had to do was ask NASA and they would send you copies.



So it was freely available.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I thought you'd have some good original sources.

Turbonium seems to think that the Apollo evidence has only been around since the WWW. If you can't do a CTRL-F search to find a sentence that you think illustrates your point, it doesn't exist

a reply to: dragonridr
Oh and now the beatles were involved i guess NIXON hated the beatles ,you are making little sense.

theres no guessing involved,,,of course Nixon hated the Beattles,,,everyone knows that the Nixon White House was instrumental in targeting John Lennon for deportation,,,

you see,,many of the senior NASA astronauts and engineers were huge Beatles fans, and the Beattles would of almost certainly been aware of the hoax TPTB had planned ,, & they were preparing too blow the whistle on the operation.....

However, for everyones protection, it was decide too incode the truth about the planned hoax in their music instead...