Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

I have nothing to add, I just wanted to be poster 5960....

2nd

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I have nothing to add, I just wanted to be poster 5960....

2nd

Awesome.

Look -

We should find all sorts of things to match up with the Apollo story, if it's genuine.

But it's just the opposite. Nothing matches up.

It matches a hoax, holding on to its last few threads

Aluminum shielding actually makes deep-space radiation even worse, so we won't use it for our future spacecraft. But nobody points out that Apollo was aluminum. Why do they ignore it?

Guess....

something else that always makes me curious is why did the likes of russia not bother to go to the moon....i mean did they just take the U.S word for it ?nothing to see here fellas...and they abandon their own programs...

so were things different back then did the major players all share notes ?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
something else that always makes me curious is why did the likes of russia not bother to go to the moon....i mean did they just take the U.S word for it ?nothing to see here fellas...and they abandon their own programs...

so were things different back then did the major players all share notes ?

Think of Antarctica where so many countries go to study " a new continent ' it seems a little weird that only America has sent people to the moon for the last forty five years with the major advances in global technology.

Unless of course something happened or rather is continuing to happen...

originally posted by: turbonium1
Look -

We should find all sorts of things to match up with the Apollo story, if it's genuine.

But it's just the opposite. Nothing matches up.

Not true.

The samples are proven to be from the moon as they exhibit features that can only be found on material taken from a zero atmosphere low gravity environment.

The trajectories were plotted by stations on earth and communications with the spacecraft were followed by amateur radio enthusiasts on Earth.

Photographs taken in lunar orbit of the lunar surface show features that were not known about from unmanned probes.

Photographs taken from lunar orbit of the the lunar terminator shows that it is always exactly where it should be at every point in the mission.

Photographs, 16mm and live TV broadcasts show features that were not known about until much more recent probes revealed them.

Photographs taken in lunar orbit and from the lunar surface show configurations of planets and stars (yes, planets and stars) entirely consistent with being there. Every photograph, 16mm film or live TV image of Earth shows weather patterns that are an exact match with the satellite record, with the terminator in exactly the right place and the appropriate land masses in view.

All the evidence was publicly available at the time. I have lots of copies of original material that proves that.

Every single aspect of the Apollo missions is entirely consistent with the recorded facts no matter the angle from which they are viewed. The only time there is any inconsistency is when liars and frauds manipulate and cherry pick the evidence to present a lie in claiming that the missions were hoaxed

It matches a hoax, holding on to its last few threads

Meaningless hyperbole. Entirely the opposite is true.

Aluminum shielding actually makes deep-space radiation even worse, so we won't use it for our future spacecraft. But nobody points out that Apollo was aluminum. Why do they ignore it?

Guess....

This is the kind of deliberate misinterpretation I'm talking about, Find anyone who denies the CSM was made of aluminium, Then find someone (ideally someone who actually knows what they are talking about) who can prove, with equations, facts and actual evidence, that aluminium was not suitable for a short term mission to the moon.

Aluminium is not suitable for long term missions. Everyone knows that, particularly those involved in researching an planning long term missions. Like these people at NASA:

science.nasa.gov...

Some scientists believe that materials such as aluminum, which provide adequate shielding in Earth orbit or for short trips to the Moon, would be inadequate for the trip to Mars.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Aluminum shielding actually makes deep-space radiation even worse, so we won't use it for our future spacecraft. But nobody points out that Apollo was aluminum. Why do they ignore it?

Guess....

Why do they ignore it? Well maybe because even the longest Apollo missions spent little more than a week in deep space, whereas future missions might last years!

If by "making it worse" you are talking about Bremsstrahlung, you might want to check your maths. A low Z number means LESS Bremsstrahlung. Aluminium has Z=13, which is lower than any other metal except lithium, beryllium, sodium or magnesium.

Ponder why we are unlikely to make spacecraft out of these metals...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

This is the kind of deliberate misinterpretation I'm talking about, Find anyone who denies the CSM was made of aluminium, Then find someone (ideally someone who actually knows what they are talking about) who can prove, with equations, facts and actual evidence, that aluminium was not suitable for a short term mission to the moon.

Aluminium is not suitable for long term missions. Everyone knows that, particularly those involved in researching an planning long term missions. Like these people at NASA:

science.nasa.gov...

Some scientists believe that materials such as aluminum, which provide adequate shielding in Earth orbit or for short trips to the Moon, would be inadequate for the trip to Mars.

"..aluminum...provide adequate shielding..for short trips to the Moon..."??

What recent studies support that claim?

I've only seen papers that firmly state how aluminum is a VERY POOR shield in deep space.

What current research paper(s) claim aluminum is adequate shielding within deep space, or is this author making it up?

originally posted by: turbonium1


I've only seen papers that firmly state how aluminum is a VERY POOR shield in deep space.

Multiple links to many many papers have been supplied already in this and other threads to show that the CSM shielding provided adequate protection. Search for them.

You are claiming it didn't, you claim to have read papers that prove this, so you provide the links.

originally posted by: subtopia

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
something else that always makes me curious is why did the likes of russia not bother to go to the moon....i mean did they just take the U.S word for it ?nothing to see here fellas...and they abandon their own programs...

so were things different back then did the major players all share notes ?

Think of Antarctica where so many countries go to study " a new continent ' it seems a little weird that only America has sent people to the moon for the last forty five years with the major advances in global technology.

Unless of course something happened or rather is continuing to happen...

agreed thats why i asked the question ...i wonder if i will get an answer

originally posted by: Rob48

Why do they ignore it? Well maybe because even the longest Apollo missions spent little more than a week in deep space, whereas future missions might last years!

If by "making it worse" you are talking about Bremsstrahlung, you might want to check your maths. A low Z number means LESS Bremsstrahlung. Aluminium has Z=13, which is lower than any other metal except lithium, beryllium, sodium or magnesium.

Ponder why we are unlikely to make spacecraft out of these metals...

No, I'm talking about fragmentation, where secondary radiation is created from the material itself.

Aluminum is a good example - fragmenting particles of (deep space) radiation inside the craft. I'd like to know what is 'adequate' about that....so please, tell me all about it!!

a reply to: turbonium1

If I were you I'd demonstrate my ability to do actual research and look up what Bremsstrahlung is.

That is yet another problem for Apollo.

We discovered that aluminum is a poor shield against deep space radiation quite recently.

Apollo supposedly flew in deep space nine times, over a few years, yet remained blissfully ignorant ??

That's a good one.

a reply to: turbonium1

Not true, provide your sources or you're making it up.

Figure out what Bremsstrahlung is yet?

Turbinium, you have been spouting this rubbish about radiation since at least 2006, unless this is a different Turbonium?

apollohoax.proboards.com...

Has it not got into your head yet, after EIGHT YEARS?

I challenged you a few weeks ago to write to one of the authors of these papers you keep quoting and get the facts straight from the horse's mouth. You refused. Why?

This guy, Frank Cucinotta, crops up in a lot of them. He knows the score. Again: do you want to email him or shall I?

www.unlv.edu...

I will write this very slowly so you can follow.

Radiation.

Dose.

Depends.

Upon.

Time.

Got that? Next one.

Radiation.

Dose.

Is.

Cumulative.

Do you know what cumulative is? Look it up.



What is safe for one or two weeks may not necessarily be safe for a whole year.

originally posted by: turbonium1
That is yet another problem for Apollo.

We discovered that aluminum is a poor shield against deep space radiation quite recently.

Apollo supposedly flew in deep space nine times, over a few years, yet remained blissfully ignorant ??

That's a good one.

Rubbish.

Are you suggesting that secondary radiation was not known about at the time of Apollo?

Here, have a read of this document reviewing the Apollo missions. Written in March 1973, ie just three months after Apollo 17!

www.hq.nasa.gov...


Two things to note:

1) Bremsstrahlung is secondary radiation. Same thing. You seem to think they are different.

2) Bremsstrahlung was known about and accounted for in the design of the spacecraft.


These facts are irrefutable, but I know you will try, because you have been railing against common sense and science for most of the past decade.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

Why do they ignore it? Well maybe because even the longest Apollo missions spent little more than a week in deep space, whereas future missions might last years!

If by "making it worse" you are talking about Bremsstrahlung, you might want to check your maths. A low Z number means LESS Bremsstrahlung. Aluminium has Z=13, which is lower than any other metal except lithium, beryllium, sodium or magnesium.

Ponder why we are unlikely to make spacecraft out of these metals...

No, I'm talking about fragmentation, where secondary radiation is created from the material itself.

Aluminum is a good example - fragmenting particles of (deep space) radiation inside the craft. I'd like to know what is 'adequate' about that....so please, tell me all about it!!

what is adequate about that is, for the millionth time, apollo missions were for a maximum of about 12 days.. the amount of radiation from anything related to GCR's is neglible in this amount of time..

effectively for missions of less than a few months you do not need to shield against GCR's.

A little light reading:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Two conference proceedings, one from 1972, one from 1965. As well as the conference papers themselves, the references to those papers demonstrate just how much research was being undertaken into all kinds of space radiation and the protection strategies against it.

Took no time to find at all - all you need to know is how to ask the right question. Science deniers are very good at not asking the right questions.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48

Why do they ignore it? Well maybe because even the longest Apollo missions spent little more than a week in deep space, whereas future missions might last years!

If by "making it worse" you are talking about Bremsstrahlung, you might want to check your maths. A low Z number means LESS Bremsstrahlung. Aluminium has Z=13, which is lower than any other metal except lithium, beryllium, sodium or magnesium.

Ponder why we are unlikely to make spacecraft out of these metals...

No, I'm talking about fragmentation, where secondary radiation is created from the material itself.

Aluminum is a good example - fragmenting particles of (deep space) radiation inside the craft. I'd like to know what is 'adequate' about that....so please, tell me all about it!!

This response shows that you don't understand secondary radiation at all. Secondary radiation is dependent, among other things, on the atomic number (Z) of the shielding material. The best shielding against secondary radiation would be hydrogen rich (hydrogen Z = 1), but aluminium (Z = 13) is much better than, say, an equivalent mass of lead (Z = 82).

For short missions, aluminium is perfectly adequate. For longer missions, alternative materials eg plastics (made of carbon, Z = 6, and hydrogen, Z = 1) or even water (hydrogen, Z = 1, oxygen, Z = 8) would be preferable. The ideal shielding will probably consist of a combination of high and low Z materials to defend against different forms of radiation.

Here is an interesting study: boron nitride nanotubes! Notice: LOW Z!

www.nasa.gov...

It's funny how hoax theorists like to talk about lead being needed as a radiation shield when lead actually has a very HIGH atomic number.


Different shielding for different missions. I wouldn't row across the Atlantic in a rubber dinghy. Does that mean I couldn't paddle across my local lake in one?

These

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...


also contain material of interest.