Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

The TITLE of the document should be enough to tell you it's NOT RELEVANT to Apollo Missions.

Document Title NASA Technical Paper 3682 Galactic and Solar Cosmic Ray Shielding in Deep Space

Apollo spacecraft were thin aluminum shells.

The document repeatedly states aluminum shielding is very poor in deep space, and even makes it more hazardous to astronauts, than it was before.

Now, why could this be the least bit relevant to Apollo missions?!?

a reply to: turbonium1

So you consider the moon deep space?

a reply to: turbonium1

You have not understood the paper.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: choos

And, as I pointed out in this thread, a hoax could never work. There is zero chance you could get away with it. All it would take for anybody to blow the hoax out of the water would be to visit the claimed landing sites and show that the landscape and the equipment there didn't match the photos. After all, if the photos were faked in a studio, how could they?

From a purely logical point of view, faking it makes NO SENSE because it would be guaranteed to be discovered sooner or later.

In 1969, nobody had any idea when the sites would next be visited.

I'd say it's the perfect event to hoax, and get away with.

Nobody can get to the moon, to find out whether it's true or not.

NASA had control of it, all the way.


An actual landing was very unlikely to occur, within their lifetimes.


However, their current efforts towards an actual landing is only showing it was a hoax ..


We'll need at least three rockets, fuel up in Earth orbit, before a moon landing. We had one rocket, we didn't need to fuel up, over 40 years ago! Now, we do??

We need to build a lunar lander. We had one back then, it worked just great! We're holding lunar lander contests now, and really hope to hell that does the trick!

We have probes in the VA Belts now, to measure radiation. We flew through 'em many times going to the moon, decades ago, with no problem!

On and on, so it goes...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

So you consider the moon deep space?

Deep space is the area beyond LEO, so yes.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wmd_2008

The TITLE of the document should be enough to tell you it's NOT RELEVANT to Apollo Missions.

Document Title NASA Technical Paper 3682 Galactic and Solar Cosmic Ray Shielding in Deep Space

Apollo spacecraft were thin aluminum shells.

The document repeatedly states aluminum shielding is very poor in deep space, and even makes it more hazardous to astronauts, than it was before.

Now, why could this be the least bit relevant to Apollo missions?!?

Exactly the question I want you to answer: WHY is this the least bit relevant to Apollo?

It's like linking to a paper discussing the requirements for a six-month South Pole expedition and claiming that it makes a week-long skiing holiday impossible.

Read the paper.

Clearly, these issues need resolution before designing systems to send astronauts into space for extended periods.

Now answer the question. Why is this relevant to Apollo? Does 12 days count as an extended period in your world?

a reply to: turbonium1

Apollo was an international effort, people from all over the free world worked on Apollo.

This is something hoax theorists continually ignore in their cloistered views. NASA could not possibly have kept a hoax quiet, the world was watching intently.

Some of the smartest people on the planet worked on Apollo. It's hilarious to even contemplate that these people could have been fooled when you consider the mental state of the average hoax theorist who claims to know the "truth".

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'd say it's the perfect event to hoax, and get away with.

Nobody can get to the moon, to find out whether it's true or not.

Says who? You? Are you also saying no-one can get a probe there to take photographs?

NASA had control of it, all the way.

They had, and have, control over their own missions, not anyone else's.

An actual landing was very unlikely to occur, within their lifetimes.

Says who? You?

However, their current efforts towards an actual landing is only showing it was a hoax ..


We'll need at least three rockets, fuel up in Earth orbit, before a moon landing. We had one rocket, we didn't need to fuel up, over 40 years ago! Now, we do??

We need to build a lunar lander. We had one back then, it worked just great! We're holding lunar lander contests now, and really hope to hell that does the trick!

Links? Sources? Evidence? Please demonstrate with your superior knowledge who the Saturn V was incapable of getting out of LEO and on to the moon.

We have probes in the VA Belts now, to measure radiation. We flew through 'em many times going to the moon, decades ago, with no problem!

We had probes in the VAB then to measure radiation. We had probes that passed through the on their way to the moon that measured radiation. Science does not take one measurement and give up. Science does not measure one aspect of something and assume it knows everything.

On and on, so it goes...

For as long as people continue to refuse to go to University and read books, for as long as people refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes, for as long as people refuse to use logical thought processes and rational discussion and keep their head firmly buried somewhere anatomically impossible, then yes, this will go on and on...

a reply to: turbonium1

So all radiation is the same regardless of exposure time then.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

Indeed. I'm waiting for delivery of 'Tracking Apollo to the Moon' by Hamish Lindsay. He was involved with the Australian effort to communicate with the Apollo missions.

Many people involved with Honeysuckle Creek are still around and contactable - they don't like liars who claim they didn't actually monitor Apollo on the moon.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'd say it's the perfect event to hoax, and get away with.

Nobody can get to the moon, to find out whether it's true or not.

you are also insinuating that probes also cannot get to the moon for some reason to take photos.. just as OBMonkey pointed out..

seriously?? your troll level has reached a new high..

a reply to: choos
How high is infantile?

Edit: Actually the word "infantile" just about sums up the whole moon hoax bag.

A shame. I thought this thread was going to discuss the possibility and implications of disclosure...like it intended, clearly, to do.

Maybe it does...a few dozen, or hundred, pages back...


Why must everything be a debate? Is this thread titled: "The moon landings were faked" ?

No.

There's a presumption of a shared understanding here.

For me, personally, there's no reason to EVER debate this. It's simply obvious on its face, and so being, also a futile waste of time even discussing with those for whom it's not. I'm not going to speculate as to the cause of these people's...shall we say, blind spot...or, mistaken conviction...but I do know that it's useless to engage them.

a reply to: joechip

Well that's the thing: the thread presumed that there is something to disclose. Clearly there isn't: as you say, there's no reason to debate this as the evidence is irrefutable.

And yet still a few people come in and try to debate it. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. I think some people just enjoy arguing for the sake of it. Some people (naming no names) have been making the same circular arguments for almost a decade now.

As for the "implications", you might as well start a thread called "Disclosure of the Flat Earth" or "Disclosure of the fact that the Statue of Liberty is made of lime-flavoured Jell-O". A thought experiment with no basis in reality.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
...which begs this question:
If NASA faked the Apollo landings, did they think that nobody else would EVER be able to go to the Moon to see the Apollo sites? That would be pretty bold (and very foolish) of NASA to assume that nobody would ever be able to go there and look. How could they be smart enough to pull off this hoax, but be so stupid as to not think it through to the end?

I've raised this exact point several times and no hoaxer has ever even tried to answer it. Back in 1969, for all anybody knew, Russia could have been landing right next to the Apollo sites within a few months.

I would say they were very confident about no one else challenging their 'story'.

Of course if you believe that the cold war was real and not a way for Russia and America to justify a continual escalation of their military capabilities beyond any other country.

The proof, the truth is in the reality that there is no American (again, 'that is publicly being disclosed') ON THE MOON, this goes directly against all human history. If they had the technological capability back in 1969 WHY ARE THEY NOT THERE TESTING, EXPLORING, CLAIMING SOVEREIGNTY!!!!

a reply to: subtopia

The USA is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, which expressly forbids claiming sovereignty over the moon. It also "exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations and fortifications."

That's why.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: subtopia
I as a critical thinker must state. Moon Landing = HOAX.

Contradiction in terms.

Like most hoax theorists you know very little about Apollo.

Critical thinker? Sure.

That's a little presumptuous don't you think, how do you KNOW what I KNOW.

Are you telling me that if only 12 humans on six explorations went to Antarctica and then no one set foot on it again for another 45 years you wouldn't question if they actually did it or not?

I have to guess you struggle with the meaning of critical thinking.

I do not have unquestionable faith in what I am officially told, critical thinkers have seen to many examples where the masses are justifiably lied to in the name of National Security. Which I accept, but not always agree with.

The whole point of the Apollo missions was not to get a man on the moon but to create, test and produce a reliable intercontinental ballistic platform for nuclear weapons. Once they were successful what happened to the aluminium foil and duck tape space program?

Is it because of embarrassment that they didn't go back that you feel like you have to defend the story they provided?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

So you consider the moon deep space?

Zaphod58, Anything outside of our planets protective magnet field must be considered deep space in relation to the required technical capacity to protect humans.

originally posted by: subtopia
I would say they were very confident about no one else challenging their 'story'.

They are very confident, to the point of not really caring if it is challenged. Why? Because they went. Anyone capable of getting a probe, or a person to the moon, can prove 'challenge' this - the only thing stopping anyone is money.

Of course if you believe that the cold war was real and not a way for Russia and America to justify a continual escalation of their military capabilities beyond any other country.

It was because of the cold war that they did this. Why? Because it was real. People who were alive during it tend not to think that it wasn't. Ask any, Korean War or Vietnam vet how real it was.

The proof, the truth is in the reality there is no Americans (again, 'that is publicly being disclosed') this goes directly against all human history.

Translation anyone?

If they had the technological capability back in 1969 WHY ARE THEY THERE TESTING, EXPLORING, CLAIMING SOVEREIGNTY!!!!

BECAUSE WE AREN'T DONE YET!!!! They did have the technology, it is well documented. If you have any proof that the technology didn't work then by all means tell the class.

Who has claimed sovereignty, and on what?

a reply to: subtopia

I do not have unquestionable faith in what I am officially told

Neither do I. Lots of what we are officially told in all walks of life is untrue.

Nobody here believes in Apollo "because we are told it happened".

We have minds of our own and can look at the evidence and decide for ourselves.

Hoax believers, on the other hand, look at YouTube videos and crank websites and believe them as gospel without applying any thought. Hence people posting Jarrah White videos as "proof" without bothering to check his maths.

That is why anybody who is a critical thinker will know Apollo was real.