Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

X-rays found in space are less energetic than those used in medical x-rays. The spacecraft had more than enough shielding against them.

And their suits had some shielding for when they were on the actual surface of the moon?
Just asking here.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder

Enough to handle normal levels of x-ray radiation. Had there been a very intense solar flare while on EVA there may have been a risky level of exposure but the Sun was being closely watched and the astronauts would have returned to the LM under those circumstances.

reply to post by Iwinder


The shielding used for an x-ray is actually the worst kind of shielding possible for a space craft. The particle under discussion determines the kind of shielding required. If you use the wrong kind of shielding, then you end up with a whole lot of particles being emitted from the shielding, making it much more dangerous. It has to do with the stopping of the particle hitting the shielding.

When you are in space, you want something with a low atomic mass. This prevents the "spalling" effect of more particles.

Interesting radiation primer
www.clavius.org...

Bremsstrahlung is the effect in question.
www.ndt-ed.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
1.8 million images captured... but the public is allowed to view 170,000 images...

Have you put in a formal request for all of them? Or do you just whine about it here?

Is that your best input to the thread? A childish dig that a 8 year old girl would make! If you have nothing of worth to ad to a thread, keep your whining to yourself.

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

Is that your best input to the thread? A childish dig that a 8 year old girl would make! If you have nothing of worth to ad to a thread, keep your whining to yourself.

I'm not the one who is whining. If you really think that there is something suspicious about the Clementine data, it is you who should investigate the data management. I understand how the data collection and processing works, and if I explained it to you, you would probably scream: "Aha! So it's been manipulated! That means it's FAKE." Seriously, if you have an issue, do some research.

DJ Dude my reply was to halobruce or whatever he is called, not to you. I didnt say you were whining. he just jumped into our conversation with an insult.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Is that your best input to the thread?

From that I take it you have not actually bothered to put in a formal request, as you are actually not interested in the photos, you just want to have a whine about NASA!

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Is that your best input to the thread?

From that I take it you have not actually bothered to put in a formal request, as you are actually not interested in the photos, you just want to have a whine about NASA!

Hey im not whining Sally, Its there job to give us what we payed them to get with our tax dollars.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder

 

The shielding used for an x-ray is actually the worst kind of shielding possible for a space craft. The particle under discussion determines the kind of shielding required. If you use the wrong kind of shielding, then you end up with a whole lot of particles being emitted from the shielding, making it much more dangerous. It has to do with the stopping of the particle hitting the shielding.

When you are in space, you want something with a low atomic mass. This prevents the "spalling" effect of more particles.

Interesting radiation primer
www.clavius.org...

Bremsstrahlung is the effect in question.
www.ndt-ed.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks very much for the links you provided, the first link was a good read and very informative......I followed the information provided with no problems and I might add here that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer as far as the space/science threads go.

I still am skeptical of the whole thing but much less so now after reading up on the radiation thing.
Many thanks,
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

X-rays found in space are less energetic than those used in medical x-rays. The spacecraft had more than enough shielding against them.

I see that now from a link provided on the next page of this thread, still I wonder some here about the shielding and and the actual amount of radiation.

Thanks, and Regards, Iwinder

The most convincing evidence that they went to the moon (for me) is watching the moon walks. They are clearly moving around in an environment of reduced gravity.
Speed it up, slow it down, it makes no difference...

see thread below

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

 

Hey we all have hard drives mate. Why not release the lot? what are they afraid of?
somebody must have cherry picked the very small proportion of released images.Or did they just ramdomly allow a batch out without looking through them?

I repeat: do you think any human being went through every single image to select the 170,000 images in question? The standard frame rate for a motion picture is 24 frames per second. If you projected all 170,000 images as a movie film, the film would last 118 minutes. Do you think 1/24 of a second is long enough to check for things you want to keep secret? Imagine how long it would take to examine a million images. Clearly, the data processing is not done the way you seem to think it is done.

Hey, Mr. "I repeat". Or should I call you Mr. "I think I've thought everything out better than everyone else"


Let's say there's a section on the moons with aliens and stuff, and then... a section of clear ground with nothing suspicious about it. and, NASA knows about both.

They could have taken with Camera A and "Roll" A, which contains 7.83 million blank film, an area that was covered with aliens and suspicious stuff,

then have used Camera B and "Roll" B, which contains .17 million blank film, an area that was covered with normal rocks and regular moon stuff.

This way, nobody would have had to hand picked anything.


Mr I repeat.


Take it easy on the noobs and the hoaxers from now on, eh? and I'll take it easy on you.




That is, if you're not a CIA truth deconstructer...

reply to post by BillyS2266


For one thing, Clementine didn't use rolls of film. For another, it photographed as much of the lunar surface as possible. And even if there was so much alien stuff on the Moon that they had to with-hold a million images, how did they know it was there in the first place? Someone would have to decide which pictures to publish and which to keep secret. Your entire argument makes no sense.

reply to post by Unity_99

We actually went to the moon. It wasn't staged. They may have staged some photos to hide what is really there. But spreading this isn't reality.

I'm with you on this. I think there were two actual productions running simultaneously.

NASAs Apollo Lunar Landing Mission Production

And the only thing they are now afraid to admit because, so many jumped the gun making wild accusations of the likes one only previously heard back in high school which is.....

The T.V production for the landing, so people could get all starry eyed sport'in their red white and blue suspenders and pimp hippie hats.

There is an excellent book by B. Harvey titled "Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration". In it the author tells the story of the rival space programme. Not everybody knows that the Soviet Union was very serious about preparing a real moon landing and what is most important, bringing its people back from the Moon. This task may seem easy, but in reality it's not like that. In fact, Soviets built and tested their own lunar module (LK), and rover (Lunokhod). The mission was expected to be carried out in the following way: first they send to the Moon a reserve lunar module (which can be used for take off from the Moon surface in case the primary module gets damaged) and a Lunokhod with a reserve supply of oxygen for the spaceman. Only then the primary module with one cosmonaut was to be sent. Also, Soviet scientists calculated the amount of radiation exposure on the surface of the Moon and the results were such that the cosmonaut had to use a lead umbrella. This is no joke. He was required to use this umbrella or he would be roasted to death by the cosmic radiation. The Soviets were only half-ready to launch a manned mission to the Moon and decided not to do it after receiving the news that Americans did it already. However, the cosmonaut Alexey Leonov volunteered to go to the Moon despite the 50/50 chance of returning back. He was refused this privilege by the Communist party. It is worth noting that back then the U.S. had better computer technology, but the Soviets had real space docking experience, which was as crucial for the mission as computer control. In general, the technology of the two countries can be considered very much alike, just look at the picture of the Soviet lunar module (LK). All this lead me to believe that the U.S. had comparable chances of success on their first attempt. And the U.S. astronauts must have been very tough guys to do jolly things on the surface of the Moon in bright sunlight without some fancy lead umbrellas.

That studio has been known for some time.
The glossy topography model of the Moon would not be used thats for sure.

I can't figure that a hoax was decided unless the top people knew that no one
would ever go to the Moon again. How would that be figured out.

OK say that the big guns die off and some upstart country is set to go to the
Moon. Then only 100% certainty would be death from radiation in transit and
the hoax would never be found out.

The hoax carried out made sure a success that no one will ever accomplish.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
1.8 million images captured... but the public is allowed to view 170,000 images...

Have you put in a formal request for all of them? Or do you just whine about it here?

Is that your best input to the thread?

So I take it you have not actually bothered to do any research yourself, or even requested the pictures. So that means you are not really interested in actually looking at them.

NASA had very realistic-looking moon models. The model used in the video is not realistic at all, nor is it meant to be. It's described as a simulation of how the basic approach would appear. That's all. It's hardly meant to be an authentic, highly detailed replica of the moon. It's about on par with cheese-textured moon models used in 40's and 50's sci-fi flicks,

Maybe that's the reason NASA released this video - to imply their models looked so fake compared to the, ahem, 'real' moon in the Apollo clips and images. Indeed, those faulty comparisons have already started.

The hoax will finally be revealed one day, imo. Advanced technology will probably expose the truth.