Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by choos
you have seen the numbers already which prove that 12 days on the moon is about 0.7cGy .

So where did they get the numbers, which "prove" your claim? Hmm...

"From data obtained on the Apollo missions (Benton, 1984), it can be estimated that the daily HZE particle fluence within a spacecraft in transit between the,earth and moon would be approximately 17 particles cm-r with LET greater than 100 keV pm-‘. The total fluence of such particles for the entire lunar mission would be about 800 HZE’s cm-*."

www.workingonthemoon.com...

So your numbers are actually estimates based on Apollo's own numbers!!,

Voila! Apollo proves Apollo!

You must be joking!!

Originally posted by turbonium1

So where did they get the numbers, which "prove" your claim? Hmm...

"From data obtained on the Apollo missions (Benton, 1984), it can be estimated that the daily HZE particle fluence within a spacecraft in transit between the,earth and moon would be approximately 17 particles cm-r with LET greater than 100 keV pm-‘. The total fluence of such particles for the entire lunar mission would be about 800 HZE’s cm-*."

www.workingonthemoon.com...

So your numbers are actually estimates based on Apollo's own numbers!!,

Voila! Apollo proves Apollo!

You must be joking!!

but like you said.. many other organisations corroborate this data.. otherwise.. what weight does your saying that the radiation inside an aluminium shell is too high hold for the manned moon mission?? since the data came from NASA?

but really lets see the numbers that you have.. since you wont believe NASA's data. you seem to have come to the conclusion that they are lowered.. and that other organisations have numbers which are enormously higher.. apparently you have these numbers.. how else can you be so sure that the levels of radiation for 12 days will make apollo mission impossible.

p.s. the lunacy in your post shows.. by denying the data you are alluding that the entire space/science/engineering community realise that NASA's data is falsified.. and since not one person has pointed out that the data is magnitudes in size lower than what they should be, they must all be part of the moon landing hoax.. which would equate to several million more people and growing.. you must be the one who is joking otherwise lets see your magical alternative data.


p.p.s. read the preface:

The radiation environments to be expected
in various space scenarios are described and measurement data that
have been recorded during some United States and some Soviet flights
are discussed.

most importantly READ THE REFERENCES!!!!!

feeling silly yet?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Well I can explain. Secret missions

How could they have secretly launched a Saturn V?

To venture into deep space without any radiation shielding would cause severe illness, even death...probably within a few days. A human can't go into deep space) without adequate shielding, for just that reason.

So what would happen if you had no shield? Within a week, you'd likely be sick or dead.

What would happen if the radiation was intensified? The heath effects would be even more severe, obviously.

Aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space.

Apollo was primarily made of aluminum.


These basic facts show why Apollo was a hoax...

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Well I can explain. Secret missions

How could they have secretly launched a Saturn V?

Put a silencer on it and launched it at night?

When the Apollo hoax believers get as silly with their claims as you think they can, they come up with a conspiracy theory even sillier!

Originally posted by turbonium1


These basic facts show why Apollo was a hoax...

You haven't addressed a previous point: this is supposedly a "basic fact" yet no expert from, say, the Soviet Union, China, India, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else has brought this up in 45 years?

Originally posted by turbonium1
To venture into deep space without any radiation shielding would cause severe illness, even death...probably within a few days. A human can't go into deep space) without adequate shielding, for just that reason.

proof and citation please.

So what would happen if you had no shield? Within a week, you'd likely be sick or dead.

What would happen if the radiation was intensified? The heath effects would be even more severe, obviously.

Aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space.

if you mean within a few days ie. about 12 days. proof data and citation please.

Apollo was primarily made of aluminum.

These basic facts show why Apollo was a hoax...

speculation otherwise provide data, proof, citations..

Originally posted by choos
[but like you said.. many other organisations corroborate this data.. otherwise.. what weight does your saying that the radiation inside an aluminium shell is too high hold for the manned moon mission?? since the data came from NASA?

but really lets see the numbers that you have.. since you wont believe NASA's data. you seem to have come to the conclusion that they are lowered.. and that other organisations have numbers which are enormously higher.. apparently you have these numbers.. how else can you be so sure that the levels of radiation for 12 days will make apollo mission impossible.

p.s. the lunacy in your post shows.. by denying the data you are alluding that the entire space/science/engineering community realise that NASA's data is falsified.. and since not one person has pointed out that the data is magnitudes in size lower than what they should be, they must all be part of the moon landing hoax.. which would equate to several million more people and growing.. you must be the one who is joking otherwise lets see your magical alternative data.

edit on 30-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

The Apollo data suggests aluminum is an adequate radiation shield in deep space. At the time, this was accepted as true. The recent reports say it 'used to be thought' that aluminum was an adequate radiation shield for deep space.

That is not what they say anymore. They say aluminum intensifies the radiation, It is worse than no shield at all. That means Apollo data is regarded as garbage by experts today , It makes no sense at all tfor them o use it, or to refer to it. That's why they barely acknowledge it, or completely ignore it.

Aluminum intensifies the radiation in deep space. It is not a shield, it is worse than having no shield at all. Those are solid facts. You can deny it all you want, but it is the absolute truth..

reply to post by turbonium1


Can I join the growing chorus of people asking for citations and proof?

Originally posted by turbonium1
That means Apollo data is regarded as garbage by experts today

Care to show us exactly which experts said that and where they said it?

Originally posted by turbonium1

The Apollo data suggests aluminum is an adequate radiation shield in deep space. At the time, this was accepted as true. The recent reports say it 'used to be thought' that aluminum was an adequate radiation shield for deep space.

That is not what they say anymore. They say aluminum intensifies the radiation, It is worse than no shield at all. That means Apollo data is regarded as garbage by experts today , It makes no sense at all tfor them o use it, or to refer to it. That's why they barely acknowledge it, or completely ignore it.

Aluminum intensifies the radiation in deep space. It is not a shield, it is worse than having no shield at all. Those are solid facts. You can deny it all you want, but it is the absolute truth..

actually no, aluminium is a good enough shield for short missions.. because the time of exposure is not high enough with regards to GCR's.. aluminium is not good enough for long term missions because simply the effective dose in one year approaches the limits set for one year and at times exceeds it.. you can look at the reports yourself..

p.s. i would like to point out the stark contrast here and your contradictions from this post here:

To venture into deep space without any radiation shielding would cause severe illness, even death...probably within a few days. A human can't go into deep space) without adequate shielding, for just that reason.

So what would happen if you had no shield? Within a week, you'd likely be sick or dead. www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:

I didn't make those claims, you merely attributed them to me. You're the one who made a claim about aluminum adequately shielding a crew for 6 days or so - a la Apollo missions. I said the experts never supported your claim, which is true.

Nor did I claim about killing all onboard. I simply repeated what the experts said, which is that aluminum will increase the radiation hazard beyond LEO, and it is inadequate for shielding a crew beyond LEO. Those claims are also true..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by choos


He won't listen you know. He'll just recite the same things again and again.

Originally posted by choos
if you mean within a few days ie. about 12 days. proof data and citation please.

Are you implying that humans don't need any shielding for short-stay lunar missions? That they'd still be in perfect health afterwards?

If not, then what do you think would happen to them?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by choos

 

He won't listen you know. He'll just recite the same things again and again.

thats ok, ive been repeating the same thing for about 40 pages thus far. the more lies he piles on the easier it is to spot them and theres the first obvious one.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Are you implying that humans don't need any shielding for short-stay lunar missions? That they'd still be in perfect health afterwards?

If not, then what do you think would happen to them?

actually yes.. for short stays on the moon, excluding large SPE's they dont need shielding against GCR's.

there i said it.


p.s. prove me wrong.. provide the numbers which suggest GCR's are so high in deep space that a man cannot survive without getting sick in 6-12 days time.

and the numbers which show that inside an aluminium shell the radiation levels will exceed 4Sv since you believe they should kill or make astronauts sick within 6 days.

Originally posted by choos
actually no, aluminium is a good enough shield for short missions.. because the time of exposure is not high enough with regards to GCR's..

So you believe aluminum is a "good enough shield" for short missions....because..umm...because it intensifies the radiation?

If that's a good shield to you, I'd sure like to know what you consider a bad one!!

.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos
actually no, aluminium is a good enough shield for short missions.. because the time of exposure is not high enough with regards to GCR's..

So you believe aluminum is a "good enough shield" for short missions....because..umm...because it intensifies the radiation?

If that's a good shield to you, I'd sure like to know what you consider a bad one!!

.

that is not a concern for short missions, (your most significant failure to understand).. because its still very much under the safe limits. so if it can protect me from other types of radiation (UV etc.) and micrometeroids i am satisfied.

Originally posted by choos

actually yes.. for short stays on the moon, excluding large SPE's they dont need shielding against GCR's.

there i said it.

edit on 30-6-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

p.s. prove me wrong.. provide the numbers which suggest GCR's are so high in deep space that a man cannot survive without getting sick in 6-12 days time.

The experts I've quoted prove you wrong. They clearly say adequate shielding is needed in the deep space environment.

So, how about you citing these experts who support your claim, that no shielding at all is needed for short-term lunar missions, except in the case of large SPE's?

That should be quite interesting.....

Originally posted by turbonium1
The experts I've quoted prove you wrong. They clearly say adequate shielding is needed in the deep space environment.

So, how about you citing these experts who support your claim, that no shielding at all is needed for short-term lunar missions, except in the case of large SPE's?

That should be quite interesting.....

oh no, you caught me out.. i dont actually have any... no wait i do:



refer to 0g/cm2 for aluminium and polyethylene..19 and 20 cGy per YEAR and 120 and 95 cSv per YEAR.. during a solar minimum that equates to about 3.94cSv dose equivalent on the skin for 12 days.

lets see the maximum allowable for 30 days.. hmmm.. on the skin its 1.5Sv.. which means we are about 38 times under the limit.
BFO: 3.12cSv for a 12 day mission the limit for 30 days is 0.25Sv.. which mean we are about 8 times under the limit.

cant believe you brought this back up so quickly hahahaha

A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.

It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.

Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.