Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
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.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

The vast majority would have no idea about what really happened. Just because they played a part in the program doesn't mean they would know everything about it. No way.

However, if you can support your claim with some specific case examples, please go right ahead.....

Originally posted by turbonium1
I'm asking you for current experts who support your claim (about no shield being required). So what do you have?

Show me on person defending Apollo that has ever said no shield is required. Just one example of that being said. Way to twist what was said.

I'm still waiting for your expert numbers showing that no one could go to the moon back then. Oh wait, you don't have any.

Originally posted by turbonium1

I didn't expect you to try the same old nonsense yet again. Apollo data does not mean squat. That is the data being questioned in the first place!

I'm asking you for current experts who support your claim (about no shield being required). So what do you have?

These reports that you rely on for your theory that no man can survive or will get very sick in less than 12 days, support my claim that gcr's are low enough to cause very low to no harm in 12 days that protecting against gcr's is not required for less than 12 days. You only need to look at the numbers.

My question to you. Why do you rely on these reports to support your claim?? But don't rely on these reports to support my claim?? Why do other expert corroborate your claims but not mine?? You are being very hypocritical and extremely picky.. Twisting what experts say only when it suits you ignoring the data they used to come to their conclusion when it suits you.. "Oh the experts say they can't survive a trip to the moon in less than 12 days but don't look at the data because the data the experts used and published with the reports are wrong"
Lunacy at its finest.

P.s. stating that the experts are using false data. Perhaps you know where the true data is?? Or perhaps the all the experts in the world are in on the hoax?? That's suddenly a hell of alot of more people who need to be controlled.. Do you honestly believe NASA's ability to keep millions of people quiet for 40+ years really extend to this extent?

reply to post by choos

radiation? so are you also denying these reports?

No, I do not deny those summary reports. But they are only summaries and tables; they are most assuredly NOT individual Apollo astronaut PRD data.

If you had the individual Apollo astronaut PRD data you would know that at least 3 Apollo astronauts had defective PRD's. All together it does not seem like a big deal. But your tables are based on that data....

.... so your tables are not based on reliable data and there are NO FOOTNOTES about the defective Apollo PRD's.

reply to post by dragonridr


So you are admitting that a NASA medical doctor took all the PRD readings. So where is your data to back that up?

Are these the same NASA doctors who didn't know Ken Mattingly had no immunity to German Measles?
Or are these the NASA doctors who approved Jim Irwin for Apollo KNOWING he had heart problems?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

No, I do not deny those summary reports. But they are only summaries and tables; they are most assuredly NOT individual Apollo astronaut PRD data.

If you had the individual Apollo astronaut PRD data you would know that at least 3 Apollo astronauts had defective PRD's. All together it does not seem like a big deal. But your tables are based on that data....

.... so your tables are not based on reliable data and there are NO FOOTNOTES about the defective Apollo PRD's.

kindly note the heading for table 2.
"Annual dose and dose equivalent for GCR in spherical shell shield for 1977 solar minimum"

so perhaps they didnt get their data from the PRD's on the apollo lunar missions?? perhaps they got their data from the multiple probes they sent out???

heres the report:
www.cs.odu.edu...

read the references...

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by DelMarvel
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.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

The vast majority would have no idea about what really happened. Just because they played a part in the program doesn't mean they would know everything about it. No way.

However, if you can support your claim with some specific case examples, please go right ahead.....

given that you claim that NASA has published false data every scientist/engineer have been using this data.. so in the last 40+ years and counting, more and more scientist/engineers etc.. will need to be included into the moon landing hoax, because well you know, they do afterall have the true data and the "fake" data from NASA.

reply to post by choos

read the references...

Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!

What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".

The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

read the references...

Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!

What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".

The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.

so what you are saying is that a report does not need to cite its references??? so you mean when i make a claim like man cant get to the moon i dont need to cite any references?? no wonder HB appear to be on the lunatic fringe.

references give it credit and accountability.. it shows where the information came from.. without references a report means nothing. you have just shown how uneducated HB are.

all the data came from probes that nations have sent through out the years, that is why we have a table on GCR's in 1977 and not GCR's in 1969-1972. to claim that they are using data from the PRD again is showing how little you know about anything scientific

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

read the references...

Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!

What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".

The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.

why send a monkey what does that prove exactly? and real science does indeed rely on charts and figures what planet do you live on? In chemistry they rely on the periodic table for example. When studying radiation and exposure you look at charts. How did they get this information its called instruments and something called testing. Really science doesnt use charts wow do you even think before you type??

Originally posted by choos

These reports that you rely on for your theory that no man can survive or will get very sick in less than 12 days, support my claim that gcr's are low enough to cause very low to no harm in 12 days that protecting against gcr's is not required for less than 12 days. You only need to look at the numbers.

What numbers?

Again, the report states...

"From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks. In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut (ref. 7). This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield"

"During the past several years of shield code development, it has been established that aluminum space structures would make poor shields for human occupants. The need to look at new ways of constructing spacecraft is now evident because current estimates indicate aluminum to be an ineffective protection material. This result mainly comes from the secondary particle production processes in collision with target nuclei within the shield material and can be minimized by adding hydrogen as a constituent of the shield material."

.www.cs.odu.edu...

They say aluminum is a poor shielding material, of course.

And could even make it more hazardous.

It 'could'. It's 'possible'.


What would be the 'numbers' you refer to, then?

Aluminum increases the hazards of GCR radiation. Except for Apollo, on its nine miraculous missions!!

Originally posted by choos

My question to you. Why do you rely on these reports to support your claim?? But don't rely on these reports to support my claim?? Why do other expert corroborate your claims but not mine??

See above.

Originally posted by choos

Twisting what experts say only when it suits you ignoring the data they used to come to their conclusion when it suits you.. "Oh the experts say they can't survive a trip to the moon in less than 12 days but don't look at the data because the data the experts used and published with the reports are wrong"

I'm simply quoting them, and nothing else. All the twisting and spinning is coming from your side. .

Originally posted by choos

P.s. stating that the experts are using false data. Perhaps you know where the true data is?? Or perhaps the all the experts in the world are in on the hoax?? That's suddenly a hell of alot of more people who need to be controlled.. Do you honestly believe NASA's ability to keep millions of people quiet for 40+ years really extend to this extent?

edit on 5-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Van Allen's original data was replaced with fake data to fit the Apollo story later on. That data alone would show it was a hoax.

But Apollo data 'confirmed' the fake data, so that was it. Until now.

Apollo is barely a footnote, or totally ignored, by experts today. Which speaks volumes on Apollo's veracity, or lack thereof... .

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by DelMarvel
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.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

The vast majority would have no idea about what really happened. Just because they played a part in the program doesn't mean they would know everything about it. No way.

However, if you can support your claim with some specific case examples, please go right ahead.....

given that you claim that NASA has published false data every scientist/engineer have been using this data.. so in the last 40+ years and counting, more and more scientist/engineers etc.. will need to be included into the moon landing hoax, because well you know, they do afterall have the true data and the "fake" data from NASA.

Of course. That's the problem NASA has now. And it's why the Apollo story will eventually unravel, too..

The experts know it, that's why the Apollo data is largely ignored. Real data would be like gold to them. You see anything like that? No chance.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

read the references...

Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!

What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".

The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.

why send a monkey what does that prove exactly? and real science does indeed rely on charts and figures what planet do you live on? In chemistry they rely on the periodic table for example. When studying radiation and exposure you look at charts. How did they get this information its called instruments and something called testing. Really science doesnt use charts wow do you even think before you type??

Animal tests were done many times in LEO. We knew far less about deep space, so it's utterly ridiculous to claim they don't need a single animal test! It's just a few years later on, we had no magical futuristic instruments. We still don't..

We have probes in the VA Belts right now. Any reason for that?

reply to post by turbonium1

What numbers?

i never knew how dense some people can be but here we are with a new candidate.

www.cs.odu.edu...
the numbers in the table 2 and table 3.. or if you want, in the figures, figure 4 and figure 7. basically figure 4 is the graphical representation of the numbers in table 2, and figure 7 is the graphical representation for table 3

note that both the figures and the table are for GCR's accumulated over ONE YEAR

They say aluminum is a poor shielding material, of course.

And could even make it more hazardous.

It 'could'. It's 'possible'.


What would be the 'numbers' you refer to, then?

Aluminum increases the hazards of GCR radiation. Except for Apollo, on its nine miraculous missions!!

they say aluminium is a poor shield because of this:

can you see the limit there for one year (annual)??

thats right annually an astronaut is only limited to 0.5 sieverts (50cSv).. this means in one year an astronaut will only be permitted to receive no more than 0.5 sieverts (50cSv) of radiation.

now if you can look back at either table 2 or figure 4 which is the same data:

you will see that the dose equivalent limit of 50sieverts per year for the BFO is between 25-50g/cm^2 and it tapers off.. this indicates that aluminium is insufficient protection in deep space mission for one year accumulated exposure. unless they have more than 30g/cm^2 of aluminium than they will just be under the 50 sieverts annual limit. however this is very uneconomical.

these are the numbers i am reffering to.. in the course of one year, the shielding provided by aluminium is insufficient as seen from the graphs/tables.. but this is for a period of ONE YEAR

what is it for 12 days?? assuming its a linear relationship you can divide the highest number you can find in the graph or table divide that by 365 and multiply the result by 12.. and there you have it the radiation accumulated from GCR's in 12 days..

if you compare that to the limit imposed for 30 days, which is 0.25 sieverts (25cSv) you will find that even the highest readings of GCR radiation is well under the limits.

i dont understand why you find this so impossible to understand.. the only conclusion i can come up with is you are either deliberately trolling, or i am underestimating how dense you really are.

From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks.

figures 4 and 7 are the numbers i am reffering you to look at. those numbers indicate that for 12 days the amount of radiation received is well under the 30 day limit of 0.25Sv (25cSv). you cannot deny this, it is a fact, clear as day written in the report.

you believe the report supports your claim that radiation makes the apollo missions impossible as it will probably kill everyone on board within one week.. but the numbers in the report show to anyone who knows basic maths, that 12 days exposure to GCR's is well under the safe limits.. not even close to making anyone sick let alone kill everyone.

I'm simply quoting them, and nothing else. All the twisting and spinning is coming from your side. .

im doing the twisting?? excuse me?? you are using conclusions obtained from one years worth of exposure and using that conclusion to say that in about 6 days will mean it will make every one sick and probably even kill them.. you are the one twisting the words of experts to fit your agenda.

Van Allen's original data was replaced with fake data to fit the Apollo story later on. That data alone would show it was a hoax.

But Apollo data 'confirmed' the fake data, so that was it. Until now.

Apollo is barely a footnote, or totally ignored, by experts today. Which speaks volumes on Apollo's veracity, or lack thereof... .

proof that the original data was replaced.. you have a strong conviction that they were replaced so you should have proof of it, show it to us otherwise you are making it up.

apollo confirmed the fake data?? what rubbish are you on about now?? provide proof, or you are lying through your teeth again..

Originally posted by turbonium1

Of course. That's the problem NASA has now. And it's why the Apollo story will eventually unravel, too..

The experts know it, that's why the Apollo data is largely ignored. Real data would be like gold to them. You see anything like that? No chance.

utter lunacy at its finest.. can you please tell us how NASA can keep thousands upon thousands of scientists from around the world to keep using fake data, to hide the readings they have obtained and to modify them to fit what NASA says?

apollo data is ignored because the data they have obtained is for about 6-12 days at a time.. you know nothing about usable scientific data. but alot of scientists use data from the apollo era, because NASA have sent up multiple probes into deep space to obtain such information.

now for 40+years and probably more. more and more new scientists need to be included into the hoax or they will accidentally expose the "truth".. utter lunacy..

Originally posted by turbonium1

Animal tests were done many times in LEO. We knew far less about deep space, so it's utterly ridiculous to claim they don't need a single animal test! It's just a few years later on, we had no magical futuristic instruments. We still don't..

We have probes in the VA Belts right now. Any reason for that?

did you just say they didnt have probes to read the levels of radiation in deep space back in the 60's??

you know.. you sure make alot of claims without any sources/references.. but given how sayonara said that references in reports are useless because they arent related.. i guess that means most HB dont need references when they make claims?

its no wonder HB make claims like radiation is too high, the real data is supressed, without a shred of evidence..

reply to post by choos


We use NASA charts to debunk Apollo Myths. This chart says that Apollo 14 traversed a "hot" portion of the Van Allen Belt. If it got any "hotter", they might have all died by being roasted in the command module, which according to you, is shielded with aluminum to protect them.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And yet, the Van Allen Belts aren't hot enough to kill you instantly. Almost no radiation is, unless it's ground zero of a nuclear explosion or something similar. If they had STAYED in the Belt at that point they would have had problems. Short exposures aren't going to kill you at those levels.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It seems funny that NASA is always so precise and exact yet they are flying the Apollo 14 through a "hot" zone. I wonder how that happened?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


The position of the moon on launch. It so happened they had to pass through a hot zone to get to it. The amount of time spent in the belts was no negligible it didn't matter.