Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 66
52
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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?


A carefully calculated risk -- and a careful calculation of risk.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

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.....


How about these whistleblowers listed on Wikipedia:

Famous Whistleblowers

The most recent whistleblower is of course

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983)[1] is an American former Booz Allen Hamilton technical contractor for the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who leaked details of top-secret U.S. and British government mass surveillance programs such as PRISM to the press.[5][6]

Working primarily with Glenn Greenwald of London's The Guardian, which published a series of exposés based on Snowden's disclosures in June 2013, Snowden revealed information about a variety of classified intelligence programs, including the interception of US and European telephone metadata and the PRISM and Tempora Internet surveillance programs. Snowden said the leaks were an effort "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."[6][7][8] Snowden's leaks are said to rank among the most significant breaches in the history of the NSA.[9]

On June 14, 2013, U.S. federal prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property.[10] Found Here at Wikipedia

It seems even some of the least complex and mundane cover-ups can even have those people who will stand up for what is right. The larger the scheme, the more chance of there being a person who will eventually tell the truth of what they know. Of course there are also those who want the notoriety and will simply make things up to get their 15 minutes of fame.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos



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.



How interesting. You cited this part of the report....

"

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.
"

But you missed the two sentences right after that. I'll bold them for you...

"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"

Do you know what they are saying in bold? I'll bet you do, and that's why you left it out of your post. Let's review that part, shall we?

They are referring to "studies using biological-based models of radiation response". So do they include these studies in their charts or tables? No.

Why not? Let's continue, with the complete sentence...

"In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut"

Hmm...Now, why would they need to cite "biological-based models" of radiation response, when they have nine actual manned missions available for study? Can you think of any reason they'd do that?

The only logical reason I see.....is because there were no actual missions.

If there had been NINE actual manned lunar missions, we'd already know that aluminum is an additional hazard to astronauts. We wouldn't need to use models 20+ years later to find that out.

GCR's were detected in deep space, during the Apollo moon missions, right? Actually, no. Because, as we now know, aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous than it was before. But supposedly Apollo was unaffected.

That is Impossibe.

You get it now?

The experts will never admit such a thing, of course, since it would open up a huge can of worms. That's why Apollo' is ignored. At most, it's a footnote. They never connect the dots, because it would rip Apollo to shreds.


These numbers are merely estimates, nothing more. Show me where they say it is genuine, valid data, because I find no such claims being made.

I can't wait to see it.....



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

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..


You think they're stupid enough to say it's a hoax? Come on, now.

It doesn't matter how many know it's a hoax, none will speak of it.

Their quotes make it clear - you just need to connect the dots.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Here are some facts..

Aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous to humans.

Apollo's craft was primarily aluminum.

GCR radiation wasn't found to become any more hazardous during the Apollo missions.


It's just that simple.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by choos



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.



How interesting. You cited this part of the report....

"

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.
"

But you missed the two sentences right after that. I'll bold them for you...

"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"

Do you know what they are saying in bold? I'll bet you do, and that's why you left it out of your post. Let's review that part, shall we?

They are referring to "studies using biological-based models of radiation response". So do they include these studies in their charts or tables? No.

Why not? Let's continue, with the complete sentence...

"In fact studies using biological-based models of radiation response indicate that aluminum may indeed provide an additional hazard to the astronaut"

Hmm...Now, why would they need to cite "biological-based models" of radiation response, when they have nine actual manned missions available for study? Can you think of any reason they'd do that?

The only logical reason I see.....is because there were no actual missions.

If there had been NINE actual manned lunar missions, we'd already know that aluminum is an additional hazard to astronauts. We wouldn't need to use models 20+ years later to find that out.

GCR's were detected in deep space, during the Apollo moon missions, right? Actually, no. Because, as we now know, aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous than it was before. But supposedly Apollo was unaffected.

That is Impossibe.

You get it now?

The experts will never admit such a thing, of course, since it would open up a huge can of worms. That's why Apollo' is ignored. At most, it's a footnote. They never connect the dots, because it would rip Apollo to shreds.


These numbers are merely estimates, nothing more. Show me where they say it is genuine, valid data, because I find no such claims being made.

I can't wait to see it.....


You have no idea what your talking about do you? First do you know what ionizing radiation is? Its high speed particles traveling through your body and guess what most of them pass right through you in fact happens every day of your life. Ionized particles wont directly kill you what they do is damage dna when they have a collision increasing the odds of that cell becoming cancerous. The dander the astronauts receive is increased risk of cancer. Its not like there just going to drop dead because of ionized radiation. The danger to astronauts is simple there risk of developing cancer increases the longer there exposed to ionized radiation. spending 12 days no big deal however on a moon base or going to mars and spending 2 yrs in space becomes a very big deal.

Now this is the reason NASA is looking for more effective shielding because they dont want to send a man to mars and have him die when he gets back to earth 5 yrs later dont know how many people would volunteer for that mission do you?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Do you know what they are saying in bold? I'll bet you do, and that's why you left it out of your post. Let's review that part, shall we?


reference 7:

IN the exploratory manned space missions of a few to
several weeks duration of the past, only the more
intense sources of space radiations, such as solar
cosmic rays and trapped radiations, were considered
to be the principal radiation hazards. The primary
radiation protection issues were the control of early
somatic effects of radiation exposure and their impact
on mission safety (Billingham et al. 1965). It was
reasoned that few, if any, astronauts would make more
than one high profile trip to the moon so that career
exposures were of secondary importance. In this context, the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) background exposures at rates of 150 to 200 mGy y- _were not of great
concern (Wilson 1978; Wilson et al. 1991).
ia700604.us.archive.org...


everything else in there is related with the advent of the space shuttle and careers in space.....

note that 150-200mGy PER YEAR is for solar minimums when GCR's are at their maximum.


Hmm...Now, why would they need to cite "biological-based models" of radiation response, when they have nine actual manned missions available for study? Can you think of any reason they'd do that?

The only logical reason I see.....is because there were no actual missions.


because the 9 missions were much too short to see any effects of random exposure to high HZE's.. the biological based models were on mice.. in a lab..

but seeing as you dont have any experience in regards to scientific data, i wont blame you to coming to those conclusions..

also note how you are twisting the words of the report, and you claim "our side" was doing the twisiting? well heres a fine example.. the words "biological based models" were used and not the apollo lunar mission.. this means (in the HB world) that there were no missions..


If there had been NINE actual manned lunar missions, we'd already know that aluminum is an additional hazard to astronauts. We wouldn't need to use models 20+ years later to find that out.


well when background exposure rates of GCR's are around 150-200mGy PER YEAR.. so a background GCR rates of about 15-20cGy PER YEAR.. so for 12 days (short high profile missions) they would be exposed to about 0.66cGy.. which is 0.0066Gy.. its simply not enough to see the effects of GCR's. its very very difficult study that which you cannot see. especially when it comes to radiation..


GCR's were detected in deep space, during the Apollo moon missions, right? Actually, no. Because, as we now know, aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous than it was before. But supposedly Apollo was unaffected.

That is Impossibe.


how is it impossible?? the levels they were exposed to were very very low.. even if aluminium increases the hazards its still low and well within the limits..
the apollo missions were few and short, they would not have been exposed long enough to have been affected by GCR's.


You get it now?

The experts will never admit such a thing, of course, since it would open up a huge can of worms. That's why Apollo' is ignored. At most, it's a footnote. They never connect the dots, because it would rip Apollo to shreds.


These numbers are merely estimates, nothing more. Show me where they say it is genuine, valid data, because I find no such claims being made.

I can't wait to see it.....


well first.. they knew about GCR's.. but it was such a low level that it is insignificant for a 12 day mission.. only a few if any astronauts would go to the moon more than once.. so long exposures to GCR's was never a concern.. not to mention they went when GCR's were at their minimum.

estimates?? from probes in deep space designed to measure GCR's? do you even realise how large you are making the conspiracy??

you make it out like YOU have the real numbers.. because you have the ability to deny the levels that these scientists use.. so prove to everyone that they are wrong instead of speculating they are wrong.. so go on post your sources that say these numbers are wrong.

but who am i kidding you are a typical HB who can make claims without citing sources or references..
edit on 7-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

You think they're stupid enough to say it's a hoax? Come on, now.

It doesn't matter how many know it's a hoax, none will speak of it.

Their quotes make it clear - you just need to connect the dots.


they can accidentally do it if they are not clued in.. but how can you keep thousands upon thousands of scientists AROUND THE WORLD quiet???

do you really believe they possess this power??



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1
Here are some facts..

Aluminum makes GCR radiation more hazardous to humans.

Apollo's craft was primarily aluminum.

GCR radiation wasn't found to become any more hazardous during the Apollo missions.


It's just that simple.


for HB who dont need facts, sources or anything apart from speculation yes it is that simple.. for the rest when they realise how low the background GCR's is for 12 days.. they will see that its impossible to make anyone sick let alone kill them..

think about it when GCR's are at their maximum its about 150-200mGy PER YEAR.. this is background exposure rates.. 0.15-0.2Gy PER YEAR im going to let that sink in a little..

the longest apollo lunar mission was for 12 days.. there are 365 days in a year.. this is about 0.00041-0.00055Gy PER DAY..

how much Gy do humans need to be exposed to before they will die in 6 days?? or get very very sick??

but please show us where the data for GCR's that are at a level that can kill all on board in about 6 days, as per your claim.
edit on 7-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I forgot how many retards roam this website.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
I forgot how many retards roam this website.


I give them the benefit of the doubt and just say there confused. People like to believe they are in the know on whats really going on and the rest of us are just to ignorant to figure it out.Its human nature makes them feel superior if they know whats really going on problem is they have to latch on to some fantasy to do this.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
24 humans have been outside the Earth Radiation Belts.
24 humans were equipped with Personal Radiation Dosimeters.
NASA/CIA doctors on the ground verbally collected periodic dosimeter readings.
Where is the empirical data?



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


curious.. if radiation is why they cant go to the moon, what has that got to do with your von braun alien theory?

let me get this straight first..

back in the 60's they couldnt get to the moon because of radiation. This causes von braun, who designed rockets, to come up with a plan to expose aliens which will span decades and maybe centuries, which includes communists rogue states, terrorists, asteroids and finally aliens.

so the exposé of aliens was due to mans inability to reach the moon because of radiation? think you might be confusing yourself here.. keep going like this and people will start to think you are coming up with theories on the fly



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos think you might be confusing yourself here.. keep going like this and people will start to think you are coming up with theories on the fly


I noticed that you haven't posted the empirical data of the Apollo PRD's. Maybe you will claim that NASA lost the PRD data, too. It's kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes were lost or like the moon rock audits which showed a whole lot of missing rocks.

You seem to breeze over the missing data and rely on NASA's published summary tables for your faith-based claims. Any scientist who examined Apollo radiation claims would want to see the empirical data of the individual Apollo PRD's which.... as we have seen so far in this thread.... that PRD data does not exist.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos think you might be confusing yourself here.. keep going like this and people will start to think you are coming up with theories on the fly


I noticed that you haven't posted the empirical data of the Apollo PRD's. Maybe you will claim that NASA lost the PRD data, too. It's kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes were lost or like the moon rock audits which showed a whole lot of missing rocks.

You seem to breeze over the missing data and rely on NASA's published summary tables for your faith-based claims. Any scientist who examined Apollo radiation claims would want to see the empirical data of the individual Apollo PRD's which.... as we have seen so far in this thread.... that PRD data does not exist.


All the information you want is right here but it requires for you to understand the information and thus far you really shown no grasp for radiation or the math involved.But ask and you will recieve check the appendix they have daily doses from gemini all the way to the international space station of every astronaut in space.

ntrs.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

I noticed that you haven't posted the empirical data of the Apollo PRD's. Maybe you will claim that NASA lost the PRD data, too. It's kind of like the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes were lost or like the moon rock audits which showed a whole lot of missing rocks.

You seem to breeze over the missing data and rely on NASA's published summary tables for your faith-based claims. Any scientist who examined Apollo radiation claims would want to see the empirical data of the individual Apollo PRD's which.... as we have seen so far in this thread.... that PRD data does not exist.


you keep calling for the empirical PRD data.. but you have one flaw.. i believe only cumulative data was collected and stored and i believe this was collected once they returned to earth and studied afterwards.

its not that its missing but i think its because you dont know how the data for radiation was collected.

so then how does it fit in with the von braun disclosure? or have you dropped that theory now?

also if the empirical data was so important why is it that all recent studies all have data that is in line with the apollo missions and yet this means nothing to you? and none of which show that a 12 day mission will make astronauts seriously sick or even kill them. all that the studies show is that aluminium is not acceptably effective enough to protect astronauts for long missions against GCR's.

i wonder if you HB know how the career space limits were calculated?



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

ntrs.nasa.gov...


Something is wrong with your url. I'm getting


Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie
/n



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter



ntrs.nasa.gov...


Something is wrong with your url. I'm getting


Works fine here, a 32 page PDF on

L To appear in 5th Edition of Space Physiology and Medicine. Space Radiation Organ Doses for Astronauts on Past and Future Missions Francis A. Cucinotta NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston TX 77058



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter



ntrs.nasa.gov...


Something is wrong with your url. I'm getting


Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie
/n



Its a PDF file you need to have a reader attached to your browser. Most science papers are pdf sorry assumed you knew this.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
you keep calling for the empirical PRD data.. but you have one flaw.. i believe only cumulative data was collected and stored and i believe this was collected once they returned to earth and studied afterwards.

its not that its missing but i think its because you dont know how the data for radiation was collected.


Oh, really now, choos. Why were they carrying PRD's if they weren't collecting data off them?


so then how does it fit in with the von braun disclosure? or have you dropped that theory now?


It fits in with the von Braun disclosure because the American manned effort outside of Low Earth orbit was for propaganda and military purposes. That means there was an enemy, the Commies, who had to be defeated. During a state of war there is no planning to lose, one always plans to win. Since winning against the Reds was the only goal, manned flight outsideLEO was not essential for a victory... that's why everthing about Apollo was scripted and rehearsed and planned for a massive world-wide Television audience, which includes the third world countries, who being mostly illiterate and non-English speaking were easily impressed by the big rockets and puppet show.

Come on choos. You are not even trying to understand the American mindset of 1968-1972.


also if the empirical data was so important why is it that all recent studies all have data that is in line with the apollo missions and yet this means nothing to you? and none of which show that a 12 day mission will make astronauts seriously sick or even kill them. all that the studies show is that aluminium is not acceptably effective enough to protect astronauts for long missions against GCR's.

i wonder if you HB know how the career space limits were calculated?


Who cares about recent studies except for you the Apollo Defenders??? The Apollo Investigators are asking for the Third time now asking for the empirical PRD data. If you don't have it just admit that NASA's radiation summary tables are based on engineering fantasies, medical fraud and sugar coated science data.

The military has always had a concurrent technology (or better) than what NASA has. So why didn't the Pentagon send a 1-man crew mission for a loop around the moon? (maybe they did?) It's trivial choos. TRIVIAL.

Yet no one can do it except NASA during Richard Nixon's presidency. Just one loop around the moon. That's all I would require to believe the space radiation claims made NASA in it's published orthodox compendiums.

Yet all you have here are the pedestrian and clearly unscientific NASA summary tables parcelled together with 'recent' psuedo-science masquerading as real science
There is a huge difference between simulating shielding in a lab using Monte Carlo techniques. It's just computer simulation. Compare that to the real science of actually sending a 1-man crew to orbit the moon. That's real. And it hasn't been done in 41 years, mate. Trivial.

Remember when I said earlier in the thread that during the early years of aviation every damned fool and his sister were lining up for the chance to make suicide run across the Atlantic? Well where are the suicide runners now? They can't get out of Earth orbit. Trivial in 1968.





new topics
 
52
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join