Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by dragonridr


Here is your link that you need to fix because it's broken. By the way, why don't you just give us the title of that pdf and we'll search for it ourselves.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

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

as a type of warning.. if it quickly started rising they could do something about it.. but what good is collecting and recording data off them constantly?? you would have a linear graph or series of numbers growing gradually.

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.

thats incorrect.. according to you the communist threat never existed.. it was a fabrication in order to expose aliens.. which is why vietnam also strikes me as strange according to your theory.

so the radiation which limits humans from reaching the moon for any extent of time, was used as a means to expose aliens?

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.

well the fact that recent studies have data unrelated to the apollo program.. the new studies which are trying to find ways for extended stays in deep space require accurate knowledge in the radiation background and how to minimise it for longer safer stays in deep space.. these studies who publish their data show that the levels of GCR's background radiation are simply not high enough to affect a 12 day mission.

also you are mistaken.. the apollo PRD data is not the data that the reports use.. the reports are using data from the multiple probes sent out and have recorded GCR's from both solar minimum and solar maximum.. case in point

1977!!

please notify me of which apollo lunar missions PRD they used to collect the data for this table which is for the 1977 solar minimum.

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.

if its so trivial.. why dont you build a rocketship and go to the moon yourself. the only government willing and with the funding to go to the moon are the chinese.. USA doesnt have the need to go to the moon at all, nor waste any more funding on it they want to go further. given how tight money is around NASA how trivial do you think it is again?

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.

the summary tables were not used for the studies.. they are used only as a comparison to show you that the apollo numbers reflect the numbers from the reports.. the reports did not get their data from the apollo lunar mission, there is simply not enough data to collect in 12 days time. thats why they send probes sensors satellites to study these things. this is where the data came from.. why cant you understand this?

trivial again?? going to the moon is trivial?? tell me in NASA's budget how they are going to design and manufacture a 12 day mission to the moon? then upon doing so, i want you to try to convince the bigwigs in washington and NASA's HQ. if you can do this then yes perhaps it is trivial.

p.s. there hasnt been any suicide runners going up in the space shuttle since 2011 neither.. fake??

reply to post by choos


You also forgot new information was obtained through animal testing our understanding of radiation has greatly increased since the 60s. Since to truly check internal damage ithelps to remove them and checkbone marrow as well so most of the apollo data is relatively useless and out date really. Plus its ok to autopsy a monkey and remove his organs but i dont think astronauts being dissected would be good for the governments image. So his whole argument is nothing but a red herring going look NASA is hiding stuff. Funniest part is he doesnt realize NASA relies on the work of outside scientists especially in the field of radiation. Where do the best scientists work major hospitals such as John Hopkins or say vanderbilt.The funniest part is he has no clue hes just showing his ignorance on how the real world works.

reply to post by choos


choos, Are you even tryin? to search the internet? for 1 minute before you give up looking for the empirical Apollo PRD data? ? ?

Gene Cernan's Apollo 17 checklist includes reporting the PRD readings to Houston.

Which is verified in the transcripts.


For Illustration Only. I got these pics off somebody's blog. www.echoes-from-apollo.com...

So the individual Apollo empirical PRD readings do exist. Just tucked away in the transcripts... that are confirmed by the checklists. I wonder why NASA would make it so hard to find this data?

Do the PRD readings from Apollo transcripts confirm the conclusions made in this NASA summary table?

Originally posted by dragonridrThe funniest part is he has no clue hes just showing his ignorance on how the real world works.

But the worst part about it is that you didn't even try. Is that how the real world works for you?
This is Michael Collins PRD. As you can see someone has written some readings on the unit.



source airandspace.si.edu...

I got as Far as "Daily Mail" Or the "Daily Heil" as we call it here and switched off...Here is about the most interesting thing you'll ever read about the "Daily Heil", but you wont read it IN the " Daily Heil"..

Lord Rothermere..(owner of the Daily Mail) was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the 1930s.[32][33] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[34] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[35]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[36] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".[37] This support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia later that year.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

choos, Are you even tryin? to search the internet? for 1 minute before you give up looking for the empirical Apollo PRD data? ? ?

as far as i know they are just readouts and not recordings. unless you want to go through the entire trascript and record it down yourself feel free.

So the individual Apollo empirical PRD readings do exist. Just tucked away in the transcripts... that are confirmed by the checklists. I wonder why NASA would make it so hard to find this data?

Do the PRD readings from Apollo transcripts confirm the conclusions made in this NASA summary table?

its hard to find because i dont believe it was recorded periodically, i believe it was only read out to the flight surgeon and they just made sure its within limits still and nothing strange. which is why its in the transcripts.. but feel free to go through every transcript and record down the readings.. this data is scientifically unimportant, the only thing you will find from these data sets is that radiation was well within limits.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by dragonridrThe funniest part is he has no clue hes just showing his ignorance on how the real world works.

But the worst part about it is that you didn't even try. Is that how the real world works for you?
This is Michael Collins PRD. As you can see someone has written some readings on the unit.

source airandspace.si.edu...

edit on 7/12/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add source

You argued for over 5 pages about the data and now you realize its available in fact contact NASA im sure theyll send it to you. Point you are not getting is its useless data missions were to short to explain long term exposure. This is why science done in the lad is what data is based off of. They can show effects of long term exposure can show effects on blood of animals in the lab and even develop treatments which they have done. As i said you were looking for useless data to prove a point when we have much better data available and we know what exposure risks are. In the 60s they just didnt have all the facts we do today in some respects they didnt understand alot about ionizing radiation for example.

Either way we can prove a 12 day mission has little effect on a human. So i guess we can bury this topic since you agree the data is there and Nasa didnt hide it.

reply to post by choos

this data is scientifically unimportant

So empirical PRD data is "scientifically unimportant" to Apollo Defenders? What a pity. I believe that your statement just ruined every argument you ever made in this thread, mate!

I thought you guys were supposed to be the ones with the strong science background. You know, using science to prove Apollo. But here you just denied the importance of empirical data which does not make sense at all.

reply to post by dragonridr

In the 60s they just didnt have all the facts

And you still don't have all the facts. You made no effort to produce ANY KIND of empirical PRD data. I'll bet you didn't even know about PRD's. Why are you so resistant to learning about Apollo space radiation? It seems perfectly obvious to me that the place to start would be to examine a full set of Apollo (24) astronaut PRD data.

Are you worried that there might be something disingenuous with the PRD readings?

Originally posted by choos
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..

Let's look at more recent figures..

The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to Mars,” NASA reported.

www.highlightpress.com...

1.8 mSv = 1.8 mGy.

1.8 mGy = 0.0018 Gy

0.0018 x 12 (days) = 0.0216 Gy

So it's more than 3x your figures.


Anyway, it doesn't matter what the figures are, because they'd be able to measure them regardless.

To claim "its simply not enough to see the effects of GCR's" makes no sense.

Not even an SPE was a problem, supposedly...

"One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected."

www.hq.nasa.gov...


They had sensprs outside the capsule, as well as inside it, Clearly, they'd have different readings. But they didn't find any at all. Which means they weren't in deep space.

reply to post by turbonium1


It doesn't matter if it's six times higher or not, it's still well within limits that the human body can take. NASA has imposed stricter limits since the 1990s, and what Apollo was exposed to still falls way below those limits. Using the mGy figure of 1.8 mGy a day, on a 12 day mission, they were exposed to 21.6 mGy on average. The new NASA figures, from the 1990s, allow for 1000 mGy for the eye lens, 1500 mGy for skin, 250 mGy for BFO, 250 mGy for the heart, and 500 mGy for the CNS, in a 30 day period. They weren't even remotely close to the stricter limits imposed by NASA for more modern missions.

Even other space agencies have a much higher exposure limit than the Apollo astronauts would have been exposed to.

Originally posted by turbonium1

Let's look at more recent figures..

The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to Mars,” NASA reported.

www.highlightpress.com...

1.8 mSv = 1.8 mGy.

1.8 mGy = 0.0018 Gy

0.0018 x 12 (days) = 0.0216 Gy

So it's more than 3x your figures.


Anyway, it doesn't matter what the figures are, because they'd be able to measure them regardless.

To claim "its simply not enough to see the effects of GCR's" makes no sense.

Not even an SPE was a problem, supposedly...

"One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected."

www.hq.nasa.gov...


They had sensprs outside the capsule, as well as inside it, Clearly, they'd have different readings. But they didn't find any at all. Which means they weren't in deep space.

edit on 12-7-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

wow.. you actually done some maths..

(theres only one problem..
1 sievert does not equal 1 gray.. i believe a sievert is a modified number of a gray.. depending on the source/type of radiation the gray is multiplied by a certain factor to obtain a sievert, although im not too clear on this but that is the impression i have received. )
(wrong here so you can ignore this.)

but kudos on doing some actual maths.

but lets look at the article:

These types of radiation are measured in Sieverts (Sv), and research has shown that exposure to SEPs and GCRs increases cancer risk. A dose of 1 Sv, according to NASA, increases a person’s cancer risk by 5 percent over their lifetime. At present, NASA limits an astronaut’s cancer risk to 3 percent, which is about 0.6 Sv, or 600 milliSieverts.

so 1 Sv gives an increased risk of getting cancer by 5%.

as per your claim, a 12 day mission should have made them seriously sick and probably even killed all on board.. which would be much higher than 1 Sv.. maybe in the ball park of about 1+ sieverts per hour because we arent talking about an increased risk of getting cancer we are talking about maybe them seriously sick and maybe even death in less than 6 days as per your claim.

also can i point out this:


37.9cSv per year is 0.104cSv per day which is equal to 1.04 millisieverts per day.. and the mars missions 1.8 millisievert per day.. but the 37.9 is for a solar maximum not sure what the curiosity was, so there will be some discrepancy especially since the 1977 solar minimum was 120 cSv per year. which is 3.3 millisievert per day.

but good effort, atleast you are trying to find answers now instead of making things up.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

So empirical PRD data is "scientifically unimportant" to Apollo Defenders? What a pity. I believe that your statement just ruined every argument you ever made in this thread, mate!

I thought you guys were supposed to be the ones with the strong science background. You know, using science to prove Apollo. But here you just denied the importance of empirical data which does not make sense at all.

and you think the empirical PRD data can be used scientifically??

pls tell me how? michael collins collected about 8 numbers the others about the same.. tell me how about 24 numbers can be used scientifically??

the only thing you can do is compare them, but you wont get much if any information from that data at all. still think its important?

i guess 24 numbers can be used for high school experiments though.

reply to post by choos


Actually, it is a 1 to 1 on Sievert to Gray. Sievert replaces rem, Gray replaces rad. One Sievert equals 100 rem, and one Gray equals 100 rad.

reply to post by Zaphod58


are you sure?? ive semi retracted the statement, but i read this:

and use of the sievert implies that appropriate weighting factors have been applied to the original absorbed dose measurement (in grays)

and assumed that sievert doesnt equal a gray, i guess in some cases it does?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

It doesn't matter if it's six times higher or not, it's still well within limits that the human body can take. NASA has imposed stricter limits since the 1990s, and what Apollo was exposed to still falls way below those limits. Using the mGy figure of 1.8 mGy a day, on a 12 day mission, they were exposed to 21.6 mGy on average. The new NASA figures, from the 1990s, allow for 1000 mGy for the eye lens, 1500 mGy for skin, 250 mGy for BFO, 250 mGy for the heart, and 500 mGy for the CNS, in a 30 day period. They weren't even remotely close to the stricter limits imposed by NASA for more modern missions.

Even other space agencies have a much higher exposure limit than the Apollo astronauts would have been exposed to.

That's not relevant to my point.

Look...

Apollo craft took readings of radiation in deep space, right?

These readings were taken from both outside the craft, as well as inside the craft, right?

The craft was primarily aluminum, right?

Aluminum increases the hazard of deep space radiation, right?

What did we find with the Apollo readings, then?


They found no increased hazard within their aluminum craft, right?



Why not?

Because they were too small?

No.

The radiation is altered by aluminum fragmenting its particles. Small indeed!

But if you have sources to support your case, let's see it...




.

Originally posted by choos


but lets look at the article:

These types of radiation are measured in Sieverts (Sv), and research has shown that exposure to SEPs and GCRs increases cancer risk. A dose of 1 Sv, according to NASA, increases a person’s cancer risk by 5 percent over their lifetime. At present, NASA limits an astronaut’s cancer risk to 3 percent, which is about 0.6 Sv, or 600 milliSieverts.

so 1 Sv gives an increased risk of getting cancer by 5%.

as per your claim, a 12 day mission should have made them seriously sick and probably even killed all on board.. which would be much higher than 1 Sv.. maybe in the ball park of about 1+ sieverts per hour because we arent talking about an increased risk of getting cancer we are talking about maybe them seriously sick and maybe even death in less than 6 days as per your claim.

also can i point out this:

37.9cSv per year is 0.104cSv per day which is equal to 1.04 millisieverts per day.. and the mars missions 1.8 millisievert per day.. but the 37.9 is for a solar maximum not sure what the curiosity was, so there will be some discrepancy especially since the 1977 solar minimum was 120 cSv per year. which is 3.3 millisievert per day.

but good effort, atleast you are trying to find answers now instead of making things up.

edit on 12-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Again, this is not addressing my current point.

I've just gone over it in my last post,

reply to post by turbonium1


Ill be short, you have to look it up yourself or I'll do it later, but solar protons are shielded effectively by aluminium.

Solar protons do not penetrate aluminum like gcr.

Sorry no time you need to look it up yourself.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Ill be short, you have to look it up yourself or I'll do it later, but solar protons are shielded effectively by aluminium.

Solar protons do not penetrate aluminum like gcr.

Sorry no time you need to look it up yourself.

How is this relevant to my point?

Who said solar protons? Not me.

GCR's were mentioned, you do know that?