Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by jimmyx

the extreme radiation

None extreme enough or long lasting enough to be overly dangerous.

the non-pressurized suits

What?

the 500 degree swing in tempertures from sunlight to shadow

What?

the cardboard taped sides of the lander

No cardboard.

but photos underneath the nozzle after landing show no disturbance

Um. Didn't you just say that the landing rocket blew the dust away?

the fact that NASA says that now they have no affective means of shielding humans from the intensive radiation after 25,000 thousand miles out

Source?

c'mon people...deny ignorance

c'mon person...do some real research.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the extreme radiation,

define extreme

the non-pressurized suits

lie

the 500 degree swing in tempertures from sunlight to shadow

lie

, the cardboard taped sides of the lander

I have no idea what that even means

the fact that the film shot out the window of the landing showed dust spewing all over, but photos underneath the nozzle after landing show no disturbance

Lie again

the fact that NASA says that now they have no affective means of shielding humans from the intensive radiation after 25,000 thousand miles out, but fifty years ago they did

Wow, another lie, they're starting to add up

armstrong lived to 82 years old, with no radiation poisoning.

He was never exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, why would he have radiation poisoning?

c'mon people...deny ignorance

You seem to prefer perpetuating it.

Originally posted by TheDagDa
reply to post by DJW001

 

Just playin a little devil's advocate. I highly suggest you read his whole article, but here are a few more tidbits I like.

"To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles.

Here's the first error in a long list. There's no technical reason that we couldn't send a manned spacecraft beyond (approximately) 200 miles altitude. Actually, let me amend that in the name of honesty...there was no technical reason, until the Shuttle fleet was retired. Once the SpaceX Dragon (or its Boeing counterpart) is man-rated, this little aside can be ignored again. The same technology that lets us go to the ISS would work on a lunar flight. The reason we *don't* go beyond that altitude is political and financial, not technical. You do need a fairly sizable vehicle for the trip (take a look at how big the third stage of a Saturn-V/Apollo stack was), and you need enough consumable supplies for the trip....that runs up the cost fast, particularly if you don't have a Saturn V sized booster, and have to put your stack together via multiple launches.

That cost is something no politician is going to agree to spend when he could spend it buying votes. Our technology is fine, it's our national will and national purse that are lacking.

But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).

Since we stopped going to the Moon, we haven't needed a booster the size of a Saturn V, so we stopped building them. As for the Saturn being much smaller than Von Braun's conjectural moon rockets, a lot of that comes from his study assuming alcohol/LOX as a propellant / oxidizer, where NASA used kerosene/LOX and LH/LOX. More energetic propellants = smaller rocket.

To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

"Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”
Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show.

Actually, you can cross-check the tech using nothing more than the internet, a calculator, and a bit of skull sweat.
Project Rho

That site has all the math you need, and all the tables. You can back-figure everything about a lunar flight, and compare it to NASA's claims. It's a fun mental exercise, if you're up to it. If you aren't, I can save you the trouble... I ran the numbers and came within 5% of the public-domain mass of a Saturn V at liftoff.

Just to address another interesting point...the "complete blueprints of the Saturn V" are as mythical as Unicorns. They weren't destroyed in some conspiracy to hide The TRUTH (tm). The thing was built by multiple contractors...they had complete engineering drawings for their pieces. The VAB crew at the Cape had stacking diagrams that showed how the stages and interstage assemblies went together...but there wasn't some massive 600 lb roll of paper showing everything in one place. They can't be found because they were never there.

Originally posted by TheDagDa
reply to post by DJW001

 

Just playin a little devil's advocate. I highly suggest you read his whole article, but here are a few more tidbits I like.

"To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).
To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

"Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”
Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.

You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it."

a lot of good questions

just compare footage from the simulator to footage of the actual landing and you are set.

Originally posted by DJW001
Let's see... the engineers who actually designed it, for starters. Then the machinists who read the blueprints and fabricated the parts to a demanding tolerance. The people who assembled the parts based the blueprints. the quality assurance people who made sure that the parts met the specifications, the people who tested all the sub-systems, the people who tested the assembled lander... pretty much everybody, actually.

Every component was tested and tested again. They would know everything worked. NASA did not design the lander, Grumman did. Everyone who participated in that design, construction and testing process would know that it worked.

Who at Grumman saw the LM work? None of them. They knew sub-components worked and tested to specs they had. But they don't know the LM works from that/

The LM is a perfect joke, really.

A vehicle that nobody can verify as genuine, Just say it's built for a distant lunar environment..

An Earth version is not needed, plus it's much harder to build one. And if you buy all that, the rest is a cinch.

It can fly in 0g, skim to and fro above a 1/6 g surface, and land on it. It's upper section can separate itself, ift from 1/6 g lunar surface, and precisely dock to another vehicle, in lunar orbit At thousands of mph, it syncs up perfectly.

The amazing LM,! They were truly geniuses, back in the 60's

The LM was untestable on Earth, and we can't build an Earth-version, even today.They hold 'lunar lander' contests, but so far no luck! Of course, the LM worked!

The Apollo vehicles had thin aluminum shells. It's now known that aluminum is worse than rice paper for radiation protection, because it actually splits it up into many more lethal particles. Not a good thing for humans.

Of course, the Apollo vehicles worked!

Apparently more americans believe that there will be a zombie apocalypse than believe that we have actually been to the moon....

I mean seriously

The amazing photos of earth from the moon....? CGI was not even a thing then let alone at that level...
The laser mirror/reflectors on the moon?
The Apollo rockets went somewhere how many people witnessed the launch with their own eyes? what they just went into orbit and stuck around for a few days and came back sat in quarantine and popped out and pretended they'd been to the moon?

If anythings suspect at all its why we stopped going?

reply to post by Anonbeleiver77

Apparently more americans believe that there will be a zombie apocalypse than believe that we have actually been to the moon....

I would love to see that survey.Seriously.

I mean seriously

Me too. Please post a link to the survey you are quoting.

The amazing photos of earth from the moon....? CGI was not even a thing then let alone at that level...

Correct. So are you saying it was real after all?

The laser mirror/reflectors on the moon?

Yes, they got there somehow.

The Apollo rockets went somewhere how many people witnessed the launch with their own eyes?

Start counting:

what they just went into orbit and stuck around for a few days and came back sat in quarantine and popped out and pretended they'd been to the moon?

The spacecraft would have been one of the brightest objects in the night sky as it circled the Earth every ninety minutes. The Soviets and Chinese would scream bloody murder.

If anythings suspect at all its why we stopped going?

We have not stopped going, we have simply stopped sending human beings. Human beings are fragile and require too much maintenance.

reply to post by turbonium1


Aluminum makes a better shield than a lot of other materials that could have been used. Aluminum makes a good shield because it's not nearly as dense as lead, or other metals. You don't want dense materials, you want ones that aren't going to have a lot of "spalling" from secondary effects.

Originally posted by turbonium1
It's now known that aluminum is worse than rice paper for radiation protection, because it actually splits it up into many more lethal particles. Not a good thing for humans.

Would you care to provide any proof that the known properties of bremsstrahlung (dense is worse when shielding against high energy particles) were proven wrong? Are you also claiming that x-ray machines, which use the established principles of bremsstrahlung don't actually work?
If the moon landing being a hoax is so obvious, why do the people who support it feel the need to lie so much?

Originally posted by turbonium1
The LM was untestable on Earth, and we can't build an Earth-version, even today.They hold 'lunar lander' contests, but so far no luck! Of course, the LM worked!

You can't drive a boat down a highway, what's your point? Just because something doesn't work in an environment it was never intended to work in, doesn't mean it doesn't work the way it was intended. If the LM was able to successfully work on Earth, it would have been terrible for use on the moon. Just imagine all the extra weight/size needed to make it aerodynamic and to have the engines and fuel capacity to operate in 1g.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Aluminum makes a better shield than a lot of other materials that could have been used. Aluminum makes a good shield because it's not nearly as dense as lead, or other metals. You don't want dense materials, you want ones that aren't going to have a lot of "spalling" from secondary effects.

No, aluminum is a very poor radiation shield.

It's a poor shield against x-ray and gamma radiation...

For the forms of radiation you are likely to encounter in the common medical and industrial settings you will find that most people talk about radiation shielding against x-ray and gamma. One of the best metals to shield against radiation is depleted Uranium, but this is expensive and hard to find, so the next best cheap, common metal is lead.

So how much lead do you need? One problem is that x-rays and gamma come in different energy levels (like different colors of light). The energy is measured in keV or meV (1000 keV = 1 meV). A moderately strong medical x-ray machine might generate x-rays with energies around 80 to 100 keV. These x-ray machines are common, so a lot of shielding sold targets these energy levels. Now you need to know how much shielding you need to block that energy level. Shield effectiveness is often measure in "half-layer thickness". The "half-layer thickness" number tells you how thick your shield must be to block only HALF of the radiation. The half-layer thickness for some materials for x-rays at 100 keV:

Lead 0.12 mm
Copper 1.8 mm
Iron 2.6 mm
Aluminum 15.9 mm
Water 41.5 mm
Air 35550 mm

As you can see, aluminum is a terrible radiation shield. A sheet of lead as thick as a piece of paper works as well as a block of aluminum thicker than your finger. Aluminum is more than 10 times worse than lead. It's more than 6 times worse than iron.

wiki.answers.com...

Aluminum is not "a good shield" for space radiation...

"The ISS is basically an aluminum structure. a well-proven technology for that historical development. However, aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications."

(from page 282 of below link)

books.google.ca...=o nepage&q=radiation%20poor%20shield%20%20aluminum&f=false

I can post other sources, but I think this will suffice...yes?

The Apollo defenders retort - 'If aluminum was thought to be such a poor shield, it wouldn't be used in the spacecraft of today!' Such nonsense.

As the book above notes, the ISS is an aluminum spacecraft, and it is in LEO.

Aluminum has long been used for spacecraft. Not because it's a "good shield".

We use aluminum because it's so light, yet strong, (among other factors) which are useful in aircraft, or spacecraft,.


Aluminum ihas one big flaw - it's a terrible radiation shield. This is not an opinion. It is a fact.

And I think it was known back in the Apoll-era, too.

It's finally been revealed..

reply to post by turbonium1


You're comparing an x-ray machine to cosmic radiation? Nice try but try again. On earth aluminum makes a horrible afield, in space it's the perfect shield. Cosmic radiation is much different from an x-ray machine.

Originally posted by captainpudding

Would you care to provide any proof that the known properties of bremsstrahlung (dense is worse when shielding against high energy particles) were proven wrong? Are you also claiming that x-ray machines, which use the established principles of bremsstrahlung don't actually work?

I just posted the proof for my specific argument, in my last post.

As for claiming x-ray machines don't work, please don't put words in my mouth

Originally posted by captainpudding

If the moon landing being a hoax is so obvious, why do the people who support it feel the need to lie so much?

It's extremely disturbing to accept. it's so embedded in the psyche, in our whole society. It's taught in our schools, it's reinforced by the mass media.

Denial is the result.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1

 

You're comparing an x-ray machine to cosmic radiation? Nice try but try again. On earth aluminum makes a horrible afield, in space it's the perfect shield. Cosmic radiation is much different from an x-ray machine.

Did you even read my whole post? I cited a source, which states...

",,aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications"

You call that a "perfect shield"?

Nice try.

Originally posted by turbonium1

You said (from wiki answers which is a worse source than Wikipedia):

For the forms of radiation you are likely to encounter in the common medical and industrial settings you will find that most people talk about radiation shielding against x-ray and gamma. One of the best metals to shield against radiation is depleted Uranium, but this is expensive and hard to find, so the next best cheap, common metal is lead.

First off did you even bother to do basic research into radiation? Obviously not. You seem to think that radiation is radiation is radiation. The question that was answered deals with radiation on earth. That is vastly different than in space. In space you are dealing with very small particles travelling near light speed. On earth, they are much slower.

Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 1020 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball.

en.wikipedia.org...

One problem is that x-rays and gamma come in different energy levels (like different colors of light). The energy is measured in keV or meV (1000 keV = 1 meV). A moderately strong medical x-ray machine might generate x-rays with energies around 80 to 100 keV.

The energies in a cosmic ray are so far beyond a 100 keV generator that it's pathetic. A 100 keV generator pushes out 100 kiloelectron volts, a galactic ray pushes out over 1000 electron volts. 100 keV is equal to 1000 eV. That gives you an idea of how much faster the cosmic ray is going when it hits the shield.

If you used depleted uranium in space, your astronauts would last a few hours at best. X-ray machines pump out low speed particles, which require more shielding. A Galactic Cosmic Ray is a very high speed particle. For very high speed particles a less dense shield is required. If you used depleted uranium, or lead, the Bremsstrahlung would shoot off so much radiation everyone on board would suffer a fatal dose of radiation quickly.

When a cosmic ray hits a shield, the particle (we'll just use one for simplicity) enters the shielding material. Depleted Uranium is the perfect shield on earth, because it's incredibly dense (which is also one reason why it's used in anti-tank weapons). Our cosmic ray particle is going to enter that incredibly dense particle, and it's going to hit a particle inside it. That particle is going to split apart and shoot out radiation, those bits that shoot off are going to hit more particles, which hit more particles, which hit more particles. The end result is that our one particle that entered the shielding has now split off a near fatal dose of radiation into our space capsule.

When that same particle hits an aluminum shield (which is NOT very dense), it might pass all the way through without hitting anything, or it might hit one particle, which hits another, which hits another, which all then exit the shield. You get a barely noticeable effect from the same particle.

It doesn't matter if you're in LEO or not, a galactic ray is a galactic ray is a galactic ray. The only thing being in earth orbit does is shield you slightly with the earth's magnetic field. Once you're out, you get more rays, but they act the exact same way whether they're in LEO, or lunar orbit. They don't somehow magically change their properties the farther out you go.

Of course according to most sites that don't have the first clue about radiation and cosmic rays claim they do (which is where most hoax believers get their information from).

Sorry to repeat myself
but if it was a hoax... where the .... did the apollo rockets go for days at a time?
They hide behind sputnik?
I suppose the Russians who where tracking the whole thing where in on it too?
As well as the tracking stations down here in Australia too they where able to fool radio telescopes that can see into deep space into seeing something that wasn't there go to the moon and came back?
I supposed they paid or threatened every astronomer, every radar operator, every one with a telescope, every major
country in the world into going along with the most expensive hoax ever?
For what?
Your a bunch of idiots seriously
Making me angry I got on here to report something that really happened to like minded open minded people...
to say that something that the whole world watched in so many ways witnessed and so many put so hard work into was a hoax....the greatest achievement EVER! EVER!!!!! in the history of mankind is a hoax???!!!!
MORONS!! Its you lot that make everything else on here seem a joke...
What we can't go to the moon but UFOs are real?
Take a look at your logic
its just not possible it was a hoax!!!!

So,do you want to address my point now?

Aluminum is a poor radiation shield - to be specific, in shielding the radiation beyond LEO.

Apollo has a big problem with this fact.

Back to you, then..

reply to post by turbonium1

Aluminum is a poor radiation shield - to be specific, in shielding the radiation beyond LEO.

Particle radiation consists of a stream of charged or neutral particles, both charged ions and subatomic elementary particles. This includes solar wind, cosmic radiation, and neutron flux in nuclear reactors.
Alpha particles (helium nuclei) are the least penetrating. Even very energetic alpha particles can be stopped by a single sheet of paper.
Beta particles (electrons) are more penetrating, but still can be absorbed by a few millimeters of aluminum. However, in cases where high energy beta particles are emitted shielding must be accomplished with low density materials, e.g. plastic, wood, water or acrylic glass (Plexiglas, Lucite) [2]. This is to reduce generation of Bremsstrahlung X-rays. In the case of beta+ radiation (positrons), the gamma radiation from the electron-positron annihilation reaction poses additional concern.

en.wikipedia.org...

Aluminum is less dense than lead, making it less prone to cause bremstrahlung. Keep in mind that the Apollo CM had a honeycomb structure filled with epoxy, a low density material. *yawn*