Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

a reply to: turbonium1

This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield.

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Due to bremsstrahlung. That's what I said. All of this is irrelevant to Apollo, since the missions were too short for exposure to be an issue.

NASA wants better shielding before they go back too the moon because the equipment used on the Apollo missions wasn't as safe as NASA would like.

essentially this establishes the additionally problematic hypothesis that the technologies implemented were insufficient too institute from inauguration. Thereby compelling the initiation of an alternative construct that its "All in the Name of Safety",- Notwithstanding the use of NASA seatbelt technology which was evidently back-engineered from existing derivations and federally required in designated vehicles prior too apollo..

originally posted by: Misinformation
Notwithstanding the use of NASA seatbelt technology which was evidently back-engineered from existing derivations and federally required in designated vehicles prior too apollo.

Federal seatbelt requirements probably didn't matter

I would think, however, that they are a good design idea when potentially bouncing around a bumpy lunar surface, especially in 1/6 gravity.

This one is from 6 february 2016....Film director Sean Stone, the son of Oliver Stone talks with Alex Jones about Stanley Kubrick.

Did The Illuminati Kill Stanley Kubrick?

a reply to: webstra

So somebody who never met Kubrick doesn't say he directed Apollo.

Next.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

but .... but................... ILLUMINATI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Isnt that the conspiritard " trump card " to explain EVERYTHING ?

originally posted by: webstra
This one is from 6 february 2016....Film director Sean Stone, the son of Oliver Stone talks with Alex Jones about Stanley Kubrick.

Did The Illuminati Kill Stanley Kubrick?

"Man I´ll tell ya, stuff i learned about Stanley Kubrick, I´m not allowed to tell anybody, but it´s mindblowing."

And then Alex Jones is going on about 'The Shining' which is problably Kubrick´s film which is most connected to the moonlanding scandal.

Remember the thousands of lines Jack typed ?

'All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy'

Where A11 is Apollo 11...;-).

a reply to: webstra

slight problem - that line came from the book

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: webstra

slight problem - that line came from the book

As far as i can find..not in the book.

It is in an other book of King , It appears in Stephen King's novel "Pet Sematary" as a brief mention.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy in Media

Also in an epub of the book...can´t find it.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: webstra

slight problem - that line came from the book

As far as i can find..not in the book.

It is in an other book of King , It appears in Stephen King's novel "Pet Sematary" as a brief mention.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy in Media

Also in an epub of the book...can´t find it.

And the novel "Pet Sematary" is from 1983.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: webstra

slight problem - that line came from the book

As far as i can find..not in the book.

It is in an other book of King , It appears in Stephen King's novel "Pet Sematary" as a brief mention.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy in Media

Also in an epub of the book...can´t find it.

And the novel "Pet Sematary" is from 1983.

how about other films and novels that use that line that were well before 1983?

originally posted by: choos

Apollo data is irrelevant to this study because Apollo data lasts only 12 days during a solar maximum with two traverses through the VAB.

but if they were considering long term missions, that level of reading will not be accurate unless the mission is planned to traverse the VAB every twelve days.

You made up a fantasy-story, as usual...

Nobody mentions Apollo data, let alone make up lame excuses for not using it...

You are thinking up any excuse, of your own invention, like you have done here...


The Apollo-ites want an excuse for these studies not including Apollo's data, when it should have been the very BASE point of the research papers.. not treated as so much trash, like it is...


These papers are saying over and over that aluminum cannot shield humans against radiation within the deep space environment. And, we must try and find something which DOES shield humans in deep space...

THAT is what these papers are really about, quite clearly.


Despite the fact they state aluminum won't shield humans against radiation in deep space, and no manned spacecraft will be built of aluminum for deep space missions, at all, in future - it must exclude short-term missions, like Apollo's, even though nothing is ever said, or even implied, to that effect.

You think because they refer to long-term missions, they exclude short-term missions, without ever saying it, since you 'know' it was meant that way, of course!


You see nothing of the reality.

What makes you think they don't reference Apollo data? Have you checked all the references?

Have you checked all of the radiation studies and found proof that Apollo astronauts would have suffered fatal radiation doses on their missions? These sources include Soviet and Indian data, so plenty for you to go at there.

You continually ignore the fact that the studies you reference are specifically looking at long term missions, much longer than 1 week hops to the moon and back.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

This ineffectiveness and possibly added hazard of aluminum result from the secondary particle production processes in breaking up incident GCR ions within the shield.

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Due to bremsstrahlung. That's what I said. All of this is irrelevant to Apollo, since the missions were too short for exposure to be an issue.

Saying it over and over again doesn't change the facts here.

The papers never say it, or even imply it. Not once.

A paper that refers to long-term missions is not excluding any other missions, much as you'd like it to...

If short-term missions were not an issue, as you claim, it would certainly have been mentioned sometime within these papers...yet it was not excluded, anywhere..

They never exclude short-term missions at all. When they say aluminum can't shield humans in deep space, then don't say it works for short-term missions - this would have excluded them. Not a word spoken, though.

Same for building manned spacecraft in future, for deep space - no craft of aluminum shielding, built in the future.

Here again, they don't exclude any craft on this statement. They would say any craft for short-term missions are fine with aluminum shielding, but they don't.

You can't make exclusions for short-term missions, because they make no exclusions in any way, at any time.

This is YOUR exclusion, since your great Apollo story must be excluded, at all costs...

a reply to: turbonium1

But you are also INCLUDING the Apollo missions where they aren't mentioned.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

What makes you think they don't reference Apollo data? Have you checked all the references?

Have you checked all of the radiation studies and found proof that Apollo astronauts would have suffered fatal radiation doses on their missions? These sources include Soviet and Indian data, so plenty for you to go at there.

You continually ignore the fact that the studies you reference are specifically looking at long term missions, much longer than 1 week hops to the moon and back.

I'm aware of the papers looking at long-term missions.

You ignore the fact no missions are excluded in those papers, which means aluminum is a poor, even hazardous, shielding material in deep space, for any manned mission. The short-term missions are not excluded, in fact.

How did we find out that aluminum is a poor shield for humans in deep space, then?

We found out here on Earth, from identifying that specific type of radiation found (normally) within deep space, and testing it on aluminum, as a shielding material.

They knew right away that aluminum was not only a lousy shield, but it actually made the hazard worse than before.

But, you say, this would not have been a problem for Apollo, the radiation was not detectable in any way because it was too small, and so on..

It would be detected at any levels, in fact.

Because aluminum would not have shielded this radiation, and made it even worse than before in a spacecraft.

The Apollo craft supposedly detected radiation hitting the outside walls, right? And they detected radiation from inside the craft, true?

If they were in deep space, in an aluminum craft, they would not have any shielding from this radiation, and they'd realize that fact, likely within minutes... without a doubt, it would be known.

But, it never was. Only the tests showed us the truth about aluminum shielding within deep space, quite recently.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

But you are also INCLUDING the Apollo missions where they aren't mentioned.

Which means including them as LEO missions, where Apollo's aluminum shielding would be adequate.

But certainly not within deep space, obviously

The lunar lander. Impressive. Look at that hatch. Men in spacesuits crawling through that...then once inside, had to pressurise the cabin before removing the suit and superfluous equipment...hmmm

The problem is that we always assumed aluminum was a good radiation shield in spacecraft, and it is adequate, for LEO flights.

Nobody ever knew that it would be even worse than no shielding, against deep space radiation, during the time of Apollo. That's why it seemed like a good idea for faking it, and it could actually be proven to work in deep space, later on.

It doesn't work, and now we know Apollo could not have worked either, within deep space.

a reply to: turbonium1

Do you actually read what you post or the articles you link to?

I mean deep space and LEO are 2 completely different things for a start.

Deep space and where the Apollo missions went are different.

You're pulling arguments out of thin air. You take an article saying that aluminium isn't good in deep space and equate it to the moon landings? Bravo. Keep up the great work
/sarcasm