Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

reply to post by patternfinder



As an electronics technician of 15 years you should know that microwave radiation has little in common with ionizing radiation.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by spav5

 

Yes, I have indeed heard about this. One of the most cogent arguments the doubters make is why it was that the news broadcasting agencies could only film an image off a NASA monitor, rather than the image as broadcast from the moon. I have no answer for this, and I haven't bothered to do a Google search for it. There must have been a reason, but....

Anyway, my point was that we're currently capable of high-def photography of the moon--and by "we" I mean, for instance, the Japanese KAGUYA project. I wish they had made a point of flying over and photographing the landing sites. It would have gone a long way toward ending this entire argument, one way or the other.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

sounds like nasa has gone the way of obama's birth certificate....

reply to post by patternfinder

have you watched the videos of that young aussie guy that's debunking the moonlanding?

Yes I have and to be perfectly honest, I don't find it convincing at all. I debunked several of his videos straight away without breaking a sweat.

If that is your un-deniable proof, then I would suggest going back to school and getting an education.

reply to post by patternfinder


i have watched that guy's videos and he makes some great points. i wish there was a capable person debunking the stuff he says. even with the internet, it's difficult for a layman to authoritatively say what is possible and what wasn't.

one interesting thing the aussie kid made me aware of was werner von braun's book 'conquest of the moon' which outlines what von braun thought would be necessary for a manned flight to the moon (it included three crafts, a relay station, and fuel capacity to the extent that the crafts would need to be taller than the empire state building). with respect to von braun's involvement in the american space program, it would seem he would have a lot of knowledge regarding what it would take to get to the moon.

what's more is that i do believe the us government is capable of manufacturing events while maintaining public perception and did so long before the apollo missions.

however, many, many brilliant people, like my old professor, insist that the moon landing happened and couldn't be faked. i respect these people and enjoy having their input.

I'm not a moon hoax person, I agree it's too ridiculous of a cover up.

However

If the Roswell UFO crash really happened in 1947, then I think a cover up/hacking situation could occur in 1969, 22 years later. If I'm correct I think the OP's argument is all the family life involved and those who worked on the floor level, are reason enough why it's ridiculous for there to be a cover up.

The main argument for the Moon Landing Hoax is that Aliens warned us off the Moon.

Again, I'm not into the Moon Hoax, I'm sure we collected samples when we walked on the Moon, and brought them back to Earth to study. But even if there really was a hoax, I'm not sure why it's out of the question for those involved to not be honored with the glory of such knowledge, patriotism, and duty to the people of the World, and keep it a secret, especially in 1969...I mean that is a true hero!

Originally posted by patternfinder
sounds all warm and fuzzy and i'm sure with the feelings that you feel about it, you surely wouldn't want to believe that your dad was involved, even if it was unwittingly, in something that never actually came to fruition...i'm sure that would be devastating to you....but, strong emotions about a particular subject are a very nice way to not be very open minded about a situation...in conclusion, while very warm and heart felt, it didn't provide me any proof of your claim......

I did not count the question marks in my OP, but there are several.

Which one asked if anyone thought my story was warm and fuzzy and can you remind why I asked about that?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

 

As an electronics technician of 15 years you should know that microwave radiation has little in common with ionizing radiation.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

i can tell you this, radiation regardless of ionizing or not is simply a frequency, a vibration if you will, and even ionizing radiation will cook if it has enough energy behind it....heat is electrical friction, the more pressure, the hotter it gets, i don't know how much pressure is behind the frequencies in the van allen belt though....

Originally posted by godWhisperer
reply to post by patternfinder

 

i have watched that guy's videos and he makes some great points. i wish there was a capable person debunking the stuff he says. even with the internet, it's difficult for a layman to authoritatively say what is possible and what wasn't.

one interesting thing the aussie kid made me aware of was werner von braun's book 'conquest of the moon' which outlines what von braun thought...

Perhaps putting that little publication in context can be helpful, starting with the publication date.

reply to post by patternfinder

You don't know anything at all about radiation of any sort, do you?
The radiation in the Van Allen belts consists of high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't have a frequency. (now you're going to tell me everything has "frequencies").

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by patternfinder

 

have you watched the videos of that young aussie guy that's debunking the moonlanding?

Yes I have and to be perfectly honest, I don't find it convincing at all. I debunked several of his videos straight away without breaking a sweat.

If that is your un-deniable proof, then I would suggest going back to school and getting an education.

i think that the idea that one has debunked something is all in one's perspective sometimes......

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

 

You don't know anything at all about radiation of any sort, do you?
The radiation in the Van Allen belts consists of high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't have a frequency. (now you're going to tell me everything has "frequencies").

how can something not have a frequency? this ought to be good

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by patternfinder
sounds all warm and fuzzy and i'm sure with the feelings that you feel about it, you surely wouldn't want to believe that your dad was involved, even if it was unwittingly, in something that never actually came to fruition...i'm sure that would be devastating to you....but, strong emotions about a particular subject are a very nice way to not be very open minded about a situation...in conclusion, while very warm and heart felt, it didn't provide me any proof of your claim......

I did not count the question marks in my OP, but there are several.

Which one asked if anyone thought my story was warm and fuzzy and can you remind why I asked about that?

sorry, that was just my account of it......

reply to post by patternfinder

How about you tell me what the "frequency" of 5MeV electrons is.
How about 40MeV protons?

reply to post by godWhisperer

OK. I didn't mean to flame. But since I did it in public, let me likewise apologize in public.

One of the things I see more often than I care to is an argument that goes: "Well, I don't understand how such-and-such could be, so I cannot possibly see your point of view. If someone could explain that to me, I might be more reasonable."

And that was what I was thinking--that you were being closed-minded. My bad. Sorry.

But while I'm at it, and not to derail the thread: For people who are looking for the "truth," whatever that might be, you really got to face your doubts and do the research anyway. If in doubt, look it up. Merely defending what you already want to believe, without looking for counter-arguments, is a game of trolls and fools. And there are too many of those already on this site.

Not aimed at you, godWhisperer. Just sayin'....

Originally posted by godWhisperer
years ago i had an astronomy professor whose story was very much like yours. i admired him and felt he was the smartest teacher i had ever had. at the time, i had read very little about the alleged moon landing hoax, but i had read enough to ask my professor about the event. he, of course, discredited the hoax claims as ridiculous, citing many things many OS supporters cite, including the scale of deception it would take to pull off the hoax.

today i wish i could again ask him some questions about this event. for one, how could anyone endure the amount of radiation in the van allen belt, especially considering the amount of time it would take to go through it (it's somewhere around 20,000 miles wide, right?). that seems odd to me.

also, i would ask him again why nobody had gone back to the moon in the 40+ years since. at the time i remember him telling me that nobody had been back to the moon because it is costly to go to the moon and there wasn't significant enough reason to go back as we had presumably gained all the knowledge we needed, that humanity needed, from our trips in the 60s and 70s. i would ask him why modern astronauts can't get past 400 miles from the earth without encountering effects from the radiation in the van allen belt some 600 miles away from them.

i thank you for your account. i still am completely unsure what i believe about this event and i appreciate all the sincere info i can get.

Some of that can come into focus looking at the material on the new Orion Project. It, too, is designed for traversing the VA Belt-- a bit beefier than the Apollo.

In short, 'though, what they did is went through the narrowest part as fast as they could, and kept an eye on solar activity before launch. It is dangerous, but reasonably manageable. Each astronaut wore personal radiation detector which were checked regularly. I believe there were other detectors on board in various locations as well.

Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

 

You don't know anything at all about radiation of any sort, do you?
The radiation in the Van Allen belts consists of high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't have a frequency. (now you're going to tell me everything has "frequencies").

did you know that an electromagnet uses alternating current to generate a field around a coil? do you think that alternating current isn't a frequency? does 60 hz sound familiar?

reply to post by patternfinder

Yes, it does.

Please explain what AC electricity has to with high energy particles trapped in the Van Allen belts.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

 

How about you tell me what the "frequency" of 5MeV electrons is.
How about 40MeV protons?

phage, just tell me how something can't have a frequency, is that too much to ask?

reply to post by patternfinder

I didn't say can't. I said doesn't.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

 

Yes, it does.

Please explain what AC electricity has to with high energy particles trapped in the Van Allen belts.

i have no idea, you were the one who brought up electromagnetism......