Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,964 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 823,690
Pageviews Today: 1,112,065Threads Today: 183Posts Today: 4,239
09:46 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

 
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 12:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Just wondering nomuse when you are going to provide us with a link to your answer regarding your 4 good reasons....

Also wondering when you are going to address the shadow issue I posted and using the same methodology show us where this mysteriously missing shadow is..

Maybe its a magic shadow.. only visible to those who buy this story.. lol..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



It was in an earlier post. I guess both you and BrandonD have selective vision.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


i have used the arrows to follow your posts back and have been unable to find it as far back as page 40.. could you please link it for me or direct me to the page that it is on... that is of course if it exists..
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Menow, if you follow the line of my drawing, you can clearly see it follows along a patch of the ground that is not sloped and not disturbed.. if you are saying that it is, could you please draw a line and connect the two halves of the shadow and show me.. its a simple request really..
 Quoting: LD 12341962


How do you KNOW it doesn't have a slope? You are looking at a photograph -- at a translation of 3d information into a flat plane.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Because any idiot can see there is no slope on the ground im speaking about... if you say there is a slope then for gods sake just draw a line and show me.. jeez anyone would think it was rocket science the way you two are avoiding proving me wrong...

Your word is not good enough nomuse... just because you say so doesnt make it real.. if you want to participate in the debate, then put up or shut up .. but then if you cant put up it just proves you dont have any evidence to refute the claim.. interesting condundrum you find yourself in..
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/13/2012 01:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Menow, if you follow the line of my drawing, you can clearly see it follows along a patch of the ground that is not sloped and not disturbed.. if you are saying that it is, could you please draw a line and connect the two halves of the shadow and show me.. its a simple request really..
 Quoting: LD 12341962


How do you KNOW it doesn't have a slope? You are looking at a photograph -- at a translation of 3d information into a flat plane.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Because any idiot can see there is no slope on the ground im speaking about... if you say there is a slope then for gods sake just draw a line and show me.. jeez anyone would think it was rocket science the way you two are avoiding proving me wrong...

Your word is not good enough nomuse... just because you say so doesnt make it real.. if you want to participate in the debate, then put up or shut up .. but then if you cant put up it just proves you dont have any evidence to refute the claim.. interesting condundrum you find yourself in..
 Quoting: LD 12341962


I show you a photograph of a stick. How long is the stick? I show you a photograph of a plain on which sits a rock. How large is the rock?

You appear to be thinking that images are always clear; that spacial cues will always be there and there will be no inconsistency.

This is simply wrong. Images are easy to misread. This is why we need more than single images to understand a 3d world.

Optical illusions aren't just a clever parlor trick; they are evidence and illustration of the way our visual system can be fooled.

No. There is simply not enough information in the image to determine if there is a rise between camera and shadow.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/13/2012 01:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Just wondering nomuse when you are going to provide us with a link to your answer regarding your 4 good reasons....

Also wondering when you are going to address the shadow issue I posted and using the same methodology show us where this mysteriously missing shadow is..

Maybe its a magic shadow.. only visible to those who buy this story.. lol..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



It was in an earlier post. I guess both you and BrandonD have selective vision.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


i have used the arrows to follow your posts back and have been unable to find it as far back as page 40.. could you please link it for me or direct me to the page that it is on... that is of course if it exists..
 Quoting: LD 12341962


Oh, that will work. Insult me repeatedly, claim I never said what I said... and then expect me to come crawling over with my hand out to be hit again.

How about instead of playing "who said what when," you try actually thinking about the image instead?

Assume there is an artificial light, one with a small aperture, located approximately the same height as the astronaut (for these are the requirements BrandonD gave it.)

If there were such a light, what would you see?

If you had ANY experience in professional lighting work, what might you look for about this light?

I do it less these days, now that I've moved to another field, but I still find my eye caught by a cool light -- a color, an angle, an unexpected illumination -- and I spent the time to look around and figure out how that lighting effect is being produced. What is the source, how is it being reflected, what are the qualities of that source that are important to the "look?"

What do you think you would look for, if there was the light that BrandonD imagines is in the scene?



(This is a particular kind of thinking, a particular kind of analytical thinking. I begin to think, over some of these threads, that it is not as common an exercise as I once thought. More and more I am finding people who don't seem to do it.)
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/13/2012 02:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
I guess I'm thinking about thinking again. There's three basic steps when you are trying to find a solution. The first is brainstorming. This is when you want the filters off (as much as you are capable of). To dream up even the most wacky and far-fetched ideas because one of them might actually be the reason the thing isn't working.

Then comes the working-out of the consequences of the idea. You are rather holding two lists in your head at the same time (or maybe three); a list of all the data that meets with your hypothesis, and a list of all the data that doesn't agree with it. And maybe a third list of all the data that doesn't agree or disagree.

Then comes the test, and even that is not always conclusive. You dream up a new data point that will either confirm or deny the hypothesis. And then see if it does.

A lot of the time, the real world doesn't break down neatly. You find more often than not that what failed -- and what makes up the final hypothesis that is consistent with all the data -- is two unrelated things happening at once.

I should be more specific! But I can't think of any examples I want to share here at the moment. Not today, on my first day off after a fortnight of very long hours at work.
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 02:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
So,.. I will ask again.. see if anyone is capable of actually disproving the fact that this photo has in my opinion and in the evidence Ive demonstrated below, been manipulated.. until someone is able to show where my working out is wrong, this one is added to the evidence pile.. Photo manipulation does not prove they didnt go, however it shows deceit and intent to deceive, why if they went would they need to do this..


Original Quote:
I would be interested in seeing anyone be able to show me the shadow on the ground in the same manner as I have shown it to be missing in the link below.. obviously you can not see what im seeing unless i draw it on there.. and the same works in reverse.. i can not see what you are seeing unless you draw it on there .. that way we can compare two points of view fairly and objectively

Now just for nomuse so he can comment without actually having to look at the things ive referenced or know what im even talking about ..

Discovery: There are 4 sequencial photos of Duke and Young, two of young jumping and saluting, and two of duke standing and saluting.. in the first two of Young jumping and saluting, you can clearly see the ground in front of him and line of the flag pole shadow. There is 95% of this shadow unbroken on undisturbed ground..

The next two photos of Duke standing, not jumping, so no dust displacement here, are in the same spot that young was standing, here you can see an extra couple of boot prints which were made by Young. If you look at the foreground in front of Duke, there is a broken section of shadow, now in my example photos i did include another section to the left of the photo, a short section, and after some consideration and just for the believers, i will give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that maybe this small part could be hidden by a newly displaced mound of moon dust so lets not deal with that small section but concetrate on the large section in front of Duke..

Method: if you follow the line of the shadow from either side in, you will see that it should be lying across an undisturbed part of the soil in front of duke, how do i know its undisturbed, because in the photo of young, there is a small rock on the ground that can be used to reference the piece of ground in question, this small rock is still visible in the photo of duke, so the ground has obviously not been disturbed or this small rock would not still be there..

Conclusion: does this prove we didnt go to the moon? NO.. does it suggest possible manipulation of photos? I say yes.. if anyone can show using the same method that I have in the linked photo where there is a shadow, following the line of the shadow, I will happily concede that I was mistaken..

orignals:

1st photo: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

2nd photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

3rd photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

4th photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

my working out so the teacher can see where i draw my conclusions from:
[link to i496.photobucket.com]
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 02:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
oh and fyi, to all those saying the ground is sloping away from the camera.. the overall slope/inclination of the ground is TOWARD the camera.. while obvious undulation occurs in various areas, the area in question is forward of and at the peak of a small depression in which Duke is standing on, though its clear from the video it is barely a depression.

You talk about 3d nomuse, honestly, do you not think I have not looked at the video? It gives a better representation of the ground than the picture. If you were interested in the discussion instead of just causing irritation and distraction, you too would of done this and known it before you posted..
Spittin'Cesium

User ID: 5369266
United Kingdom
03/13/2012 02:59 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
So,.. I will ask again.. see if anyone is capable of actually disproving the fact that this photo has in my opinion and in the evidence Ive demonstrated below, been manipulated.. until someone is able to show where my working out is wrong, this one is added to the evidence pile.. Photo manipulation does not prove they didnt go, however it shows deceit and intent to deceive, why if they went would they need to do this..


Original Quote:
I would be interested in seeing anyone be able to show me the shadow on the ground in the same manner as I have shown it to be missing in the link below.. obviously you can not see what im seeing unless i draw it on there.. and the same works in reverse.. i can not see what you are seeing unless you draw it on there .. that way we can compare two points of view fairly and objectively

Now just for nomuse so he can comment without actually having to look at the things ive referenced or know what im even talking about ..

Discovery: There are 4 sequencial photos of Duke and Young, two of young jumping and saluting, and two of duke standing and saluting.. in the first two of Young jumping and saluting, you can clearly see the ground in front of him and line of the flag pole shadow. There is 95% of this shadow unbroken on undisturbed ground..

The next two photos of Duke standing, not jumping, so no dust displacement here, are in the same spot that young was standing, here you can see an extra couple of boot prints which were made by Young. If you look at the foreground in front of Duke, there is a broken section of shadow, now in my example photos i did include another section to the left of the photo, a short section, and after some consideration and just for the believers, i will give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that maybe this small part could be hidden by a newly displaced mound of moon dust so lets not deal with that small section but concetrate on the large section in front of Duke..

Method: if you follow the line of the shadow from either side in, you will see that it should be lying across an undisturbed part of the soil in front of duke, how do i know its undisturbed, because in the photo of young, there is a small rock on the ground that can be used to reference the piece of ground in question, this small rock is still visible in the photo of duke, so the ground has obviously not been disturbed or this small rock would not still be there..

Conclusion: does this prove we didnt go to the moon? NO.. does it suggest possible manipulation of photos? I say yes.. if anyone can show using the same method that I have in the linked photo where there is a shadow, following the line of the shadow, I will happily concede that I was mistaken..

orignals:

1st photo: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

2nd photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

3rd photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

4th photo:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

my working out so the teacher can see where i draw my conclusions from:
[link to i496.photobucket.com]
 Quoting: LD 12341962


I was going to list all the differences in the images myself but alas there are too many..obvious manipulation,to which ends I do not know.

Last Edited by Spittin'Cesium on 03/13/2012 03:02 AM
The thing that hath been,
is That which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:1
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 06:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Found a couple of interesting photos tonight with what appears to be a spotlight coming in from the LM 'porch'.. it can not be sunlight in my opinion, since the LM hatch and ladder is in shadow, with the sun on the opposite side of the LM ( well you know, as much shadow as the magical lunar surface will allow).

To add to this, in the first two frames of the sequence his legs are not being lit at all, which, if this 'spotlight' is the sun somehow magically coming through the LM, it should be there lighting his legs when in the same position as the next shot as it does his chest and helmet shouldnt it?.. I think yes.. and its not.. interesting

1. [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
No spotlight

2. [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
No spotlight - here it should be on his knees if it is the sun

3. [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Spotlight suddenly appears on his chest and lower part of his helmet

4. [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Spotlight on top section of helmet and plss..

Even if we suspend our disbelief for a moment and give possibility that this is the sun somehow making it across the edge of the LM to illuminate the astronaut of apollo 12 as he comes down the ladder, then where is it in photograph 1 and 2 ..

Especially 2 since we have a physical reference point which is his knees. If this was natural sunlight somehow skipping across the ladder due to the angle of the LM, it would be lighting up his knees as he passes this point as it does with his helmet in photos 3 and 4..
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 06:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And here is a question regarding radiation.. nasa sent men to the moon in suits that could withstand the intense radiation of space and a space craft that had enough insulation to protect it from the van allen belts radiation, why then were the space suits not used for chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima to go in there and clean up the mess, since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts.. why was the exterior surface of the command module not utilised to create vehicles in which men could operate in these radiation filled environments.. and if the space suits protect them from radiation so well, why then are xray technicians still wearing lead aprons and not commercially designed aprons made from the same fabric as the spacesuits..
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 08:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Apollo Missions Debunked Using scientific Method and NASA's OWN DATA: A short synapses


The averaged dosimeter readings for Apollo 11 was 0.18 rads (195 hours duration) ; Apollo 7 : 0.16 rads( 259 hours) ; Apollo 8 : 0.16 rads (147 hours)
The average rate of radiation exposure for Apollo 11 was 9.2^-4 rem/hour ; for Apollo 8 it was 10.08^-4 rem/hour ; and for Apollo 7 it was 6.17^-4 rem/hour.
The differences are miniscule, in fact the rates of exposure themselves are miniscule, and suspicious given the radiation enviroment in the Van Allen radiation belts and in interplanetary space.

What this PROVES is obvious to any thinking person. First let me give you few basic facts. Apollo 7 was identical to Apollo 11 in all respects.

The difference is, according to NASA, Apollo 11 left the pad at an angle of 22 degrees to the equator and therefore transited the Van Allen radiation belts at an approximate latitude of 30 degrees north latitude, since the cape is at 28 degrees north latitude.

This trans lunar injection trajectory was nesseccary in order to achieve the equatorial orbit of the moon that it allegedly did, any other trajectory would have caused it to miss, or achieve an other than equatorial orbit and greatly decrease the odds of successfully achieving orbit at all.

It is important to realize that NASA does not question any of the above facts I have listed thus far in bolded text. The differences in the exposure rates for the various missions are not significant, but are measurable, so this needs to be explained , but bear with me, I'm getting to that later.

The point is, the lunar landing mission had several sources of much higher radiation rates to cope with than the Low earth orbital Apollo 7 mission. The first radiation they would encounter would be the lower proton belt of the Van allen radiation belts.

The skin of the spacecraft was 2mm thick aluminum. The proton density at the altitude they transited varied according to energy level, with the higher energy levels having lower flux values. Since their trajectory was not a straight line, but a gradual spiraling out until they were beyond the radiation belts, we can assume they spent at least an hour or more in the lower proton belt, where flux values exceeded 4 million particles per square centimeter per second. This would have created a tremendous amount of secondary particle and electromagnetic radiation in the aluminum skinned cabin, with energy levels of protons varying from >100MeV to >10MeV (we are not even going to include the electrons, since it is not necessary to prove the point).

The reality of the matter is that by this time their radiation exposure in rads would have been hundreds of times greater than the Low Earth orbital Apollo 7, which stayed under the radiation belts and inside the protective shield of the magnetosphere. But we aren't done yet. They still had to go through the outer belts, which are larger but contain particles of lower energy, mostly electrons. They were still powerful enough to flood the cabin with high flux X rays .

It is hard if not impossible to calculate their exposure precisely in any instance but certain that it would have added greatly to their exposure over Apollo 7's total rads.

But it gets better....once outside the Earths protective influence they were continually exposed to the solar wind, during a solar maximum. Again, we cannot calculate the exposure from this accurately but can assume it was substantial. We KNOW there were x ray flares and particle events during both A-11 and A-12

When they achieved lunar orbit, two men then entered the paper thin LEM (fictional account here) and proceeded to land on the surface of the moon, on the day lit side of it.

The whole time they were exposed to the solar wind and to and solar radiation storm emissions. While inside the LEM, there would be absolutely no protection.


Here the astronauts exited the vehicle and took a stroll through highly radioactive radionuclides on the moons surface with their space suits on, encountered secondary radiation from cosmic rays hitting the surface, then got back in the LEM with the contaminated suits on and desuited. They then went through the same radiation belts again returning to Earth, and yet their radiation exposure levels were almost identical to the low earth orbital Apollo 7 mission.

The conclusion is obvious, the Apollo 11 and 12 Astronauts never left low earth orbit, the small differences in radiation exposure were simply the result of variation in space weather during the missions, which occurred during a solar maximum. The conclusion is that none of the above listed missions involved men exiting the protective influence of the magnetosphere, and the missions were faked.

Now the next obvious question is many people tracked something to the moon, and even private radio operators intercepted voice transmissions from the moon. How could this be possible if the astronauts were in Earth orbit?

Well, you see, by then thy had invented a device known as the tape recorder, which was used to pre record the astronauts voices, the mission control men had a script to go by, in fact you can see them while they are speaking to the astronauts reading from a pad. You also will notice many instances where astronauts responded to mission control transmissions almost instantly, which is impossible since it would take over two and a half seconds for the mission control message to reach them and their message to reach back

Conclusion: By application of the scientific method , even though precise calculations of exposure are impossible, is is not possible for any of the above missions to have actually left low earth orbit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7064782
United States
03/13/2012 08:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Apollo Missions Debunked Using scientific Method and NASA's OWN DATA: A short synapses


The averaged dosimeter readings for Apollo 11 was 0.18 rads (195 hours duration) ; Apollo 7 : 0.16 rads( 259 hours) ; Apollo 8 : 0.16 rads (147 hours)
The average rate of radiation exposure for Apollo 11 was 9.2^-4 rem/hour ; for Apollo 8 it was 10.08^-4 rem/hour ; and for Apollo 7 it was 6.17^-4 rem/hour.
The differences are miniscule, in fact the rates of exposure themselves are miniscule, and suspicious given the radiation enviroment in the Van Allen radiation belts and in interplanetary space.

What this PROVES is obvious to any thinking person. First let me give you few basic facts. Apollo 7 was identical to Apollo 11 in all respects.

The difference is, according to NASA, Apollo 11 left the pad at an angle of 22 degrees to the equator and therefore transited the Van Allen radiation belts at an approximate latitude of 30 degrees north latitude, since the cape is at 28 degrees north latitude.

This trans lunar injection trajectory was nesseccary in order to achieve the equatorial orbit of the moon that it allegedly did, any other trajectory would have caused it to miss, or achieve an other than equatorial orbit and greatly decrease the odds of successfully achieving orbit at all.

It is important to realize that NASA does not question any of the above facts I have listed thus far in bolded text. The differences in the exposure rates for the various missions are not significant, but are measurable, so this needs to be explained , but bear with me, I'm getting to that later.

The point is, the lunar landing mission had several sources of much higher radiation rates to cope with than the Low earth orbital Apollo 7 mission. The first radiation they would encounter would be the lower proton belt of the Van allen radiation belts.

The skin of the spacecraft was 2mm thick aluminum. The proton density at the altitude they transited varied according to energy level, with the higher energy levels having lower flux values. Since their trajectory was not a straight line, but a gradual spiraling out until they were beyond the radiation belts, we can assume they spent at least an hour or more in the lower proton belt, where flux values exceeded 4 million particles per square centimeter per second. This would have created a tremendous amount of secondary particle and electromagnetic radiation in the aluminum skinned cabin, with energy levels of protons varying from >100MeV to >10MeV (we are not even going to include the electrons, since it is not necessary to prove the point).

The reality of the matter is that by this time their radiation exposure in rads would have been hundreds of times greater than the Low Earth orbital Apollo 7, which stayed under the radiation belts and inside the protective shield of the magnetosphere. But we aren't done yet. They still had to go through the outer belts, which are larger but contain particles of lower energy, mostly electrons. They were still powerful enough to flood the cabin with high flux X rays .

It is hard if not impossible to calculate their exposure precisely in any instance but certain that it would have added greatly to their exposure over Apollo 7's total rads.

But it gets better....once outside the Earths protective influence they were continually exposed to the solar wind, during a solar maximum. Again, we cannot calculate the exposure from this accurately but can assume it was substantial. We KNOW there were x ray flares and particle events during both A-11 and A-12

When they achieved lunar orbit, two men then entered the paper thin LEM (fictional account here) and proceeded to land on the surface of the moon, on the day lit side of it.

The whole time they were exposed to the solar wind and to and solar radiation storm emissions. While inside the LEM, there would be absolutely no protection.


Here the astronauts exited the vehicle and took a stroll through highly radioactive radionuclides on the moons surface with their space suits on, encountered secondary radiation from cosmic rays hitting the surface, then got back in the LEM with the contaminated suits on and desuited. They then went through the same radiation belts again returning to Earth, and yet their radiation exposure levels were almost identical to the low earth orbital Apollo 7 mission.

The conclusion is obvious, the Apollo 11 and 12 Astronauts never left low earth orbit, the small differences in radiation exposure were simply the result of variation in space weather during the missions, which occurred during a solar maximum. The conclusion is that none of the above listed missions involved men exiting the protective influence of the magnetosphere, and the missions were faked.

Now the next obvious question is many people tracked something to the moon, and even private radio operators intercepted voice transmissions from the moon. How could this be possible if the astronauts were in Earth orbit?

Well, you see, by then thy had invented a device known as the tape recorder, which was used to pre record the astronauts voices, the mission control men had a script to go by, in fact you can see them while they are speaking to the astronauts reading from a pad. You also will notice many instances where astronauts responded to mission control transmissions almost instantly, which is impossible since it would take over two and a half seconds for the mission control message to reach them and their message to reach back

Conclusion: By application of the scientific method , even though precise calculations of exposure are impossible, is is not possible for any of the above missions to have actually left low earth orbit.
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132




This is one of the most brilliant thought out analysis I have read on the subject.

Thank you!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12415719
Spain
03/13/2012 08:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And here is a question regarding radiation.. nasa sent men to the moon in suits that could withstand the intense radiation of space and a space craft that had enough insulation to protect it from the van allen belts radiation, why then were the space suits not used for chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima to go in there and clean up the mess, since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts.. why was the exterior surface of the command module not utilised to create vehicles in which men could operate in these radiation filled environments.. and if the space suits protect them from radiation so well, why then are xray technicians still wearing lead aprons and not commercially designed aprons made from the same fabric as the spacesuits..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



Since your premise ('... since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts...') is false, the the rest of your comment is unfounded.

See the following links to understand what was the radiation that the astronauts of Apollo 11 faced:

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

I hope, that after studying their contents, nobody re-raise questions about the subject of radiation in Apollo missions.

angryface
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 08:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And here is a question regarding radiation.. nasa sent men to the moon in suits that could withstand the intense radiation of space and a space craft that had enough insulation to protect it from the van allen belts radiation, why then were the space suits not used for chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima to go in there and clean up the mess, since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts.. why was the exterior surface of the command module not utilised to create vehicles in which men could operate in these radiation filled environments.. and if the space suits protect them from radiation so well, why then are xray technicians still wearing lead aprons and not commercially designed aprons made from the same fabric as the spacesuits..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



Since your premise ('... since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts...') is false, the the rest of your comment is unfounded.

See the following links to understand what was the radiation that the astronauts of Apollo 11 faced:

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

I hope, that after studying their contents, nobody re-raise questions about the subject of radiation in Apollo missions.

angryface
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12415719


lmao
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/13/2012 08:54 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Apollo Missions Debunked Using scientific Method and NASA's OWN DATA: A short synapses


The averaged dosimeter readings for Apollo 11 was 0.18 rads (195 hours duration) ; Apollo 7 : 0.16 rads( 259 hours) ; Apollo 8 : 0.16 rads (147 hours)
The average rate of radiation exposure for Apollo 11 was 9.2^-4 rem/hour ; for Apollo 8 it was 10.08^-4 rem/hour ; and for Apollo 7 it was 6.17^-4 rem/hour.
The differences are miniscule,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

No, they're not. Apollo 11 was only 75% as long as Apollo 7 yet it still had a higher total dose. Apollo 8 was barely more than half the length of Apollo 7 and it had an equivalent total dose. By your own numbers the differences are not miniscule. They are significant.

Why do I get the feeling you've been sock puppeting over at Baut again?
[link to www.bautforum.com]
Or is that a complete coincidence that a hoaxie made this exact claim 4 days ago over there? You didn't respond to anything on that thread either, what's the matter, can't answer their questions?
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/13/2012 08:57 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Oh cutting off my quotes now.. what you dont want to address the issue of the fact that the front flap cant move while the back flap is attached?...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


That assumes the back flap has secured the front flap, which it clearly has not.
 Quoting: Astromut


Astro, you clearly stated that the back top flap DOES NOT COVER the front top flap...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


Still waiting for Aussie Liar to quote me where I said that. Oh, she can't, because she's a LIAR.
 Quoting: Astromut


There, you said it.. in fact you said it a few times.
 Quoting: LD 12341962

No, I did not. I said that the front flap was not presently secured by the back flap during the EVA in question. This is not even debatable, it's clearly evident in the photos and video. You claimed I said the top flap does not cover the front flap. I never said that, I said that it WASSS NOT COVERING IT.
That assumes the back flap has secured the front flap, which it clearly has not.
 Quoting: astromut

You lied about what I said. You are a liar. I can't stand liars like you who flat-out lie about what I say.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 03/13/2012 09:00 AM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12415719
Spain
03/13/2012 09:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And here is a question regarding radiation.. nasa sent men to the moon in suits that could withstand the intense radiation of space and a space craft that had enough insulation to protect it from the van allen belts radiation, why then were the space suits not used for chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima to go in there and clean up the mess, since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts.. why was the exterior surface of the command module not utilised to create vehicles in which men could operate in these radiation filled environments.. and if the space suits protect them from radiation so well, why then are xray technicians still wearing lead aprons and not commercially designed aprons made from the same fabric as the spacesuits..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



Since your premise ('... since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts...') is false, the the rest of your comment is unfounded.

See the following links to understand what was the radiation that the astronauts of Apollo 11 faced:

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

I hope, that after studying their contents, nobody re-raise questions about the subject of radiation in Apollo missions.

angryface
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12415719


lmao
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132


crazyjak
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 09:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And here is a question regarding radiation.. nasa sent men to the moon in suits that could withstand the intense radiation of space and a space craft that had enough insulation to protect it from the van allen belts radiation, why then were the space suits not used for chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima to go in there and clean up the mess, since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts.. why was the exterior surface of the command module not utilised to create vehicles in which men could operate in these radiation filled environments.. and if the space suits protect them from radiation so well, why then are xray technicians still wearing lead aprons and not commercially designed aprons made from the same fabric as the spacesuits..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



Since your premise ('... since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts...') is false, the the rest of your comment is unfounded.

See the following links to understand what was the radiation that the astronauts of Apollo 11 faced:

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

I hope, that after studying their contents, nobody re-raise questions about the subject of radiation in Apollo missions.

angryface
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12415719


If you believe that you need to go learn about cosmic radiation.. I would suggest go and speak to Ninrez over on the solar thread and ask her about solar and cosmic radiation .. I think you would find that the clavius crap is just that.. crap...
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 09:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Apollo Missions Debunked Using scientific Method and NASA's OWN DATA: A short synapses


The averaged dosimeter readings for Apollo 11 was 0.18 rads (195 hours duration) ; Apollo 7 : 0.16 rads( 259 hours) ; Apollo 8 : 0.16 rads (147 hours)
The average rate of radiation exposure for Apollo 11 was 9.2^-4 rem/hour ; for Apollo 8 it was 10.08^-4 rem/hour ; and for Apollo 7 it was 6.17^-4 rem/hour.
The differences are miniscule,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

No, they're not. Apollo 11 was only 75% as long as Apollo 7 yet it still had a higher total dose. Apollo 8 was barely more than half the length of Apollo 7 and it had an equivalent total dose. By your own numbers the differences are not miniscule. They are significant.

Why do I get the feeling you've been sock puppeting over at Baut again?
[link to www.bautforum.com]
Or is that a complete coincidence that a hoaxie made this exact claim 4 days ago over there? You didn't respond to anything on that thread either, what's the matter, can't answer their questions?
 Quoting: Astromut

That wasn't me, that was a person testing what I said was going on over there, Being government funded, you might find all of sudden you dont have any funding any more. What goes on there is criminal conspiracy to conceal a multi billion dollar fraud.
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 09:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Apollo Missions Debunked Using scientific Method and NASA's OWN DATA: A short synapses


The averaged dosimeter readings for Apollo 11 was 0.18 rads (195 hours duration) ; Apollo 7 : 0.16 rads( 259 hours) ; Apollo 8 : 0.16 rads (147 hours)
The average rate of radiation exposure for Apollo 11 was 9.2^-4 rem/hour ; for Apollo 8 it was 10.08^-4 rem/hour ; and for Apollo 7 it was 6.17^-4 rem/hour.
The differences are miniscule,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

No, they're not. Apollo 11 was only 75% as long as Apollo 7 yet it still had a higher total dose. Apollo 8 was barely more than half the length of Apollo 7 and it had an equivalent total dose. By your own numbers the differences are not miniscule. They are significant.

Why do I get the feeling you've been sock puppeting over at Baut again?
[link to www.bautforum.com]
Or is that a complete coincidence that a hoaxie made this exact claim 4 days ago over there? You didn't respond to anything on that thread either, what's the matter, can't answer their questions?
 Quoting: Astromut

The dosage differences were due to variations in space weather and insignificant. 10 seconds in the lower proton belt would have resulted in twenty times the total exposure, and that can be proved, fucktard
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 09:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And here is a question regarding radiation.. nasa sent men to the moon in suits that could withstand the intense radiation of space and a space craft that had enough insulation to protect it from the van allen belts radiation, why then were the space suits not used for chernobyl, 3 mile island and fukushima to go in there and clean up the mess, since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts.. why was the exterior surface of the command module not utilised to create vehicles in which men could operate in these radiation filled environments.. and if the space suits protect them from radiation so well, why then are xray technicians still wearing lead aprons and not commercially designed aprons made from the same fabric as the spacesuits..
 Quoting: LD 12341962



Since your premise ('... since that radiation while immense, would still be less than that of the cosmic radiation on the moon and that of the van allen belts...') is false, the the rest of your comment is unfounded.

See the following links to understand what was the radiation that the astronauts of Apollo 11 faced:

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

[link to www.clavius.org]

I hope, that after studying their contents, nobody re-raise questions about the subject of radiation in Apollo missions.

angryface
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12415719


lmao
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132


crazyjak
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12415719

crazyjak
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/13/2012 09:49 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
That wasn't me, that was a person testing what I said was going on over there,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

Bahaha, sure, "testing" it first in Baut were you?
Being government funded, you might find all of sudden you dont have any funding any more.
 Quoting: IDW

It's amazing how stunningly wrong you are.
What goes on there is criminal conspiracy to conceal a multi billion dollar fraud.
 Quoting: IDW

And we now return to your regularly scheduled legal threats, already in progress.
astrobanner2
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 09:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Apollo Missions Debunked Using scientific Method and NASA's OWN DATA: A short synapses


The averaged dosimeter readings for Apollo 11 was 0.18 rads (195 hours duration) ; Apollo 7 : 0.16 rads( 259 hours) ; Apollo 8 : 0.16 rads (147 hours)
The average rate of radiation exposure for Apollo 11 was 9.2^-4 rem/hour ; for Apollo 8 it was 10.08^-4 rem/hour ; and for Apollo 7 it was 6.17^-4 rem/hour.
The differences are miniscule, in fact the rates of exposure themselves are miniscule, and suspicious given the radiation enviroment in the Van Allen radiation belts and in interplanetary space.

What this PROVES is obvious to any thinking person. First let me give you few basic facts. Apollo 7 was identical to Apollo 11 in all respects.

The difference is, according to NASA, Apollo 11 left the pad at an angle of 22 degrees to the equator and therefore transited the Van Allen radiation belts at an approximate latitude of 30 degrees north latitude, since the cape is at 28 degrees north latitude.

This trans lunar injection trajectory was nesseccary in order to achieve the equatorial orbit of the moon that it allegedly did, any other trajectory would have caused it to miss, or achieve an other than equatorial orbit and greatly decrease the odds of successfully achieving orbit at all.

It is important to realize that NASA does not question any of the above facts I have listed thus far in bolded text. The differences in the exposure rates for the various missions are not significant, but are measurable, so this needs to be explained , but bear with me, I'm getting to that later.

The point is, the lunar landing mission had several sources of much higher radiation rates to cope with than the Low earth orbital Apollo 7 mission. The first radiation they would encounter would be the lower proton belt of the Van allen radiation belts.

The skin of the spacecraft was 2mm thick aluminum. The proton density at the altitude they transited varied according to energy level, with the higher energy levels having lower flux values. Since their trajectory was not a straight line, but a gradual spiraling out until they were beyond the radiation belts, we can assume they spent at least an hour or more in the lower proton belt, where flux values exceeded 4 million particles per square centimeter per second. This would have created a tremendous amount of secondary particle and electromagnetic radiation in the aluminum skinned cabin, with energy levels of protons varying from >100MeV to >10MeV (we are not even going to include the electrons, since it is not necessary to prove the point).

The reality of the matter is that by this time their radiation exposure in rads would have been hundreds of times greater than the Low Earth orbital Apollo 7, which stayed under the radiation belts and inside the protective shield of the magnetosphere. But we aren't done yet. They still had to go through the outer belts, which are larger but contain particles of lower energy, mostly electrons. They were still powerful enough to flood the cabin with high flux X rays .

It is hard if not impossible to calculate their exposure precisely in any instance but certain that it would have added greatly to their exposure over Apollo 7's total rads.

But it gets better....once outside the Earths protective influence they were continually exposed to the solar wind, during a solar maximum. Again, we cannot calculate the exposure from this accurately but can assume it was substantial. We KNOW there were x ray flares and particle events during both A-11 and A-12

When they achieved lunar orbit, two men then entered the paper thin LEM (fictional account here) and proceeded to land on the surface of the moon, on the day lit side of it.

The whole time they were exposed to the solar wind and to and solar radiation storm emissions. While inside the LEM, there would be absolutely no protection.


Here the astronauts exited the vehicle and took a stroll through highly radioactive radionuclides on the moons surface with their space suits on, encountered secondary radiation from cosmic rays hitting the surface, then got back in the LEM with the contaminated suits on and desuited. They then went through the same radiation belts again returning to Earth, and yet their radiation exposure levels were almost identical to the low earth orbital Apollo 7 mission.

The conclusion is obvious, the Apollo 11 and 12 Astronauts never left low earth orbit, the small differences in radiation exposure were simply the result of variation in space weather during the missions, which occurred during a solar maximum. The conclusion is that none of the above listed missions involved men exiting the protective influence of the magnetosphere, and the missions were faked.

Now the next obvious question is many people tracked something to the moon, and even private radio operators intercepted voice transmissions from the moon. How could this be possible if the astronauts were in Earth orbit?

Well, you see, by then thy had invented a device known as the tape recorder, which was used to pre record the astronauts voices, the mission control men had a script to go by, in fact you can see them while they are speaking to the astronauts reading from a pad. You also will notice many instances where astronauts responded to mission control transmissions almost instantly, which is impossible since it would take over two and a half seconds for the mission control message to reach them and their message to reach back

Conclusion: By application of the scientific method , even though precise calculations of exposure are impossible, is is not possible for any of the above missions to have actually left low earth orbit.
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132


This is it fellows, There is no getting around it. The combined effects of all of the different radiation sources would have resulted in a low ball figure of 400 rads, probably more like 1000
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
That wasn't me, that was a person testing what I said was going on over there,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

Bahaha, sure, "testing" it first in Baut were you?
Being government funded, you might find all of sudden you dont have any funding any more.
 Quoting: IDW

It's amazing how stunningly wrong you are.
What goes on there is criminal conspiracy to conceal a multi billion dollar fraud.
 Quoting: IDW

And we now return to your regularly scheduled legal threats, already in progress.
 Quoting: Astromut


SO are you personally denying it?

Just wondering,
Anonymous astrophysicist
User ID: 4316132
United States
03/13/2012 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
That wasn't me, that was a person testing what I said was going on over there,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

Bahaha, sure, "testing" it first in Baut were you?
Being government funded, you might find all of sudden you dont have any funding any more.
 Quoting: IDW

It's amazing how stunningly wrong you are.
What goes on there is criminal conspiracy to conceal a multi billion dollar fraud.
 Quoting: IDW

And we now return to your regularly scheduled legal threats, already in progress.
 Quoting: Astromut


SO are you personally denying it?

Just wondering,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132


You have pissed off some people that do have some clout, trust me.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/13/2012 10:06 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The dosage differences were due to variations in space weather and insignificant. 10 seconds in the lower proton belt would have resulted in twenty times the total exposure, and that can be proved, fucktard
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

Already been over this. Aside from copying wikipedia which you previously claimed couldn't be trusted (back when you still called yourself IDW), you also proved you're completely clueless about areal density.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/13/2012 10:07 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
That wasn't me, that was a person testing what I said was going on over there,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132

Bahaha, sure, "testing" it first in Baut were you?
Being government funded, you might find all of sudden you dont have any funding any more.
 Quoting: IDW

It's amazing how stunningly wrong you are.
What goes on there is criminal conspiracy to conceal a multi billion dollar fraud.
 Quoting: IDW

And we now return to your regularly scheduled legal threats, already in progress.
 Quoting: Astromut


SO are you personally denying it?

Just wondering,
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132


You have pissed off some people that do have some clout, trust me.
 Quoting: Anonymous astrophysicist 4316132


Are you now personally threatening me?
astrobanner2
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 10:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
That assumes the back flap has secured the front flap, which it clearly has not.
 Quoting: Astromut


Astro, you clearly stated that the back top flap DOES NOT COVER the front top flap...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


No, I did not. I said that the front flap was not presently secured by the back flap during the EVA in question. This is not even debatable, it's clearly evident in the photos and video.

You claimed I said

"the top flap does not cover the front flap.

I never said that, I said that

"it WASSS NOT COVERING IT"
 Quoting: Astromut



<facepalm> You are bat shit crazy Astro.. you just said it again!! what the hell is the difference between "does not cover" and "was not covering" those two phrases mean exactly the SAME THING you nutter..

But whatever, you can twirl around in your bat cave if you like with your nutty crazy english..

What I find amazing though is that you dont even address the rest of my quote.. which is a vaild and reasonable observance.. why dont you address it?

BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT!!! simple..
LD
User ID: 12341962
Australia
03/13/2012 10:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Anyone else notice when astro gets on here, all rational discussion and debate go out the window and he just starts reaming people carrying on like a 15 y.o... talk about obvious distraction...

I vote we ignore his posts and continue on without his input, since it really doesnt measure up to much in my humble opinion..
Menow
User ID: 11328206
United States
03/13/2012 11:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Menow, if you follow the line of my drawing, you can clearly see it follows along a patch of the ground that is not sloped and not disturbed.. if you are saying that it is, could you please draw a line and connect the two halves of the shadow and show me.. its a simple request really..
 Quoting: LD 12341962


What part of "I think the ground slopes away from the camera at that spot and that's all I care to say about it" did you not understand?

News