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..

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..

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.

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

Thank you!

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.

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?

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.

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 Astromut on 03/13/2012 09:00 AM

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...

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.

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

Bahaha, sure, "testing" it first in Baut were you?

It's amazing how stunningly wrong you are.

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

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

SO are you personally denying it?

Just wondering,

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

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]

Are you now personally threatening me?

<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..

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..

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?

"Because any idiot can see there is no slope on the ground im speaking about..."

Well, that would make YOU the idiot. I think it's obvious that the ground slopes there. Do I care to try to prove it to you? No, not really.

In other words, you'll just add it to the massive pile of poorly founded innuendo upon which you base your shaky theory. Funny- this is exactly what Nancy Lieder did to arrive at her current level of "proof" that her planet exist- that is, none at all.

The shills will not give a straight answer.

Ha ha! It's ludicrous! I've just sent you to a place with authoritative information on the subject: [link to www.clavius.org] Why is it crap? Because you do not like what it says? Refute it! But, with scientific arguments, and not with rubbish, which would not hold a debate in a primary school.

The 'moonhoaxers' always do the same thing: you never offer counterexamples or scientific counterarguments to refute scientific claims made in the context of current scientific theories. You only project your beliefs as evidence, and you deny the evidences because they disagree with your beliefs.

Who do you say is going to teach me something about radiation? Ninrez's channel? Do not make me laugh! To speak of radiation properly, you must first go to school, second to high school, and then to college and university (and stepping on a laboratory, as did Dr. James Van Allen, quoted in 'Clavius', scourge of moonhoaxers). Or, if you have not had the opportunity (for whatever), be humble enough to study mathematics and physics of the many free books in Internet. But, of course, that requires effort and to work very hardly. It is easier to deny what we don't like and justify our weakness and ignorance appealing to fabled conspiracies that fill our meaningless life.

If you don't like what the currently formulated science says about the space weather, it's your problem, not mine. Enjoy with your fantasies but don't tell me where I have to learn about physics!

I repeat and clarify you the claim of my last post. Your premise is false: the radiation levels that the Apollo astronauts experienced in the space was far from the radiation levels measured in Fukushima Daiichi Plant (though high when compared with normal doses at ground level on Earth, so many have suffered from cataracts, see Cucinotta et al., 2001):

For example:

'The IAEA reported on 19 March that airborne radiation levels had spiked three times since the earthquake, notably early on 15th (400 mSv/hr near unit 3), but had stabilized since 16th at levels significantly higher than the normal levels, but within the range that allows workers to continue on-site recovery measures.' [link to www.world-nuclear.org]

In the case of Apollo missions:

'In Table 3 and Figure 2 we show the average and individual effective dose rates, respectively, for all astronauts from all NASA Missions (through June of 2002). These results are derived from records of passive dosimeters worn on all NASA missions (excluding the Mercury I and II missions where dosimetry was not utilized) and estimates of tissue absorption and average quality factors from flight spectrometers and radiation transport codes.' (Cucinotta et al., 2003: 14)

'The effects of the 11-year solar cycle can be seen in the changes in dose rates shown in Figure 2. Average quality factors range from about 1.6 to 3.0 with the highest values occurring for GCR [Galactic Cosmic Rays] dominated missions such as the Apollo missions. For the deep space Apollo missions, the GCR dominated astronaut doses with a small contribution from the trapped belts." (Cucinotta et al., 2003: 15)

From the table 3:

Apollo missions H-rate (mSv/d): 1.2

Free and basic references for the study of space radiation and space missions (specially for 'moonhoaxers'):

Cucinotta, F.A.et al. (2001). Space Radiation and Cataracts in Astronauts. RADIATION RESEARCH 156, 460–466.

Cucinotta, F.A., Wu H., Shavers M.R., and George K. (2003). Radiation dosimetry and biophysical models of space radiation effects. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin 16(2): 11-18.

Letaw, J.R. (1987). Galactic Cosmic Radiation Doses to Astronauts Outside the Magnetosphere. Severn Communication Corporation Report SCC 87-06, Maryland, US.

---------- (1988). Astronaut Radiation Exposure in Low-Earth Orbit, Part I: Galactic Cosmic Radiation. Severn Communication Corporation Report SCC 88-01, Maryland, US.

Letaw, J.R., Silberberg R.,and Tsao C.H. (1989). Radiation hazards on space missions outside the magnetosphere. Adv. Space Res. Vol. 9, No. 10. pp. (10)285—(10)291

^this.

IDW/A.A -- You provide no supporting documentation for your claim. You merely state what the radiation was in orbit, and the radiation in space, and claim its impossible -- with nothing SHOWING it is impossible.

Then, when presented with contrary evidence with actual sources, you Poison the Well, and then post cute smiley's about it.

That isn't the scientific method. That isn't even A method.

No, they do not. "Does not" means that it never covers, "was not" means just that... it wasn't covering it at the time the image was taken. It's amazing to watch you try to twist the english language to suit your lies.

'Tape recorders [...], calculations of exposure are impossible [...]'

Every time AA (the guy formerly known as THE TROLL) mentions the scientific method, it runs away in terror... And the OP, well, always saying bullshit, nothing substantial.

To finish with you 'moonhoaxers':

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings (from wikipedia that includes their correspondent references):

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Collate the references in it, disprove them, and follow kicking your balls among yourselves, because I'm bored and this stuff sucks ya!

Astro, nomuse, Hal et al.: one friendly suggestion: don't waste your precious time with these irrational shills.

Bye... Walking on the Moon...

Who's "Clavius"
Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred.

s