Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,520 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,019,023
Pageviews Today: 1,421,522Threads Today: 402Posts Today: 7,948
01:10 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off

 
Interdimensional warrior
User ID: 775814
United States
09/20/2009 09:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Is that before or after he was leaned on in the interest of national security?


More speculation based on zero evidence. You do love to
throw goalposts around, don't you?

Any evidence we present you will dismiss with speculative
crap like the above. That's why I will mostly wait until
a few more years go by and laugh my ass off at you people.
 Quoting: DrPostman

Dr. Van Allen predicted the presence of the van allen belts and therefor they are named for him, he is by far not the leading expert on them, nor is his word final.
It has been stated repeatedly that the course Apollo took through the Van Allen belts minimized exposure by going through a narrow outer part of them 28 degrees off equatorial. Most people would be satisfied with this explaination, but the fact is the trajectory to the moon was spiral and not direct at all, you can think of it as an ever increasing spiraling outwards. The ship NEVER left earth orbit, even if it did go to the moon , and the journey throught the Van allen belts lasted approximately 1/3 the total time in transit. For what it's worth I have already proved that the astronauts were exposed to 100 times more radiation than NASA's published dosimetere readings before they ever left the lower proton band of the Van allen radiation belts.-IDW
Byteman

User ID: 564424
United States
09/20/2009 10:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Dr. Van Allen predicted the presence of the van allen belts and therefor they are named for him, he is by far not the leading expert on them, nor is his word final.
It has been stated repeatedly that the course Apollo took through the Van Allen belts minimized exposure by going through a narrow outer part of them 28 degrees off equatorial. Most people would be satisfied with this explaination, but the fact is the trajectory to the moon was spiral and not direct at all, you can think of it as an ever increasing spiraling outwards. The ship NEVER left earth orbit, even if it did go to the moon , and the journey throught the Van allen belts lasted approximately 1/3 the total time in transit. For what it's worth I have already proved that the astronauts were exposed to 100 times more radiation than NASA's published dosimetere readings before they ever left the lower proton band of the Van allen radiation belts.-IDW
 Quoting: Interdimensional warrior 775814


LMAO.

They were only in the inner radiation belt (high-radiation zone) for less than two hours.

The outer radiation belt (low radiation zone) for only a day and a half.

Net exposure never met or exceeded lethal levels.

but the fact is the trajectory to the moon was spiral and not direct at all -IDW

No, they did not Spiral to the Moon. They orbited the Earth a couple times for readiness checks, then went straight to where the Moon would be at by rendezvous time.

The ship NEVER left earth orbit, even if it did go to the moon -IDW

So what? Everyone knows the Moon is orbiting Earth, thus technically when orbiting the Moon you are still orbiting Earth. This is also entirely irrelevant and more ridiculous word games from the Apollo-deniers.

Last Edited by Byteman on 09/20/2009 10:31 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 775814
United States
09/20/2009 11:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
.... then went straight to where the Moon would be at by rendezvous time.

 Quoting: Byteman


lmao lmao lmao lmao lmao lmao
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 775814
United States
09/20/2009 11:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Three questions, baitman:
1) what type of radiation does the inner band consist of and how would you charcterize it's Q factor?
2) How did they go 'straight to the moon' when the gravity of the earth was pulling the spacecraft towards the earths center?
3) What schooling if any do you have.
Skeptic the First
User ID: 773810
United States
09/20/2009 11:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
And yet we have Van Allens papers which back him up.
 Quoting: DrPostman

Please provide references to scholarly papers in which Van Allen specifically asserts the radiation risk to a human Moon mission to be acceptably low.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 564424
United States
09/21/2009 12:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
.... then went straight to where the Moon would be at by rendezvous time.



lmao lmao lmao lmao lmao lmao
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


You must be laughing due to realizing how ridiculous your previous idea was.
ToSeek

User ID: 445334
United States
09/21/2009 12:09 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
If anyone can tell me my scenario is not possible I would like to know why.
 Quoting: Eden


There are serious problems with the notion that the Apollo spacecraft never left Earth orbit, for starters:

- It would have been one of the brightest objects in the night sky, except nobody seems to have noticed it.

- Independent parties (outside of NASA) tracked it to the Moon

- For that matter, tracking and maintaining communications with a spacecraft in Earth orbit is a completely different problem from doing so with a spacecraft on its way to the Moon. It's simply impossible to maintain continuous contact with a spacecraft in Earth orbit with the technology at the time, not to mention that dozens of engineers at each tracking station around the world would have known where the spacecraft actually was, as well as all the flight controllers in Houston.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 772991
United States
09/21/2009 12:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
And yet we have Van Allens papers which back him up.
Please provide references to scholarly papers in which Van Allen specifically asserts the radiation risk to a human Moon mission to be acceptably low.
 Quoting: Skeptic the First 773810



Why would those exist in that form? James Van Allen was in the business of characterizing a potential hazard; his papers would be about the known energy and flux of the belts, and their potential dangers, not about some hypothesized margin of safety for some hypothetical mission.

This would be typical of his work:

[link to www.agu.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 564424
United States
09/21/2009 12:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Three questions, baitman:
1) what type of radiation does the inner band consist of and how would you charcterize it's Q factor?
2) How did they go 'straight to the moon' when the gravity of the earth was pulling the spacecraft towards the earths center?
3) What schooling if any do you have.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


1) Firstly, since this is 2009 instead of the mid-20th century, I would call it a "radiation weighting factor" instead. If you were up on the subject, you would have used that term instead of your purposely vague "Q factor" BS.

Secondly, 2.0 to 3.0...roughly.

2) The Apollo flight paths are well documented. They were tracked by third parties.

Also, I'm perfectly aware that space is curved. I used the term "straight" to make sure you education lacking Apollo deniers could understand.

3)Obviously more than you.

Frankly, I saw you coming a mile away IDW.

I've already seen the list of your past accomplishments. You like to make spectacular claims about proof and evidence, but you never deliver.

You regularly use outdated knowledge like your Q factor BS, and yet you act like your currently up on subjects.

To be quite honest IDW, I don't take anything you say all that seriously. Your a typical word-game playing Apollo denier, just like all the rest.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 775814
United States
09/21/2009 12:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
If anyone can tell me my scenario is not possible I would like to know why.


There are serious problems with the notion that the Apollo spacecraft never left Earth orbit, for starters:

- It would have been one of the brightest objects in the night sky, except nobody seems to have noticed it.
 Quoting: ToSeek

Not neccesarily. The spacecrat=ft was covered in a white shroud when it wa launched, what wa sunder it is open for debate. It could have been flat black for all you know.
- Independent parties (outside of NASA) tracked it to the Moon
 Quoting: ToSeek

They tracked something to the moon. I believe it was the third stage /LM. I also believe NASA attempted or accomplished an unmanned landing with the LM and collected samples. What I do not believe is that any man has ever left Earth orbit to venture into interplanetary space.
- For that matter, tracking and maintaining communications with a spacecraft in Earth orbit is a completely different problem from doing so with a spacecraft on its way to the Moon. It's simply impossible to maintain continuous contact with a spacecraft in Earth orbit with the technology at the time, not to mention that dozens of engineers at each tracking station around the world would have known where the spacecraft actually was, as well as all the flight controllers in Houston.
 Quoting: ToSeek

Have you ever heard of a tape recorder? Did you ever wonder why sometimes the astronauts began answering MC befor MC was through speaking?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 775814
United States
09/21/2009 12:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
3)Obviously more than you.

.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 564424

Well, you should take me seriously because I am serious as hell is to a sinner on his deathbed.
And you are deluding yourself if you think you have a better education than I do.Mine is real.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 564424
United States
09/21/2009 01:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
3)Obviously more than you.

.

Well, you should take me seriously because I am serious as hell is to a sinner on his deathbed.
And you are deluding yourself if you think you have a better education than I do.Mine is real.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


Thanks for proving my point.

Now try to debunk the other 2 talking points you outlined, and I effectively retorted.
Eden (OP)

User ID: 638592
Spain
09/21/2009 04:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
They tracked something to the moon. I believe it was the third stage /LM.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


Wow, that is even better than ditching the LEM in the Pacific.

Excellent. That would explain the "tracking".

I also believe NASA attempted or accomplished an unmanned landing with the LM and collected samples.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


I do not think that was neccessary because there is an abundance of Moon rock to be found on Antarctica.

Coincidentally, Werner Von Braun did head an expedition there shortly before Apollo. Were they collecting landing evidence?

What I do not believe is that any man has ever left Earth orbit to venture into interplanetary space.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


Hear, hear.

+1
Byteman

User ID: 564424
United States
09/21/2009 04:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
They tracked something to the moon. I believe it was the third stage /LM.


Wow, that is even better than ditching the LEM in the Pacific.

Excellent. That would explain the "tracking".


I also believe NASA attempted or accomplished an unmanned landing with the LM and collected samples.


I do not think that was neccessary because there is an abundance of Moon rock to be found on Antarctica.

Coincidentally, Werner Von Braun did head an expedition there shortly before Apollo. Were they collecting landing evidence?


What I do not believe is that any man has ever left Earth orbit to venture into interplanetary space.


Hear, hear.

+1
 Quoting: Eden


IDW (AC775814) has nothing to back up their claims. Hey Eden, you two have something in common.

HAHAHA

Seriously though... yes, we went to the Moon.


pilot
Skeptic the First
User ID: 773810
United States
09/21/2009 05:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
why that, in an article he wrote shortly before he died
advocating robotic exploration over manned, he doesn't mention
anything of the risk of radiation. He mentions so many
other risks as well as the cost:
[link to www.issues.org]
 Quoting: DrPostman

Clearly, he could not write an article publicly and clearly exposing NASA's hoax. Such an article would never reach print, and any other dissemination of it would trigger an elite-induced trashing of his memory and possibly a threat on the lives of his many children and grandchildren. Even aside from all that, such an article would only invite vehement denials from NASA's "experts" who would claim that Van Allen had succumbed to Alzheimer's.

But his article you cite goes as far as a NASA skeptic could reasonably hope. How much clearer could he be?

[link to www.issues.org]
---
The visions of the 1970s and 1980s look more like delusions in today's reality.
...
For the rest of us, the adventure is vicarious and akin to that of watching a science fiction movie.
---
Skeptic the First
User ID: 773810
United States
09/21/2009 05:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
James Van Allen was in the business of characterizing a potential hazard; his papers would be about the known energy and flux of the belts, and their potential dangers, not about some hypothesized margin of safety for some hypothetical mission.
 Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 772991

So your point is that Van Allen has no direct knowledge of Apollo at all, and is not qualified to comment either way on its safety.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 776034
United States
09/21/2009 06:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
James Van Allen was in the business of characterizing a potential hazard; his papers would be about the known energy and flux of the belts, and their potential dangers, not about some hypothesized margin of safety for some hypothetical mission.
So your point is that Van Allen has no direct knowledge of Apollo at all, and is not qualified to comment either way on its safety.
 Quoting: Skeptic the First 773810



Not quite.

James Van Allen had a great deal of theoretical and practical understanding of radiation. He KNEW what the make-up of the belts is; not some bogey-man of radiation, but a quantifiable and understood hazard that was within the bounds of amelioration with existing technology.

My point was he saw no purpose in writing a paper defending the reality of Apollo. On the subject of the hazards of the belts, he found the reality clearly understood by most educated people. He had -- as have most scientists -- very little interest in trying to reach people who had made themselves unreachable through cultivation of a studied ignorance.

Instead he wrote -- paper after paper -- exploring what was, and was was interesting and important. Not in trying to "prove" the sky was blue. Those with eyes see it already. Those without will never learn.

In a way this common attitude among scientists is unfortunate. Not for the sake of the committed idiot, but for the sake of the casual browser who is more likely to run into the rantings of the likes of you, than an article by the likes of James Van Allen.
Skeptic the First
User ID: 773810
United States
09/21/2009 06:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
He had -- as have most scientists -- very little interest in trying to reach people who had made themselves unreachable through cultivation of a studied ignorance.
 Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 776034

Chuckle. That is exactly what Van Allen must have thought as he contemplated 40 years of wasted effort on (alleged) manned space exploration, conducted by blind idiots who were unwilling to admit that they were much more interested in siphoning $billions from the public till than actually contributing to science.
Skeptic the First
User ID: 773810
United States
09/21/2009 06:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
My point was he saw no purpose in writing a paper defending the reality of Apollo.
 Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 776034

Of course not. He had no real knowledge of the program, strenuously disapproved of it, and in all likelihood strongly suspected its fraud. What does it tell you when a renowned scientist likens the "moon landings" to a science fiction movie?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 548017
United States
09/21/2009 06:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
The rest is history. The crews were launched into low earth orbit. When reaching around 500 km the service module becomes a satellite in low orbit, and the astronauts play out their pre-recorded schedule. Make no mistake, they are fully under control of Monarch at this time. "EAT". "SLEEP". "PRESS CONFERENCE". And the module orbits and orbits.
 Quoting: Eden


Then how do you explain the amateurs around the world who tracked the radio transmissions of the mission to the moon as the craft moved exactly as planned? The amateurs who VISUALLY tracked the missions to the moon with telescopes? Or the fact that no one spotted the CM in orbit around the Earth when it wasn't supposed to be?


Crunch time. Eagle has landed. While the whole world laughs, cries and jumps for joy when Neil speaks his famous words, the real Neil Armstrong is dozing off in a subconscious control state some 500km above Earth. Right about... there, the LEM is dropped from the service module to fall to its destruction into the middle of the pacific, far from inquiring eyes.

During the following period, the pre-shot film reels are played in sequence one after another. When the time comes for their final press conference before landing they are activated, and the footage shot may or may not be used so a five minute delay is ordered to be safe. All goes well. Their final triggers are delivered. You did it guys, wow. "...did...we.....what...I...cannot...".
 Quoting: Eden


Everything was pre-recorded? 24/7 for eight days? And all the guys at mission control were working off scripts? And none of the outside observers who were there noticed? Care to expand on exactly how that worked and was kept secret for forty years?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776232
Spain
09/21/2009 11:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Excellent views. Quite sure mind control was used, how they did the communications seems unsure at this time because of the tracking and continuous communications between mission control and the craft...

Maybe they were actually communicating with the astronauts, but they were not where they were supposed to be? Would the command module be nothing more than another satellite looking up through a telescope from earth?

I do not know, but I do not think they actually set foot on the Moon itself, they are too many discrepancies in the footage, and the calculated radiation on the Moon is simply too high for the light shielding they had in their suits.

Futhermore NASA did not tell the whole truth about solar flares during the missions. Apollo-11 received two during the third day, look it up. NASA: no notable solar activity.

Maybe they just faked the landing, who knows.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776232
Spain
09/21/2009 12:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
And another thing, expose a camera to as little as 5 rem and you will have severe over exposure. Why are all the pictures made with the Hasselblad cameras so perfect?

That is hard to believe. What was the shielding on the Hasselblad camera? Not too much appearantly. Certainly not enough to keep the rads < 5 rem.

Film travelling to ISS with the Space Shuttle is protected by a special thick lead line box for just that reason: radiation even at low level orbit messes with the celluloid.

At that is not even PASSED the VAB's.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 247684
United States
09/21/2009 12:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776232
Spain
09/21/2009 12:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
bump
Skeptic the First
User ID: 776247
United States
09/21/2009 12:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
You would be basically calling the man a coward by implying
that he was too frightened to come forward with evidence
that humans couldn't travel through the belts in the Apollo
spacecraft.
 Quoting: DrPostman

Chuckle. No fooling, Sherlock. And the point is that Dr. Van Allen is more courageous than most scientists.

Let's face it, most scientists are cowards at best, and murderous traitors at worst. Look at recent history--World War II (both sides), the Tuskegee genocide, and 9/11--and you will almost always find vile, murderous scientists who are more than happy to help tyrants achieve their genocidal ends.

In comparison to those, Dr. Van Allen is relatively a paragon of virtue.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776256
Thailand
09/21/2009 12:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Why is my cover-up scenario not possible?

Who cares IF IT IS POSSIBLE.

Little green aliens from Mars are POSSIBLE.

PROVE that it happened, or it is only conjecture or your opinion.

BTW, having an opinion or theory is perfectly fine. But don't jump to the conclusion that it is a fact. You have to prove it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775486


Not everything TRUE can be proven, and likewise not everything FALSE can be proven. Read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Heard Buzz Aldrin on agent provocateur' show say something strange; he falsely described the lunar tidal lock phenomenom, alluding to the moon having rotation.

Often people try the 'Oh, but we have laser reflective distancing equipment on the moon proves they went there'.
WEll no, my answer to this is 'we have sent and crashed spacecraft on the moon with the necessary equipment, it doesn't mean people had to be there'.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776256
Thailand
09/21/2009 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
glp's censorship filter replaced 'AJs show' with agent provocateur' show. Not a useful censorship mods!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 776232
Spain
09/21/2009 01:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
Often people try the 'Oh, but we have laser reflective distancing equipment on the moon proves they went there'.
WEll no, my answer to this is 'we have sent and crashed spacecraft on the moon with the necessary equipment, it doesn't mean people had to be there'.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 776256


Well spoken. The Russians placed a reflector on the surface using an unmanned craft without any problems.

Look what NASA did on mars with the rover.

It is plausible they have been to the Moon many times with unmanned missions.
ToSeek

User ID: 748065
United States
09/21/2009 01:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
They tracked something to the moon. I believe it was the third stage /LM.


Wow, that is even better than ditching the LEM in the Pacific.

Excellent. That would explain the "tracking".


I also believe NASA attempted or accomplished an unmanned landing with the LM and collected samples.


I do not think that was neccessary because there is an abundance of Moon rock to be found on Antarctica.

Coincidentally, Werner Von Braun did head an expedition there shortly before Apollo. Were they collecting landing evidence?
 Quoting: Eden


How would they recognize Moon rocks when they found them without anything to compare them against? The official story is that the first lunar meteorites were collected in 1982 and were recognized as such because they were similar to the Apollo and Soviet samples.
ToSeek

User ID: 748065
United States
09/21/2009 01:27 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The final verdict on NASA´s Apollo Missions: No. Here is why not and how they pulled it off
If anyone can tell me my scenario is not possible I would like to know why.


There are serious problems with the notion that the Apollo spacecraft never left Earth orbit, for starters:

- It would have been one of the brightest objects in the night sky, except nobody seems to have noticed it.

Not neccesarily. The spacecrat=ft was covered in a white shroud when it wa launched, what wa sunder it is open for debate. It could have been flat black for all you know.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


The command module was. The service module - an essential component for keeping the astronauts alive - wasn't.



- For that matter, tracking and maintaining communications with a spacecraft in Earth orbit is a completely different problem from doing so with a spacecraft on its way to the Moon. It's simply impossible to maintain continuous contact with a spacecraft in Earth orbit with the technology at the time, not to mention that dozens of engineers at each tracking station around the world would have known where the spacecraft actually was, as well as all the flight controllers in Houston.

Have you ever heard of a tape recorder? Did you ever wonder why sometimes the astronauts began answering MC befor MC was through speaking?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 775814


Are you saying that NASA sent astronauts into Earth orbit and then completely ignored them until it was time to bring them home? It's either that, or many flight controllers and many people at tracking stations around the world were in on the hoax.

News