Apollo 11 press confrence*** I smell a hoax***!

RoyLennigan

12-13-06, 02:55 PM

1. I proved that Nasa doesn't know the radiation levels of the moon. So now theyr'e developing new technology so that can accurately measure the radiation. If that isn't proof that the 1969 landing was bullshit I dont' know what is. There's no way in hell mission control would deploy some of our best military assets into a astronomicaly hostile eviorment, without knowing what they're sending our men into.

first of all, a lot less was known about the nature of space back then; the space race was on and shortcuts were taken in sending men to the moon--they were not scared of a little radiation over the course of a few days. second, the moon is still largely protected from radiation by the earth's magnetosphere. thirdly, if the moon landing were a hoax, the USSR would have been the second to know and would still be shaming us for such an act; they were the first to send a man in space. and lastly, you could not pay everyone who worked on the project enough to keep them from telling the truth by now. if you believe otherwise, then you have no clue about the state of humanity.

"So now theyr'e developing new technology so that can accurately measure the radiation. If that isn't proof that the 1969 landing was bullshit I dont' know what is." This quote shows your ignorance of the history and present state of mankind's space exploration. please, if you are to argue further, go read up on the science of space travel and personal accounts of those who were involved.

sderenzi

12-13-06, 02:58 PM

You are all stupid, Ganymede is right when he says to land they really would wanna know the radiation levels, otherwise when you got back to Earth you'd have a serious case of Cancer on your hands :-Z~

I suspect deception becaise 1960's tech was like trash, come on people. Also the reason there are no deathbed statements dork is because nobody knew, hell they could all stay in mission control steering the lunar module to wherever and it wouldn't make a bit of difference as long as a duplicate was shown an the video feed :-Z~ What the heck people wake up!

Ganymede

12-13-06, 03:00 PM

no, you didn't. you proved that they needed more accurate info for a stay longer than a few days.

Dude, please make up your mind. Did we measure the radiation or not? The fact is we didn't. And you can't provide any proof that we did. So until you provide that proof just shut the fuck up(I kid, I kid), opinions aren't facts

Ganymede

12-13-06, 03:04 PM

first of all, a lot less was known about the nature of space back then; the space race was on and shortcuts were taken in sending men to the moon--they were not scared of a little radiation over the course of a few days. second, the moon is still largely protected from radiation by the earth's magnetosphere. thirdly, if the moon landing were a hoax, the USSR would have been the second to know and would still be shaming us for such an act; they were the first to send a man in space. and lastly, you could not pay everyone who worked on the project enough to keep them from telling the truth by now. if you believe otherwise, then you have no clue about the state of humanity.

"So now theyr'e developing new technology so that can accurately measure the radiation. If that isn't proof that the 1969 landing was bullshit I dont' know what is." This quote shows your ignorance of the history and present state of mankind's space exploration. please, if you are to argue further, go read up on the science of space travel and personal accounts of those who were involved.

The moon isn't protected by the Earths magnetosphere you moron.

Unlike the Earth, which has a protective shield around it called the magnetosphere, the surface of the moon is not protected from the solar wind. This picture shows the magnetosphere surrounding the Earth, with the Earth a small object in the

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/moon/moon_magnetic_field.html

Gawd I hate debating retards, no wonder they pulled this hoax off so effortlessly.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:05 PM

I suspect deception becaise 1960's tech was like trash, come on people.
really?
the sr-71 blackbird was designed built and tested in the sixties. it still holds airspeed records.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:07 PM

The fact is we didn't.
the facts are you never answered any of my questions.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:09 PM

http://www.clavius.org/

domesticated om

12-13-06, 03:15 PM

BTW-- what exactly is it that causes people on space missions to see the bright flashes of light? I watched a TV program the other day that said they were caused by exposure to "high Z-particles", but another website said it was not caused by z-particles......I dunno..

at any rate, some interesting info on it:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/22oct_cataracts.htm

Ganymede

12-13-06, 03:15 PM

http://www.clavius.org/

Pure punditry.... Can you PLEASE link your source that details the radiation levels on moon. You can't that's why lol :p

Ganymede

12-13-06, 03:19 PM

really?
the sr-71 blackbird was designed built and tested in the sixties. it still holds airspeed records.

Come on dude you know the Aurora is faster then the SR-71. Unfortunately they haven't declassified it yet.

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm

Propulsion technology was good back then, I will agree, but not good enough to send us to the moon.

madanthonywayne

12-13-06, 03:28 PM

BTW-- what exactly is it that causes people on space missions to see the bright flashes of light? I watched a TV program the other day that said they were caused by exposure to "high Z-particles", but another website said it was not caused by z-particles......I dunno..

It's caused by high energy particles hitting the retina and stimulating the photoreceptors.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:31 PM

Can you PLEASE link your source that details the radiation levels on moon.
http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

you want any more then find it yourself.
until you answer my questions that is.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:33 PM

Come on dude you know the Aurora is faster then the SR-71. Unfortunately they haven't declassified it yet.

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm

Propulsion technology was good back then, I will agree, but not good enough to send us to the moon.
the fact of the matter is the blackbird blows sderenzis claim out of the water.

Ganymede

12-13-06, 03:33 PM

http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

you want any more then find it yourself.
until you answer my questions that is.

I looksd at your link. It doesn't offer the evidence I'm looking for. You lost.. game over I won't respond until you can provide evidence that shows the radiation levels of the moon. I've tried, and I can't locate it anywhere. But you have? Strange.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:34 PM

I lookd at your link. It doesn't offer the evidence I'm looking for. You lost.. Deal with it!
and you haven't answered ANY of my questions.

leopold99

12-13-06, 03:36 PM

I looksd at your link. It doesn't offer the evidence I'm looking for. You lost.. game over I won't respond until you can provide evidence that shows the radiation levels of the moon. I've tried, and I can't locate it anywhere. But you have? Strange.
but it does say the moon isn't as deadly as you claim.

weed_eater_guy

12-13-06, 03:57 PM

If we didn't land on the moon, why were the russians so convinced? Surely the KGB was looking into the matter at least as hard as any critic if not harder to ensure that, yes, we did in fact make it to the moon.

RoyLennigan

12-13-06, 03:57 PM

The moon isn't protected by the Earths magnetosphere you moron.
i'm sure calling everyone who disagrees with you a 'moron' automatically makes you right.

anyways, do you have to pick the most simplistic site you could find to use as your rebuttal? even the picuture on that site clearly shows that the earth's magnetosphere reaches out past the moon. look up the facts before you call someone a moron, please. it makes you look even more wrong that you already are.

as for the radiation bit. back in the 60's they specifically used tin foil as the outer shell of the lunar lander because of the threat of radiation poisoning. aluminum has the property of reflecting radiation. the only real damaging radiation that might mortally hurt you would be something like a sunflare, which is rare.

the reason they need to test radiation levels on the moon before setting up a more long-term mission there is because it is long term, not a day or two. in the 70's the missions lasted no more than a week or two, not enough time for the little radiation they got to do any harm. people have spent months in space with no radiation poisoning since then.

Ganymede

12-13-06, 05:01 PM

i'm sure calling everyone who disagrees with you a 'moron' automatically makes you right.

In this case you're a moron. Because you responded based on your emotional connection to this subject, you didn't respond with a shred of scientific fact. So your credibility regarding this subject is nill.

anyways, do you have to pick the most simplistic site you could find to use as your rebuttal? even the picuture on that site clearly shows that the earth's magnetosphere reaches out past the moon. look up the facts before you call someone a moron, please. it makes you look even more wrong that you already are.

The moon has zero atmosphere, can't believe you're the only one of this planet who believes that.

"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm

as for the radiation bit. back in the 60's they specifically used tin foil as the outer shell of the lunar lander because of the threat of radiation poisoning. aluminum has the property of reflecting radiation. the only real damaging radiation that might mortally hurt you would be something like a sunflare, which is rare.

Aluminum foil can't deflect deadly space radiation. Ever wonder why whenever you took an X-ray you were provided thick lead garment? Not Reynolds wrap!! But nice try.

the reason they need to test radiation levels on the moon before setting up a more long-term mission there is because it is long term, not a day or two. in the 70's the missions lasted no more than a week or two, not enough time for the little radiation they got to do any harm. people have spent months in space with no radiation poisoning since then.

Because they never left the Earths Magnetosphere. Even under the Magnetospheres protection they're in grave danger.

http://www.local6.com/technology/10523819/detail.html

Stryder

12-13-06, 07:20 PM

Ganymede,
This keeps reappearing in pseudoscience, the same points and the same views are put forwards however no matter how much 'evidence' people collect, there is more for NASA's moon mission than against.

You can look to popular media to understand there will always be some sensationalists pushing some story to try and grab the lime light or amass a small wealth from press coverage and 'exclusive' stories. Such events like the Kennedy Assassination, Princess Diana's untimely death and of course 9/11. All have their conspiracy buffs punting bizarre depictions of events and all lacking the full story, mainly because in each case there is a large amount of sensitivity in regards to the victims etc.

Afterall if you walked into the street tomorrow and got hit by a bus, do you want all your lifes history being played out on televisions globally including all those things that you might of done wrong. Those things might place unnecessary stress upon your family, or cause some irrational action (Like in JFK's case the counter assassination of Oswald) which in turn robs a true thorough investigation.

Do you think crime scenes should be open to everyone to walk around and pollute the evidence due to their own investigations fueled by their own conspiracies? If so do you think the eventual evidence collected would generate an accurate portrayal of events or merely sculpture a media merchandisable fantasy?

Roman

12-13-06, 07:53 PM

In this case you're a moron. Because you responded based on your emotional connection to this subject, you didn't respond with a shred of scientific fact. So your credibility regarding this subject is nill.

The moon has zero atmosphere, can't believe you're the only one of this planet who believes that.

"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm

Aluminum foil can't deflect deadly space radiation. Ever wonder why whenever you took an X-ray you were provided thick lead garment? Not Reynolds wrap!! But nice try.

Because they never left the Earths Magnetosphere. Even under the Magnetospheres protection they're in grave danger.

http://www.local6.com/technology/10523819/detail.html

Are you saying NASA didn't line the spacesuits of astronauts with protective stuff to keep radiation out?

leopold99

12-13-06, 08:05 PM

Because they never left the Earths Magnetosphere. Even under the Magnetospheres protection they're in grave danger.

http://www.local6.com/technology/10523819/detail.html
utterly and completely false.
and if you want proof look up human space duration records.

the above quote by you proves YOU are the moron.

Mr Anonymous

12-13-06, 08:09 PM

I think the idea the moon landing was faked is reasonable, what is more logical??

And now we get to the crux of the matter concerning why it is you're not currently employed in any capacity which requires you to push important looking buttons - proof, indeed, that people have actually met you, I'll wager...

superluminal

12-13-06, 08:31 PM

1) The lunar astronauts were indeed exposed to high levels of radiation.

2) If a solar flare of any significance had occurred during their trip, they would have been killed. This is a risk they all acknowleged.

3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:

a) Weight, obviously.

b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.

4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.

5) Ganymede, are you a physicist? Or an astrodynamisist? An engineer or scientist of any knid?

6) The scientists and engineers who are animated in front of audiences are in the vanishingly small minority. These guys especially, were stoics by nature. They were trained to keep their emotions in check in order that they didn't get themselves killed in combat or an emergengy situation of any kind.

7) Are you, by the way, a human behavioral scientist?

8) Retroreflectors on the moon, left by the apollo missions, are still used today to make precise measurements of lunar motion.

9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.

Ganymede

12-13-06, 09:01 PM

Ganymede,
This keeps reappearing in pseudoscience, the same points and the same views are put forwards however no matter how much 'evidence' people collect, there is more for NASA's moon mission than against.

I know Stryder, but that doesn't mean the masses are allways right. At one point in time, the masses thought the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, even today, most Americans thought Iraq was connected to 911 etc.

You can look to popular media to understand there will always be some sensationalists pushing some story to try and grab the lime light or amass a small wealth from press coverage and 'exclusive' stories. Such events like the Kennedy Assassination, Princess Diana's untimely death and of course 9/11. All have their conspiracy buffs punting bizarre depictions of events and all lacking the full story, mainly because in each case there is a large amount of sensitivity in regards to the victims etc.

All of those were conspracies, and I tend to favor the conspiratorial point of view. If you haven't seen this before, take a look at this. This will definately challenge your postion on conspiracies, I'll gaurantee it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137330196032136210&q=capitalist+conspiracy

And with the recent revelations that Princess Dianas Limo Driver was a French intelligence asset, and the NSA was monitoring her on the night of murder is disturbing. You didn't think the Aristocrats would allow the future king of England to have a Muslim stepfather would you? Ofcourse not.

Afterall if you walked into the street tomorrow and got hit by a bus, do you want all your lifes history being played out on televisions globally including all those things that you might of done wrong. Those things might place unnecessary stress upon your family, or cause some irrational action (Like in JFK's case the counter assassination of Oswald) which in turn robs a true thorough investigation.

I would have to say no I wouldn't!

Do you think crime scenes should be open to everyone to walk around and pollute the evidence due to their own investigations fueled by their own conspiracies? If so do you think the eventual evidence collected would generate an accurate portrayal of events or merely sculpture a media merchandisable fantasy?

You're right, the Moon is a crime scene. And the powers that be are protecting it as such. Now what I find Ironic is how easy it was for me to find out the Radiation levels on Mars, but no where can I get data on the Radiation levels on the moon. Even Nasa themselves say they don't know, but know the radiation levels on Mars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Experiment

superluminal

12-13-06, 09:09 PM

Why are you so suprised that of the thousands of possible experiments that didn't go on these missions, a "lunar surface radiation" experiment wasn't amog them? It's state-of-the-art technology even now, to be able to measure the background ionizing radiation in-situ in a hellish environment like the lunar surface. Besides, that's certainly not why they went. Origins was the foremost objective. Besides the political ones, that is...

Mr Anonymous

12-13-06, 09:14 PM

b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.

Speaking in support of that particular point - cine-cam footage shot by the astronauts themselves during both the out bound and return part of the mission (hours of footage showing them clearly in weightless conditions I hasten to add) clearly showed the effects of solar radiation passing through the command module as tiny flashes of light - a situation which indeed prompted them to radio NASA for confirmation concerning what the nature of the visibly highly present phenomena going on around them actually was.

By the way - has anyone actually mentioned at all that the mission was tracked via radar the entire time spanning a network of tracking stations across America, Europe and Australia perfectly independently of each other - not to mention similar tracking surveillance conducted by both Russia and China - presumably everyone else on the planet must have been in on the hoax as well... :rolleyes:

(By the by - why are we actually entertaining yet another one of these shit heads, if I may be so bold as to enquire?)

superluminal

12-13-06, 09:17 PM

Speaking in support of that particular point - cine-cam footage shot by the astronauts themselves during both the out bound and return part of the mission (hours of footage showing them clearly in weightless conditions I hasten to add) clearly showed the effects of solar radiation passing through the command module as tiny flashes of light - a situation which indeed prompted them to radio NASA for confirmation concerning what the nature of the visibly highly present phenomena going on around them actually was.

By the way - has anyone actually mentioned at all that the mission was tracked via radar the entire time spanning a network of tracking stations across America, Europe and Australia perfectly independently of each other - not to mention similar tracking surveillance conducted by both Russia and China - presumably everyone else on the planet must have been in on the hoax as well... :rolleyes:

(By the by - why are we actually entertaining yet another one of these shit heads, if I may be so bold as to enquire?)
All excellent points Mr. A.

As for the shit head, I suppose it's boredom and a feeling of obligation to at least counter the idiocy to some small degree...

Mr Anonymous

12-13-06, 09:19 PM

:) ..... You're terribly kind Mr Superluminal, but I believe you've delivered the best answer of all to date.

I remain, as per usual, very much of the obliged....

leopold99

12-13-06, 09:28 PM

all this over a video of armstrong being tongue tied.
if you ever seen his other speeches you would say "nothing unusual here".
about the other astronauts reactions, they are what mine would be "we went to the moon with this guy? :confused: ".

Ganymede

12-14-06, 12:47 AM

1) The lunar astronauts were indeed exposed to high levels of radiation.

Ofcourse they were, the Sun is an infinite source of deadly radiation.

If a solar flare of any significance had occurred during their trip, they would have been killed. This is a risk they all acknowleged.

"During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies."

http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm

"...(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum)."

"So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!

Edward P. Ney estimates the radiation risks in an article titled The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year: "We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours". The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.

This level of radiation dose is confirmed by Space Biomedical Research Institute in Humans in Space:
"SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.
Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal"

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:

a) Weight, obviously.

b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.

Can you please link the source of this information. I'm definately interested in learning more about it.

4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.

No we didn't, the NEVA program wasn't propsed until 1954, and was still in the concept phase as of 1957. So "several variations" were not conducted.

5) Ganymede, are you a physicist? Or an astrodynamisist? An engineer or scientist of any knid?

Negative.

6) The scientists and engineers who are animated in front of audiences are in the vanishingly small minority. These guys especially, were stoics by nature. They were trained to keep their emotions in check in order that they didn't get themselves killed in combat or an emergengy situation of any kind.

I repsectfully disagree, your opinion is subjective.

7) Are you, by the way, a human behavioral scientist?

Are you a clarivoyant?

8) Retroreflectors on the moon, left by the apollo missions, are still used today to make precise measurements of lunar motion.

You don't need a manned mission to the moon to place reflectors on the lunar surface. Did the mars rover require a manned mission.. nope:)

9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.[/QUOTE]

More conjecture, please explain why there was no visible blast crater left by the lunar module? An Astronaut can leave a foot print, but a rocket engine with 10,000 pounds of thrust can't? Righto

phonetic

12-14-06, 01:31 AM

I don't think I'd be grinning like a monkey if I was one of the first men to step on the moon. I'd probably be soiling myself and wondering if I was going to die.

RoyLennigan

12-14-06, 08:27 AM

In this case you're a moron. Because you responded based on your emotional connection to this subject, you didn't respond with a shred of scientific fact. So your credibility regarding this subject is nill.
are you kidding? your entire case is based on an "emotional connection to this subject." you get no respect when your rebuttal starts with calling the other person 'moron'.

The moon has zero atmosphere, can't believe you're the only one of this planet who believes that.
will you please stop purposely misunderstanding me? where does magnetosphere equate to an atmosphere? i didn't even say the moon had anything.

Aluminum foil can't deflect deadly space radiation. Ever wonder why whenever you took an X-ray you were provided thick lead garment? Not Reynolds wrap!! But nice try.

Because they never left the Earths Magnetosphere. Even under the Magnetospheres protection they're in grave danger.

i suggest you read this:
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

"There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel."

This general charge is usually made by people who don't understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.

"It doesn't matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked."

This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.

The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.

But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4009/v1p3e.htm
October 15
The analysis of scientific measurements made by the Ranger III lunar probe showed that gamma-ray intensity in interplanetary space was ten times greater than expected, NASA reported. Measurements were taken by gamma-ray spectrometers on Ranger III after it was launched on January 26. NASA scientists, however, did not believe that gamma-ray intensity was "great enough to require any changes in the design of radiation shielding for manned spacecraft."

New York Times, October 16, 1962.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation
Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

very interesting sites. i suggest you read through as much as you can if you still desire to argue against the moon landings.

leopold99

12-14-06, 08:53 AM

my question: why hasn't there been any deathbed statements that the moon landings were faked?
ganymedes response: no answer

my question: who funded the payoffs that silenced the 1000s of people working on the project?
ganymedes response: no answer

my question: why hasn't russia stuck it in our faces about faked moon landings?
ganymedes response: no answer

my next question is:
on the apollo 8 mission nasa had concerns that a russian probe would interfere with the trajectory of the mission. if space radiation is so deadly how did the apollo 8 astronauts survive?

patiently awaiting a no response from you.

Lord Hillyer

12-14-06, 09:17 AM

The Moon Landing: A Hoax?

Point-by-point rebuttal of the 'landing was a hoax' arguments by Ian Goddard, one of the smartest men (IQ-wise) on the planet:

http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

Ganymede

12-14-06, 09:26 AM

The Moon Landing: A Hoax?

Point-by-point rebuttal of the 'landing was a hoax' arguments by Ian Goddard, one of the smartest men (IQ-wise) on the planet:

http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

After reading his first rebuttal I had to stop because it's uttter nonsense. The moons surface only reflects 7% of the light falling on it. Not enough to illuminate a Astronaut standing in a shadow... NEXT!

leopold99

12-14-06, 09:39 AM

After reading his first rebuttal I had to stop because it's uttter nonsense. The moons surface only reflects 7% of the light falling on it. Not enough to illuminate a Astronaut standing in a shadow... NEXT!
wrong.
that 7% can cast shadows on earth ganymede, even after being attenuated by the earths atmosphere. i'm sure the moons surface scattering effect can illuminate things in shadows.

leopold99

12-14-06, 09:48 AM

Mr Anonymous

12-14-06, 10:02 AM

Ganymede

12-14-06, 10:19 AM

well you struck out on all of these points ganymede.

my question: who funded the payoffs that silenced the 1000s of people working on the project?

I have no interest in that, I'm only interested in the Science.

my question: why hasn't russia stuck it in our faces about faked moon landings?

Russia has it's fair share of skeptics, as does the USA.

on the apollo 8 mission nasa had concerns that a russian probe would interfere with the trajectory of the mission. if space radiation is so deadly how did the apollo 8 astronauts survive?

I have no concearn about the apollo 8 mission, I'm only concearned with the apllo 11 mission.

patiently awaiting a no response from you

And I'm still patiently waiting for you to show me data that outlines the radiation levels on the lunar surface. You can't that's why. That's why you lost this debate hands down. And your questions are moronic as best.

Ganymede

12-14-06, 10:21 AM

.... The LEM's landing stage is still there on the moons surface.

No it's not. Where's the proof? How come we can't get any pictures of Moon Car that was left on the Moon? Are you trying to tell me the all powerful hubble telescope can't locate it?

leopold99

12-14-06, 10:44 AM

I have no interest in that, I'm only interested in the Science.
you are the one screaming HOAX, HOAX.
in order for the hoax to suceed the people involved must be silenced.
there are only 2 ways to accomplish that
1. murder every last one
2. pay them off
you cannot simply brush this aside ganymede.
Russia has it's fair share of skeptics,
where are they? what evidence do they have?
I have no concearn about the apollo 8 mission, I'm only concearned with the apllo 11 mission.
you are the one that stated radiation of space is deadly.
the apollo 8 mission and almost every skylab mission proves you wrong.
And I'm still patiently waiting for you to show me data that outlines the radiation levels on the lunar surface. You can't that's why. That's why you lost this debate hands down. And your questions are moronic as best.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

spuriousmonkey

12-14-06, 10:50 AM

No it's not. Where's the proof? How come we can't get any pictures of Moon Car that was left on the Moon? Are you trying to tell me the all powerful hubble telescope can't locate it?

yes...

The best telescope built by humanity to date is the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) currently in orbit around Earth. This telescope has a maximum resolution of 0.014 arc seconds. If the HST were aimed at the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 27 meters (88.5 feet) across. Each of the Apollo landers is only about 5 meters (16.5 feet) across and much too small to be seen by Hubble. An example of the resolution that the HST can provide is shown in the following image taken of the crater Copernicus.

They did bring back a lot of rocks. Let me guess. they are fake too?

leopold99

12-14-06, 11:06 AM

More conjecture, please explain why there was no visible blast crater left by the lunar module? An Astronaut can leave a foot print, but a rocket engine with 10,000 pounds of thrust can't? Righto
when you park your car do you go screeching in at 100 miles an hour?

the lem engine was capable of being throttled. all the way down to 3000 lbs.

now listen carefully ganymede.
the lem engine nozzle was 54 inches in diameter which means it had an area of 2300 sq. in. that in turn means the 3000 lbs thrust produced 1.5 lbs per sq. in.
wanna do some blasting?

RoyLennigan

12-14-06, 11:47 AM

After reading his first rebuttal I had to stop because it's uttter nonsense. The moons surface only reflects 7% of the light falling on it. Not enough to illuminate a Astronaut standing in a shadow... NEXT!

The luminosity of the sun is 3.827×10^26 Watts.

The luminosity of an average lightbulb is 100 Watts.

An average lightbulb is enough to illuminiate the torso of a person, don't you think?

Now, 7% of 3.827×10^26 Watts is 2.6789×10^25 Watts. I'd say thats quite enough to illuminate a person.

Zephyr

12-14-06, 12:14 PM

Now, 7% of 3.827×10^26 Watts is 2.6789×10^25 Watts. I'd say thats quite enough to illuminate a person.

That's enough to vaporise a person. But one person won't absorb all energy coming from the sun unless they're really big, and they're hugging the sun.

Hint: the luminosity of the sun is the energy going from the sun in all directions. What proportion of that will land on an average sized person? Consider a spherical shell sharing the same centre as the sun and with a radius such that its edge touches the person in question.

I think the idea the moon landing was faked is reasonable, what is more logical??
Amateur. The moon was faked.

One day you'll realise you're fake, too.

Nikelodeon

12-14-06, 12:20 PM

They didnt go to the Moon. They went to Venus by accident, but didnt have the balls to admit it.

Syzygys

12-14-06, 12:28 PM

if we did then what is the logic behind not returning and establishing a scientific base of some kind?

Because it costs a shitload of money, and establishes little.

One of the researches they do is gravity free experiences in the International Spacestation. You can't even do that on the Moon...

Just hitting golfballs and driving around>>>> not a worthy goal...

Syzygys

12-14-06, 12:30 PM

No it's not. Where's the proof? How come we can't get any pictures of Moon Car that was left on the Moon? Are you trying to tell me the all powerful hubble telescope can't locate it?

Not if it is on the other side of the Moon, silly.

I touched Moon rock in Houston and in Florida. How do I know it was real? because my moonrock detector was beeping like crazy!!

Ganymede

12-14-06, 02:30 PM

Because it costs a shitload of money, and establishes little.

One of the researches they do is gravity free experiences in the International Spacestation. You can't even do that on the Moon...

Just hitting golfballs and driving around>>>> not a worthy goal...

So are you saying the Helium 3 on the Moon is worthless?

spuriousmonkey

12-14-06, 02:36 PM

So are you saying the Helium 3 on the Moon is worthless?

yes. It might be worth something on earth.

Mr Anonymous

12-14-06, 05:34 PM

No it's not. Where's the proof? How come we can't get any pictures of Moon Car that was left on the Moon? Are you trying to tell me the all powerful hubble telescope can't locate it?

I've neither raised or mentioned the subject of the Moon Car, whatever that is - I presume your referring to the Lunar Rover - nor mentioned anything at all about Hubble - comprehension isn't your strong suit really, is it?

However, since you're obviously not up on what Hubble is actually designed for looking at and you insisted on bringing the matter up: The Moon, as you know (or likely don't, given the amount of things you do seem to be aware of) is roughly 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Basically Hubble is designed to observe large scale objects over vast distance, not small scale objects over short - it's a little like using glasses designed to compensate for short sightedness for reading close up. Generally speaking it doesn't work terribly well...

However, since you asked about proof regarding the location of the left behind landing section of the LLM - here is a photograph of the remaining landing section of the LLM left by the Apollo 17 mission:

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/7894/a17sitelblhh7.jpg

It's the tiny dot located between the cross hairs marked, curiously enough, LM. LM stands for Landing Module. Anything else you're unsure about - which way is up, what colour is black, what do nostrils actually do, which end to correctly put your under-ware on, that sort of kidney - do feel free to drop us a line and, once we've finished snickering at you, perhaps we'll help sort you out on those matters as well.

Ganymede

12-14-06, 06:01 PM

I've neither raised or mentioned the subject of the Moon Car, whatever that is - I presume your referring to the Lunar Rover - nor mentioned anything at all about Hubble - comprehension isn't your strong suit really, is it?

However, since you're obviously not up on what Hubble is actually designed for looking at and you insisted on bringing the matter up: The Moon, as you know (or likely don't, given the amount of things you do seem to be aware of) is roughly 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Basically Hubble is designed to observe large scale objects over vast distance, not small scale objects over short - it's a little like using glasses designed to compensate for short sightedness for reading close up. Generally speaking it doesn't work terribly well...

However, since you asked about proof regarding the location of the left behind landing section of the LLM - here is a photograph of the remaining landing section of the LLM left by the Apollo 17 mission:

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/7894/a17sitelblhh7.jpg

It's the tiny dot located between the cross hairs marked, curiously enough, LM. LM stands for Landing Module. Anything else you're unsure about - which way is up, what colour is black, what do nostrils actually do, which end to correctly put your under-ware on, that sort of kidney - do feel free to drop us a line and, once we've finished snickering at you, perhaps we'll help sort you out on those matters as well.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA:D

draqon

12-14-06, 06:05 PM

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA:D

you can express the emotion with ....mathematical formula: sum(AH^15 to A^6)

Ganymede

12-14-06, 07:23 PM

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

draqon

12-14-06, 07:27 PM

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

how hq do you wanna go? this thing is already hq. Americans were on the moon! stop denying it (if u are). Movies show that they have been there.

superluminal

12-14-06, 07:34 PM

Ofcourse they were, the Sun is an infinite source of deadly radiation.
Yep.

"During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies."

http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm

"...(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum)."

"So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!

Edward P. Ney estimates the radiation risks in an article titled The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year: "We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours". The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.

This level of radiation dose is confirmed by Space Biomedical Research Institute in Humans in Space:
"SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.
Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal"

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
I think that's exactly what I said. If a particularly violent flare were to occur, they would have been killed.

3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:

a) Weight, obviously.

b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.

Can you please link the source of this information. I'm definately interested in learning more about it.
Nope.

4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.

No we didn't, the NEVA program wasn't propsed until 1954, and was still in the concept phase as of 1957. So "several variations" were not conducted.

1 - KIWI A

The first nuclear rocket test, conducted in July 1959, used uncoated UO2 plates as fuel elements. This test reached a maximum temperature of 2683 K and a power level of 70 MWt. Vibrations during operations produced significant structural damage in the reactor core.

The first nuclear reactor tested, KIWI-A, successfully demonstrated the principle of nuclear rockets, but it used unclad fuel plates that were not representative of later tests.

2 - KIWI A'

This test, conducted in July 1959, incorporated significant modifications in the core design used in KIWI A. The fuel consisted of short cylindircal Uranium Oxide elements in graphite modules, with four axial channels coated with Niobium Carbide using chemical vapor deposition. The reactor ran for 6 minutes at power levels as high as 85 MWt.

KIWI-A prime, tested in 1960, replaced the fuel plates with NbC plated graphite modules with 4 micron diameter UO2 particles embedded in the graphite matrix. However, some structural damage occurred in this improved design during its 6 minute test.

3 - KIWI A3

The subsequent KIWI-A3 reactor used a higher temperature Chemical Vapor Deposition process, resulting in a thicker NbC coat with improved adherence. Some core damage occurred during the 5 minute test in October 1959, which reached power levels of 100 MWt, with some fuel elements showing blistering and corrosion. Generally this reactor test was considered successful.

Yes, this counts as "several" all in '59.

I repsectfully disagree, your opinion is subjective.
Whatever.

Are you a clarivoyant?
Yes.

You don't need a manned mission to the moon to place reflectors on the lunar surface. Did the mars rover require a manned mission.. nope:)
Correct.

9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.

More conjecture, please explain why there was no visible blast crater left by the lunar module? An Astronaut can leave a foot print, but a rocket engine with 10,000 pounds of thrust can't? Righto

http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

So, you didn't explain how they pulled off such amazingly realistic special effects in '69.

KennyJC

12-14-06, 07:43 PM

Just curious... If it really was faked, how did they get the dust kicked up by the wheels of the buggy, to act as though it was in a vacuum? If it was on Earth, the dust would hang in the air and get blown around.

superluminal

12-14-06, 07:44 PM

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

Now you're demonstrating just why conspiracy folks (like you) are ridiculed and laughed at. It's been explained to you in more than enough detail just what the resolution capabilities of hubble are. Now, if you insist on not researching the relevant properties of telescopes, such as resolving power and light gathering ability, then you shoud shut the fuck up. Distant galaxies are big. Far, but big. The angular res of hubble is 0.1 arc second. This is about 60m/pixel on the moons surface and 6 light years on the image of a galaxy that is a few hundred million lightyears away.

Read a book.

Mr Anonymous

12-14-06, 07:51 PM

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

Answer:

The Moon, as you know (or likely don't, given the amount of things you do seem to be aware of) is roughly 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Basically Hubble is designed to observe large scale objects over vast distance, not small scale objects over short - it's a little like using glasses designed to compensate for short sightedness for reading close up. Generally speaking it doesn't work terribly well...

Plus, exactly what Superluminal just said.... nimrod.

Ganymede

12-14-06, 07:52 PM

Now you're demonstrating just why conspiracy folks (like you) are ridiculed and laughed at. It's been explained to you in more than enough detail just what the resolution capabilities of hubble are. Now, if you insist on not researching the relevant properties of telescopes, such as resolving power and light gathering ability, then you shoud shut the fuck up. Distant galaxies are big. Far, but big. The angular res of hubble is 0.1 arc second. This is about 60m/pixel on the moons surface and 6 light years on the image of a galaxy that is a few hundred million lightyears away.

Read a book.

/yawn:cool:

KennyJC

12-14-06, 07:57 PM

/yawn:cool:

LOL

That about sums it up doesn't it?

draqon

12-14-06, 07:58 PM

trying to gather up an argument that has long since lost its grounds...

Ganymede

12-14-06, 08:02 PM

Answer:

Plus, exactly what Superluminal just said.... nimrod.

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:05 PM

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.
Ummm... Yes. It's called "optical physics".

So, the answer to all of your questions from now on is "shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat".

You might as well find a different forum to abuse. And, by the way:

Shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat.

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:06 PM

Thread closure in 3... 2... 1...

draqon

12-14-06, 08:07 PM

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/gallery/Apollo-17-Hills_CM.jpg

draqon

12-14-06, 08:07 PM

Ummm... Yes. It's called "optical physics".

So, the answer to all of your questions from now on is "shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat".

You might as well find a different forum to abuse. And, by the way:

Shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat.

You are assaulting member of this community. Please stop it.

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:09 PM

You are assaulting member of this community. Please stop it.
Bite me.

draqon

12-14-06, 08:10 PM

Bite me.

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE. I do not agree to violent ways.

Although if ur a grl, ill bite you on a chick softly ...if u r a grl and let me.

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:16 PM

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE. I do not agree to violent ways.

Although if ur a grl, ill bite you on a chick softly
Excuse me, I'm not suggesting violence of any kind. However, you are engaging in sexual discrimination and a double standard of response. Shame on you.

draqon

12-14-06, 08:17 PM

Excuse me, I'm not suggesting violence of any kind. However, you are engaging in sexual discrimination and a double standard of response. Shame on you.

shame on me. :rolleyes:

Ganymede

12-14-06, 08:18 PM

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE. I do not agree to violent ways.

Although if ur a grl, ill bite you on a chick softly ...if u r a grl and let me.

Dragon, I could care less about their insults. It cleary indicates that I'm getting under their skin;)

Check out this quick clip. You've got to see this!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4297696869592793298&q=moonmovie

draqon

12-14-06, 08:21 PM

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:23 PM

Dragon, I could care less about their insults. It cleary indicates that I'm getting under their skin;)

Check out this quick clip. You've got to see this!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4297696869592793298&q=moonmovie

I would beat the livig shit out of such a self-righteous asshole. It's a good thing astronauts can keep their emotions reasonably under control.

They don't have to prove a thing to stupid shits like that cock sucker or you.

Mr Anonymous

12-14-06, 08:25 PM

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

It isn't either a question or case of lacking any particular form of technology - Hubble was simply designed to observe events taking place as far out into the Universe as it's currently possible to see - not designed for either peeping in through peoples windows or squinting at the surface of a planetoid that's simply too close for it to see clearly.

It's exactly that complicated.

draqon

12-14-06, 08:26 PM

I would beat the livig shit out of such a self-righteous asshole. It's a good thing astronauts can keep their emotions reasonably under control.

They don't have to prove a thing to stupid shits like that cock sucker or you.

...moderation...anyone?

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:27 PM

...moderation...anyone?
Dragon,

This is an emotionally charged subject for some people. So...

Get the fuck off my back!

Report me or shut up.

draqon

12-14-06, 08:30 PM

Dragon,

This is an emotionally charged subject for some people. So...

Get the fuck off my back!

Report me or shut up.

ok than, reported.

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:33 PM

ok than, reported.
Thanks, prick.

draqon

12-14-06, 08:34 PM

Thanks, prick.

you actually believed me? I didnt report you. :cool:

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:36 PM

you actually believed me? I didnt report you. :cool:
Oh. Alright then. You're not a prick.

Ganymede

12-14-06, 08:39 PM

Here's the Smoking gun I've been looking for. I can't wait to hear the absurd explantions for this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4280164630927881599&q=moonmovie

Ganymede

12-14-06, 08:47 PM

This is getting comical now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3227741385504609522&q=moonmovie

draqon

12-14-06, 08:48 PM

This is getting comical now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3227741385504609522&q=moonmovie

what....did you say you are getting comical now? yeah thats what it is....

invert_nexus

12-14-06, 08:54 PM

That video is pretty stupid.
None of the audio says anything about setting up a trick.

The most 'convincing' part of the video is where they show the earth and then the place lights up so you can see what's his nut floating by the window.
Right?
Well. Guess again. The size of the window after dude floats by is HUGE compared to the tiny size of the earth in the shot immediately prior.

And the part where the earth is occluded by an astronaut's arm and he tries to pull his arm back to correct for it?
How did he know? The guy filming it didn't say anything. And it's not a video camera. It was a film camera. There was no tv screen showing the image anywhere.

Nah.
That video is incredibly lame.

The narrator's british accent sure did lend an air of credence though, eh? I bet the Brits can sell ketchup popsicles to eskimoes?

Ganymede

12-14-06, 08:55 PM

what....did you say you are getting comical now? yeah thats what it is....

No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express last night;)

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:56 PM

I was just going to say the same thing. They must take their audience for a bunch of idiots. Oh. Wait. They ARE a bunch of idiots.
Really lame.

superluminal

12-14-06, 08:57 PM

GAnymede,

Are you, like, 17 years old or something?

Mr Anonymous

12-14-06, 08:58 PM

This is getting comical now.

You raise a debate resting wholly on the opinion of yourself that a couple of faces caught on camera don't look as happy as you believe they should do - OHM'GOD! THE ENTIRE APOLLO MISSION MUST THEREFORE HAVE BEEN FAKED!!!!!! :eek: - and only now things get to be comical on your world...?

invert_nexus

12-14-06, 08:58 PM

Hmm.
Wait though.
Was it a film camera? It couldn't have been. It was broadcast live...
I'm unsure about the technology actually. I do seem to remember film being mentioned somewhere down the line though...

But the size difference in the earth before and after the lights came on is pretty drastic.

Ganymede

12-14-06, 09:01 PM

That's what I thought, result to insults. Especially when the footage cleary indicates extreme fabriation. If what I'm saying is bullshit, then don't comment on the thread. Oh noes you can't, because I'm hitting you with so much evidence there's nothing else you can say but insluts. CHECKMATE!

Another victory for the conspiracy theorist!

Ganymede 1

Nasa ass-kissers 0!

invert_nexus

12-14-06, 09:02 PM

Especially when the footage cleary indicates extreme fabriation.

It indicates nothing of the sort. Nothing but your desire to believe, that is. And that's not indicated by the footage but rather by your behavior.

Mr Anonymous

12-14-06, 09:04 PM

And the funny just keeps comming....

invert_nexus

12-14-06, 09:06 PM

Apollo 11 carried a number of cameras for collecting data and recording various aspects of the mission, including one 70-mm Hasselblad electric camera, two 70-mm lunar surface superwide-angle cameras, one Hasselblad El data camera, two 16-mm Maurer data acquisiton cameras, one 35-mm surface close-up stereoscopic camera, and a television camera.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_Photography_cameras.html

So. It must have been the television camera that sent all the live stuff back to Earth.

But, is the video in the 'film' supposed to be from the television camera or one of the others? Film, specifically, is mentioned. And it's in 'full color'. Television cameras weren't full color at the time, yes? I know the television moon footage is all black and white.

leopold99

12-14-06, 09:25 PM

Here's the Smoking gun I've been looking for. I can't wait to hear the absurd explantions for this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4280164630927881599&q=moonmovie

This is getting comical now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3227741385504609522&q=moonmovie
it still goes ganymede. how were the people that worked on the project silenced? you will have to devise a workable plan.
and, why no deathbed statements?
like i said before, you cannot simply ignore these two facts.

leopold99

12-14-06, 09:30 PM

leopold99

12-14-06, 09:37 PM

to be honest you have provided one piece of evidence that seems legit.
and that is the discussion about hubble telescope photos.

but then there is the problem of nobody that worked on the project coming forward and saying "i worked on the project, it was a hoax".
therefor i must accept mr. anonymous' explaination of why the hubble cannot produce the photos.

this is called "looking at the evidence objectivly".
something that you aren't doing.

RoyLennigan

12-15-06, 08:52 AM

ganymede, if you can explain to me how they got each and every moon photo from this set without actually going to the moon, then i will believe you. catch is, you gotta prove that its possible, not just explain what you think happened.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/ndxpage1.html

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/search/search.cgi?searchpage=true&selections=AS11&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=5&pageno=11

it is clear to me that you are too caught up in believing what you want to believe and not believing what they believe to even make a clear-headed decision as to what you think actually happened. its become about pride now instead of pure science. i, personally, do not care what you believe did or did not happen. i only care about reasons for believing in something. and i can tell that your reason for believing this is a hoax lies within you, not in any external evidence. maybe you are in denial; looking for something that you wish was there, but is not.

instead of looking at evidence, look towards yourself to see why it is that you so desperately desire for your 'evidence' to be true. i can tell by your word usage and methods of rebuttal that even you have your doubts as to whether it was a hoax. why else would you be so avidly devoted to forcing others to believe it?

Syzygys

12-15-06, 09:28 AM

So are you saying the Helium 3 on the Moon is worthless?

What does it do now, or what did it achieve?

Syzygys

12-15-06, 09:36 AM

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE.

I disagree. Some idiots should be just beaten until they change their minds...

Easier than trying to convince them with facts and arguments...Done with this thread...

Ganymede

12-15-06, 09:41 AM

I disagree. Some idiots should be just beaten until they change their minds...

Interesting!

Ganymede

12-15-06, 09:44 AM

leopold99

12-15-06, 09:53 AM

I want to believe we landed on the moon back in 1969! But we didn't IMO.
which brings us back to why hasn't anyone that worked on the project ever said we didn't?
why no deathbed statements?

i've never been to the moon, i have no idea if we went or not. the only thing i can do is look for the hard evidence.
i've stated 2 pieces above, a third would be why no russians saying it was faked.

the photos, videos, etc can be like you said faked. the three pieces above cannot.

Ganymede

12-15-06, 10:29 AM

which brings us back to why hasn't anyone that worked on the project ever said we didn't?
why no deathbed statements?

i've never been to the moon, i have no idea if we went or not. the only thing i can do is look for the hard evidence.
i've stated 2 pieces above, a third would be why no russians saying it was faked.

the photos, videos, etc can be like you said faked. the three pieces above cannot.

It's very easy to keep a secret. Remember the Operation Northwoods document? Conspiracy theorists were trying to get that alleged document declassified for decades. But the Government said it didn't exist, no one directly involved gave no death bed statements. The Government said we're just nutjobs and wackos. And something so sinister could never be kept secret. After 40 years of denial, it was finally declassified and the "nutjobs" were vindicated. The CIA is very efficient at keeping secrets, as is the KGB. And with the polonuim 210 poisinings, it shows you that spooks don't fuck around when it comes to national security.

Ganymede

12-15-06, 10:33 AM

Ganymede

12-15-06, 10:43 AM

which brings us back to why hasn't anyone that worked on the project ever said we didn't?
why no deathbed statements?

i've never been to the moon, i have no idea if we went or not. the only thing i can do is look for the hard evidence.
i've stated 2 pieces above, a third would be why no russians saying it was faked.

the photos, videos, etc can be like you said faked. the three pieces above cannot.

Do you believe Dr. Jessie Marcels deathbed statement when he revealed it wasn't a weather baloon recoverd in Roswell, and indeed it was a UFO? He's the intelligence officer who first responded to the scene. And made a death bed statement saying he was forced to bring a weather baloon infront of the press to difuse the story.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/th_jmarcel2.jpg (http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/jmarcel2.jpg)
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/th_jmarcel1.jpg (http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/jmarcel1.jpg)

Now, since you're a proponet of Death Bed statements do you believe we did find UFO's in 1947? I'm very skeptical about UFO's. WIth their technology there's no way in hell they would physcially put themselves on a planet. When they can experience everything first hand by sending probes.

invert_nexus

12-15-06, 10:51 AM

Isn't that another topic altogether?

What do you have to say about the use of film cameras versus the use of the television camera?
And what of the blatant difference in size of the mini-earth and the porthole after the lights come on?

leopold99

12-15-06, 10:55 AM

It's very easy to keep a secret.
yes, for the CIA.
we are talking 1000s of people scattered all across the country.
also there were a number of german engineers that worked on the project.

Do you believe Dr. Jessie Marcels deathbed statement when he revealed it wasn't a weather baloon recoverd in Roswell, and indeed it was a UFO?
yes. i hope you realize that a deathbed statement can convict you of murder in a court of law. if someone on their deathbed said you murdered them then you'll go to prison for it.

this man seen a UFO, whether it was alien or terrestrial remains to be discerned.
and i DON'T believe in UFOs

RoyLennigan

12-15-06, 11:23 AM

I want to believe we landed on the moon back in 1969! But we didn't IMO. However, I do think the classified military space program has landed on the moon, using classified technology. And photo's can be easily doctored.

I'm not talking about doctoring photos, this is the 60's and even our government didn't have the tech saavy or artistic capability to render believable photos of the earth and moon. Not even hollywood was up to the task quite yet. There is no explainable way that in 1969 they could have gotten photos like the did of the moon if they had not actually gone there.

And if you seriously want to believe we landed on the moon, stop looking at only articles and pictures that other people use to show that we didn't. Someone who wants to believe we landed on the moon should have a more diverse selection of evidence.

It's very easy to keep a secret. Remember the Operation Northwoods document? Conspiracy theorists were trying to get that alleged document declassified for decades. But the Government said it didn't exist, no one directly involved gave no death bed statements. The Government said we're just nutjobs and wackos. And something so sinister could never be kept secret. After 40 years of denial, it was finally declassified and the "nutjobs" were vindicated. The CIA is very efficient at keeping secrets, as is the KGB. And with the polonuim 210 poisinings, it shows you that spooks don't fuck around when it comes to national security.

this is on such a smaller scale it isn't worthy of comparison. this is the planning of false attacks that were not even carried out. there would have been a much smaller amount of people working on a mere plan.

imagine the crew needed to hoax a moon landing and the people who would know it was a hoax. mission control might be oblivious, but the people building the set wouldn't, the astronauts wouldn't, the cameramen wouldn't, the team that would put together and edit the film wouldn't, the people in charge wouldn't. How are you going to keep all these people silent for over 30 years? How are you going to keep them from telling the world that the most astounding feat ever accomplished by man was really a hoax perpetrated by our government?

when a skeptic asks an astronaut if we really landed on the moon, and the astronaut storms off, what you see as a man running from the truth, i see as a man furious at the ignorance and callousness of his fellow american.

RoyLennigan

12-15-06, 11:27 AM

Now, since you're a proponet of Death Bed statements do you believe we did find UFO's in 1947? I'm very skeptical about UFO's. WIth their technology there's no way in hell they would physcially put themselves on a planet. When they can experience everything first hand by sending probes.

I don't really want to stray off topic, but i had to say something. Military officials are very picky on the terms they use because they know they can't say everything, but they want to be very clear about what they are not saying. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, as i am unsure you know. It does not mean Alien Spacecraft. A UFO is anything that we cannot identify. When he admits they found a UFO, it means he admits they did not find a weather balloon, but they also do not know what it is that they found.

Sauna

12-15-06, 11:29 AM

Do you believe Dr. Jessie Marcels deathbed statement when he revealed it wasn't a weather baloon recoverd in Roswell, and indeed it was a UFO? He's the intelligence officer who first responded to the scene. And made a death bed statement saying he was forced to bring a weather baloon infront of the press to difuse the story.

"UFO" means unidentified, nothing more than that.

If it were part of a top secret program to spy on Russia, it would not then have been identified.

Ganymede

12-15-06, 11:42 AM

I'm not talking about doctoring photos, this is the 60's and even our government didn't have the tech saavy or artistic capability to render believable photos of the earth and moon. Not even hollywood was up to the task quite yet. There is no explainable way that in 1969 they could have gotten photos like the did of the moon if they had not actually gone there.

Ok, so we can't doctor a photo, but we can send a man 250,000 miles to the moon, with a pocket calculator computer, using only aliminum foil to protect them? Dude, save a hit for me:m:

And if you seriously want to believe we landed on the moon, stop looking at only articles and pictures that other people use to show that we didn't. Someone who wants to believe we landed on the moon should have a more diverse selection of evidence.

I admit, I'm biased, and so are you.

this is on such a smaller scale it isn't worthy of comparison. this is the planning of false attacks that were not even carried out. there would have been a much smaller amount of people working on a mere plan.

Yea, but they sure were carried out on 911.

imagine the crew needed to hoax a moon landing and the people who would know it was a hoax. mission control might be oblivious, but the people building the set wouldn't, the astronauts wouldn't, the cameramen wouldn't, the team that would put together and edit the film wouldn't, the people in charge wouldn't. How are you going to keep all these people silent for over 30 years? How are you going to keep them from telling the world that the most astounding feat ever accomplished by man was really a hoax perpetrated by our government?

Ok, so our Military and Government is completey transparent? I think not, if it was, then everyone would of had a Nuclear Bomb the minute we learned how to do it, based on your logic. Because thousands of people worked on the program.

when a skeptic asks an astronaut if we really landed on the moon, and the astronaut storms off, what you see as a man running from the truth, i see as a man furious at the ignorance and callousness of his fellow american.

I would swore on the Bible and told him to shut the fuck up. I'm sure you would of did the same.

Ganymede

12-15-06, 11:43 AM

Ganymede

12-15-06, 11:45 AM

I don't really want to stray off topic, but i had to say something. Military officials are very picky on the terms they use because they know they can't say everything, but they want to be very clear about what they are not saying. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, as i am unsure you know. It does not mean Alien Spacecraft. A UFO is anything that we cannot identify. When he admits they found a UFO, it means he admits they did not find a weather balloon, but they also do not know what it is that they found.

But the fact is, this proves that our Government doesn't tell us the truth about everything. And people like you assume they do. That's why things never change because to many gullable people like you won't hold them accountable for anything.

invert_nexus

12-15-06, 11:45 AM

Care to comment on this Roy?

Why should Roy comment on it? I was asking you.

Specifically as regards the questions I brought up in my post after you posted the link to that idiotic video where they purport to show the astronauts faking the view of the earth through the porthole.

RoyLennigan

12-15-06, 03:04 PM

Ok, so we can't doctor a photo, but we can send a man 250,000 miles to the moon, with a pocket calculator computer, using only aliminum foil to protect them? Dude, save a hit for me:m:
we can also split atoms and view galaxies millions of lightyears away but we can't cure a simple cold. the egyptians could build a giant pyramid, but they could not take even a black and white photo of it. abilities are developed out of necessity and motivation. show me any evidence that shows we could have created false images of the moon such that they accurately portray celestial bodies without our knowledge of how those bodies actually look like in reality (we did not know how our own earth looked from the moon yet). you still aren't getting how easy(relatively) it was to send a man to the moon.

I admit, I'm biased, and so are you.
its good that you know that at least.

Yea, but they sure were carried out on 911.
right.... now back to the topic....

Ok, so our Military and Government is completey transparent? I think not, if it was, then everyone would of had a Nuclear Bomb the minute we learned how to do it, based on your logic. Because thousands of people worked on the program.
you know, you have a way of almost completely misunderstanding a post and using that misunderstanding as a way of making you right. you're still not getting it.

i was saying that this kind of cover up would include quite a bit more people than Operation Northwoods or even 9/11 (if it had actually been a government conspiracy). because of the number of people involved, and because the mission in question was such a grand achievement of humankind, then there would be a very, very high probability that someone, somewhere would talk. people change values, move to different countries (where the US cannot necessarily get to them). I very much doubt even the US to be able to keep these people quiet. And yes, i know of many US atrocities kept quiet and the constant lying of officials and whatnot. believe me, i am no advocator of current US policy. i do not trust the government, that is not why i believe we went to the moon. i believe we went to the moon because of all the data we got back, and all the pictures, and all the excitement of those working on the project. i believe it because of the spirit of the project, from the day kennedy told us we would go to the moon before the end of the decade to today.

keeping the atom bomb a secret was a matter of national security and the people working on it knew that. lying and making it look like we went to the moon when we did not is definately not a matter of national security. so many people would be outraged at such an idea that i don't think you could find enough people to do the job, let alone keep it a secret.

I would swore on the Bible and told him to shut the fuck up. I'm sure you would of did the same.
i might've punched him in the face and shoved a moon rock down his throat.