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

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'.

will you please stop purposely misunderstanding me? where does magnetosphere equate to an atmosphere? i didn't even say the moon had anything.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

well you struck out on all of these points ganymede.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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.

 

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?

 

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.

where are they? what evidence do they have?

you are the one that stated radiation of space is deadly.
the apollo 8 mission and almost every skylab mission proves you wrong.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

 

yes...

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

Amateur. The moon was faked.

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

 

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

 

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...

 

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!!

 

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

 

yes. It might be worth something on earth.

 

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.