...DID we go to the moon?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by GeoffP, May 14, 2013.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    about space radiation:
    NASA has done research into this area and has issued a number of reports on it.
    i have one such report on my HDD titled "apollo mission analysis for radiation" authored by H. J. schulte published in 1964.
    the confidence level of this report is 90%
    do you wish to discuss the matter fatfreddy?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    What a crock. Once again the internet's worst forum spammer is unable to address any of the responses. Instead he chooses to offer his stock cut and paste crap! I said this -

    As predicted, you simply cannot. The well named blog that leaves you cornered -

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

    People should read the last post on that thread and shake their heads at the obsessive delusion that makes somebody post on fishing forums, biker forums, The Cure forum, and so, so many more. It is really quite disturbing, always the same, never does any of it sink in, you never debate it and always the same cut and paste inept crap responses.

    Space radiation - please explain why all the satellites operating in space haven't broken down. Please explain why all the unmanned craft all over the Solar System haven't broken down(p.s. this is where he dismisses all that by suggesting one of the Mars landers was faked with another of his moronic conspiracy theorists involving thousands).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    The proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked is simply too clear to obfuscate.

    (post #55)
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-to-the-moon&p=3152201&viewfull=1#post3152201

    I urge the viewers who don't have time to look at it to withhold judgement until you can look at it. These pro-Apollo posters try to sway those viewers with rhetoric.

    I posted some alternative info on space radiation in post #120.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-to-the-moon&p=3158400&viewfull=1#post3158400

    You're misrepresenting the hoax-believer postion. Their position is that it's possible to build unmanned craft and satillites that can withstand the radiation that would kill a human. It's humans that can't take the radiation, not machines.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    You mean you believe the ISS is fake too?
     
  8. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    Nope. No matter how many times you keep making this moronic repetitive statement, it was not faked. The flag spinning is impossible in water without noticeable billowing from the water. The water would simply push the whole thing around the little flag stick. It takes a whole lot of delusion to suggest any sort of speed counter the affects of water on a flat fabric.

    Why? Why do you urge these viewers to look at your crap? Do you want the whole world to be under the same delusion as you? Then what? We all pat each other on the back and say "yeah man, everthing's a fake"!

    It's crap and you simply lack the ability to understand it. I could write a 10 paragraph reply explaining why, but I seriously cannot be bothered. Waste of time. You're lost in spam.

    Total ignorant crap. I suppose it helps if you simply don't understand how they are built. There is a design spec based on potential radiation exposure, deviating from it would be questioned by those building these objects. Not deviating from it, means using the data from 50 or so missions pre-Apollo to measure it. Hoax nuts don't have a position. They simply don't understand the subject and ignore experts who do. You believe the horseshit on your links because it reinforces your crazy obsession.
     
  9. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i found a second PDF on my hard drive about space radiation, translated from russian.
    title "space radiation hazards"
    author L. I. miroshnichenko
    date 1973
     
  11. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Do you believe there are people living aboard the ISS?
     
  12. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    Watch this guy run for cover -

    Ok. Apollo trajectories did just that. They bypassed the denser areas of the belts by flying around the edges. All documentation released then shows this. If you dispute this, prove it.

    Aluminium is the best shielding to avoid bremsstrahlung and the thickness of the command module hull would have completely blocked any secondary radiation. As stated before, the ship went around the denser areas. The x-rays produced by bremsstrahlung can be quite strong, but not through aluminium, not at those strengths and would be nothing like hospital x-ray strengths.

    The article says the craft was adequately shielded but questions why they dismissed Van Allen's report. They didn't! They flew around the edges of the belts.


    Next!
     
  13. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  14. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    I laugh at the spamming nut who is incapable of responding to a post that dismantles his stupid link. That is exactly why it is a waste of time to go into any real detail.
     
  15. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    This is a classic example of handwaving.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving
    (excerpts)
    ------------------------------------------
    Handwaving is a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or nothing.
    ------------------------------------------
    Handwaving is also occasionally used in informal debate or discussion. If the opponent in a debate uses the term, it is meant as a shorthand way to accuse the proponent in the debate of having committed an informal fallacy. In this sense, it is also as if a participant is waving their hands as to discourage an insect that is flying around their head, so are they waving away questions.
    ------------------------------------------

    You can't handwave away that mountain of hoax proof.

    Here's some more.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
     
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Pssst... The radiation levels weren't that high. If they had gone into orbit in the Van Allen belt they would have got a lethal dose after a few months, but they passed through them at about 11 km/sec so they got very little exposure. Plus they weren't stupid enough to go through the highest areas of radiation.

    I know that facts and reality are just annoying distractions for your conspiracy, but for the rest of us they are kind of important.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703



    The only 'handwaving"is performed by yourself and other nutty paranoid troofers/trolls/redacted.
    Your posts represent nothing except a paranoid fanaticism that borders on dangerous for the populace in general.
    But that's OK. You can sprout your nonsense till the cows come home, on forums such as this, as obviously this is the only outlet the nutters have.
    In the meantime, and once again, I present for your pleasure, the best way that I have seen to answer these persistent redacted.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

    Mod Note - now now, no need for name calling mate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2014
  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    I love that video. The guy walks up to Buzz and calls him a liar about going to the moon, so Buzz punches him. The guy tried to sue Buzz but since it was obviously a set up by the guy and his camera man, not to mention Buzz's age at the time, the judge basically said get out of my court room or I'LL bitch slap you...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    In Case You Needed More Proof that Bart Sibrel is a Nut
    August 14th, 2009


    You may know Bart Sibrel as the Apollo conspiracy theorist who got a well deserved punch in the face from Buzz Aldrin a few years ago. If you live in Nashville, you may also know him as the guy who drove you home from the bar, because his actual day job is driving a taxi cab there.

    The first thing Sibrel said after being punched was “did you get that on tape?” to his camera man. Apparently he felt that the punch would make Buzz Aldrin seem like a dishonest or hot-headed person. Of course, it’s worth nothing that this happened after Subrel had been following Aldrin for much of the day, repeatedly getting in his face and refusing to listen to Buzz’s initially polite requests to leave him and his granddaughter alone.

    But it seems that Sibrel himself has some issues with his temper. In his case, the thing that set him off wasn’t being stalked all day by a creepy guy with a video camera but a parking space.


    Inside Story: Apollo Conspiracy Theorist Arrested After Tirade
    The world just celebrated the 40th anniversary of America’s landing on the moon. But a local man has a problem with the official story — and now he’s also got a problem with the law.

    Bart Sibrel is a well-known conspiracy theorist whose made a bit of a career out of ambushing America’s astronauts, trying to make them look like hot-headed fakes.

    Sibrel, who calls himself an investigative journalist, has produced videos questioning whether the moon landing ever happened.

    His 2001, widely discredited documentary called it “the greatest government coverup of all time.”



    But Sibrel, who moonlights as a Nashville cab driver, apparently lost control a few months back over his own landing of sorts.

    Court documents show he was arrested after another driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. She was waiting for her car engine to warm up.

    The arresting officer wrote, “A few moments later, the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked.”

    Sibrel “then walked up to the victim’s car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times.”

    The report says he caused about $1,431.33 in damage.

    Last month, according to the court’s website, Sibrel pleaded guilty to vandalism and was placed on probation.

    But, as you might have guessed, that’s one outburst you won’t see in his videos.

    Sibrel did not respond to an email from NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

    You can read the arrest affidavit on the News Five website.

    It’s just too good.

    http://depletedcranium.com/in-case-you-needed-more-proof-that-bart-sibrel-is-a-nut/


    Sibrel was and is a well known nutcase with a record
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there are a series of articles at the following link that give qbasic programs for modeling the saturn 5.
    start at october 2000, i believe there are 5 articles.
    clicking on program listing at the upper left gives the qbasic program
    http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/index2000.htm
     
  21. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,877
    I have to ask... isn't the proof that any citizen with some rudimentar knowledge can bounce a laser range finder off the platform on the moon and receive a signal back proof that, yes, we were there?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I think that is the case, but our troofer friends again had some fabricated tin pot invalid argument even for that from memory.

    Again, from memory, I think there has also been a photo taken of one of the LM's and stuff, by a lunar satellite.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i think the best proof would be to confirm the capability of the saturn 5.
    i think my post 137 does exactly that.
    the thrust, weight, and orbit of the rocket was modeled with "great accuracy".
    this can't be done unless the properties of the rocket were published.
    these published results can be verified by anyone.
     

Share This Page