People always bring up the moon landing as an example of a "wacky" conspiracy that could never happen. Probably because the lie is so great, no one thinks it could be pulled off. If the moon landing happened, there would be overwhelming scientific evidence that it happened. Instead, there's a massive amount of scientific anomalies. Here's a list of such anomalies:
No evidence of any radiation other than visible light on the pictures.
No evidence that the PLSS ever vented any gas, water exhaust, or other materials
Insufficient shielding on the spacesuits to protect against ionizing radiation
Liftoff pattern as filmed by NASA shows a linear progression, rather than an exponential progression. (Exponential progression is how a rocket would act. Linear is how being lifted by a crane would act.)
No evidence that the liftoff engines used hypergolic fuels.
No explanation for how the LM weighed all the alleged moon rocks they brought back. (Fuel is precious, and they allegedly brought back hundreds of kilos of rock.) (EDIT: I did find a link to a scale - link)
Dosimeter readings don't agree with modern radiation levels. (In other words, when the astronauts "got back", the scientists said their dosimeter readings were within expected calculations. Then 30-40 years later, scientists find out the moon is much more radioactive than once believed. Why wasn't this reflected in the dosimeter readings?)
Insufficient shielding on the capsule to prevent against micrometeors
Insufficient shielding on the capsule to prevent against ionizing radiation
That's just off the top of my head. There's many more. And this isn't taking into account the ludicrous engineering standards we're supposed to believe went into this. For example, the first time anyone tested how mammalian cells would behave beyond Earth's magnetosphere was allegedly on Apollo 8, when the first manned test of the Atlas V rocket was sent on a circumlunar orbit. It seems insane to test whether or not the environment outside Earth's magnetosphere is suitable for humans by sending humans as your first test subject.
Let's add to that that no other country has been back in 40+ years - despite the fact that technology increases over time, not decreases. We allegedly went to the moon 40 years ago but don't have the technology to do it now? (And the argument that it costs too much is moot. The proposed moon landing mission by Bush (which has since been cancelled) set a landing date of 2020 when first announced. Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?)
Finally, the idea that Russia would "blow the whistle" as a counterargument to the above is insufficient. Not only does this not explain away any of the scientific anomalies. But one may argue (calling upon the work of Antony C. Sutton) that the US financed the USSR from Day 1, and that the cold war was a scam to line the pockets of the military industrial complex. One might also point out the great grain robbery of 1972, which also might buy a lot of silence from our alleged enemies.
If you think the moon landings happened, and think it's just too far fetched that this could have been faked, I urge you to do some basic research. The behaviour of NASA surrounding the Apollo missions is bizarre. (BTW, NASA lost all the original telemetry data and film footage of the alleged greatest engineering feat of all time. Whoops.)
The more research one does into this subject, the more obvious it becomes the moon landings never happened.
Finally, I will repeat, if the Apollo missions happened, there should be overwhelming evidence that it happened. One can view the multiple pieces of evidence, and the multiple anomalies, and decide for yourself. For me, there's just too many scientific anomalies that can't be explained away. These far outnumber and outweigh the arguments that show we went.
EDIT 2: The radiation questions are very thorny. This user has arguments in favor of the Apollo missions having sufficient shielding, and enough protection against ionizing radiation. link
This guy has arguments calling into question the amount of radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. link Additionally, this same author has a number of other pages devoted to Apollo anomalies:
No evidence of any radiation other than visible light on the pictures.
according to whom? you mean like the instruments they brought with them?
No evidence that the PLSS ever vented any gas, water exhaust, or other materials
Huh? Because it doesn't?
Insufficient shielding on the spacesuits to protect against ionizing radiation
Insufficient according to whom? You? You don't even know what a rebreather is, so I doubt your metric for "sufficient shield" is accurate or relevant.
Liftoff pattern as filmed by NASA shows a linear progression, rather than an exponential progression. (Exponential progression is how a rocket would act. Linear is how being lifted by a crane would act.)
Huh? That's some excellent math displayed here.
No evidence that the liftoff engines used hypergolic fuels
Right, just go on making these vague statements. As if all the schematics, designed systems, supporting structures AND the video showing the liftoff of the engines aren't evidence. Maybe you're confused about what that word means?
No explanation for how the LM weighed all the alleged moon rocks they brought back. (Fuel is precious, and they allegedly brought back hundreds of kilos of rock.)
No explanation meaning "I didn't bother looking into it"
An average of about 90kg of rocks were brought back each mission.
Dosimeter readings don't agree with modern radiation levels. (In other words, when the astronauts "got back", the scientists said their dosimeter readings were within expected calculations. Then 30-40 years later, scientists find out the moon is much more radioactive than once believed. Why wasn't this reflected in the dosimeter readings?)
Because limited exposure isn't really very relevant here?
Insufficient shielding on the capsule to prevent against micrometeors
Insufficient shielding on the capsule to prevent against ionizing radiation
My car also has insufficient HP to do the things I want it to. Still works fine though.
For example, the first time anyone tested how mammalian cells would behave beyond Earth's magnetosphere was allegedly on Apollo 8, when the first manned test of the Atlas V rocket was sent on a circumlunar orbit. It seems insane to test whether or not the environment outside Earth's magnetosphere is suitable for humans by sending humans as your first test subject.
That's the whole purpose of a test pilot. Isn't really any other way to do it.
Let's add to that that no other country has been back in 40+ years - despite the fact that technology increases over time, not decreases.
What a hilariously childish argument. So no one has gone back. So? Mission over. Went to the moon. Done. Why go back?
We allegedly went to the moon 40 years ago but don't have the technology to do it now?
Because we don't need to.
(And the argument that it costs too much is moot. The proposed moon landing mission by Bush (which has since been cancelled) set a landing date of 2020 when first announced. Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?)
Because technology changes. We used new standards and systems. Developing all new protocols and mechanical systems. Sure, we could just whip up some 50 year old technology and just hope it doesn't fail again, or we could retool everything based on what we know and what we have.
I guess we could go back to crossing the Atlantic in wooden sailing ships because...hey that used to work just fine?
I urge you to do some basic research
You mean like takine 30 seconds to find out what a rebreather is?
This is what a spaceship looks like? link
Yes. Tell me, how is a spaceship supposed to look?
Fake moon rock link
"An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees' "moon rock" was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was "possible" it was a Moon rock."
So yeah. Some guy just gave some guy a lump of carbon and then sometime down the road they claimed it was a moon rock with zero verification.
Finally, I will repeat, if the Apollo missions happened, there should be overwhelming evidence that it happened
according to whom? you mean like the instruments they brought with them?
No, like evidence that the photos are damaged by the radiation experienced on the moon.
Huh? Because it doesn't?
From the wikipedia link on the PLSS "The Portable Life Support System used in the Apollo lunar landing missions used lithium hydroxide to remove the carbon dioxide from the breathing air, and circulated water in an open loop through a Liquid Cooled Garment, expelling the water into space, where it turned to ice crystals."
Note how the Falcon 9 starts slowly, then increases in speed, in an exponential fashion. Conversely, note how the Apollo 17 LM starts and stays at one speed. (Also note the absence of flame, hypergolic exhaust, and thrust in general.)
An average of about 90kg of rocks were brought back each mission.
There was no scale onboard the LM. How did the astronauts calculate ahead of time the necessary fuel needed to liftoff successfully?
That's the whole purpose of a test pilot.
Why did suborbital launches have monkeys and dog test subjects ahead of time? Using humans to test whether or not the environment beyond Earth's magnetosphere is fit for humans is ridiculous.
Went to the moon. Done. Why go back?
Why did the Chinese send up a robot? Why are satellites still orbiting the moon? Why did Bush propose a new manned moon mission? The moon is a source of scientific curiosity. It seems asinine to suggest that 6 landings is sufficient to thoroughly explore a different planetary body.
So yeah. Some guy just gave some guy a lump of carbon and then sometime down the road they claimed it was a moon rock with zero verification.
From the link I provided. "The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added."
Sorry, your own illiteracy isn't an anomaly.
Your condescending attitude doesn't help your argument.
No, like evidence that the photos are damaged by the radiation experienced on the moon.
huh??
From the wikipedia link on the PLSS "The Portable Life Support System used in the Apollo lunar landing missions used lithium hydroxide to remove the carbon dioxide from the breathing air, and circulated water in an open loop through a Liquid Cooled Garment, expelling the water into space, where it turned to ice crystals."
Some expelled water is fed throughh a sublimator which leaves the suit.
There is currently water leaving my body, but you can't see it either.
Why must we see this small about of sublimating liquid?
Falcon 9 Launch
Apollo 17 LM Launch
Note how the Falcon 9 starts slowly, then increases in speed, in an exponential fashion. Conversely, note how the Apollo 17 LM starts and stays at one speed. (Also note the absence of flame, hypergolic exhaust, and thrust in general.)
Notice how they're completely different videos taken from two entirely different viewpoints, and more importantly, two completely different atmospheres.
There was no scale onboard the LM. How did the astronauts calculate ahead of time the necessary fuel needed to liftoff successfully?
By filling up a pre-determined number of stowage containers.
Or by using the Scale provided to them on trips like #15 and #17- so prett easy actually.
I see you didn't bother to actually look into that either.
Why did suborbital launches have monkeys and dog test subjects ahead of time?
Because they make good test subjects.
Using humans to test whether or not the environment beyond Earth's magnetosphere is fit for humans is ridiculous.
Seeing as how there isn't really a good way to do it other than an educated guess, that seems like a great way to test.
At some point it's going to need to be tested- regardless of how informed a hypothesis is.
Why did the Chinese send up a robot?Why did the Chinese send up a robot?
Well because they Chinese felt like it.
Why are satellites still orbiting the moon?
To do satellite things. Mapping, bouncing signals. Hell, even planning for future missions.
Why did Bush propose a new manned moon mission?
I dunno, perhaps they are interested? Isn't that obvious. It's not the 1970s anymore, or the 1980s.
It seems asinine to suggest that 6 landings is sufficient to thoroughly explore a different planetary body.
You have this weird metric for calling something sufficient.
They wanted to go to the moon- they did. Six times. Now that the dick-waving is over and that accomplishment out of the way they can stop caring. They planted a goddamn America flag on it for christssake.
Now that it's the 21st century and there are new ideas, new global policies and new goals (and new technology) maybe it's time to re-examine the whole moon thing.
I went to the grocery store last week.
I haven't been back.
Trips to the grocery store must be a hoax.
From the link I provided. "The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added."
Oh, so someone talking to someone on the phone is all they need?
Hey I got a call from someone saying this magic oil will cure you of all your ills. Trust me, I talked to a doctor on the phone about it.
Your condescending attitude doesn't help your argument.
Sure, if you've made up your mind and don't know what a re-breather is, or that apollo missions took scales with them no amount of "facts" or "logic" or "evidence" will help you pull your head out of the sand.
The way a photograph works is that, for a brief moment, a photographic film is exposed to the elements. The light hitting the film will produce an image, properly developed. However, when this film is exposed, other sources of radiation will cause interference to this image. This is why, for example, you don't put your photos through the x-ray machine in the airport. Beyond Earth's magnetosphere, one would expect to see evidence of high-energy particles on these photos.
Some expelled water is fed throughh a sublimator which leaves the suit.
In your initial response, you claimed that nothing was expelled. I pointed out the error in your statement.
Why must we see this small about of sublimating liquid?
I didn't say we must see evidence of this venting. I am saying there doesn't appear to be any evidence of this venting. By itself, this is not very damning. But taken together with all the other anomalies will lead me to my conclusion.
Notice how they're completely different videos taken from two entirely different viewpoints, and more importantly, two completely different atmospheres.
The point of the two videos is to point out the difference in acceleration. One would expect both crafts to follow a similar pattern; slow at first and then speeding up. It costs more at the beginning per fuel than it does at any other point in the journey. I don't see evidence of this pattern in the Apollo video.
Indeed, as the moon has little to no atmosphere, the Apollo craft will need less fuel. But the LM is still heavy and should show that initial thrust. Regardless of the pattern of takeoff, there's still no evidence of thrust, in particular, a bright flame beneath the LM indicative of thrust.
By filling up a pre-determined number of stowage containers.
Or by using the Scale provided to them on trips like #15 and #17- so prett easy actually.
I see you didn't bother to actually look into that either.
Indeed. I haven't done in depth research in this area. For example, the wiki entry doesn't list the scale as equipment. However, after a quick Google search, I found the 1969 Apollo 11 equipment listing, which does have a scale.
You were the first person to challenge me on this point. Thank you! Because of this, I can eliminate this anomaly from my investigation.
Because they make good test subjects.
Exactly. So why would NASA then use only humans to test circumlunar orbit? If they had used dogs and monkeys before on suborbital and orbital journeys, then one would expect them to use dogs and monkeys for circumlunar tests.
You have this weird metric for calling something sufficient.
My point is that if we did it 6 times before, 40-some years ago, we should be able to do it again. This should be a scientific endeavour that is reproducible. What's more, as the Americans are able to do it, the Russians should be able to it as well.
This was done 40 years ago. Think of the technological difference between then and now. One would expect, due to improvements in technology and manufacturing, NASA would have gone again. Or Russia would have sent a manned mission. The idea is that society maintains its technological abilities as it moves forward.
Oh, so someone talking to someone on the phone is all they need?
In your initial statement you claimed that there was zero verification. I pointed out the error in your statement.
Sure, if you've made up your mind and don't know what a re-breather is, or that apollo missions took scales with them no amount of "facts" or "logic" or "evidence" will help you pull your head out of the sand.
I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. My whole argument is that if the Apollo missions happened, then there should be overwhelming scientific evidence that they did. Instead, I find there are more anomalies and high probabilities than what is expected.
Beyond Earth's magnetosphere, one would expect to see evidence of high-energy particles on these photos.
Why would one "expect" that? You're making up all these nonpoints. The radiation on the moon was not significant to interfere noticeably with the processing of their film, which was designed to be done under such an environment. Buzz wasn't just snapping selfies with a polaroid.
This is why, for example, you don't put your photos through the x-ray machine in the airport
Liability. A single trip, even multiple trips will have no perceptible affect on your film.
And radiation gives you three eyes too, right?
In your initial response, you claimed that nothing was expelled. I pointed out the error in your statement.
And you still have no idea what a rebreather is.
I didn't say we must see evidence of this venting. I am saying there doesn't appear to be any evidence of this venting. By itself, this is not very damning.
End of argument.
But taken together with all the other anomalies will lead me to my conclusion.
Taken together with all the other ways I don't understand this, I pronounce this as hoax.
The point of the two videos is to point out the difference in acceleration.
The point of the two video is comparing two situations which, aside from them both being about vehicles leaving a surface, couldn't be less alike.
One would expect both crafts to follow a similar pattern; slow at first and then speeding up.
And you can glean this from the footage of the lunar ascent module? (Hint, you can't. Not using the angle the camera follows the craft). However, reading the readily available data about its trajectory, one gets a much better picture of just what was going on.
should show that initial thrust.
It did. Where it zooms into space.
Regardless of the pattern of takeoff, there's still no evidence of thrust,
Oh you mean like where it launches itself into space?
a bright flame beneath the LM indicative of thrust.
Oh you mean like the very clear moment of liftoff where propellants are seen ejected from the craft? Or their engines' characteristic "clear" flame which undergo full-operation (and thus clean burning) in a very short amount of time? Of course, watchin as the module changes its pitch you can quite easily see the flame.
Indeed. I haven't done in depth research in this area.
So your obvious answer was "wow NASA I clearly see through hour lies. They had no scale how'd the bring back all those rocks!!"
As if NASA were going to go through all that trouble of fabricating such a hoax and just leaving that part out. Quickly, get on the horn with Neil and tell him to make up some lie about a scale....
For example, the wiki entry doesn't list the scale as equipment. However, after a quick Google search, I found the 1969 Apollo 11 equipment listing, which does have a scale.
Maybe reconsider incomplete wikipedia articles as part of your "investigation".
Exactly. So why would NASA then use only humans to test circumlunar orbit?
Dogs can only provide so much feedback.
If they had used dogs and monkeys before on suborbital and orbital journeys, then one would expect them to use dogs and monkeys for circumlunar tests.
Why would one expect that?
The plan was never to send dogs to the moon.
At some point there would be a first human up there.
My point is that if we did it 6 times before, 40-some years ago, we should be able to do it again
And we can do it again.
This should be a scientific endeavour that is reproducible.
It is.
What's more, as the Americans are able to do it, the Russians should be able to it as well.
And if they want to, they might try.
Can and should are different words.
One would expect, due to improvements in technology and manufacturing, NASA would have gone again.
Why would one expect that?
They went. They accomplished their mission (mission being: go to the moon). You don't keep at it one it's already done if there's no reason to.
In your initial statement you claimed that there was zero verification. I pointed out the error in your statement.
An anonymous phone call is not verification.
Instead, I find there are more anomalies and high probabilities than what is expected.
You not understanding a very simple concept isn't an anomaly.
"Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?"
Because the technology doesn't exist anymore. The factories to make the rockets are gone. The plans are incomplete or lost. The work was split over hundreds of subcontractors, each one with only one specific an detailed piece.
Try to make a model T today. You'd have to recreate not just the parts, but the machines that MAKE the parts.
No. Only an idiot would read it that way. I'm saying it all has to be made from scratch again. There isn't a Saturn V factory you just turn on and shit out rockets.
Did I ever say it was impossible? That's all you buddy. I answered two questions: "Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?"
Why such a long date? Everything has to be recreated from scratch.
Why not use the tech that existed before? Because it has to be remade from scratch, and the exact plans don't exist. Why would you reuse old tech when you can use over 40 years of technological progress?
It's not about tech. It's about economics. Those moon rockets are expensive, and required a completely specialized chain of production. Huge waste of money to do.
Making a model T from scratch would be piss easy to a group of car guys. It would take a week max. That's if you didn't let them salvage anything from the original model T's. Like as in nasa has the original shuttles...
What if I told you some people want to be told what to do so badly they will listen to anything? Give me a break, we landed on the moon, no questions asked, I'm sure Buzz Aldrin would love to give you a haymaker if you say otherwise.
Alright man with the amount of people that were involved with the Apollo programs, NASA, its conractors in addition to the various military intelligence, congressional, executive knowledge of these programs and the fact that events like these get communicated at a staff level (cheif of staff, people that work under him/her and etc) you seriously believe their is a conspiracy that we never landed on the moon? Give me a break, 3 people, and 3 people alone knew about President Bill Clinton and Moncia Lewisnky and look how long that "secret" lasted. With the shear amount of people involved, you would be foolish to believe that anything else other than the definitive fact that we landed on the moon.
While on the topic of Bill Clinton, how common is the knowledge that he has had literally hundreds of rape allegations filed against him by hundreds of different people over more than 25 years, yet the Lewinsky affair is the "common" knowledge (involving, as you point out, only three people).
All such common knowledge has suspiciously similar origins; basically, shit trickles down and the masses eat it up. As to the argument that so many people would have to be in on the deception, it would only necessitate a very few, with sufficient systems set up whereby everyone else would be just doing their jobs, which would be compartmentalized enough to keep anyone from knowing too much, while simultaneously being encouraged by those same systems not to bite the hand that feeds if you do happen to notice anything suspect.
Collective delusions only works when you have enough of the masses (read: the mass of consciousness) prepared to buy the lies; be it the moon, 911, holocaust, or even the very concept of money.
Sleep well or stay woke, the onus is always on you.
If listening to Alex Jones makes you sleep better at night, be my guest, I guess I will continue being a "sheeple" and believing that the moon landings was not staged with all of the facts and evidence that come with it.
That's like confirming God is real because 'there's no way we're just hear man, no way'.
Except you know we actually have video footage, recorded documentation, moon rocks the fact that the landing happened within recent memory taking place within the last 50 years and so forth. I hope you see the irony from your comment. Seriously man, over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for more or less ten years.
Wikipedia is a load of garbage? How bout the part that explains what happened to the "missing tapes." Spend 10 or 15 minutes and you will see for yourself.
Well since Wikipedia is "garbage" that you refuse to read, here it is straight from wiki.
The Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were different from the telemetry tapes of the other Moon landings because they contained the raw television broadcast. For technical reasons, the Apollo 11 lander carried a slow-scan television (SSTV) camera (see Apollo TV camera). To broadcast the pictures to regular television, a scan conversion had to be done. The radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in Australia was able to receive the telemetry from the Moon at the time of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.[138] Parkes had a bigger antenna than NASA's antenna in Australia at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, so it received a better picture. It also received a better picture than NASA's antenna at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. This direct TV signal, along with telemetry data, was recorded onto one-inch fourteen-track analog tape at Parkes. The original SSTV transmission had better detail and contrast than the scan-converted pictures, and it is this tape that is missing.[143] A crude, real-time scan conversion of the SSTV signal was done in Australia before it was broadcast worldwide. However, still photos of the original SSTV image are available (see photos). About fifteen minutes of it were filmed by an amateur 8 mm film camera and these are also available. Later Apollo missions did not use SSTV. At least some of the telemetry tapes from the ALSEP scientific experiments left on the Moon (which ran until 1977) still exist, according to Dr. Williams. Copies of those tapes have been found.
Others are looking for the missing telemetry tapes for different reasons. The tapes contain the original and highest quality video feed from the Apollo 11 landing. Some former Apollo personnel want to find the tapes for posterity, while NASA engineers looking towards future Moon missions believe the tapes may be useful for their design studies. They have found that the Apollo 11 tapes were sent for storage at the U.S. National Archives in 1970, but by 1984 all the Apollo 11 tapes had been returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center at their request. The tapes are believed to have been stored rather than re-used. Goddard was storing 35,000 new tapes per year in 1967, even before the Moon landings.
Seriously man, over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for more or less ten years.
And? You think every single one of those people knew every single detail of the program? Even without faking it, most of those people would have no idea what was going on except for what they were told by their superiors.
And? You think every single one of those people knew every single detail of the program?
No and I never stated that I did, but when you look at the shear number of people who worked on the Apollo program, if there was really a conspiracy, we would certainly know by now. The government couldn't even silence everyone involved with Watergate, how could they silence potentially 400,000 people who directly worked on the project, let alone all the military, congressional and executive intelligence involved?
Well I've only been on this thread for 5 minutes and never looked into this conspiracy before and straight away there's some questions about the proof you mention as solid proof...
The videos have all kinds of things wrong. The parallax thing with the background not moving (as if it is a picture screen) and the fact the astronauts look normal when you speed them up x2
Bringing the rocks back. Someone mentioned it was a huge amount which makes the fuel calculations out.
This is what I'm saying. Even if these can be debunked... You are saying it isn't even worth looking into because it's an impossible theory from the get go because too many people would know about it and wouldn't keep quiet.
The videos have all kinds of things wrong. The parallax thing with the background not moving (as if it is a picture screen) and the fact the astronauts look normal when you speed them up x2
Straight from wiki, Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure faraway objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer. Furthermore, there are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance.
Bringing the rocks back. Someone mentioned it was a huge amount which makes the fuel calculations out.
Alright so your telling me that NASA would have never caluclated that out from the get go? Do you have a source to back up that claim?
You are saying it isn't even worth looking into because it's an impossible theory from the get go because too many people would know about it and wouldn't keep quiet.
No I am saying that the over abundance of facts and the shear amount of people who worked on the Apollo missions make the whole "Moon Landing Conspiracy" incredibly unlikely and near impossible from contracting this evidence.
Alright so your telling me that NASA would have never caluclated that out from the get go? Do you have a source to back up that claim?
How would NASA know ahead of time how much the moon rocks would weigh? My point here is that NASA claimed to have brought back hundreds of kilos of moon rock - but they had no way to know how much each moon rock weighed. This idea is ludicrous - they could be off by a few kilograms and therefore have insufficient fuel to liftoff.
No I am saying that the over abundance of facts
Please provide counterarguments to all the listed scientific anomalies above.
the shear amount of people who worked on the Apollo missions
The amount of people working on a project does not necessarily mean it must have taken place. Go to any large corporation - do the people on the 5th floor know what the people on the 6th floor are doing? If a company has been subcontracted to make one part, why would they necessarily need to know what all the other contractors are working on?
How would NASA know ahead of time how much the moon rocks would weigh?
Because their not pizza faced fedora wearing people who are not employed or schooled that live in their mother's basement. We are talking the biggest and brightest people here, also there were soil samples taken from previous missions, coupled with the fact that they calculated the amount of materials they could take back to earth. We are talking about rocket scientists here after all, not to discredit your knowledge or accomplishments or anything.
Please provide counterarguments to all the listed scientific anomalies above.
If you go through my post history you will see a multitude of sources that validate my claims, but a quick Google search should give you the info you are looking for.. Would you like to provide any evidence for the claims that you are pushing?
Go to any large corporation - do the people on the 5th floor know what the people on the 6th floor are doing? If a company has been subcontracted to make one part, why would they necessarily need to know what all the other contractors are working on?
I'm not saying that they would, straight from wiki again it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings. There has been nobody from the United States government or NASA who has a link to the Apollo program has said the Moon landings were hoaxes. With the number of people that would have had to be involved, someone would have outed the hoax by now. Look a the Watergate scandal, there is no way the government could not have silenced everyone if the landings were faked, especially with the shear amount of people involved.
coupled with the fact that they calculated the amount of materials they could take back to earth
I claim that it's impossible for NASA to calculate ahead of time the weight of a rock on the moon. According to this link Apollo 11 brought back 22 kg of rock. This was the first alleged landing on the moon. How did NASA know the soil composition ahead of time? How did NASA know the weight of the rocks ahead of time without knowing the composition? How did NASA test their alleged calculations without a scale onboard the LM?
Would you like to provide any evidence for the claims that you are pushing?
You are asking me to prove a negative. If I claim that, for instance, that there's no evidence of any other radiation on the photos other than visible light, how would I go about proving that? On the other hand, you can invalidate my claim by showing a photo where there is some other sort of radiation.
it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings.
I doubt very highly that it would be easier to land on a heavenly body 250,000 miles away than it would to have faked it.
I doubt very highly that it would be easier to land on a heavenly body 250,000 miles away than it would to have faked it.
Well yeah, but how about trying to fake it when over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo Missions, even if only 1% of the people who worked on it "knew the truth", we are taking about 4,000 people keeping their mouths shut on one of the most widely discussed conspiracies to date. If 3 people couldn't keep a secret that the President was getting head from one of his interns, how in the hell could this secret last so long? You and the rest of these "conspiritards" are ridiculous to think otherwise.
Well yeah, but how about trying to fake it when over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo Missions
Again, the number of people working on the project does not necessarily mean all these people would know every aspect of the project. The idea that a large agency can't keep a secret is largely invalidated by the success of the Manhattan project - another large government project, worked on by a vast majority of people, which was kept secret throughout it's duration. Moreover, how many secrets do you think are currently kept by the CIA, NSA, etc...
Regardless, let's accept the premise that so many people were necessarily in on the secret. Put that in the "evidence for" pile. There still remains a large amount of scientific anomalies that can't be explained away.
You and the rest of these "conspiritards" are ridiculous to think otherwise.
Merely claiming my way of thinking is ridiculous without providing counterarguments does not strengthen your argument. In fact, I would argue, it weakens it.
Merely claiming my way of thinking is ridiculous without providing counterarguments does not strengthen your argument. In fact, I would argue, it weakens it.
Again not trying to sound arrogant, but look at my post history. Finally, if the moon landings were staged and their is an over abundance of evidence to showcase that, don't you think it would have been in the best interests of the Soviets to discover that information and broadcast it to the world? They had no incentive to showcase evidence for the validity that the moon landings took place, yet they still did. If there is even half the amount of speculation that the moon landings were staged, it would have been greatly in the U.S.S.R.'s best interests to provide that, I think you and I could agree that information would have been slightly damaging to the U.S.'s image/influence in the world during the Cold War.
The idea that a large agency can't keep a secret is largely invalidated by the success of the Manhattan project - another large government project, worked on by a vast majority of people, which was kept secret throughout it's duration.
Again how many people worked on this project and how long did this secret exactly last? Oh yeah we definitely knew about it when we dropped the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just like how we definitely knew when we you know actually landed on the moon. Do you seriously have the audacity to essentially call Neil Armstrong and Buzz Armstrong statist shills who lied to help propogate Americana influence around the world, give me a break?
I will refer you to the work of Antony C. Sutton which shows that the US financed the Soviet revolution. One can theorize that the cold war was largely an exercise to generate money for the military industrial complex. Further, one can point to the great grain robbery of 1972, which might provide some explanation as to why the Soviets didn't "blow the whistle."
Moreover, if we assume the cold war were real, how would "blowing the whistle" have helped the Soviets. The Soviets were the enemy - one can assume the US would explain away the Soviets reasoning as enemy propaganda. Not to mention that such damaging information would be better used as blackmail. Further, this was the height of the cold war. Calling out the Americans could have drastic, nuclear consequences.
But regardless of the actions or inactions of the Soviets, this still does not explain away the large number of scientific anomalies.
Google search "Moon Landing Conspiracies" and take 10 minutes to read the article and go through their sources. That entry does a superb job of explaining those "anomalies." But what do I know, I am just one of them stupid sheeple who accepts that the moon landing was real, the holocaust happened, that 9/11 wasn't a inside job and so forth. There are a number of conspiracies that I do believe have a lot of credit/merit though, for what ever that is worth. You can pm me about them if you would like to discuss. Happy Holidays man, it is pretty clear judging my the amount of downvotes that this sub believes the moon landing was faked, but the scientific community at large says otherwise.
Well i honestly thought the moon hoax conspiracy theory was one of the most far-fetched, but now I think it's pretty convincing. Those pictures of the lunar module.....
Is that what you found convincing about the theory? If so, what did you expect it to look like? It's small size makes sense to me. I'm not sure about the "thrown together" comment, though.
I think its appearance, along with the tasks it had to perform (landing, launching, reconnecting to the main capsule), the fuel it would require, the inventory of stuff it would need to carry, with no instances of failure, no detailed artifacts remaining, all left me feeling doubtful that this thing was real.
Edit: more specifically, i was surprised that it was nearly all covered with that foil. I'm sure there's a good reason for it but it also seems convenient for covering the whole thing and making detailed design unnecessary (if it was in fact a hoax).
If I understand you correctly in that it looks a bit frail, you're correct. It was designed to operate in space, an environment that doesn't require the same standards to fly on earth. In fact, it couldn't fly on earth. I'm not as knowledgable about the other points, one certainly shouldn't be made incredulous by the mere image of the craft.
I've studied it. The moon landing conspiracy is like most other conspiracies - ignoring all of the other evidence and focusing solely on the interesting set of anomalies.
You've most likely stumbled on a few so-called 'debunking' websites and assumed they were giving you the full picture. If you study the moon landing carefully and extensively, you'll realize it was a clear hoax, you can even see the strings on the astronauts. Watch the videos again, they are like watching Thunderbirds
I've watched, and the look fake but they are real. We've been to the moon and back many times, so many times that we got bored up there and never bothered to go back.
You say 'different levels of shielding' like nbd. We are talking about lead here - one of the heaviest elements out there. Apollo did not need radiation shielding (or did not need lead) but Orion needs to strap on heavy radiation shielding and you don't think that's a big deal?
Radiation hardening is an extensive topic, so I'll try and be as brief as possible.
By today's standards Apollo did need shielding.
If you read what I linked (edit: on mobile, thought you were somebody else) you'd have seen Apollo's strategy was simply to monitor solar radiation and space weather, then to launch the mission at a time when there was a low chance of high radioactive activity.
That's a bit like looking at a weather forecast and saying there's a low chance of rain and not taking an umbrella.
Only in this case if it does rain you die.
In the 60's, in the middle of the space race, this was an acceptable risk. Now standards are far, far stricter and this -even though 99% of the time it's safe- is a completely unacceptable risk.
Hell I have to sign off a health and safety forms, wear protective gear and use three inch thick lead walls when doing practical work with radioactive sources about as powerful as a banana, standards today are insanely high.
There's also the instrumentation aspect. 60's instruments were far less complex and hardier, a few state charged particles would bother them a bit but not much.
Modern technology is far more complicated, tiny interferences and ruin your readings or just flat out destroy the instrument.
Advances in technology are another reason more shielding is needed.
Modern launch vehicles, as well as modern improvements on shielding (it's not just lead anymore, active radiation shielding is cool as fuck and basically involves force fields deflecting ionising radiation) mean that it's viable for Orion to actually be properly shielded.
So, where Apollo couldn't be shielded, Orion can, where Apollo didn't really need to be shielded, Orion does.
Please enlighten me. Tell me why shielding would be needed for Apollo, give me the estimated radiation doses, say "Clearly they're too highly" and then conclude "Shielding is needed".
You won't be able to, since the estimated radiation doses weren't too high. Unless an unexpected solar event happened and everybody died, that would have been a bit awkward.
Which is why Orion is doing it properly, so that everybody doesn't just die in case something random and quite unlikely does happen.
At first I was talking about Apollo in the 60's, which is why I said Apollo, at the end I talked about Orion now, which is why I said Orion.
Holy shit, if you won't read what I'm writing I don't know why I bother replying.
By 1960's standards shielding wasn't needed since they would probably be fine. Just like seatbelts weren't needed, crumple zones weren't needed, hard hats weren't needed, all because you'll probably be fine without them. And, like I've already explained, they couldn't have shielded Apollo properly anyway.
By today's standards shielding is needed since probably isn't good enough, you need to be sure they will be fine regardless of what happens. Which is why seatbelts, hard hats, steel toed boots, fire resistant doors, fire extinguishers, etc, etc, etc, are all required by health and safety laws now when they were not required in the 60's.
Before it was, we had em, just not right for Orion, to we didn't have them (when requested to provide evidence of them) and I mistakingly went through all of your links before reading the rest of the comment, which told me what I already knew, and what the links showed, and contradicted your initial "expert" opinion. It said they didn't have them.
Great. I knew that. Now your comments are just getting weirder and weirder.
Is utter lack of supporting evidence that NASA went hard to understand?
Got any? You know, actual evidence? Perhaps, you know the thing that makes you sure they went (I'm picturing a cub scout pledging allegiance as your greatest source of conviction).
You can blame whatever you want. By 60's standards apparently they didn't need to keep the footage, could slip in a few fake moon rocks, perhaps by 60's standards, the crosshairs could fall behind the object and launching off the moon had no effect on the surface.
Before it was, we had em, just not right for Orion, to we didn't have them
Okay, I'll give you this point, I thought what I was saying was clear but I see why it might not be clear for everybody.
When I talk about radiation shielding I typically mean additional radiation shielding, like layers of lead or layers of a composite material designed specifically to prevent radiation passing through.
Apollo had no additional radiation shielding.
However Apollo did have its hull, and the hull provided some shielding, while not explicitly being designed as radiation shielding.
The hull does, by being a decently thick bit of metal, act as a form of radiation shielding. Shit, a sheet of paper or basically any material can act as radiation shielding.
Apollo's hull provided enough radiation shielding for the mission to fall within the 60's safety 'standards', as long as no unexpected solar flares went off at the wrong time and killed the instruments as well as everybody onboard.
Orion, however, will have proper radiation shielding, designed explicitly to be and act as radiation shielding, it looks like Orion will use the following technology for its shielding:
The American Radiation Eradication in Space (ARES) team created a 7” cubic shield called the Tesseract. It will house and protect a dosimeter from radiation while in flight. The final incarnation will be made of Tantalum, Tin, Zirconium, Aluminum, and Polyethylene. The heavy metals will block gamma rays while ions and neutrons are captured by the hydrocarbons of the polyethylene. The students selected their materials based on cost, malleability, machinability, weight, and abundance. Thanks to CAD models, the design was made to have flanges and bolts which allow the Tesseract to be strong, easily produced, and opened.
I've been focusing on Earth-orbiting spacecraft and the VA belts (since that's what this discussion, and the original video, was about), but keep in mind that Orion is designed to go to deep space, not just the moon. So the Apollo-era style of "Let's time it right and hope no solar events happen, killing everybody on board" combined with the harsh radiation environment of outer space mean Orion would need shielding even by the terrible standards of the 60's, as the chance of Orion being fine without shielding for an extended deep space mission is essentially zero.
Any more questions on the scientific side? The 'fake' moon rocks and 'fake' footage (even the one OP linked as 'evidence' for the landing being fake is moronic and obviously made by a blind guy, since you can clearly see the astronaut getting up pushing on the other one with his own hand) has been analysed to death and always been debunked.
Edit: Just thought of a decent example which should clarify things, I hope:
Any material really has some inherent amount of radiation it blocks. Just like everything has a mass/weight. We have weights designed as 'weights', designed to be lifted to get swole gainz, a dice also has a weight, but nobody would life dice to get fit, so even though it has weight it is not itself a 'weight'.
In the same way Apollo block's radiation since it's made of metal, so its hull shields against radiation, but it is not a radiation shield.
And the amount blocked by just the construction of Apollo was enough to deem it 'safe' without additional shielding.
Read my post again, since it seems you stopped reading after the first line as I addressed every point you made.
Yes, standards have changed.
Yes, it looks like the Apollo astronauts got lucky and weren't affected, but they just as easily could have been caught out in a solar storm and killed, which is not a risk people will take today.
Yes. Like I said, the chances of something going wrong were low, but low in the 60's is ridiculously high by today's standards.
The main risk was an unexpected solar event just... killing everybody. The sun was being monitored and the mission was timed for a period of low activity, but by today's standards saying "Yeah you probably won't die, unless this happens, but the chance of that is like... one in a hundred. You'll be fffiiinnneeee" is insane.
If something unexpected did happen they had essentially no protection. 60's logic just says "Well shit it's unexpected, probably won't happen", today's logic is "Prepare for literally every single thing that could possibly go wrong or we'll lose our funding and get sued to hell even if nothing goes wrong"
Tolerances today are stupidly strict. It's good they're there, but they are awkward, to the point where when I'm working with radioactive sources I have to take a ridiculous number of precautions, even though the source is weaker than a fucking banana...
Even with today's higher standards, we've had two Space Shuttle accidents.
Yep. And compared to the Apollo program, two major space shuttle accidents out of 135 missions vs... oh wait you're the guy I replied to before. Basically answered this in my other reply.
What kind of equipment was being used to monitor the sun?
Something I have already cited. Repeating myself is quite tiring, especially as all of this information is publicly available online and only takes a few seconds of searching to get.
A system of solar monitoring stations, the Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN), provides a NASA sponsored network of continuous data on solar-flare activity. The various components of this network are described in the appendix (this covers two A4 pages of writing, see above linked paper and scroll to the appendix). Approximately 20 percent of the largest solar flares (importance 2 bright or larger) will result in particle fluxes in the earth/moon region that can be related in intensity to early RF or visual characteristics.
A warning interval of from less than one to several hours (typically, 2 to 5 4 hours) is obtained between the RF /visual indication and the appearance of particles in the earth/moon region. Because only approximately 20 percent of the flares result in particle events, it is not necessary to change normal mission procedures on the basis of RF or visual observations alone. Rather, radiation sensors on board solar orbit and earth-orbit satellites, as well as on board the Apollo spacecraft itself, are used to confirm the particle event. Only after the appearance of particles is confirmed would action be taken to protect the crewmen. For a typical event, approximately 8 hours would be available from the time particles are confirmed to the time of peak radiation dose.
...
If something unexpected did happen they had essentially no protection.
Like what happened on Apollo 13 but they miraculously survived?
Read that again in context and what I meant should be obvious. It was clear that I was talking about unexpected solar events releasing deadly-levels of radiation, which Apollo wasn't shielded against. Not an explosion.
I find it hard to believe that none of you truthers don't have any skeptical bone in your bodies and you believe the narrative 100%.
I'm very sceptical, that's exactly why I come here, to have my views challenged.
I think I'm done with the moon bullshit because every truther sticks so hard to the moon status quo.
Don't blame me for your inability to do research and come up with any points I can't refute.
I'm very sceptical, that's exactly why I come here, to have my views challenged.
Are you really?
Don't blame me for your inability to do research and come up with any points I can't refute.
I never disputed your wealth of knowledge. I just find it hard to believe that you believe all of it. You claim you're skeptical but it appears that you believe 100% of the narrative and I don't know if you know this but our govt doesn't exaclty tell us the truth a lot of times.
Yes. You said Apollo 13. On Apollo 13 an oxygen tank exploded. It had nothing to do with the radiation environment, which is what I was talking about in the post where you quoted me saying "If anything unexpected [in regards to solar activity] happened [if they were in a location too far away from Earth to return to safety in time] they would have all died".
our govt doesn't exaclty tell us the truth a lot of times.
No, it doesn't, which is why I used independent data to check the position of Apollo 17.
And good luck keeping over two hundred thousand scientists and engineers quiet about faking the moon landings. As you've probably noticed from my posts, scientists and engineers tend to be quite passionate about the truth and facts, if there was the slightest doubt about what they were doing somebody would have mentioned something.
Or, at the very least, another scientist later on would have looked at the data and said it was clearly faked, and then every single scientist or engineer could independently check their math, statements and assumptions. That's the beauty of science.
Saying that the government has lied in the past about various things has no direct link to the Apollo program being fake.
What the OP of this thread asked for was solid evidence that Apollo is fake, not flaky reasoning like that.
I came here looking for that evidence, and didn't find any.
NASA is compartmentalized so most of the employees are on a need-to-know basis.
Not really, NASA's quite transparent.
If it's a cover-up, woudn't you assume that there isn't much evidence because it's been manipulated or deleted like all the film footage from Apollo?
"Where's the evidence?!"
"LACK OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE!"
Nope.
And, yet again, there are things that you literally cannot fake. Like doppler readings off of the Apollo missions confirming their speed and altitude, and confirming they landed, done by independent researchers over the world, including the Russians. Or, again, independent pictures of Apollo re-entering.
It's quite hard to find a source since the NASA website isn't going to state that they're compartmentalized but I found this:
"He did indicate that whatever formal structure existed did so to serve management rather than science and although NASA Headquarters might choose to compartmentalize itself, should not apply to Goddard laboratories"
So NASA couldn't take care of one of the most monumental moments in history by making sure that the tapes didn't get erased?
As smart of a guy you are, are you going to believe that someone or a group of people decided not to look to see what's on a previously used tape before they started to record over it?
And they claim to have copies that look better than the original? The ony way that would happen is if they were digitally enhanced and this adds a layer of uncertainty as far as authenticity goes.
In his opinion the reorganization or transformation had accomplished little except for the fact that budgetary matters were now being actually manipulated to direct and control research
So the changes only really affected the budgeting.
And it's talking about a reorganisation in 2005, not the structure NASA had in the 60's and 70's during Apollo.
As smart of a guy you are, are you going to believe that someone or a group of people decided not to look to see what's on a previously used tape before they started to record over it?
If you read through the entire story, then yes, I see how that mistake could happen.
The tapes were only a temporary backup anyway. They were not intended to be kept or used in the future, they were only there in case the live broadcast failed, in fact there was a large discussion at NASA over if the camera should even be sent since it served literally no scientific purpose.
Either way, the full report on the search for the tape answers quite a lot of questions.
Essentially the tapes only existed in the first place because a conversion needed to be made to allow the broadcast to be sent to normal TV's, they were then taken in a massive batch of over 200,000 tapes set to be recycled.
It's quite hard to notice something's important if all you have to go by is a cryptic name like "AP11-LCT-0001".
Either way, the original tapes still exist for the other missions, so the argument that they were lost on purpose to hide something doesn't work too well as there are tapes for the rest of the missions.
In his opinion the reorganization or transformation had accomplished little except for the fact that budgetary matters were now being actually manipulated to direct and control research
Hmmm, that statement doesn't sound to me that compartmentalization accomplished very little. In fact, if manipulation to direct and control research was the goal, then compartmentalization is a success.
And it's talking about a reorganisation in 2005, not the structure NASA had in the 60's and 70's during Apollo.
Compartmentalization has gone back to at least WW2 so it's not out of the question that it would have been implemented during the 60's NASA era.
in fact there was a large discussion at NASA over if the camera should even be sent since it served literally no scientific purpose.
Why did they take the camera then?
Essentially the tapes only existed in the first place because a conversion needed to be made to allow the broadcast to be sent to normal TV's, they were then taken in a massive batch of over 200,000 tapes set to be recycled.
So our Military has been filming war footage as far back as WW2 for archival purposes but our govt doesn't see any significance in archiving moon footage? I feel you're stretching things a bit.
On top of that, how are you going to defend the erasing of the moon footage when you didn't even know about it until now. All you did was do a little research after I pointed to a source and then you found some source of your own and are going with it? I've said this before but you aren't that skeptical at all.
In fact, if manipulation to direct and control research was the goal, then compartmentalization is a success.
Read the rest of the paper, he meant it wasn't a big deal as in it didn't improve or damage the science being done much.
Why did they take the camera then?
Just to broadcast it live, since some thought it would be a good idea. Which is exactly why nobody bothered with the tapes further than just having them there as a backup if the broadcast failed.
Compartmentalization has gone back to at least WW2 so it's not out of the question that it would have been implemented during the 60's NASA era.
No, it's not, but that still doesn't mean that -if it was done to a large extent- it was done in an effort to split up scientists so that nobody could discover the massive conspiracy of the moon landings being faked...
govt doesn't see any significance in archiving moon footage?
Obviously they do care, since it was broadcast live to millions of people and recorded multiple times. What nobody cared about was the original footage as it served no scientific purpose and its only use was to be converted to a format that could be sent out live, and as a backup in case the live failed.
Even if the backup had to be used it would need to be converted again, so it was pointless to keep an un-converted copy.
On top of that, how are you going to defend the erasing of the moon footage when you didn't even know about it until now. All you did was do a little research after I pointed to a source and then you found some source of your own and are going with it?
I knew it was missing, just never really cared since it's not a big deal, things get erased all the time and those tapes weren't intended as main tapes, they were a form of temporary backup. And all the original tapes from the future Apollo missions are available.
I've said this before but you aren't that skeptical at all.
If the science didn't line up, I would be sceptical. But the science works perfectly fine, and all of the raw data is perfectly fine, and all of the independent readings are fine. Missing tapes for one out of the six missions is not enough to make me doubt the moon landings happened.
Actual scientific data disagreeing with the narrative would be enough.
Read the rest of the paper, he meant it wasn't a big deal as in it didn't improve or damage the science being done much.
compartmentalization isn't about improving science, it's about limting the flow in info.
Just to broadcast it live, since some thought it would be a good idea. Which is exactly why nobody bothered with the tapes further than just having them there as a backup if the broadcast failed.
So just forget archival footage then, huh? Let's just forget about one of the most important events in history. Shit, we should just erase all the archival WW2, Korean War, Vietnam or any other thing they have archived.
What nobody cared about was the original footage as it served no scientific purpose
So how did they know that CBS or any of the other news stations weren't going to erase their footage just like NASA did?
I knew it was missing, just never really cared since it's not a big deal,
How convenient you remember that after I mentioned it.
If the science didn't line up, I would be sceptical. But the science works perfectly fine
This contradicts your statement earlier where you said you are skeptical and come here to be proven wrong but according to this statement, you've already determined the science works so the fact is that you just come here to argue.
Actual scientific data disagreeing with the narrative would be enough.
Hmmm, I don't remember when science explained why there wasn't a blast crater underneath the spacecraft when it landed on the moon.
compartmentalization isn't about improving science, it's about limting the flow in info.
No, it's not, not with engineers anyway. Compartmentalization doesn't limit any information flow. It just says "You're the power systems engineer? Great, then you're put here with the rest of the power systems engineers". Here's the contents page from one of my spacecraft engineering books, it's chaos if you just shove four hundred thousand employees together and say "Go on build Apollo then!"
You split them into groups, like propulsions, structure, attitude, thermals, comms, whatever, then all of the group constantly cooperate. You cannot stop different systems designers from talking to each other, otherwise you end up with something that literally cannot be built.
So just forget archival footage then, huh?
So how did they know that CBS or any of the other news stations weren't going to erase their footage just like NASA did?
The converted footage was archived.
I don't remember when science explained why there wasn't a blast crater underneath the spacecraft when it landed on the moon.
Why would there be? Apollo's landing engines were extremely weak, since Apollo was relatively 'light' and gravity on the moon's weak you didn't need some Ariane-V-level of Earth-cracking thrust.
Just from experience there's no reason for there to be a 'crater', either way I'm sure somebody has done the math on this already.
And they have:
First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in2. Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in2, otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m2. But let’s stick with psi.
Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.
Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.
This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!
The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low.
No, it's not, not with engineers anyway. Compartmentalization doesn't limit any information flow.
You know what? I just lost any little respect I had for you with you making that statement.
Don't fucking tell me what compartmentalization is. I'm not fucking stupid and I'm not weak minded like the other assholes that you're able to bait into a flame war over and you can't manipulate me.
And it took you a day to answer this question???
Who or what did you have to consult to come with this disinfo bullshit?
And I find it highly suspect that you're a genuine Redditor with good intentions since you just created your account 6 days ago and all your posts are you being argumentative.
The converted footage was archived.
So no sources anymore huh? You're just going to make a statement and expect me to go with it?
Why would there be? Apollo's landing engines were extremely weak, since Apollo was relatively 'light' and gravity on the moon's weak you didn't need some Ariane-V-level of Earth-cracking thrust.
More disinfo?
And that bullshit explanation is just that, bullshit and you fucking know it.
Like I said before, you're punk ass just came here to argue and derail the conversation that we try and bring up. You're not skeptical at all and you're nothing but a saboteur.
And any intelligent individual could clearly see what your agenda is.
You do realize that it's the holidays and people have families to spend time with, right?
Not everyone has massive amounts of free time to Reddit 24/7 like you obviously do. I guess things are slow at the tinfoil hat factory?
6 day old shill
What is up win this sub and their concern with the age of accounts? You seem massively paranoid and I can't wait until you accuse me of being an alt account for the guy that just schooled you, but here's the thing, I found your post in /r/topmindsofreddit and it was so funny I just had to respond.
Holy shit, I'm sorry I have a life and I don't spend my entire day on Reddit.
If you really want to know, since it was the weekend and a holiday, I decided to go out with some friend, party for a bit, got nicely drunk, a bit hungover, stayed at a friend and only got back/started feeling human again at about 4 or 5PM.
Who or what did you have to consult to come with this disinfo bullshit?
My engineering book.
Which, oddly enough, rarely mentions Apollo, and only has generic engineering practices in it which are followed by... fucking everybody ranging from NASA to Ford and Microsoft?
Not my fault you seriously seem to not understand how a business/project is run and managed.
Is Microsoft part of a massive conspiracy because they have different departments which seperate people that, wait for it, work on different things?
And I find it highly suspect that you're a genuine Redditor with good intentions since you just created your account 6 days ago and all your posts are you being argumentative.
In the past when I used my main to debate I've had batshit insane people follow me around, analyse everything I post and try to DOX me, so I now switch accounts around a lot to avoid getting DOXed by crazy fuckers. From your reply calling me a saboteur and a shill I get the feeling that you're the kind of person that makes me use separate accounts instead of using my main.
So no sources anymore huh? You're just going to make a statement and expect me to go with it?
I assumed, since you are clearly a true sceptic, unlike me, that you'd be able to do independent research.
Ah yes, science, maths and the specifications of a spacecraft are disinfo.
You're not skeptical at all and you're nothing but a saboteur.
If what I'm doing by researching, finding facts, finding primary sources means I'm not sceptical then I'm afraid to ask what your definition of a sceptic is.
And any intelligent individual could clearly see what your agenda is.
I'm a scientist and an engineer. Oddly enough my agenda is promoting science, engineering, the scientific method and logic.
After all I have spent the better part of six years studying this subject, so bullshit arguments like your are quite annoying.
Contentless comments like this aren't going to fly man. The rules on the sidebar aren't too difficult to follow and you've had dozens of comments reported in the last few days alone. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. Shouting "shill" constantly isn't doing anyone any favors and it totally cheapens the accusation when you repeat it ad nauseum.
Huh? You have numerous comments, literally dozens, where you say nothing other than insult the other person or call them a shill. One or two sentence comments with absolutely no substance or content to them. You also spammed about five comments telling people they're pussies. Just overall a bunch of garbage comments.
If you have nothing of substance to say, just say nothing. Otherwise the comment sections devolve into back and forth petty insults and that's what we're trying to avoid.
So you admit he has dozens of comments calling people shills or just insulting people, as well as dozens of reported comments, and the rules say that repeated offences result in a ban but... he's not banned?
You recently admitted that dozens of people have been banned for attacking other users, but when asked why this one wasn't banned, you simply refuse to answer?
That's not very encouraging. People might think you mods play favourites.
People are free to think whatever they want and I'm under no obligation to answer you or anyone else. The guy was given a warning and we're moving forward. Get over it.
What's with all the new user accounts trying to get other people banned for schoolyard insults? I mean they are literally sock puppets begging to have someone else banned.
And what's with multiple users pressuring a mod to do something, then mocking them for not doing it? How about fuck off bro, go mod your own subreddit. Did Timmy steal your favorite swing again? Never seen such petty forum goers in all my life.
Here's the shit post Anti_Vaccination made to /r/TopMindsOfReddit mocking your behavior:
He actually tries to suggest the user was an alt of mine.
So who is Anti_Vaccination? Notice how he never participated in the discussion here, but made a shit-post to /r/TopMindsOfReddit about it? That tells me he wasn't just lurking, he was probably one of the sock puppets in this thread. It wouldn't be surprising, since I exposed him last week for using multiple sock puppets to harass other users. He deleted most of the accounts, but still has his main account P51Mike1980.
So that's my observation after showing up late here to the party. You can delete this comment if you want, I don't care.
I banned 10-20 accounts yesterday for trolling/shitposting/etc. My guess is that one or more of these were alts for all of these dudes coming out of the woodwork to attack me today, they seem overly pissed off compared to usual. I've also been getting angry PMs from multiple people telling me I'm a shill and that pbae is my alt and other bullshit. I can only think I pissed someone off and they're just venting their rage and butthurt. Luckily the opinions of anonymous, random strangers on the internet are not things I would ever bother losing sleep over.
That's...excessive. Once you realize the effort these trolls put in, their insults become pure hilarity. They might be a waste of oxygen, but their computing devices could have been put to better use. What a shame, all those devices gone to waste.
If you have nothing of substance to say, just say nothing. Otherwise the comment sections devolve into back and forth petty insults and that's what we're trying to avoid.
Note that Gemini & Apollo missions weren't long-term so the radiation dose has to be taken in a fairly short period. Astronauts on the ISS or on any potential Mars mission need to deal with a lot more.
Well, we need something to shield us from the worst, which can be anything from a magnetosphere to lead or water in the way. Also people can survive radiation just fine, it's just a matter of how much you take in, and what effects it may have. In most cases it'd just increase your risk of getting cancer, it wouldn't kill you instantly.
Also people can survive radiation just fine, it's just a matter of how much you take in, and what effects it may have. In most cases it'd just increase your risk of getting cancer, it wouldn't kill you instantly.
You just say this so non-chalantly like it's no big deal.
And how come you didn't post that youtube link again showing the trajectory that NASA used to skirt the Van Allen belt since it seems so relevant here because you tried so hard to sell it to me last time?
I haven't kept up with Orion much so I'm not sure what their plans are (doubt it's this since last time I checked it was just an idea) but these are some active shielding plans I know of:
Confined/unconfined magnetic shielding
Plasma shielding
Electrostatic shielding
There might be newer ideas since I last looked at this topic, but search for any of those and you'll get a couple of papers on each.
But Orion has moved away from the 60's era "Lead is best" thinking to more advanced protection, not as advanced as active shielding, but better than just slapping a few tonnes of lead on.
Right now it looks like a more refined version of the following plan will be used for Orion:
The American Radiation Eradication in Space (ARES) team created a 7” cubic shield called the Tesseract. It will house and protect a dosimeter from radiation while in flight. The final incarnation will be made of Tantalum, Tin, Zirconium, Aluminum, and Polyethylene. The heavy metals will block gamma rays while ions and neutrons are captured by the hydrocarbons of the polyethylene. The students selected their materials based on cost, malleability, machinability, weight, and abundance. Thanks to CAD models, the design was made to have flanges and bolts which allow the Tesseract to be strong, easily produced, and opened.
Which is precisely why it must be tested. The shielding is new and should work, in theory, but theory needs to be backed up by practical tests.
It does sound exciting though. Will be interesting to see how they are able to power it - figure there needs to be further work into graphene supercapacitors or what not.
Yep, near the end of a report titled "Meeting the Grand Challenge of Protecting’s Health: Electrostatic Active Space Radiation Shielding for Deep Space Missions" they do a brief overview of the power requirements.
I don't deal with the power subsystems much (well, not this aspect of it), so I don't feel too comfortable talking about it, sorry.
I don't think that video proves we didn't go to the moon. I interpreted what he said as we don't have the technology to sustain orbit around the earth while immersed in the van Allen belts. That would be much different than the risks involved in punching straight through the VA belts on the way to the moon.
The guy in the video was talking about building an orbital craft, and he was discussing the challenges specific to that type of mission. The van Allen belt radiation in that scenario would be a prolonged exposure, which is completely different than punching through it on the way to the moon.
Yes I'm the one who is retarded for being a little skeptical when I hear the moon rock presented to the Dutch was fake (easy Google) and that NASA has "lost" more than 700 cartons worth of original evidence (another easy Google). Or maybe I'm retarded when I chuckle when tell me that apart from the 7 Apollo missions no one has been above low earth orbit since 1972. Or maybe I'm retarded when I laugh out loud when they say that man made a 4000 mph descent from lunar orbit to stick a vertical landing using 1960s technology with absolutely no symmetrical testing. Yeah I'm pretty retarded - maybe I should just shut off any sort of critical thinking and be smarter just like you.
Losing 700 cartons worth of evidence convinces me that it's fake? What does it convince you off? Losing a few cartons is incompetence - but losing blueprints, all of the telemetry and all of the original video is a fucking coverup.
Clearly it doesn't matter what I say - you are not going to budge. You would rather think that the govt is purposely deleting evidence to fuck with us - which makes no sense whatsoever.
The neutron radiation would fry anyone inside any spaceship with Fe components in the plating, because it would cause secondary incrementing gamma radiation inside the spaceship.
So I've heard. Not my field of expertise so I won't confirm or deny.
But I know that NASA are the ones claiming to have sent man to the moon and NASA are the one claiming that as of this year we don't have the technology to cross a barrier which we would need to cross to reach the moon;
That video was about the Orion spacecraft. Shockingly when saying "We must solve these challenges" they're talking about Orion, not Apollo. This should be quite obvious, but Orion is a different spacecraft to the Apollo CSM, with modern technology on it which is far more sensitive to radiation than what was used on Apollo in the 60's, meaning the shielding requirements are different.
And if you need different levels of shielding then the challenges of shielding Orion are different.
That video saying "Couldn't they just use technology from the Apollo missions or the same shielding as it must have worked back in 69'?" is the same as Bugatti saying "We need new technology for our car" and some moron replying with "Well, couldn't you just use the same tech from this Ford car? It worked then why won't it work now!?!?!"
Well, no, it wouldn't work, since it's different...
So they were talking about the technology, yes? That's what's too sensitive to send through the Van Allen belts? The modern technology which is more fragile re: radiation vs. the old technology?
Then how come he said "before we can send people" through the belts?
And if you say you work for JPL and you specifically work at making the spacecraft, I'm going to ask you something very specific that a JPL worker should know.
Still living the wonderfully poor life of a student.
Area of expertise is mainly physics with a focus on space engineering, so astronautics, spacecraft design, etc...
I'd say more but the course I was on is quite niche with only a handful of people being accepted a year, so I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find out where I went and I'd rather not DOX myself.
That was pathetic. But chin up, you'll get em next time.
Sensitive equipment...lol. The sensitive equipment are the humans. While it's true that we have become more sensitive...our bodies are as sensitive as they were 40 years ago.
We've been sending "sensitive equipment" through. As the video said, they're talking about people.
I don't know why you think it's up anyone to prove that NASA didn't go to the moon; it's up to NASA to prove they went.
You know, not go through long drawn out examples of how it's different now, but just show the shielding used and how it worked.
You don't have that though. So you can't. Instead, you have to string together a bunch of nonsense.
That's not your fault. NASA didn't give you the tools to prove they went to the moon, because they can't give them to you. There's no solid evidence that NASA went. All "evidence" suggesting they did is utterly corrupted.
But it amazes me when some one who is dealing in their "area of expertise" wouldn't just go straight to the money shot: they used this! Boom! Eat it! And it doesn't concern you that you can't.
... just show the shielding used and how it worked.
But it amazes me when some one who is dealing in their "area of expertise" wouldn't just go straight to the money shot: they used this! Boom! Eat it! And it doesn't concern you that you can't.
Essentially, with what was available to them then, no amount of shielding could have helped (in fact trying to shield would be harmful), so the next best option was to go through the belts as fast as possible, at a time with low solar activity and decent space weather predictions, and hope nothing broke and that none of the astronauts got cancer and died later on.
Why wouldn't shielding help? I'll be as brief as possible.
Alpha fucks shit up, but gets stopped by almost anything, so the spacecraft's exterior was enough.
Beta fucks shit up less badly, but would still be stopped by the exterior (mostly).
Gamma usually just goes through everything, but if it interacts then it fucks everything up since it releases different kinds of radiation inside of you/the components. Stopping it would need too much shielding, so the best option is to reduce what it can interact with and hope it just goes through everything.
Same-ish for neutron.
NASA probes showed that there was far less radiation in the VA belt than expected, and that if they went through fast enough then shielding wouldn't be needed.
It was an insanely stupid risk by today's standards, which is why Orion is doing it properly this time. Although it'll still go through as fast as possible to reduce exposure.
Also, I found this on the NASA website in which you also don't address or even mention:
The Van Allen belts were the first discovery of the space age, measured with the launch of a US satellite, Explorer 1, in 1958. In the decades since, scientists have learned that the size of the two belts can change – or merge, or even separate into three belts occasionally. But generally the inner belt stretches from 400 to 6,000 miles above Earth's surface and the outer belt stretches from 8,400 to 36,000 miles above Earth's surface.
So how could NASA have predicted what shape the belt was going to be in before they launched any of the spacecrafts?
Oh yeah, the trajectory was another aspect of it, a course was chosen which avoided the most dangerous areas like the South Atlantic Anomaly.
And the predictions were made using the original readings from Explorer (which, as your source said, was launched in 1958, years before the first Apollo missions) and other subsequent spacecraft which went through the VA belts.
Afterwards in 1962 the US brilliantly decided to detonate a nuke inside the belts, which made predicting the radiation environment even more difficult.
But even after that a large number of spacecraft went through the VA belts and returned readings, namely Ranger 3 to 9, Surveyor 1 to 7 and Lunar Orbiter 1 to 5 all (I believe, at least most) had radiation detectors in board to assess the VA belts status.
Either way, once it was realised what the VA belts were and why they were there it became possible for scientists to attempt to predict the radiation environment theoretically.
That's what I mean when I talk about how NASA predicted the VA belt's shape and status. Of course, as they also knew, the VA belt can and does change shape, it also changes how ‘radioactive’ it is depending on what the Sun’s been pumping into it, which is why -even with the data from dozens of missions- nobody could say exactly what it would be like when Apollo went through.
As for why I said the radiation levels were lower than predicted, if you check this document on Apollo’s radiation protection strategy then you'll see the following:
It has been proposed that neutron hazard be evaluated by the use of whole-body activation measurement of crewmen to determine the extent of neutron-induced sodium-24 and by use of neutron-resonant metal foils that have a known activation response for the type of neutrons expected.
Both methods for neutron-dose assessment have been used at the NASA Manned Space-craft Center (MSC). Whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil techniques had been initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. The results of these analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Activation products were below the limits of detection by whole-body spectroscopy, and activities were extremely low even in the neutron-resonant foils (ref. 7).
Either way, once it was realised what the VA belts were and why they were there it became possible for scientists to attempt to predict the radiation environment theoretically.
And the scientists happened to be 100% correct with their predictions all 6 times?
even with the data from dozens of missions- nobody could say exactly what it would be like when Apollo went through.
So with 6 different mission to the moon, NASA just got lucky all 6 times and not one astronaut was harmed.
Airbus has had more flight accidents (one) than Apollo despite Apollo going into unknown territory. Then there's the Yuasa Lithium batteries that would catch on fire on board Boeing's Dreamliner but all the components in the Apollo pretty much worked to a T?
The Space Shuttle program had suffered 2 disastrous events during it's lifetime despite the fact that the Space Shuttle rarely left LEO. One was a launch accident and one was a re-entry accident but Apollo had neither despite the fact that rocket tech was relatively new at the time and they had no re-entry accidents either, despite the fact that spacecraft tech was relativey new.
You know, even with your wealth of knowledge on the subject, do you not see how a person might be skeptical as the claims NASA makes as far as the success of the moon missions?
No, it didn't, any research into the topic would prove you wrong instantly.
There were multiple deaths during the design, testing and development phases of Apollo. If you didn't notice, the moon landing was performed by Apollo 11. 11 isn't just a random number, it was called Apollo 11 because there were test missions before. You're acting as if NASA just sent Apollo off to the moon and got it right the first time magically with no preparation.
Apollo 1 had a fire which killed all three astronauts on board. So... yeah, three deaths isn't exactly 'working to a T'.
Apollo 2 and 3 tested the launch vehicles and deployment.
Apollo 4 tested engine restart and re-entry.
Apollo 5 tested the lunar module's descent and ascent, as well as its abort functions.
Apollo 6 aimed to test everything in one go. A huge problem was found with vibrations causing the engines to shut down and fail.
Apollo 7 was the first manned orbit test. Went well-ish, apart from the crew fighting with mission control and there being high tension between them.
Apollo 8 left the Earth and went into Lunar orbit.
Apollo 9 went into LEO and tested the lunar lander as well as the new space suits.
Apollo 10 tested every single stage of the plan, including the lunar lander in moon orbit. Apollo 10 descended to 15km above Lunar surface, just short of landing, and then returned. This was to test the descend and ascent engines in a Lunar-gravity environment.
Apollo 11 nearly aborted during the descent phase due to a computer problem.
Apollo 13 famously had an oxygen tank explode, does "Huston we have a problem" right a bell?
Apollo 14 nearly aborted twice during descent, a (believed to be faulty) abort signal was being sent and was then ignored and the landing radar failed to get a lock and asked to abort as well, but was also ignored, and a manual landing as performed against guidance by NASA.
Apollo 15 went quite well. An engine failed to shut down properly and there was a risk that it might have damaged the spacecraft, but it didn't damage it as badly as expected.
Apollo 16 went quite well, most of the kinks had been worked out by now.
Apollo 17 went well.
So you're completely wrong and just making statements without any research.
As for the shuttle, it has two major accidents out of 135 missions. That's roughly one in seventy.
One in seventy chances for the shuttle to have an accident vs the 6 manned moon missions, most of which had problems anyway. I see no inconsistency here.
You know, even with your wealth of knowledge on the subject, do you not see how a person might be skeptical as the claims NASA makes as far as the success of the moon missions?
Yes, I see exactly why a person that has done absolutely no research and makes statements like "not one astronaut was harmed" and "Apollo pretty much worked to a T" would see this as a potential conspiracy. It would have been very unlikely to have everything go well throughout the entire Apollo program.
But it didn't. There's nothing suspicious at all about what happened.
I was talking about accidents that happened during the mission.
And despite the fact there were far more missions for the space shuttle, NASA had a lot better understanding as far as how things should go compared to Apollo which was a new frontier.
Are you going to attribute that to beginner's luck?
I was talking about accidents that happened during the mission.
Great, I gave you a nice long list showing that accidents happened on nearly every mission, and almost all of those nearly caused an abort. You said it all went perfectly and I proved you wrong, what more do you want?
And despite the fact there were far more missions for the space shuttle, NASA had a lot better understanding as far as how things should go compared to Apollo which was a new frontier.
Are you going to attribute that to beginner's luck?
Sorry, but I really don't get what you're saying with this.
It's not beginners luck. It's extensive testing and troubleshooting by the smartest people on Earth.
Great, I gave you a nice long list showing that accidents happened on nearly every mission, and almost all of those nearly caused an abort.
Let me rephrase then.
No accidents up while they were up in the sky? Is that clear?
Sorry, but I really don't get what you're saying with this.
NASA had far more knowledge of space and the effects of space during the space shuttle era vs. the apollo era. Apollo was a totally new frontier and they didn't have any deaths in the sky? The Russians have at least one confirmed death during the early years of their space missions. And the Space Shuttle had two disasters in the sky despite the wealth of knowledge that they had.
But Apollo, going almost 300,000 miles away from the Earth's surface didn't suffer one casualty?
No accidents up while they were up in the sky? Is that clear?
You're obviously not reading anything I'm posting, so I'll stop replying now.
I clearly gave you a list of all the problems that happened in the manned missions.
But Apollo, going almost 300,000 miles away from the Earth's surface didn't suffer one casualty?
Yep, that's exactly what happened.
You said it all went perfectly and I proved you wrong, so now you move the goalpost from "Nothing went wrong! How's that possible?!" to "Nobody died! How's that possible?!"
It's possible because hundreds of thousands of the smartest people on earth got together to work on one project.
I don't see what evidence would convince you that it's entirely plausible for nobody to have died on the missions to the moon, so there's nothing more I can say.
Tell me what evidence you need and I can try to find it. But I doubt anything can change your mind.
And those same hundreds of thousands of people couldn't prevent the space shuttle from blowing up using much newer tech than Apollo did?
Shockingly Apollo and the Space Shuttle happened at different times.
NASA peak employment during Apollo (1965): ~411,000 people
NASA peak employment during the Shuttle program (90's to now, although not as much data is available for employees now): ~20 to 25,000 people
And, again, this is all a game of statistics. It's not a question of 'if' something will go wrong, it's 'when'. And when you have over 100 shuttle missions something very unlikely is bound to slip past the millions of things systems engineers have to try and consider. And when you have under twenty missions planned, hopefully most of the things that can go wrong won't.
Also, the space shuttle is far more complex than the Apollo missions. Far more could have gone wrong with it, I'm actually surprised there weren't more accidents with it since it was quite a shitty plan really.
But, again, tell me what evidence you need and I can try to find it.
Then problem solved. They don't have to worry about shielding now. NASA guys wrong. Just go fast NASA guy. Maybe he doesn't read reddit. You should contact your local congressman and let him know.
How is this guys comment getting up voted? links to nothing and completely contradicted his own position. Did you even click any of the links?
I think /u/untumulted didn't understand the difference between radiation shielding and material that just shields from radiation, while not being designed to be a radiation shield.
Admittedly, that wasn't as clear as it could have been, then again it's awkward to talk about radiation shielding shielding (like a lead radiation shield) and things which are shield against radiation (like paper, your skin, or really any material) but aren't actual radiation shielding, since that's not their purpose, it's just a thing they also do.
In the same way Apollo didn't have proper radiation shielding, but it was 'shielded' against radiation just by virtue of it being a metallic capsule.
He thought I contradicted myself by saying Apollo essentially had no radiation shielding, but then I also talked about how Apollo did shield against radiation. It's not a contradiction as Apollo didn't have specially designed radiation shielding, but it did shield against radiation since it was made of metal and other materials which, by their nature, block radiation.
Any material really has some inherent amount of radiation it blocks. Just like everything has a mass/weight. We have weights designed as weights, designed to be lifted to get swole gainz, but a dice also has a weight, while not itself being a 'weight'.
In the same way Apollo block's radiation since it's made of metal, so its hull shields against radiation, but it is not a radiation shield.
And the amount blocked by just the construction of Apollo was enough to deem it 'safe' without additional shielding.
Well NASA are the ones claiming to have this advanced capability from 1969 to 1972 - and all they have to show to for it are some shitty pictures, video and fake moon rock (ask the Dutch). Also they have lost blueprints for the LEM, radio telemetry data and original video. So yeah, I do t have to prove anything because I'm not the one claiming deep space capability.
The story about the fake moon rock given to the Dutch is one that easily demonstrates which people are capable of doing any basic research themselves rather than blindly believing the story that conspiracy theorists associate with it.
It's mind boggling that people just ignore it like its nbd. They don't seem to understand that NASA took petrified wood and purposely shaped (or molded or whatever) and passed it on to the world as the real thing. Heck the Dutch still have it in their museum even after confirming its fake. We really are fucking sheep.
It's mind boggling that people just ignore it like its nbd. They don't seem to understand that NASA took petrified wood and purposely shaped (or molded or whatever) and passed it on to the world as the real thing. Heck the Dutch still have it in their museum even after confirming its fake. We really are fucking sheep.
Um, I'm saying that people who believe what you just regurgitated are those who are incapable of doing any basic research. I would suggest you read the actual sequence of events before spreading additional inaccuracies:
That link is taking forever to load - what am I missing? I googled Dutch moon rock again just now and all major new sources are calling it fake.
It was never claimed to be a moon rock by the US Ambassador who gave it as a gift, it was a misunderstanding as "My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
This is verified by additional facts such as:
the rock wasn't labelled as a moon rock on the plaque it was presented on
the rock was approximately 80 times larger than the other gifted rocks
the rock was given to the former Prime Minister years before actual moon rocks were being distributed
It was a misunderstanding. When you look at what the actual samples look like and how they are contained:
Boy you believe anything that they tell you. Every major European newspaper has labeled it as a fake and that it was presented as moon rock by the U.S. Govt at the time. This pathetic back pedaling once they got busted isn't changing the story as reported by these newspapers.
Boy you believe anything that they tell you. Every major European newspaper has labeled it as a fake and that it was presented as moon rock by the U.S. Govt at the time. This pathetic back pedaling once they got busted isn't changing the story as reported by these newspapers.
How do you know it was presented as a moon rock? If they did so, why wouldn't they make it look like any of the other gifted moon rocks? Why would they give it to the person 3 years prior to any of the other gifted moon rocks? Why would it be approximately 80x larger than any of the other gifted moon rocks if they were trying to "pass it off" as real?
Also - let's take this guy at his word - then what the hell was he doing presenting petrified wood to the Dutch?
Statespeople are given gifts all the time, why would that be odd?
Also, who is the one taking anything at anybody's word? I've provided photographs comparing the moon rocks and the gift rock demonstrating that they are in no way comparable in size, shape or presentation. It is you who is trusting somebody (an 89 year old man no less) at their word that it was apparently possibly, even with all of this evidence to the contrary, presented as a moon rock.
Yeah common mistake I guess - passing fake items masquerading as one of the most significant artifacts in human history - happens all the time between governments and totally understandable.
Yeah common mistake I guess - passing fake items masquerading as one of the most significant artifacts in human history - happens all the time between governments and totally understandable.
Wasn't "between governments" and it wasn't "masquerading" as anything. Again, I suggest you review the information a bit more closely, it seems as though you're deliberately not taking the time to educate yourself regarding the topic.
Sorry dude, I can't let this one go, I've been chucking at the scenario for the last hour. You are basically implying the following:
U.S. Diplomat: Here is some petrified wood mr Dutchman. I know y'all like wooden sandals so I thought I'll get something wood related.
Dutchman: thanks! -
turning to each other they say....
did he just say petrified wood? Nah no way he would gift us worthless crap. He is American, they just went to the moon, this must be moon rock!
Again, you don't seem to be reading or absorbing the information presented to you. If you are going to ignore evidence in order to hold your manufactured sequence of events together then there is really no point in continuing.
Have you ever worked in an office? Do you know what kind of useless gifts are exchanged in the corporate environment on a daily basis? I mean, have a look at some of the worthless gifts given to federal employees in 2014:
is there supposed to be a .html or something at the end of that link? Its not opening.
Any of those useless gifts were sold as significant artifacts of human history? Or were they just useless gifts?
The link opens fine for me.
I'm not sure what the gifts were presented as, but again, you're the one that is claiming that the wood was presented as a moon rock without any evidence whatsoever to back that up.
My evidence is that the Dutch put it in a fucking museum. Why do you think they did that? They thought it was moon rock in spite of being told it was petrified wood?
My evidence is that the Dutch put it in a fucking museum. Why do you think they did that? They thought it was moon rock in spite of being told it was petrified wood?
And you don't believe that this could be explained by the poor vetting conducted by a museum that specializes in 17th century classical art?
Why would they have to vet if this was presented by a US diplomat as such? And they did vet several decades later - and found out it was a fake. Now that guy is saying - well, it never said moon rock on the plaque. Riiiiiiiiiiigght
Why would they have to vet if this was presented by a US diplomat as such? And they did vet several decades later - and found out it was a fake. Now that guy is saying - well, it never said moon rock on the plaque. Riiiiiiiiiiigght
How would the museum know what the US Diplomat presented it as? They're simply getting a third-hand account of what it was, making it even more likely that it was a misunderstanding.
Regardless, you're still choosing to believe that it was presented as a moon rock even though:
there is no evidence for this fact
it appears completely different than gifted moon rocks
it was gifted three years prior to any moon rocks being distributed
it is approximately 80 times larger than any gifted moon rocks
it isn't encased in a globe like the gifted moon rocks
Rather than it simply being a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
It's becoming abundantly clear that even with obvious evidence to the contrary, you will believe whatever you wish.
Ok - so how did the scenario pan out again? Dutch were given fake moon rock from somebody not connected to the US govt? And then, with no confirmation as a diplomatic gift, they assumed that it was a moon rock? And put it on public display in a museum with gratitude and thanks to the US govt and the US govt never corrected them? And then when the found out it was fake, the US govt did not just say - hey we never gave you that - but just said, we can't explain it (as reported in every euro newspaper)?
Face it dude, you are in denial. But please continue - I'm enjoying watching you twist in the wind.
edit: petrified moon rock presented to the prime minister of the netherlands by the US ambassador no less. What was the US ambassador doing with petrified wood?
Ok - so how did the scenario pan out again? Dutch were given fake moon rock from somebody not connected to the US govt?
The "Dutch" weren't given anything. It was a private gift given to a former head of state. The "Dutch" were given their moon rock later and it appeared much different:
And then, with no confirmation as a diplomatic gift, they assumed that it was a moon rock?
What does "confirmation as a diplomatic gift" even mean? It was a private gift given to somebody.
And put it on public display in a museum with gratitude and thanks to the US govt and the US govt never corrected them?
Do you think the US Government has people going to every museum on the planet fact-checking the items on display?
And then when the found out it was fake, the US govt did not just say - hey we never gave you that - but just said, we can't explain it (as reported in every euro newspaper)?
Again, do you have any idea how many gifts are exchanged on a daily basis between Ambassadors and other parties? Do you think these are all tracked and documented? If so, where is this documentation? Do you have a list of all gifts exchanged in 1969? Of course they "can't explain it", it was a private gift given to somebody in 1969. Unlike yourself, they aren't willing to jump to conclusions regarding what happened without any evidence.
Face it dude, you are in denial. But please continue - I'm enjoying watching you twist in the wind.
Again, you have provided zero evidence, so of course I'm in denial. I'm not going to believe somebody with zero evidence for their claim when it counters all of the evidence available.
Indeed they haven't been keeping track of any of the moon rocks. Of the original 137 rocks distributed only 30 can be accounted for (and even this is speculation).
What do you mean no evidence? It was a US ambassador who gave petrified wood to the prime minister of the netherlands during the visit of Neil and Buzz no less. lol I mean, what more constitutes evidence? Why is the US ambassador giving away petrified wood as private gifts? Please explain.
Also there is no such thing as private gifts when you are acting in the capacity of an officer of govt.
What do you mean no evidence? It was a US ambassador who gave petrified wood to the prime minister of the netherlands during the visit of Neil and Buzz no less. lol I mean, what more constitutes evidence?
It wasn't the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, you aren't even reading the information being provided to you, this is getting absurd.
Why is the US ambassador giving away petrified wood as private gifts? Please explain.
Ambassadors give gifts, many even more worthless than petrified wood, I've provided evidence supporting this fact.
Also there is no such thing as private gifts when you are acting in the capacity of an officer of govt.
It was Prime Minister Willem Drees. C'mon dude. Its in all the documentation.
I understand giving useless gifts like pens or soccer balls. But Petrified Wood - and specifically petrified wood that was "mistaken" for moon rock? Lulz - keep it coming bro - your rationale is definitely from the moon.
When you are THE representative of a govt, i.e. the ambassador, you just don't toss out private gifts during official visits. But ok, I can give you this point - doesn't matter. The head of state of a developed nation and a close ally was given petrified wood and was told it was moon rock. Or what else do you think happened?
It was Prime Minister Willem Drees. C'mon dude. Its in all the documentation.
Former Prime Minister.
I understand giving useless gifts like pens or soccer balls. But Petrified Wood - and specifically petrified wood that was "mistaken" for moon rock? Lulz - keep it coming bro - your rationale is definitely from the moon.
How is petrified wood so hard to believe? You understand that if this was an actual moon rock that according to auctions of other moon rocks it would be worth approximately $160 million going by weight? You'd think there would be some kind of evidence you could provide demonstrating that such an incredibly valuable gift was given, but you have to resort to conjecture.
When you are THE representative of a govt, i.e. the ambassador, you just don't toss out private gifts during official visits. But ok, I can give you this point - doesn't matter. The head of state of a developed nation and a close ally was given petrified wood and was told it was moon rock. Or what else do you think happened?
He wasn't the Head of State, he hadn't been in office for over 10 years.
I think that somebody was given a gift at 89 years old, didn't propertly hear what it was and drew their own conclusions. This is supported by comments from his family as well as the fact that it looks nothing like any of the other moon rocks given as gifts.
Yes former PM. He was out of office for less than 10 years and still a member of the Dutch Labor Party. His family said he may have been mistaken - but that doesn't mean shit. Its speculation and/or they could have been coerced to say it. He was dead anyway - so they could say whatever. He was 83 at the time.
You still haven't answered the question. What is the US ambassador doing with Petrified Wood and petrified wood crafted finely enough so that it fooled everyone including museum collectors as moon rock no less? And how does petrified wood constitute a gift of any kind or can be mistaken as moon rock? Petrified fucking wood - I can't stop chuckling everytime I bring it up.
You still haven't answered the question. What is the US ambassador doing with Petrified Wood and petrified wood crafted finely enough so that it fooled everyone including museum collectors as moon rock no less?
The museum is primarily a classical art museum, why do you trust them to be able to determine whether or not something is a moon rock? Furthermore, it wasn't "finely crafted", it was a piece of petrified wood glued to a piece of cardboard and looked nothing like the moon rocks that were given as gifts.
And how does petrified wood constitute a gift of any kind or can be mistaken as moon rock? Petrified fucking wood - I can't stop chuckling everytime I bring it up.
Because nobody had ever seen a moon rock before and had no idea what one would look like? You're somehow willing to accept that pens are given as gifts but not rocks? You'd think rock and mineral stores wouldn't exist if that were the case.
Your funny dude. Because pens, ships or books have uses and petrified wood has none.
So you've never gotten something like a geode as a gift? Or a statue? Or something that doesn't have any use except to be displayed?
Again, you keep resorting to conjecture because you have no evidence. Just show me a single piece of evidence that demonstrates the US Ambassador said it was a rock from the moon, then this will all be cleared up.
Yes - because petrified wood is perfect for display because of? its beauty? Did you google image this bad boy? It looks like shit. Heck regular petrified wood looks much better - but this particular sample looks like ugly rock (because it was molded like so - cause they faked it).
The evidence is that the former Dutch PM said that the US ambassador said it was moon rock. And its on the fucking plaque - with compliments of the ambassador of the united states. If the plaque came later, then it was at the word of the Dutch PM.
So lets go through this scenario again - because it does make me laugh:
US Ambassador: Your excellency, let me present to you Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Drees: Welcome
US Ambassador: Also your excellency, here is some petrified wood to mark the occasion. Its a particularly shit looking piece of petrified wood, heck it looks like a rock. But its perfect to commemorate the visit of the first men to walk on the moon.
Drees: Ah yes moon rock.
Too funny. And this whole conversation has been in a vacuum devoid of a long list of other circumstantial evidence (even the govts version is circumstantial) that doesn't add up.
Yes - because petrified wood is perfect for display because of? its beauty? Did you google image this bad boy? It looks like shit. Heck regular petrified wood looks much better - but this particular sample looks like ugly rock (because it was molded like so - cause they faked it).
Um, it looks like a piece of petrified wood and nothing like the moon samples. If they were so keen on passing it off as a moon rock then why does it look nothing like any of the moon rocks that were given away?
The evidence is that the former Dutch PM said that the US ambassador said it was moon rock. And its on the fucking plaque - with compliments of the ambassador of the united states. If the plaque came later, then it was at the word of the Dutch PM.
Please show me where on the plaque it says that it was a moon rock. Also please give me a link that proves that the former PM said that the US Ambassador claimed it was a moon rock. Otherwise, these are just points with zero evidence.
So lets go through this scenario again - because it does make me laugh:
US Ambassador: Your excellency, let me present to you Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Drees: Welcome
US Ambassador: Also your excellency, here is some petrified wood to mark the occasion. Its a particularly shit looking piece of petrified wood, heck it looks like a rock. But its perfect to commemorate the visit of the first men to walk on the moon.
Drees: Ah yes moon rock.
I have no idea what the sequence of events was, I wasn't there and there is no documentation stating exactly what happened. You are the one making it up as you go along without evidence or supporting proof.
"Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch NOS news that he had gotten it from the US State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details."
You are the one who is creating the details to suit your agenda. Again, you have no evidence to support your claim that it was claimed to be a moon rock.
Too funny. And this whole conversation has been in a vacuum devoid of a long list of other circumstantial evidence (even the govts version is circumstantial) that doesn't add up.
Sequence of events? Neil and Buzz are visiting with the US ambassador who hands over Petrified wood which, according to the Dutch PM, was presented as moon rock. You can twist and turn all you want buddy, but no getting away from the fact that US diplomat handed over worthless shit that looks like rock (and not even regular petrified wood) to commemorate the visit of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Oops.
Other evidence - check the rest of this thread and/or the moon hoax sub.
Sequence of events? Neil and Buzz are visiting with the US ambassador who hands over Petrified wood which, according to the Dutch PM, was presented as moon rock. You can twist and turn all you want buddy, but no getting away from the fact that US diplomat handed over worthless shit that looks like rock (and not even regular petrified wood) to commemorate the visit of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Oops.
Other evidence - check the rest of this thread and/or the moon hoax sub.
Ok, so no evidence, at least we finally got down to that point.
Twist and turn bebe - US diplomat presents worthless crap to Dutch PM (former) and calls it Moon rock. We have a piece of shit rock in a museum - that is evidence. All you can say it was "mistaken".
Twist and turn bebe - US diplomat presents worthless crap to Dutch PM (former) and calls it Moon rock. We have a piece of shit rock in a museum - that is evidence. All you can say it was "mistaken".
The denial is strong with this one.
Well, at the very least we've managed to get you to shift your claim from "NASA gave the Dutch a fake moon rock" to "US Diplomat presents worthless crap to former Dutch PM and calls it moon rock" now that you've educated yourself a bit more regarding the issue.
Nevertheless, it seems as though you'll still cling to to the scraps of your remaining points based on conjecture without any evidence regardless, so this is entirely pointless. Thankfully your baseless claims will at least have the correct parties involved in the future.
Stop saying there is not evidence. There is a goddam piece of Petrified Wood that you will never be able to explain away - no doubt given to commemorate the moon landing. You have provided nothing but the weakest speculation - oh it was just a "misunderstanding", it was just supposed to be a random gift of shit rock not related to Neil and Buzz standing right fucking there. You have made me laugh quite a bit over the last 24 hours and I hope you continue to do so. Its fun to see to try to explain away petrified wood - oh yeah perfectly reasonable gift given the circumstances but somehow unfortunately interpreted as moon rock. Keep going.
Like I said Diplomats just don't hand out pieces of shit and call it significant artifacts. This is no mistake. He was carrying out orders. That is what diplomats do. They don't fuck around, because there are an extension of the govt reach. Not in your world though - in your world diplomats hand out fake pieces of crap posing as significant artifact - just fucking because. lol. I love it. Let me say it again - NASA fucking handed out fake moon rock.
Stop saying there is not evidence. There is a goddam piece of Petrified Wood that you will never be able to explain away - no doubt given to commemorate the moon landing. You have provided nothing but the weakest speculation - oh it was just a "misunderstanding", it was just supposed to be a random gift of shit rock not related to Neil and Buzz standing right fucking there. You have made me laugh quite a bit over the last 24 hours and I hope you continue to do so. Its fun to see to try to explain away petrified wood - oh yeah perfectly reasonable gift given the circumstances but somehow unfortunately interpreted as moon rock. Keep going.
It's really simple, show me a single piece of evidence that demonstrates that it was claimed to be a moon rock, you have been unable to do so.
Again, if they were claiming it was a moon rock, why does it look absolutely nothing like the rocks that were given away? Why wouldn't they try to make it look similar, or the same size, be labelled as such, or have the same presentation?
You are filling in blanks without evidence due to your own biases.
Like I said Diplomats just don't hand out pieces of shit and call it significant artifacts. This is no mistake. He was carrying out orders. That is what diplomats do. They don't fuck around, because there are an extension of the govt reach. Not in your world though - in your world diplomats hand out fake pieces of crap posing as significant artifact - just fucking because. lol.
Oh really? How many Diplomats have you met? You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge regarding diplomatic politics, what is your personal experience? Have you ever been to a dinner with an Ambassador? I can assure you, there are plenty of useless trinkets being given out at these events.
I love it. Let me say it again - NASA fucking handed out fake moon rock.
Ok, then show me evidence that it was ever claimed to be a moon rock by NASA.
It's really simple, show me a single piece of evidence that demonstrates that it was claimed to be a moon rock, you have been unable to do so.
We have been over this. The Dutch PM was presented this piece of shit and was told it was moon rock. Your saying he is lying? I figure the Dutch people (who absolutely loved him - voted him 3rd greatest dutchman in the last century) will vigorously disagree. This is my evidence. If you disagree, you disagree with the Dutch PM and good luck with that.
Again, if they were claiming it was a moon rock, why does it look absolutely nothing like the rocks that were given away? Why wouldn't they try to make it look similar, or the same size, be labelled as such, or have the same presentation?
I don't fucking know. I wasn't the one who presented this fake piece of shit as moon rock to the Dutch PM. And you refuse to provide any possible reasoning of why a US diplomat (THE US diplomat - the fucking US ambassador) was in possession of rock like looking piece of petrified wood while commemorating the moon landings with Neil and Buzz with the Dutch PM (former) - other than apparently its some form of a worthless gift. Right, you are getting really close to convincing me. lol
Oh Really, how many diplomats have you met?
Its called fucking diplomacy and its a really fucking important and delicate job. I mean they have immunity in foreign countries and are the sole representative of the govt and citizens living in a foreign land. If there is an issue, they are the first to be yanked in front of a foreign govt for an explanation. You are going with diplomats hand out useless trinkets faking as significant artifacts? Well, you are starting to strike me as very uneducated and I can't help you out here. I hope you never represent your citizens because damn, you'll just been handing out random pieces of shit at official meetings and commemorations and totally fucking embarrassing your country.
We have been over this. The Dutch PM was presented this piece of shit and was told it was moon rock. I figure the Dutch people (who absolutely loved him - voted him 3rd greatest dutchman in the last century) will vigorously disagree. This is my evidence. If you disagree, you disagree with the Dutch PM and good luck with that.
Where are you finding this info? He was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, so I'm interested to see where your quote comes from stating that he was told it was a moon rock. Just post the quote where he says he was given a moon rock and this will be settled.
I don't fucking know. I wasn't the one who presented this fake piece of shit as moon rock to the Dutch PM. And you refuse to provide any possible reasoning of why a US diplomat (THE US diplomat - the fucking US ambassador) was in possession of rock like looking piece of petrified wood while commemorating the moon landings with Neil and Buzz with the Dutch PM (former) - other than apparently its some form of a worthless gift. Right, you are getting really close to convincing me. lol
Amazing then that the plaque doesn't say anything about it being a moon rock. You'd think that this would be incredibly significant if it were being presented as a moon rock.
Its called fucking diplomacy and its a really fucking important and delicate job. I mean they have immunity in foreign countries and are the sole representative of the govt and citizens living in a foreign land.
They aren't the sole representative, you seriously are just putting your half-baked education on display here.
If there is an issue, they are the first to be yanked in front of a foreign govt for an explanation. You are going with diplomats hand out useless trinkets faking as significant artifacts?
I've been to diplomatic dinners, I've received useless crap from them, their budgets aren't limitless.
You are going with diplomats hand out useless trinkets faking as significant artifacts?
You are the one claiming that it was supposed to be "faking" something. Meanwhile, the plaque that it was presented on says nothing of the sort, it looks nothing of the sort and there is no evidence being provided by you demonstrating that fact.
Well, you are starting to strike me as very uneducated and I can't help you out here. I hope you never represent your citizens because damn, you'll just been handing out random pieces of shit at official meetings and commemorations and totally fucking embarrassing your country.
Sorry that I require evidence before making grand claims. Again, you have yet to provide any.
Where are you finding this info? He was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, so I'm interested to see where your quote comes from stating that he was told it was a moon rock. Just post the quote where he says he was given a moon rock and this will be settled.
Where did you see that he was nearly deaf and blind anyway? I don't need a quote - his estate presented it to the museum as such. Is that too hard to follow?
They aren't the sole representative, you seriously are just putting your half-baked education on display here.
Oh yeah? Is there somebody higher working the embassies around the world? Somebody higher than rank of ambassador living in foreign lands? Geez.
've been to diplomatic dinners, I've received useless crap from them, their budgets aren't limitless.
Yes, I know they hand out gift bags at dinner parties. We are talking about a commemoration here - a fucking plaque for (allegedly) one of the hugest achievements of all time. Why do I have to explain this like you are a 5 year old?
Meanwhile, the plaque that it was presented on says nothing of the sort
It says its a commemoration of the visit of the Apollo astronauts. Why would they commemorate it with fucking Petrified Wood and why would the Dutch PM claim it as moon rock?
You are now starting to play dumb, its not as funny anymore.
Where did you see that he was nearly deaf and blind anyway? I don't need a quote - his estate presented it to the museum as such. Is that too hard to follow?
"Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp."
"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
So basically, if a nearly blind and deaf person tells you about an object, you're more likely to believe them than all of the evidence and personal anecdotes to the contrary?
Oh yeah? Is there somebody higher working the embassies around the world? Somebody higher than rank of ambassador living in foreign lands? Geez.
You said sole representative. There are numerous representatives for any given country in a foreign country.
Yes, I know they hand out gift bags at dinner parties. We are talking about a commemoration here - a fucking plaque for (allegedly) one of the hugest achievements of all time. Why do I have to explain this like you are a 5 year old?
Amazing that the plaque doesn't state that the object is what you claim it was presented as. This is where your argument falls apart. If it was presented as a moon rock, then you'd think that the plaque that came with it would state moon rock somewhere. But it doesn't.
It says its a commemoration of the visit of the Apollo astronauts. Why would they commemorate it with fucking Petrified Wood and why would the Dutch PM claim it as moon rock?
Because he was nearly deaf and blind and likely made the association himself? I have no idea why they gave him a piece of petrified wood, probably the same reason I have a crappy set of ugly beer coasters.
You are now starting to play dumb, its not as funny anymore.
Again, provide any evidence whatsoever and your position will start to make more sense.
was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp."
Yay - you are being funny again. Apparently not that sharp according to you, because he somehow confused petrified wood with moon rock. Real fucking sharp. Wonder what he kind of associations he made for the next 20 years of his life. His grandson "guesses" he just randomly made the association - and I don't blame him because you know why the fuck would somebody give you petrified wood when celebrating the moon landing.
Amazing that the plaque doesn't state that the object is what you claim it was presented as. This is where your argument falls apart. If it was presented as a moon rock, then you'd think that the plaque that came with it would state moon rock somewhere.
Funny again:
US Diplomat - And today we commemorate this great achievement in the spirit of human friendship with this plaque of petrified wood....
Rofl
Because he was nearly deaf and blind and likely made the association himself?
You just said his mind was sharp. I would love to get your thoughts on Hellen Keller.
Phew, I thought I was going to have to shut down this fun conversation but looks like we are back on. Love seeing you dance around petrified wood.
Yay - you are being funny again. Apparently not that sharp according to you, because he somehow confused petrified wood with moon rock. Real fucking sharp. Wonder what he kind of associations he made for the next 20 years of his life. His grandson "guesses" he just randomly made the association - and I don't blame him because you know why the fuck would somebody give you petrified wood when celebrating the moon landing.
So your evidence is that somebody nearly blind who has never seen a moon rock in their lives couldn't possibly be confused when presented something at 82 while also being hard of hearing? Again: please provide me any quote where Drees states that he was told he was being given a moon rock.
Funny again: US Diplomat - And today we commemorate this great achievement in the spirit of human friendship with this plaque of petrified wood.... Rofl
It doesn't say it was anything else anywhere else. Again: why wouldn't the plaque state the object was a moon rock if it was being presented as such.
You just said his mind was sharp. I would love to get your thoughts on Hellen Keller.
I never said that, his grandson was quoted as saying that. You are having trouble keeping up with quotes from other people, I'm not sure how to make them clearer for you beyond the use of quotation marks and links to the quotes, sorry.
Phew, I thought I was going to have to shut down this fun conversation but looks like we are back on. Love seeing you dance around petrified wood.
Again: please provide me any quote where Drees states that he was given a moon rock.
I just said his estate gave it to museum as such. Do you not know how estates work? They don't put words in the mouths of those they represent. Don't play fucking dumb. And the museum curators didn't have any reason to question it when they were given it by the estate - because it looked like a rock (and not like any piece of petrified wood that looks like wood or wood with gem like formations - no this one looked just like a rock). Not beer glasses or whatever irrelevant examples of shit gifts you have brought up.
Again: why wouldn't the plaque state the object was a moon rock if it was being presented as such.
I don't know, maybe because they are fucking lying about it and covering their asses - so we can folks like you can say - well, we never technically said it was moon rock. Why would they use a fake rock like looking substance as commemoration for the moon landing? Why did they not disclose it as petrified wood - just so make super fucking clear that this rock like substance that they are using to celebrate the moon landing isn't actual lunar rock? What did everybody in the commemoration think it was? Did Neil or Buzz step up and say hey by the way, that is just petrified wood - I know it looks like a rock, so lets just clarify its not lunar rock. No, they didn't say shit till they got busted. That is as ELI5 as it gets. Lets see you wiggle your way out of this one. When you reply - make sure to quote me when I say: why didn't they disclose this rock like substance as petrified wood during the commemoration or alternatively, what were they trying to represent this rock like substance as? C'mon, give it to me, this should be interesting. They didn't disclose it because they are lying sacks of shits who never went to the moon in the first place.
I never said that, his grandson was quoted as saying that.
Playing dumb again - you know what I fucking meant.
I just said his estate gave it to museum as such. Do you not know how estates work? They don't put words in the mouths of those they represent.
I'm asking you for a quote where Drees was told it was a moon rock. I can say that my coffee mug is worth $1 million and put it in my will, that doesn't make the claim in any way factual.
Don't play fucking dumb. And the museum curators didn't have any reason to question it when they were given it by the estate - because it looked like a rock (and not like any piece of petrified wood that looks like wood or wood with gem like formations - no this one looked just like a rock). Not beer glasses or whatever irrelevant examples of shit gifts you have brought up.
Um, they did question it. You apparently again aren't reading the information being provided to you.
I don't know, maybe because they are fucking lying about it and covering their asses - so we can folks like you can say - well, we never technically said it was moon rock. Why would they use a fake rock like looking substance as commemoration for the moon landing? Why did they not disclose it as petrified wood - just so make super fucking clear that this rock like substance that they are using to celebrate the moon landing isn't actual lunar rock? What did everybody in the commemoration think it was? Did Neil or Buzz step up and say hey by the way, that is just petrified wood - I know it looks like a rock, so lets just clarify its not lunar rock. No, they didn't say shit till they got busted.
All conjecture. The plaque doesn't state it was a moon rock, period. If it were being presented as such, then you'd think that the label for it would claim it was a moon rock.
That is as ELI5 as it gets. Lets see you wiggle your way out of this one. When you reply - make sure to quote me when I say: why didn't they disclose this rock like substance as petrified wood during the commemoration or alternatively
How do you know what they said it was or wasn't during the commemoration?
what were they trying to represent this rock like substance as?
I have no idea, I wasn't there. What's we do know is that the physical object wasn't labelled as a moon rock, it doesn't look like a moon rock, it is larger than any gifted moon rock, it has different packaging than any gifted moon rock and that it was presented prior to any moon rocks being distributed.
You are somehow taking these facts to demonstrate that it was being presented as a moon rock, even though nowhere does it state that it was.
C'mon, give it to me, this should be interesting. They didn't disclose it because they are lying sacks of shits who never went to the moon in the first place.
You'd think if this were the case that they'd at least try and make it look like the other moon rocks, yet they failed to do so. Not sure how you are able to account for this discrepancy. If they wanted to pretend it was a moon rock, why didn't they make it look like any of the others that were gifted?
I'm asking you for a quote where Drees was told it was a moon rock.
Can you give me a quote when he was told it was petrified wood or anything else? All you got is his grandson, who was 9 at the time, saying that maybe he didn't hear it right. C'mon dude. You are playing dumb.
Um, they did question it.
Yeah 40 years later. And then they had to pathetically back track and get his grandson who was a child back then (and no idea if he was actually at the commemoration) to say maybe he didn't hear correctly, and although his brain was sharp, he decided to make the giant fucking assumption that it was moon rock - because no one told him otherwise anyway.
I have no idea, I wasn't there.
You didn't have to be there. A plaque was presented with a rock like substance on it to commemorate the moon landing. And nobody said it wasn't the real thing until they got busted. You are saying they just randomly presented an earth rock to commemorate something that had nothing to do with earth bound rocks. What are we Neanderthals? Humph, you me we be best friends, we represent friendship with rock, humph. Lol. Playing dumb again.
You'd think if this were the case that they'd at least try and make it look like the other moon rocks, yet they failed to do so.
Why? It fucking worked for 40 years till they had to run scientific tests on it. Which means it passed the eye test for several decades. Damn good job of faking moon rock if you ask me.
You are just consistently playing dumb and avoiding the logic altogether. This conversation is not fun anymore.
Can you give me a quote when he was told it was petrified wood or anything else? All you got is his grandson, who was 9 at the time, saying that maybe he didn't hear it right. C'mon dude. You are playing dumb.
I never claimed to have one. The fact of the matter is that it is petrified wood, and there is no evidence anywhere that it was claimed to be anything else. Your conjecture isn't evidence. In fact, the only piece of additional physical evidence (aside from the petrified wood itself) is the plaque, which again, doesn't state that it is a moon rock.
Yeah 40 years later. And then they had to pathetically back track and get his grandson who was a child back then (and no idea if he was actually at the commemoration) to say maybe he didn't hear correctly, and although his brain was sharp, he decided to make the giant fucking assumption that it was moon rock - because no one told him otherwise anyway.
No, it was questioned earlier, again, you aren't reading the information you are being presented, making this very tedious.
You didn't have to be there. A plaque was presented with a rock like substance on it to commemorate the moon landing. And nobody said it wasn't the real thing until they got busted. You are saying they just randomly presented an earth rock to commemorate something that had nothing to do with earth bound rocks. What are we Neanderthals? Humph, you me we be best friends, we represent friendship with rock, humph. Lol. Playing dumb again.
I'm simply regurgitating what the evidence demonstrates. You are the one making baseless assumptions that lack evidence. Certainly you agree that a nearly blind and deaf person could be mistaken in thinking that they were being given a moon rock, but you have no evidence that demonstrates that anybody claimed that it was. Again, it looks nothing like any of the other rocks, you seem to be ignoring this fact.
Why? It fucking worked for 40 years till they had to run scientific tests on it. Which means it passed the eye test for several decades. Damn good job of faking moon rock if you ask me.
It wasn't on public display for several decades. In fact it wasn't even on display at the museum for the majority of the time it has been available. You seem to be confused regarding the sequence of events.
You are just consistently playing dumb and avoiding the logic altogether. This conversation is not fun anymore.
Maybe if you actually read about the incident and knew the facts rather than filling in your own blanks then you would be able to engage in a way that would entertain you more. Learning something isn't always supposed to be "fun", I'm sorry that basic reading comprehension and fact recollection is such a strain for you, it might be best to take a break.
You know, I'm going to start doing it myself actually, it makes a lot of sense. I'm going to start handing out rocks as a gesture of my love and appreciation. It hits me at, how do I put it, a prehistoric level. I'm sure the chicks would dig it. Hey bebe, your kinda cute so have a rock, just don't ask me what it is (its from the moon).
Well, it was fun while it lasted. But you still can't provide anything close to a reasonable rationale as to why they commemorated what is apparently the greatest achievement of mankind with fake rock. And it looks like I'll never get it out of you. You just keep saying that I'm not reading my information right. I guess, I'll never know why the diplomat community uses shit rocks as commemoration plaques, specifically when rocks have nothing to do with what we are commemorating. Must be why I never joined the civil service, those boys speak a whole another language.
I bid thee adieu sir, it was entertaining there for a while.
Well you went from, they already had the technology, but it didn't match the Bugatti, to they road runnered the fucker.
There is no proof that NASA went to the moon. I don't really care, it doesn't mean anything to me. I thought the fact that it didn't happen was extremely far-fetched, but at the end of the day, you got to weigh the evidence, and the evidence isn't on their side.
Going with the invisible shield as proof is kind of...almost sadly like a SJW.
You don't need to, if the neutron bomb is real you can just watch a documentary about it and how wonderful it is against tanks. And Nasa = the military, and they never lie do they, they never abuse propaganda...
Unless someone is carrying along a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, neutron radiation isn't really a big factor, y'know? You can find plenty of gamma radiation in space, and the Van Allen belts have protons and electrons, but there's not a lot of spontaneous neutron radiation going around.
Yes it is, if you hav ferrite or aluminum (Shield) in the ship at all, you would be fried instantly by secondary alpha and beta radiation inside. Hit by fast neutrons, anyone behind an inch or two of iron or aluminum would receive a lethal dose of secondary radiation as the neutrons slammed into iron or aluminum atoms and created a cascade of secondary radiation (alpha and beta, more neutrons and maybe some gamma)
The outer belt consists mainly of high energy (0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere. High-energy protons characterize the inner belt. Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) consist of high energy protons and helium, plus some HZE ions. Solar energetic particles are protons, electrons and HZE ions.
You act like they threw together shit you could find in a house in the 60's. This was a multi billion dollar project. They had technology on board that wouldn't reach the hands of the public until 20 years later. On the other hand, faking the moon landing would've cost much more and would've been much harder to do.
Once you get past don't-go-boom-boom rocket science can be remarkably simple. Sure, it is stupidly inefficient and insanely dangerous if you just stick to the simple things, and something like Apollo would never be allowed today (yeah m8 just go through that belt of radiation really fast, you'll... er... probably be fine), but I have no doubt that with the relatively terrible standards of the 60's and 70's Apollo was possible.
As for physical reasons, the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment cuts through all the bullshit anybody can come up with to argue with why the landings were faked.
Edit: At any rate, if there was any evidence or any doubt that Apollo did what NASA said it did, the Russians would have instantly called the US out on it and accused them of faking it.
As for physical reasons, the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment cuts through all the bullshit anybody can come up with to argue with why the landings were faked.
I will refer you to the 1966 issue of National Geographic, wherein they bounced a laser off the moon before the alleged lunar landings and alleged lunar ranging equipment. Therefore, there is no need for tiny reflectors on the moon to bounce a laser off it, invalidating the need for the lunar ranging experiment.
That was done with Q-switched ruby lasers (extremely high power, extremely short pulses of light). However these readings had a large amount of error and variance, due to the reflection just bouncing off of the surface of the moon in all directions.
Subsequent measurements had far lower error. This is especially true after Apollo 15 specifically as Apollo 15 brought with it much larger reflector arrays than ever before, gave much more accurate readings, which fit in perfectly with the theoretical error (namely the 0.11m RMS residual error) expected by the equipment NASA said had been sent to the Moon.
It would be impossible to achieve such high accuracy, low error results without the reflectors left behind on the moon.
People have said in the past "But a probe/rover could have just put them there!" and, yes, a rover could have done nearly the exact same thing, and reflectors have just been left on the moon by probes in the past.
Which is why I also gave numerous independent sources which tracked the Apollo spacecraft to the moon, proving that it was -in fact- the Apollo missions which left the reflectors behind, and not another spacecraft.
Subsequent measurements had far lower error
It would be impossible to achieve such high accuracy, low error results without the reflectors left behind on the moon
Have there been current experiments conducted wherein lasers were shot at areas of the moon without the lunar reflectors? How much of these results have been improved by more sensitive equipment, better lasers, etc?
By how much have the lunar reflectors been disturbed by moonquakes?
I've read that a laser pulse will grow wider over a distance. How large will a laser get over 250,000 miles? (If what I've read is correct).
I will agree that you have a good argument, and we can put that in the "they went to the moon" pile. However, due to the large amount of scientific anomalies, I still find that there's insufficient evidence to show that we went.
Have there been current experiments conducted wherein lasers were shot at areas of the moon without the lunar reflectors?
Not that I'm aware of, the data from just doing that is... okay, but not really worth the time if you can use the reflectors for more accurate readings.
By how much have the lunar reflectors been disturbed by moonquakes?
If they have been it's not enough to be noticed, this links in with what I'm saying next.
I've read that a laser pulse will grow wider over a distance. How large will a laser get over 250,000 miles? (If what I've read is correct).
Using the document linked before, they say the laser divergence is about two arc seconds, you can roughly approximate this as a triangle with an angle of two arc seconds, a side 384,400km long (average distance to the moon) and you'll get the side opposite the angle as how wide the beam is at the moon.
Awkwardly I don't know what the convention was in the 60/70's, so 2 arc sec's is either the actual beam divergence of half of it...
That gives a beam width of roughly 4km, but there are a lot of other sources of error and atmospheric effects to consider, so the actual beam will likely be larger. Using your value of 250,000 miles this'd give a width of about 2.4 miles (3.9km).
So I'd say the beam width is, to one significant figure, either 4km or (if they gave the half-angle) 8km.
NASA cites the beam width ass roughly four miles, which is about 6.4km. Eh, falls within what I'd expect.
Any potential shifting by moonquakes is unlikely to have moved any of the reflectors that much. And, since they're retroreflectors, even a change in the angle they're pointing (so it's not directly towards the earth) shouldn't affect them too much.
large amount of scientific anomalies
Sure, there might be some anomalies, but that's science. What matters is finding your sources of error and figuring out what went wrong. In my first year at university I remember getting readings for, say, the speed of light using a Michelson–Morley interferometer (far more boring than it sounds) and being about fifty times off the speed of light. Turns out I fucked up my calibration, explained that, explained how to correct for it theoretically (key point here, you can't just say "I was twice what I thought so I halved it to get the right answer because... that gave the right answer!" you need to find theoretical justifications first), did it, and then I was only about 20% off the actual speed of light.
People see 'wrong' answers or 'anomalies' in science and instantly assume it's wrong or some kind of conspiracy, since they stop at the numbers and don't bother reading the rest of a 50 page long article or paper on the science which then explains sources of error, what went wrong, corrections, etc...
Edit: As a side note, turns out that the US laser ranging experiments were discontinued since it costs quite a lot of money to get a laser that accurate and powerful firing at the moon a lot. Other countries/universities/independent researchers might still be using the reflectors though.
Thanks for your answer. I appreciate you responding to it in a scientific manner. Again, I'd say the lunar ranging experiments can be put into the 'we did go' column.
Sure, there might be some anomalies, but that's science.
I should mention I used to believe that we did go to the moon. But after looking into the moon missions, there appears to be a great number of anomalies. I've raised certain things in my initial post which, I think, can't be explained away by experimental error or similar reasoning. I could very well be wrong, but I find it unlikely at this time.
Edit: As a side note, turns out that the US laser ranging experiments were discontinued since it costs quite a lot of money to get a laser that accurate and powerful firing at the moon a lot.
Aside from getting a very accurate distance measurement, what other benefits could shooting the moon with a laser provide?
I've raised certain things in my initial post which, I think, can't be explained away by experimental error or similar reasoning. I could very well be wrong, but I find it unlikely at this time.
Like what? I'm decent(ish) at most aspects of physics, along with engineering related to astronautics and most spacecraft systems, I know some topics better than others but after a bit of research I should be able to answer most questions, unless it's something very specific and obscure.
Aside from getting a very accurate distance measurement, what other benefits could shooting the moon with a laser provide?
None really. Just the distance can be used for a lot of things, you can verify various things like Einstein's relativity, Newton's laws of gravitation, orbital motion and a few other things like seeing how fast the moon is moving away from the earth, if it's accelerating away, decelerating, whatever. Depending on how accurate the distance data was you could even try 'detecting' other planets with the moon's motion.
But all of that could have been done with a (relative) handful of readings, there was no real point in keeping it going after the first few years once enough data was collected. Well, I imagine you could extract some information like... the movement of dust on the moon by looking at the trend in reflected intensity off the reflectors, since a steady downward trend in reflection could let you extrapolate how dust much dust has built up on them over time. Then again the performance of the mirrors would degrade over time as well,, which complicates things. Yeah, this is why you can find 100 page long papers on 'simple' sounding things, there's a lot to take into account.
Anyway, I'm surprised the US paid for it for so long considering how useless taking more data points became after the first few years.
There's a lot of problems with the radiation, I find.
In particular, after the missions, the dosimeters of the astronauts were said to be within expected limits. Link
However, years later it was found that the moon gives off more radiation than expected.
Link In particular, the link provided states "Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected"
Why didn't the original dosimeter readings reflect this greater than expected radiation?
Moreover, why do none of the pictures suffer from any sort of radiation damage? Outside the magnetosphere, one would expect a photographic plate to pickup stray cosmic rays, in addition to other ionizing radiation.
Further, the spacesuits weren't made of any particularly dense material. Link Why was this deemed to be sufficient protection for the surface of the moon? Another link It appears to me this fabric is insufficient to protect against ionizing radiation.
you can verify various things like Einstein's relativity
How would you do that, exactly? Wouldn't you need a clock? (i.e, a clock onboard a GPS satellite will differ from an Earthbound clock due to relativistic effects.)
Why didn't the original dosimeter readings reflect this greater than expected radiation?
I don't believe NASA put much effort into predicting the radiation dose from the surface of the moon in the first place, since it wasn't thought to be a major source of radiation, and only major sources (like the VA belt, solar particles, cosmic rays and high energy neutrons) were taken into account, so there isn't a prediction for lunar-surface-based radiation exposure to compare against, only the predictions of additional radiation caused by being outside the protective spacecraft.
And keep in mind that the radiation doses noted here are averaged out over the entire mission, Apollo 11, for example, took about eight days, with only a few hours of that spent on the surface of the moon. So even if the expected radiation dose was, say, doubled (even though at most it's only 40% more) over four or so hours out of nearly 200 hours of mission time, the average dose wouldn't increase by a perceptible amount.
Actually the averages did vary between individuals as well:
Individual dosimeter readings have varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of variations in the shielding effectiveness of the Apollo spacecraft and the differences in duties, movements, and locations of the crewmen.
A 20% difference over the entire mission average would more than account for a few hours of heightened radiation from being on the surface of the moon, vs. the astronauts that never stepped onto the surface. There's no inconsistency with the dosimeter readings since the time spent on the surface was far too small to notice that the moon was radioactive. A 40% increase on estimates that must have been, by NASA not even including them in their analysis, minuscule, is not that much of an increase.
Additionally as the article says:
"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.
The increase is tiny. And the author on Discovery seemed to know that, since under half of the article is actually on it and the rest is on generic GCR's.
As for why the increase is small, I'll try and explain the science behind it.
I tried to find the actual scientific paper this used, but I couldn't, so there's not much to go off of.
As far as I can tell they're talking about parts of the surface of the moon becoming radioactive because of high-energy galactic cosmic rays, which does happen. However GCR's have a huge distribution of energy from a few eV to 40TeV (IIRC, did some radiation hardening projects a while ago and that's the upper bound I found), so it's hard to predict what will happen.
Now, GCR's can either just decay on their own and randomly release a shower of various particles, or they can interact with whatever they hit. Now depending on the kind of interaction and what was interacted with various kinds of secondary particles will be created and will 'shower' out in the original direction of travel. Meaning that any particles which interact with the surface of the moon (so, they were very likely travelling towards the moon) would shower 'downwards', into the moon's surface.
When the article talks about higher than expected radiation levels on the moon, it is (as far as I can tell) talking about additional radiation caused by the secondary particles created when GCR's interact with the moon's surface.
I can't remember if I explained this to you or somebody else, but there are four main kinds of radiation, all of which could (with varying degrees of likelihood depending on the GCR's energy) be produced by a GCR interaction.
Any additional gamma rays (or high energy neutron's, although I doubt they'd occur that often, if ever) will be travelling into the moon, so they pose no extra risk. And, even if they were going towards the astronauts, the likelihood is that they would just pass straight through them (and the sensors) and have no effect.
Alpha's would be blocked by the suit.
Beta's are the only one that might contribute more to the radiation dose of the astronauts since they're mildly penetrating and have a 'decent' chance of interacting with them, but the majority of them would be directed towards the moon anyway, so it wouldn't make too much of a difference.
Back to the tiny chance of neutron's interacting with materials on the moon. It is possible for neutrons to interact with atoms and 'stick' to them, creating a new unstable isotope which becomes radioactive. These would be quite concerning as they could then emit radiation in any direction, even towards the astronauts. But, again, this exposure to radiation is tiny, as is said in the article, that even taking into account the extra radiation:
"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.
The only true radiation concern was solar events. I'd happily go anywhere in space as long as I knew there were no solar flares or CME's about to happen. Normal background galactic radiation is... not good for you, but it won't kill you too quickly, unlike a solar event which -if it's powerful enough and aimed towards you- is just a straight-up death sentence.
none of the pictures suffer from any sort of radiation damage?
Radiation damage would only look like a bit of static/fuzziness/tiny white dots. You'll definitely see them on film, but the quality of video is so low that you can't distinguish the static-from-shitty-video from static-from-GCR. As for photos, the chance of taking a photo and having the shutter open at the exact moment when a weakly-interacting GCR does interact is tiny and any interactions would, again, only produce small white dots at most.
Looking at modern high-res pictures form the ISS you still can't really see the effects of radiation, but it's quite in some videos since they look a bit static-ish with random white dots everywhere.
It appears to me this fabric is insufficient to protect against ionizing radiation.
Well, from the article you linked:
The next seven layers consisted of alternating piles of [...] that worked together to shield the astronauts against galactic radiation on the lunar surface.
The only real concern was alpha radiation, which is blocked by paper, and beta radiation, which can be blocked relatively easily by a thin layer of metal. As for gamma and neutron radiation, you just sort of hope it'll go through you, since there's no real way to block it.
How would you do that, exactly? Wouldn't you need a clock?
There are a few predicted effects from relativity that can be tested just with light. I believe gravitational droppler shifting (so, instead of an ambulance going past sounding different because it's moving towards/away from you, it'd sound different because... er... if you're above it the gravity would 'pull' on the sound waves and slow them down actually I doubt that even happens and the mechanics for relativistic shifts are completely different...) was one of the things they tested.
Basically, shine your laser at the moon and when it reflects back relativity predicts it'll have a slightly different colour.
Thanks for your answer. Your responses seem quite reasonable.
Couple questions: When you list your 4 types of radiation particles, where do X-rays fit in? As I understand, it's ionizing radiation which is the real danger.
Radiation damage would only look like a bit of static/fuzziness/tiny white dots.
Would we not see little blips indicating fast moving particles?
Looking at modern high-res pictures form the ISS you still can't really see the effects of radiation
The ISS is inside the magnetosphere though. As I understand it, the magnetosphere protects against X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays. I would imagine there would be evidence of these on the photos.
This guy link seems to think the average amount of radiation received was vastly above safe levels.
Ultimately, I think the "didn't go" radiation arguments are that there's too much radiation. And the "did go" radiation arguments are that there's not enough radiation to do enough damage. I'm not a physicist, so both arguments have validity in my mind.
Shorter wavelength means higher energy. As an easy example, when light hits an object it gets absorbed, excites the electrons of an atom so they go up in an energy level and when the electron goes back down it re-emits the light.
For higher-energy EM radiation, like X-ray and gamma, the electron goes to such a high energy level that it pops off the atom.
This means that the atom now has a charge, making it an ion, which is why high-energy EM radiation is called ionizing radiation.
Luckily for us high energy EM radiation doesn't really interact too often, it just passes through most things without hitting an atom and making the electron come off, and as the likelihood of an interaction is low it's only really a concern when you have a high number flux (amount/number of) of ionizing EM radiation, since if you have millions of gamma rays going through you some are bound to do some damage.
Which is why the main concern for Apollo was a solar event causing a huge increase in ionizing radiation flux, as then the chance of serious damage being done is hugely increased.
Would we not see little blips indicating fast moving particles?
You only really see the blips if a particle has interacted with your film, and (for the same reasons I explained before) usually the chance of this interaction happening in the tiny time the film is exposed is very low, so low that even if an interaction did happen you would only see -at best- a single white dot, which would be hard to notice anyway.
The ISS is inside the magnetosphere though. As I understand it, the magnetosphere protects against X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays.
The magnetosphere can only protect against charged particle radiation affected by a magnetic field, so beta and alpha radiation would be deflected by the magnetosphere as alpha radiation is (and this a bit of a generalisation) composed of two protons and two neutrons, giving it a positive charge. Whereas beta radiation is essentially just a high energy electron, which also has a charge.
These particles then get deflected in a few different ways, some just go straight past the magnetosphere, some get caught in the VA belts, some go on to make the Aurora Borealis, and some just go through the field anyway.
X-rays and gamma rays are both electromagnetic radiation, they're just a kind of light, so the Earth's magnetic field has no real effect on them and they go straight through. I haven't studied this much but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from at least some (if not most? Seriously have no idea how important this is to us not all dying) of this radiation as the X-rays/gamma rays tend to interact with the atmosphere, so very few of them get far enough to interact with us.
This guy link[1] seems to think the average amount of radiation received was vastly above safe levels.
He makes quite a few points that NASA though of already, and that I (think) I've covered.
He quotes:
The fluxes of energetic particles can increase hundreds of times, following an intense solar flare or during a large geomagnetic storm, to dangerous levels. Timely warnings are essential to give astronauts sufficient time to return to their spacecraft prior to the arrival of such energetic particles.
And asks how they were protected against the flares.
They weren't, which is why the 60's Apollo practices are seen as very unsafe today.
Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but Apollo's main way of protecting against solar flares was planning. They observed the sun using multiple Earth and space based systems and timed missions to when they thought the sun wouldn't be too active. Additionally if a solar flare or CME or whatever did happen, they had roughly eight hours before the main brunt of particle radiation made it to Earth, so there was some time to get the astronauts back and cancel the mission... as long as they could get back in eight hours that is.
The rest of his points mostly just restate this:
Why would NASA subject people to this kind of risk?
Once you are past the Van Allen shields, for example between the earth and the moon, or on the moon, you would be subject to the full brunt of solar flares. The Van Allen shields protect us here on Earth from this deadly radiation.
Yep. It was not the safest plan, but NASA was confident they could predict solar activity well enough for it to be safe-ish.
stimates of human exposure in interplanetary space, behind various thicknesses of aluminum shielding, are made for the large solar proton events of August 1972 and October 1989. A comparison of risk assessment in terms of total absorbed dose for each event is made for the skin, ocular lens, and bone marrow. Overall, the doses associated with the August 1972 event were higher than those with the October 1989 event and appear to be more limiting when compared with current guidelines for dose limits for missions in low Earth orbit and more hazardous with regard to potential acute effects on these organs. Both events could be life-threatening if adequate shielding is not provided
Completely right, but no such events occurred and NASA's predictions were right.
The hulls of the Apollo spacecraft were ultra-thin. They would have been unable to stop any significant amount of radiation. The same can be said for the spacesuits.
Yep, not the safest plan.
The Spacecast 2020 Technical Report puts the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective:
"...at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000..."
At geosynchronous orbit, doses are "still low compared to interplanetary space due to geomagnetic shielding", according to Radiation Hardening In Space.
A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: "On page 256 of 'Astronautical Engineering' there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding."
So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.
Not sure how accurate those figures are, and I'm leaving in a bit so I don't have time to check, but solar activity varies heavily and is not omni-directional. Solar flares and CME's occur in a particular direction, so even with 15 flares a day it's highly unlikely that any of them will be directed towards Earth because of how incredibly huge the sun and solar system are.
Ultimately, I think the "didn't go" radiation arguments are that there's too much radiation. And the "did go" radiation arguments are that there's not enough radiation to do enough damage. I'm not a physicist, so both arguments have validity in my mind.
That's fair enough. The topic is quite complicated, to the point where radiation hardening is a specific job position and a single person would work in that role for their entire life.
Mostly the problem of people not understanding how dangerous radiation is has been caused by the media. In movies, TV-shows, books, games, on the news, everywhere, it's cool to portray radiation as this thing that instantly kills you and makes you into a mutant, when it's really not.
As a quick example your smoke detector probably uses some kind of radioactive source like Americium-241, but since it's an alpha source it gets blocked by basically anything and is perfectly safe. Wouldn't surprise me if there's some article somewhere from around the time they were made mandatory about how the government wants to force everybody to put multiple sources of deadly radiation inside their homes and how it'll give all our children cancer or something like that.
For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the "occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled" that the limit of an "effective dose of 50 mSv" "in any single year" "be not exceeded". 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.
How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?
From the same NASA radiation document it'll say somewhere that the maximum allowed dose was 400rems. I would accept a dose of 400rems, sure it won't be healthy but it (probably) won't kill you. Hell, even 1,000rems shouldn't be deadly. 5,000rems kills you in a month.
IAEA has such strict regulations as, unlike for astronauts, they expect continuous radiation exposure over multiple years. radiologyinfo has the estimate that "Accumulated dosage estimated to cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people: 1,000.00mSv", 1,000mSv is 100rads. When you have thousands of employees working in the same radiation environment for 10, 20 years even a small dose builds up, and 5% of thousands is still a good few dozen or hundred, so regulations are very strict in such environments because of how many people are exposed and for the length of time.
If the chance of astronauts getting cancer due to their exposure was 5% (which it wasn't) then... well... there's like four of them, 1/20 get cancer, eh, 4 is less than 20, meh, should be fine (60/70's logic isn't really up to today's standards).
It's in the nature of engineers, scientists and those that set health and safety laws to half or double most things for redundancy. Building collapses under 40 tonnes of load? Build it for 80 tonnes. Plane wings expect max 2m of flex in strong winds? Build it for 4m of flex. 1,000rems start causing adverse effects to health? Limit it to 500rems.
The moon's surface is very absorbent and bumpy. Bouncing a laser off the moon and having it land exactly where it came from would be a statistical impossibility without a retro-reflector.
Ok , people the actual conspiracy , is not landing on the moon , that was easy part, the Soviets "faceplanted" some animals on the moon before Nasa even attempted the "hoax" / "Landing".
The thing you must study about this is how they got back after they've landed.
I give them the landing , they could of survived a suicide burn on the Moon with 1960's technology; but placing the "Lunar lander" back into Lunar Orbit , rendezvousing with the ""left behind part of the spacecraft", Docking the two Spacecrafts and setting course for Earth with Manual human controls = ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL DID THAT HAPPEN WITH 1960's TECH.
They aren't even allowing the astronauts on Low Earth Orbit on the ISS to course correct the ISS (increase the delta V ) when it's Delta V is getting too low, because the astronaut might overdo it or under-do the "Burn", no way in hell a human with manual controls would of known when to Start or stop thrusting and in which direction, to get back to Earth safelly , especially the FIRST GODDAMN TIME.
i dont know why you bother responding, he's obviously completely ignorant of how a space mission works and doesnt care enough to correct that ... the fact that all maneuvers are planned out in detail months before using very predictable orbital mechanics and practiced by the crew on the ground ad nauseum. etc.
It begins arguing the earth is flat.
I've seen the curvature of the earth many times, it isn't. You can go on my roof terrace and see a whole horizon of the Mediterranean. It definitely curves.
From flying over Canada last January I saw the curvature of the earth.
Thus type of thing makes us look stupid.
Ask any scientist, you cannot see the curvature from that low of an altitude.
If you work out the math (I have) at 120,000 ft you would only be able to see 1% of the curvature of the earth.
From a plane any curvature would be impossible to detect with the naked eye.
In any case, that Flat Earth stuff is a big part of Dubay and his books, the NASA / moon hoax stuff just fits into that.
Yes. You must be correct. In my 36 years on this planet I have never seem the curvature of the earth from an international flight nor from being able to see hundreds of miles of clear land/sea.
You oh wise one have educated me.
Grow the fuck up.
lol dude you can come here to be a condescending asshole all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the science. Flat or globe you wouldn't be able to see the curvature. If you think you have, you're wrong, it isn't possible. Don't blame me, that's reality for you.
Your snide attitude and inability to grasp basic facts about geometry hurts us and makes us look more stupid than anything.
If you think you can see it and want to keep on believing, good for you but you're delusional.
That makes us look real good.
There is 2 pieces of evidence that trouble me. The First one is the fake Earth shot from "something funny happened on the way to the moon" where they shut down all the lights inside and use a transparency in the window to make it seem they were filming the earth from further than they really were. However, there was an excellent rebuke of that one. Someone took a screen grab of the earth as seen from an unrelated sequence where Armstrong was in the foreground and we see the earth through a window and matched it to a weather satellite image from the same day and it match.
The 2nd one I find more problematic. On Apollo 16 there is this shot of them going up a hill in the rover. The problem is that in the background you see the same landscape as in a previous Apollo mission. But they are suppose to be miles away from that location.
Less evident is the color shot brought back from the Jade Rabbit rover, the color are drastically different than what we saw from the Apollo mission.
None of it is fully dismissive of the possibility of having actually been there. But I find those really problematic.
The conspiracy is about the timing - when it actually happened. This makes a huge difference because at the time, the space war was 'won', and no country had the tech to verify for any proof. By the time they did, the proof was already there, but they could've land there themselves if needed. So, it's hard to prove either way.
All the footage still exists, it's just not on the original physical tapes. Kinda like the Doctor Who situation, where some episodes are preserved because people made copies, and the copies survive.
Thank you i thought people would take my comment to be sarcastic but i truly was in the dark about that fact, though i had heard several times that the original tapes were lost
People don't really understand the state of technology at the time, in more than one way. Aeronautics for example got a ton of development due to warfare and a hefty percentage of the budget, while other fields were still relatively primitive. Video storage was expensive and cumbersome still, which is why a lot of it was reused to save on costs.
Amateur radio enthusiasts and scientists were independently able to track and receive transmissions from predictable paths. If people never went to the moon then they must have sent up a rocket that went to the moon without people and broadcast a ton of information back. It doesn't really seem like they would go through wasting billions of dollars to launch recordings of a launch on a real rocket and not just send the people up.
I'm not trying to be an advocate for the arguement that it is a hoax but I can see one possibility that could explain this. What if the mortality rate was extremely low? Say 3%? It's a lot harder to win the space race when all your astraunots die whenever you try. Imagine the media coverage after they were so hopeful if it all went wrong?
The point of faking it is that we were in a race with Russia to be the first country to put a man on the moon.
By pretending to do so we forced Russia into spending every penny they could scrape together into developing technology to send a man to the moon, then we sat back and watched them research themselves into poverty, effectively ending the cold war.
We can't even develop a reliable self-driving car. How could we possibly have had the technology to send multiple people all the way to the lunar surface in 1969?
The telemetry calculatioins alone to make that happen would have required computational power we don't even have today.
Teaching a computer to see and make decisions is a lot more complicated than doing physics calculations that were performed by hand until the mid 1970's. The physics calculations are basic algebra and calculus. The math was all invented before computers existed. They used to fill rooms full of people to do the work.
"the word “computer” once referred to a person whose job involved doing calculations by hand"
We have never been to the moon. Follow the links people are giving and really consider what is being said. If you stop reading at the first argument that you have a problem with then you haven't given yourself a fair chance.
It is on you to do the reading and further research if you really want to know. You can easily find someone to comfort you with words like "don't worry, of course the moon landings were real, anyone who says otherwise is (insert derisive insult here)."
It is possible that you should start with another topic before this one though. It is important to realize that mainstream consensus does not equal truth. This is easy to demonstrate with an example. At one point lead paint was considered safe. Exposure to it caused behavioral problems in children that were blamed on parents. But people were called crazy if they questioned the safety of lead paint. Learning about the history of the use of techniques used to manufacture consensus allows you to escape the trap that mainstream consensus = truth. Bernays is a good place to start for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays One of his important publications 'Propaganda' (1928) http://whale.to/b/bernays.pdf
Does anyone have any actual evidence that it was faked?
Hey OP, the reason they call it a cover up is because they obscure the evidence and they don't want any evidence around.
If anyone outside of NASA and the govt had solid evidence that it was faked, then we all would know about it and the moon landing would be a non issue.
But as time goes on, we start to learn the truth.
-General Smedley Butler
-Gulf of Tonkin
-Operation Northwoods
-Libor
-Etc....
But the moon landings is like the JFK assasination. We're never ever going to know if they were true conspiracies, although there's a lot of evidence that points that way.
The arms in particular look unnaturally fast when you do that, plus they still look incredibly light on their feet even with those huge bulky suits on - so yeah, if it's not low g, it sure is a convincing imitation of it.
Somebody took the moon footage, speed it up twice for fun because they now look like "teletubbies"... and idiots are now using it as an evidence for moon landing hoax?
The ISS has effectively 0 gravity - if you want to compare Earth, the Moon and the ISS, the former are necessarily gonna be more similar since they're both variations on having significant gravity, while the latter nixes that. On earth or the moon, objects fall, what goes up comes down, the works. On the ISS, not so much.
In what universe would 1/6th gravity look more like freefall than like 1 gravity?
Let's analyse that. Your statement would be true under the assumption that an astronaut weighs approximately the same they do on Earth. (and that people on Earth can jump a foot in the air without meaningfully bending their legs, which seems... unusual.) 100kg on Earth would be something like 1/6th so about 16kg on the Moon, which leads to making bigger jumps with the same level of effort.
However, for that to be true we have to assume that astronauts are A) the same mass as they are on Earth, or close enough - and B) that they are delivering the same amount of force to their jump.
A) is easy-ish to check. We'll assume that astronauts weigh, on average about 80 kg - a healthy amount for a fit man. I don't know the exact amounts, and they'd sooner edge towards lighter than heavier, for obvious reasons. I looked up the weight of the suit and found it's generally listed as 200 pounds, or 91 kg, for an EVA suit on Apollo 11 (presumably pre-inflation.) The suit is already heavier than the entire person it's supporting, then.
B) The suit is resistant to deformation when inflated, which is why most of the movements in it are ungainly and imprecise, something easily detected in a lot of footage featuring it. The movement method used on the moon, as per the astronauts own statements, was also more along the line of skipping than trying to jump really high - there's a few clips where that does happen, and they reach considerably higher there than in this clip.
These seem like relevant points to take into account for any calculations.
Anyway, since there's more obvious measuring points in other videos - particularly objects like sand which can't be affected by any system or pulleys or whatnot - and the low g is consistent there, it seems unlikely even in the moonhoax scenario that any fakery would have just flubbed the most obvious stuff. Either NASA is super-competent or incompetent - you can't have both.
I mean, I can change the variables too and make it fit, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be favorable for the 'fake' scenario. If they were using lighter suits and whatnot, why would they not incorporate the 6 feet hops you imagine should be there?
if we are capable of going to the moon, what is the point of faking it?
That's what got me reading about this. George W. Bush, a few years ago, talked about America going back to the moon, but an official at NASA lamented that we just don't have the technology to do that. Made me wonder: But we had that technology starting in 1969.
It's all been posted on here before, I can see you're new to the topic, all I'd say is keep watching documentaries and learning more, examine the evidence carefully, at some point you'll get the light bulb appear over your head, everyone does in the end
I've spent a lot of time on this and have yet to be convinced.
What changed your mind?
Extaordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is it that has you so convinced? Hopefully not that pre-recorded, over dubbed, filmed off a nasa screen that America
was shown. As a data scientist quite interested in physics, I can assure you if you follow the flight path and speeds of the missions (among hundreds of other ridiculous details), just this in itself is enough to totally see the moon missions for what they really are: US government funded propaganda at it's finest.
10 years ago, I was a loner in my circle of friends and family, called out as being crazy for having such delusional ideas. Slowly but surely, over time I have had dozens of people come to me saying over time they had switched sides. Sorry it's taking you a long time.
Maybe, go read the whole 'wagging the moon doggie' series, and just pit your good old common sense against the facts presented in those articles.
Hey. You still have a right to believe in whatever you want, just like I respect my grandkid's Santa Clause.
As far as I am concerned, both tales are kept alive and handed down, relying on the natural gullibility of humans to survive.
Maybe in another 50-75 years when we have not gone back, people will start asking questions and better understand they have been played.
Well, it's good that that's exactly what I did a few years ago.
One of my assignments was to check the flight path of any spacecraft. I looked around a bit and found independent raw readings of Doppler shift from Apollo 17 (I think it was 17 anyway).
Then using the shift I found the velocity, acceleration, height, etc...
And it fit perfectly, within error, to what was expected.
They performed almost exactly the same analysis I did.
If you check... one of my other posts, I give even more independent sources from various countries, universities and even some random guy with a powerful radio.
Of course, when I gave independent sources somebody replied saying that all the super powers (including the Russians and US) are actually working together and that each of those sources was a member of the conspiracy... yeah.
So, what would convince you that the landings did happen? Since I get the feeling nothing could convince you, and if that is the case then we're both wasting our time.
they have advanced applied engineering, totally different from advanced science or tech (which is universal and only constrained by money). everybody knows the science, if they can be bothered to follow it and read the papers.
Back then it seemed semi-believable, but now in 2015, we realize that there's no way they flew there in the cardboard boxes, if they had tried they'd all be dead. It was simply a Kubrick production
It's funny since even 2001, arguably the best depiction of space up to that point, ended up with a lot of very obvious issues - they filmed without a vacuum so you can see the effects of air all the time, lighting is wonky at best and inconsistent, and the gravity never worked as it should.
I don't see how Kubrick could have helped here. All the stuff that would have to be faked had to be figured out anyway since Kubrick wasn't able to do it.
We got to the moon and back i assure you. My proof? The USSR. If we faked everything we ever saw of the moon landing Soviet Russia would have called bullshit instantly and would smear us with propaganda but they did not bc they were tracking us independently as well and they have no reason to keep a lie that could have boosted their egos during the Space Race during the Cold War.
I don't know why you think it's up anyone to prove that NASA didn't go to the moon; it's up to NASA to prove they went.
You know, not go through long drawn out examples of how it's different now, but just show the shielding used and how it worked.
You don't have that though. So you can't. Instead, you have to string together a bunch of nonsense.
That's not your fault. NASA didn't give you the tools to prove they went to the moon, because they can't give them to you. There's no solid evidence that NASA went. All "evidence" suggesting they did is utterly corrupted.
But it amazes me when some one who is dealing in their "area of expertise" wouldn't just go straight to the money shot: they used this! Boom! Eat it! And it doesn't concern you that you can't.
... just show the shielding used and how it worked.
But it amazes me when some one who is dealing in their "area of expertise" wouldn't just go straight to the money shot: they used this! Boom! Eat it! And it doesn't concern you that you can't.
Essentially, with what was available to them then, no amount of shielding could have helped (in fact trying to shield would be harmful), so the next best option was to go through the belts as fast as possible, at a time with low solar activity and decent space weather predictions, and hope nothing broke and that none of the astronauts got cancer and died later on.
Why wouldn't shielding help? I'll be as brief as possible.
Alpha fucks shit up, but gets stopped by almost anything, so the spacecraft's exterior was enough.
Beta fucks shit up less badly, but would still be stopped by the exterior (mostly).
Gamma usually just goes through everything, but if it interacts then it fucks everything up since it releases different kinds of radiation inside of you/the components. Stopping it would need too much shielding, so the best option is to reduce what it can interact with and hope it just goes through everything.
Same-ish for neutron.
NASA probes showed that there was far less radiation in the VA belt than expected, and that if they went through fast enough then shielding wouldn't be needed.
It was an insanely stupid risk by today's standards, which is why Orion is doing it properly this time. Although it'll still go through as fast as possible to reduce exposure.
Teaching a computer to see and make decisions is a lot more complicated than doing physics calculations that were performed by hand until the mid 1970's. The physics calculations are basic algebra and calculus. The math was all invented before computers existed. They used to fill rooms full of people to do the work.
"the word “computer” once referred to a person whose job involved doing calculations by hand"
Well i honestly thought the moon hoax conspiracy theory was one of the most far-fetched, but now I think it's pretty convincing. Those pictures of the lunar module.....
That link is taking forever to load - what am I missing? I googled Dutch moon rock again just now and all major new sources are calling it fake.
It was never claimed to be a moon rock by the US Ambassador who gave it as a gift, it was a misunderstanding as "My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
This is verified by additional facts such as:
the rock wasn't labelled as a moon rock on the plaque it was presented on
the rock was approximately 80 times larger than the other gifted rocks
the rock was given to the former Prime Minister years before actual moon rocks were being distributed
It was a misunderstanding. When you look at what the actual samples look like and how they are contained:
In his opinion the reorganization or transformation had accomplished little except for the fact that budgetary matters were now being actually manipulated to direct and control research
Hmmm, that statement doesn't sound to me that compartmentalization accomplished very little. In fact, if manipulation to direct and control research was the goal, then compartmentalization is a success.
And it's talking about a reorganisation in 2005, not the structure NASA had in the 60's and 70's during Apollo.
Compartmentalization has gone back to at least WW2 so it's not out of the question that it would have been implemented during the 60's NASA era.
in fact there was a large discussion at NASA over if the camera should even be sent since it served literally no scientific purpose.
Why did they take the camera then?
Essentially the tapes only existed in the first place because a conversion needed to be made to allow the broadcast to be sent to normal TV's, they were then taken in a massive batch of over 200,000 tapes set to be recycled.
So our Military has been filming war footage as far back as WW2 for archival purposes but our govt doesn't see any significance in archiving moon footage? I feel you're stretching things a bit.
On top of that, how are you going to defend the erasing of the moon footage when you didn't even know about it until now. All you did was do a little research after I pointed to a source and then you found some source of your own and are going with it? I've said this before but you aren't that skeptical at all.
Yes - because petrified wood is perfect for display because of? its beauty? Did you google image this bad boy? It looks like shit. Heck regular petrified wood looks much better - but this particular sample looks like ugly rock (because it was molded like so - cause they faked it).
Um, it looks like a piece of petrified wood and nothing like the moon samples. If they were so keen on passing it off as a moon rock then why does it look nothing like any of the moon rocks that were given away?
The evidence is that the former Dutch PM said that the US ambassador said it was moon rock. And its on the fucking plaque - with compliments of the ambassador of the united states. If the plaque came later, then it was at the word of the Dutch PM.
Please show me where on the plaque it says that it was a moon rock. Also please give me a link that proves that the former PM said that the US Ambassador claimed it was a moon rock. Otherwise, these are just points with zero evidence.
So lets go through this scenario again - because it does make me laugh:
US Ambassador: Your excellency, let me present to you Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Drees: Welcome
US Ambassador: Also your excellency, here is some petrified wood to mark the occasion. Its a particularly shit looking piece of petrified wood, heck it looks like a rock. But its perfect to commemorate the visit of the first men to walk on the moon.
Drees: Ah yes moon rock.
I have no idea what the sequence of events was, I wasn't there and there is no documentation stating exactly what happened. You are the one making it up as you go along without evidence or supporting proof.
"Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch NOS news that he had gotten it from the US State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details."
You are the one who is creating the details to suit your agenda. Again, you have no evidence to support your claim that it was claimed to be a moon rock.
Too funny. And this whole conversation has been in a vacuum devoid of a long list of other circumstantial evidence (even the govts version is circumstantial) that doesn't add up.
You do realize that it's the holidays and people have families to spend time with, right?
Not everyone has massive amounts of free time to Reddit 24/7 like you obviously do. I guess things are slow at the tinfoil hat factory?
6 day old shill
What is up win this sub and their concern with the age of accounts? You seem massively paranoid and I can't wait until you accuse me of being an alt account for the guy that just schooled you, but here's the thing, I found your post in /r/topmindsofreddit and it was so funny I just had to respond.
Holy shit, I'm sorry I have a life and I don't spend my entire day on Reddit.
If you really want to know, since it was the weekend and a holiday, I decided to go out with some friend, party for a bit, got nicely drunk, a bit hungover, stayed at a friend and only got back/started feeling human again at about 4 or 5PM.
Who or what did you have to consult to come with this disinfo bullshit?
My engineering book.
Which, oddly enough, rarely mentions Apollo, and only has generic engineering practices in it which are followed by... fucking everybody ranging from NASA to Ford and Microsoft?
Not my fault you seriously seem to not understand how a business/project is run and managed.
Is Microsoft part of a massive conspiracy because they have different departments which seperate people that, wait for it, work on different things?
And I find it highly suspect that you're a genuine Redditor with good intentions since you just created your account 6 days ago and all your posts are you being argumentative.
In the past when I used my main to debate I've had batshit insane people follow me around, analyse everything I post and try to DOX me, so I now switch accounts around a lot to avoid getting DOXed by crazy fuckers. From your reply calling me a saboteur and a shill I get the feeling that you're the kind of person that makes me use separate accounts instead of using my main.
So no sources anymore huh? You're just going to make a statement and expect me to go with it?
I assumed, since you are clearly a true sceptic, unlike me, that you'd be able to do independent research.
Ah yes, science, maths and the specifications of a spacecraft are disinfo.
You're not skeptical at all and you're nothing but a saboteur.
If what I'm doing by researching, finding facts, finding primary sources means I'm not sceptical then I'm afraid to ask what your definition of a sceptic is.
And any intelligent individual could clearly see what your agenda is.
I'm a scientist and an engineer. Oddly enough my agenda is promoting science, engineering, the scientific method and logic.
After all I have spent the better part of six years studying this subject, so bullshit arguments like your are quite annoying.
That's...excessive. Once you realize the effort these trolls put in, their insults become pure hilarity. They might be a waste of oxygen, but their computing devices could have been put to better use. What a shame, all those devices gone to waste.
369 comments
25 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
People always bring up the moon landing as an example of a "wacky" conspiracy that could never happen. Probably because the lie is so great, no one thinks it could be pulled off. If the moon landing happened, there would be overwhelming scientific evidence that it happened. Instead, there's a massive amount of scientific anomalies. Here's a list of such anomalies:
No evidence of any radiation other than visible light on the pictures.
No evidence that the PLSS ever vented any gas, water exhaust, or other materials
Insufficient shielding on the spacesuits to protect against ionizing radiation
Liftoff pattern as filmed by NASA shows a linear progression, rather than an exponential progression. (Exponential progression is how a rocket would act. Linear is how being lifted by a crane would act.)
No evidence that the liftoff engines used hypergolic fuels.
No explanation for how the LM weighed all the alleged moon rocks they brought back. (Fuel is precious, and they allegedly brought back hundreds of kilos of rock.) (EDIT: I did find a link to a scale - link)
Dosimeter readings don't agree with modern radiation levels. (In other words, when the astronauts "got back", the scientists said their dosimeter readings were within expected calculations. Then 30-40 years later, scientists find out the moon is much more radioactive than once believed. Why wasn't this reflected in the dosimeter readings?)
Insufficient shielding on the capsule to prevent against micrometeors
Insufficient shielding on the capsule to prevent against ionizing radiation
That's just off the top of my head. There's many more. And this isn't taking into account the ludicrous engineering standards we're supposed to believe went into this. For example, the first time anyone tested how mammalian cells would behave beyond Earth's magnetosphere was allegedly on Apollo 8, when the first manned test of the Atlas V rocket was sent on a circumlunar orbit. It seems insane to test whether or not the environment outside Earth's magnetosphere is suitable for humans by sending humans as your first test subject.
Let's add to that that no other country has been back in 40+ years - despite the fact that technology increases over time, not decreases. We allegedly went to the moon 40 years ago but don't have the technology to do it now? (And the argument that it costs too much is moot. The proposed moon landing mission by Bush (which has since been cancelled) set a landing date of 2020 when first announced. Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?)
Finally, the idea that Russia would "blow the whistle" as a counterargument to the above is insufficient. Not only does this not explain away any of the scientific anomalies. But one may argue (calling upon the work of Antony C. Sutton) that the US financed the USSR from Day 1, and that the cold war was a scam to line the pockets of the military industrial complex. One might also point out the great grain robbery of 1972, which also might buy a lot of silence from our alleged enemies.
If you think the moon landings happened, and think it's just too far fetched that this could have been faked, I urge you to do some basic research. The behaviour of NASA surrounding the Apollo missions is bizarre. (BTW, NASA lost all the original telemetry data and film footage of the alleged greatest engineering feat of all time. Whoops.)
The more research one does into this subject, the more obvious it becomes the moon landings never happened.
EDIT: Some links:
This is what a spaceship looks like? link
McGowan's piece (14 pages)
link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8, link 9, link 10, link 11, link 12, link 13, link 14
Apollo Reality link
Fake moon rock link
Finally, I will repeat, if the Apollo missions happened, there should be overwhelming evidence that it happened. One can view the multiple pieces of evidence, and the multiple anomalies, and decide for yourself. For me, there's just too many scientific anomalies that can't be explained away. These far outnumber and outweigh the arguments that show we went.
EDIT 2: The radiation questions are very thorny. This user has arguments in favor of the Apollo missions having sufficient shielding, and enough protection against ionizing radiation. link
This guy has arguments calling into question the amount of radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. link Additionally, this same author has a number of other pages devoted to Apollo anomalies:
Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4
3 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
Have you got a source for nasa losing all the original data footage.... That is a huge deal IMO
11 zeropoint357 2015-12-25
Here you go
2 lucycohen 2015-12-25
That's the final nail in the coffin then!
3 shmusko01 2015-12-25
according to whom? you mean like the instruments they brought with them?
Huh? Because it doesn't?
Insufficient according to whom? You? You don't even know what a rebreather is, so I doubt your metric for "sufficient shield" is accurate or relevant.
Huh? That's some excellent math displayed here.
Right, just go on making these vague statements. As if all the schematics, designed systems, supporting structures AND the video showing the liftoff of the engines aren't evidence. Maybe you're confused about what that word means?
No explanation meaning "I didn't bother looking into it"
An average of about 90kg of rocks were brought back each mission.
Because limited exposure isn't really very relevant here?
My car also has insufficient HP to do the things I want it to. Still works fine though.
That's the whole purpose of a test pilot. Isn't really any other way to do it.
What a hilariously childish argument. So no one has gone back. So? Mission over. Went to the moon. Done. Why go back?
Because we don't need to.
Because technology changes. We used new standards and systems. Developing all new protocols and mechanical systems. Sure, we could just whip up some 50 year old technology and just hope it doesn't fail again, or we could retool everything based on what we know and what we have.
I guess we could go back to crossing the Atlantic in wooden sailing ships because...hey that used to work just fine?
You mean like takine 30 seconds to find out what a rebreather is?
Yes. Tell me, how is a spaceship supposed to look?
"An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees' "moon rock" was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was "possible" it was a Moon rock."
So yeah. Some guy just gave some guy a lump of carbon and then sometime down the road they claimed it was a moon rock with zero verification.
Like...all that evidence?
Sorry, your own illiteracy isn't an anomaly.
1 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
No, like evidence that the photos are damaged by the radiation experienced on the moon.
From the wikipedia link on the PLSS "The Portable Life Support System used in the Apollo lunar landing missions used lithium hydroxide to remove the carbon dioxide from the breathing air, and circulated water in an open loop through a Liquid Cooled Garment, expelling the water into space, where it turned to ice crystals."
Falcon 9 Launch
Apollo 17 LM Launch
Note how the Falcon 9 starts slowly, then increases in speed, in an exponential fashion. Conversely, note how the Apollo 17 LM starts and stays at one speed. (Also note the absence of flame, hypergolic exhaust, and thrust in general.)
There was no scale onboard the LM. How did the astronauts calculate ahead of time the necessary fuel needed to liftoff successfully?
Why did suborbital launches have monkeys and dog test subjects ahead of time? Using humans to test whether or not the environment beyond Earth's magnetosphere is fit for humans is ridiculous.
Why did the Chinese send up a robot? Why are satellites still orbiting the moon? Why did Bush propose a new manned moon mission? The moon is a source of scientific curiosity. It seems asinine to suggest that 6 landings is sufficient to thoroughly explore a different planetary body.
From the link I provided. "The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added."
Your condescending attitude doesn't help your argument.
1 shmusko01 2015-12-25
huh??
Some expelled water is fed throughh a sublimator which leaves the suit.
There is currently water leaving my body, but you can't see it either.
Why must we see this small about of sublimating liquid?
Notice how they're completely different videos taken from two entirely different viewpoints, and more importantly, two completely different atmospheres.
By filling up a pre-determined number of stowage containers.
Or by using the Scale provided to them on trips like #15 and #17- so prett easy actually.
I see you didn't bother to actually look into that either.
Because they make good test subjects.
Seeing as how there isn't really a good way to do it other than an educated guess, that seems like a great way to test.
At some point it's going to need to be tested- regardless of how informed a hypothesis is.
Well because they Chinese felt like it.
To do satellite things. Mapping, bouncing signals. Hell, even planning for future missions.
I dunno, perhaps they are interested? Isn't that obvious. It's not the 1970s anymore, or the 1980s.
You have this weird metric for calling something sufficient.
They wanted to go to the moon- they did. Six times. Now that the dick-waving is over and that accomplishment out of the way they can stop caring. They planted a goddamn America flag on it for christssake.
Now that it's the 21st century and there are new ideas, new global policies and new goals (and new technology) maybe it's time to re-examine the whole moon thing.
I went to the grocery store last week.
I haven't been back.
Trips to the grocery store must be a hoax.
Oh, so someone talking to someone on the phone is all they need?
Hey I got a call from someone saying this magic oil will cure you of all your ills. Trust me, I talked to a doctor on the phone about it.
Sure, if you've made up your mind and don't know what a re-breather is, or that apollo missions took scales with them no amount of "facts" or "logic" or "evidence" will help you pull your head out of the sand.
1 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
The way a photograph works is that, for a brief moment, a photographic film is exposed to the elements. The light hitting the film will produce an image, properly developed. However, when this film is exposed, other sources of radiation will cause interference to this image. This is why, for example, you don't put your photos through the x-ray machine in the airport. Beyond Earth's magnetosphere, one would expect to see evidence of high-energy particles on these photos.
In your initial response, you claimed that nothing was expelled. I pointed out the error in your statement.
I didn't say we must see evidence of this venting. I am saying there doesn't appear to be any evidence of this venting. By itself, this is not very damning. But taken together with all the other anomalies will lead me to my conclusion.
The point of the two videos is to point out the difference in acceleration. One would expect both crafts to follow a similar pattern; slow at first and then speeding up. It costs more at the beginning per fuel than it does at any other point in the journey. I don't see evidence of this pattern in the Apollo video.
Indeed, as the moon has little to no atmosphere, the Apollo craft will need less fuel. But the LM is still heavy and should show that initial thrust. Regardless of the pattern of takeoff, there's still no evidence of thrust, in particular, a bright flame beneath the LM indicative of thrust.
Indeed. I haven't done in depth research in this area. For example, the wiki entry doesn't list the scale as equipment. However, after a quick Google search, I found the 1969 Apollo 11 equipment listing, which does have a scale.
You were the first person to challenge me on this point. Thank you! Because of this, I can eliminate this anomaly from my investigation.
Exactly. So why would NASA then use only humans to test circumlunar orbit? If they had used dogs and monkeys before on suborbital and orbital journeys, then one would expect them to use dogs and monkeys for circumlunar tests.
My point is that if we did it 6 times before, 40-some years ago, we should be able to do it again. This should be a scientific endeavour that is reproducible. What's more, as the Americans are able to do it, the Russians should be able to it as well.
This was done 40 years ago. Think of the technological difference between then and now. One would expect, due to improvements in technology and manufacturing, NASA would have gone again. Or Russia would have sent a manned mission. The idea is that society maintains its technological abilities as it moves forward.
In your initial statement you claimed that there was zero verification. I pointed out the error in your statement.
I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. My whole argument is that if the Apollo missions happened, then there should be overwhelming scientific evidence that they did. Instead, I find there are more anomalies and high probabilities than what is expected.
You are free to disagree, of course.
1 shmusko01 2015-12-25
Why would one "expect" that? You're making up all these nonpoints. The radiation on the moon was not significant to interfere noticeably with the processing of their film, which was designed to be done under such an environment. Buzz wasn't just snapping selfies with a polaroid.
Liability. A single trip, even multiple trips will have no perceptible affect on your film.
And radiation gives you three eyes too, right?
And you still have no idea what a rebreather is.
End of argument.
Taken together with all the other ways I don't understand this, I pronounce this as hoax.
The point of the two video is comparing two situations which, aside from them both being about vehicles leaving a surface, couldn't be less alike.
And you can glean this from the footage of the lunar ascent module? (Hint, you can't. Not using the angle the camera follows the craft). However, reading the readily available data about its trajectory, one gets a much better picture of just what was going on.
It did. Where it zooms into space.
Oh you mean like where it launches itself into space?
Oh you mean like the very clear moment of liftoff where propellants are seen ejected from the craft? Or their engines' characteristic "clear" flame which undergo full-operation (and thus clean burning) in a very short amount of time? Of course, watchin as the module changes its pitch you can quite easily see the flame.
So your obvious answer was "wow NASA I clearly see through hour lies. They had no scale how'd the bring back all those rocks!!"
As if NASA were going to go through all that trouble of fabricating such a hoax and just leaving that part out. Quickly, get on the horn with Neil and tell him to make up some lie about a scale....
Maybe reconsider incomplete wikipedia articles as part of your "investigation".
Dogs can only provide so much feedback.
Why would one expect that?
The plan was never to send dogs to the moon.
At some point there would be a first human up there.
And we can do it again.
It is.
And if they want to, they might try.
Can and should are different words.
Why would one expect that?
They went. They accomplished their mission (mission being: go to the moon). You don't keep at it one it's already done if there's no reason to.
An anonymous phone call is not verification.
You not understanding a very simple concept isn't an anomaly.
-3 PhilipMarma 2015-12-25
Wait, so now the Cold War was a hoax too?
10 lucycohen 2015-12-25
Both sides were controlled by the same New York Bankers, so yes
6 platinum_peter 2015-12-25
Yes, this right here.
Big money controls just about everything on this planet.
0 PhilipMarma 2015-12-25
How was the Soviet Union controlled by NY bankers, genius?
0 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
Read a book called Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, genius.
-5 kevinh456 2015-12-25
"Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?"
Because the technology doesn't exist anymore. The factories to make the rockets are gone. The plans are incomplete or lost. The work was split over hundreds of subcontractors, each one with only one specific an detailed piece.
Try to make a model T today. You'd have to recreate not just the parts, but the machines that MAKE the parts.
http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-saturn-v/
10 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
So the argument you're making here is that the scientists back in the 60s managed to achieve something so great, it cannot be recreated?
Now that's a big statement.
-6 kevinh456 2015-12-25
No. Only an idiot would read it that way. I'm saying it all has to be made from scratch again. There isn't a Saturn V factory you just turn on and shit out rockets.
4 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
Making it from scratch isn't the big deal you make it out to be.
They build items that are far more technical. Building something as good or better would not be the impossible mission you make out.
No way the key elements to performing such a task has been lost among the many scientists and contractors involved with the original.
-2 kevinh456 2015-12-25
Did I ever say it was impossible? That's all you buddy. I answered two questions: "Why such a long date? Why not use the tech that worked 6/7 times in the first place?"
Why such a long date? Everything has to be recreated from scratch.
Why not use the tech that existed before? Because it has to be remade from scratch, and the exact plans don't exist. Why would you reuse old tech when you can use over 40 years of technological progress?
1 platinum_peter 2015-12-25
So....who makes the rockets for current satellite launches?
2 benedictFocker 2015-12-25
It's not about tech. It's about economics. Those moon rockets are expensive, and required a completely specialized chain of production. Huge waste of money to do.
2 platinum_peter 2015-12-25
It's a good thing our government is so frugal and good with budgets, they would never be ignorant enough to waste money on anything.
0 Middleman79 2015-12-25
Making a model T from scratch would be piss easy to a group of car guys. It would take a week max. That's if you didn't let them salvage anything from the original model T's. Like as in nasa has the original shuttles...
-9 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
What if I told you some people want to be told what to do so badly they will listen to anything? Give me a break, we landed on the moon, no questions asked, I'm sure Buzz Aldrin would love to give you a haymaker if you say otherwise.
10 zeropoint357 2015-12-25
No questions asked? How's that grass taste?
-4 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Alright man with the amount of people that were involved with the Apollo programs, NASA, its conractors in addition to the various military intelligence, congressional, executive knowledge of these programs and the fact that events like these get communicated at a staff level (cheif of staff, people that work under him/her and etc) you seriously believe their is a conspiracy that we never landed on the moon? Give me a break, 3 people, and 3 people alone knew about President Bill Clinton and Moncia Lewisnky and look how long that "secret" lasted. With the shear amount of people involved, you would be foolish to believe that anything else other than the definitive fact that we landed on the moon.
8 pieceofchance 2015-12-25
While on the topic of Bill Clinton, how common is the knowledge that he has had literally hundreds of rape allegations filed against him by hundreds of different people over more than 25 years, yet the Lewinsky affair is the "common" knowledge (involving, as you point out, only three people).
All such common knowledge has suspiciously similar origins; basically, shit trickles down and the masses eat it up. As to the argument that so many people would have to be in on the deception, it would only necessitate a very few, with sufficient systems set up whereby everyone else would be just doing their jobs, which would be compartmentalized enough to keep anyone from knowing too much, while simultaneously being encouraged by those same systems not to bite the hand that feeds if you do happen to notice anything suspect.
Collective delusions only works when you have enough of the masses (read: the mass of consciousness) prepared to buy the lies; be it the moon, 911, holocaust, or even the very concept of money.
Sleep well or stay woke, the onus is always on you.
-2 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
If listening to Alex Jones makes you sleep better at night, be my guest, I guess I will continue being a "sheeple" and believing that the moon landings was not staged with all of the facts and evidence that come with it.
0 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
But what about all that science stuff he said?
That's like confirming God is real because 'there's no way we're just hear man, no way'.
What you just said is the worst kind of argument for anything.
-5 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Except you know we actually have video footage, recorded documentation, moon rocks the fact that the landing happened within recent memory taking place within the last 50 years and so forth. I hope you see the irony from your comment. Seriously man, over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for more or less ten years.
7 zeropoint357 2015-12-25
Actually, NASA lost the video footage lol.
-5 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Might want to read up on that again.
6 zeropoint357 2015-12-25
Which part of that load of garbage refutes this?
-1 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Wikipedia is a load of garbage? How bout the part that explains what happened to the "missing tapes." Spend 10 or 15 minutes and you will see for yourself. Well since Wikipedia is "garbage" that you refuse to read, here it is straight from wiki.
2 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-25
And? You think every single one of those people knew every single detail of the program? Even without faking it, most of those people would have no idea what was going on except for what they were told by their superiors.
-1 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
No and I never stated that I did, but when you look at the shear number of people who worked on the Apollo program, if there was really a conspiracy, we would certainly know by now. The government couldn't even silence everyone involved with Watergate, how could they silence potentially 400,000 people who directly worked on the project, let alone all the military, congressional and executive intelligence involved?
-1 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
Well I've only been on this thread for 5 minutes and never looked into this conspiracy before and straight away there's some questions about the proof you mention as solid proof...
The videos have all kinds of things wrong. The parallax thing with the background not moving (as if it is a picture screen) and the fact the astronauts look normal when you speed them up x2
Bringing the rocks back. Someone mentioned it was a huge amount which makes the fuel calculations out.
This is what I'm saying. Even if these can be debunked... You are saying it isn't even worth looking into because it's an impossible theory from the get go because too many people would know about it and wouldn't keep quiet.
1 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Straight from wiki, Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure faraway objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer. Furthermore, there are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance.
Alright so your telling me that NASA would have never caluclated that out from the get go? Do you have a source to back up that claim?
No I am saying that the over abundance of facts and the shear amount of people who worked on the Apollo missions make the whole "Moon Landing Conspiracy" incredibly unlikely and near impossible from contracting this evidence.
1 werkshop1313 2015-12-25
And we went back over and over again, it wasn't just a one time thing.
1 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
How would NASA know ahead of time how much the moon rocks would weigh? My point here is that NASA claimed to have brought back hundreds of kilos of moon rock - but they had no way to know how much each moon rock weighed. This idea is ludicrous - they could be off by a few kilograms and therefore have insufficient fuel to liftoff.
Please provide counterarguments to all the listed scientific anomalies above.
The amount of people working on a project does not necessarily mean it must have taken place. Go to any large corporation - do the people on the 5th floor know what the people on the 6th floor are doing? If a company has been subcontracted to make one part, why would they necessarily need to know what all the other contractors are working on?
0 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Because their not pizza faced fedora wearing people who are not employed or schooled that live in their mother's basement. We are talking the biggest and brightest people here, also there were soil samples taken from previous missions, coupled with the fact that they calculated the amount of materials they could take back to earth. We are talking about rocket scientists here after all, not to discredit your knowledge or accomplishments or anything.
If you go through my post history you will see a multitude of sources that validate my claims, but a quick Google search should give you the info you are looking for.. Would you like to provide any evidence for the claims that you are pushing?
I'm not saying that they would, straight from wiki again it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings. There has been nobody from the United States government or NASA who has a link to the Apollo program has said the Moon landings were hoaxes. With the number of people that would have had to be involved, someone would have outed the hoax by now. Look a the Watergate scandal, there is no way the government could not have silenced everyone if the landings were faked, especially with the shear amount of people involved.
2 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
I claim that it's impossible for NASA to calculate ahead of time the weight of a rock on the moon. According to this link Apollo 11 brought back 22 kg of rock. This was the first alleged landing on the moon. How did NASA know the soil composition ahead of time? How did NASA know the weight of the rocks ahead of time without knowing the composition? How did NASA test their alleged calculations without a scale onboard the LM?
You are asking me to prove a negative. If I claim that, for instance, that there's no evidence of any other radiation on the photos other than visible light, how would I go about proving that? On the other hand, you can invalidate my claim by showing a photo where there is some other sort of radiation.
I doubt very highly that it would be easier to land on a heavenly body 250,000 miles away than it would to have faked it.
2 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Well yeah, but how about trying to fake it when over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo Missions, even if only 1% of the people who worked on it "knew the truth", we are taking about 4,000 people keeping their mouths shut on one of the most widely discussed conspiracies to date. If 3 people couldn't keep a secret that the President was getting head from one of his interns, how in the hell could this secret last so long? You and the rest of these "conspiritards" are ridiculous to think otherwise.
1 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
Again, the number of people working on the project does not necessarily mean all these people would know every aspect of the project. The idea that a large agency can't keep a secret is largely invalidated by the success of the Manhattan project - another large government project, worked on by a vast majority of people, which was kept secret throughout it's duration. Moreover, how many secrets do you think are currently kept by the CIA, NSA, etc...
Regardless, let's accept the premise that so many people were necessarily in on the secret. Put that in the "evidence for" pile. There still remains a large amount of scientific anomalies that can't be explained away.
Merely claiming my way of thinking is ridiculous without providing counterarguments does not strengthen your argument. In fact, I would argue, it weakens it.
1 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Again not trying to sound arrogant, but look at my post history. Finally, if the moon landings were staged and their is an over abundance of evidence to showcase that, don't you think it would have been in the best interests of the Soviets to discover that information and broadcast it to the world? They had no incentive to showcase evidence for the validity that the moon landings took place, yet they still did. If there is even half the amount of speculation that the moon landings were staged, it would have been greatly in the U.S.S.R.'s best interests to provide that, I think you and I could agree that information would have been slightly damaging to the U.S.'s image/influence in the world during the Cold War.
Again how many people worked on this project and how long did this secret exactly last? Oh yeah we definitely knew about it when we dropped the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just like how we definitely knew when we you know actually landed on the moon. Do you seriously have the audacity to essentially call Neil Armstrong and Buzz Armstrong statist shills who lied to help propogate Americana influence around the world, give me a break?
2 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
I will refer you to the work of Antony C. Sutton which shows that the US financed the Soviet revolution. One can theorize that the cold war was largely an exercise to generate money for the military industrial complex. Further, one can point to the great grain robbery of 1972, which might provide some explanation as to why the Soviets didn't "blow the whistle."
Moreover, if we assume the cold war were real, how would "blowing the whistle" have helped the Soviets. The Soviets were the enemy - one can assume the US would explain away the Soviets reasoning as enemy propaganda. Not to mention that such damaging information would be better used as blackmail. Further, this was the height of the cold war. Calling out the Americans could have drastic, nuclear consequences.
But regardless of the actions or inactions of the Soviets, this still does not explain away the large number of scientific anomalies.
1 dickwhitman69 2015-12-25
Google search "Moon Landing Conspiracies" and take 10 minutes to read the article and go through their sources. That entry does a superb job of explaining those "anomalies." But what do I know, I am just one of them stupid sheeple who accepts that the moon landing was real, the holocaust happened, that 9/11 wasn't a inside job and so forth. There are a number of conspiracies that I do believe have a lot of credit/merit though, for what ever that is worth. You can pm me about them if you would like to discuss. Happy Holidays man, it is pretty clear judging my the amount of downvotes that this sub believes the moon landing was faked, but the scientific community at large says otherwise.
-1 Middleman79 2015-12-25
They built nuclear weapons and no one knew what they were building.
15 RyanOnymous 2015-12-25
David McGowan's excellent series Wagging The Moondoggie is one of the best
8 lucycohen 2015-12-25
Superb link
7 RyanOnymous 2015-12-25
One of the all-round best researchers I've ever come across, imho. He will be sadly missed.
5 afraid_of_sharting 2015-12-25
Well i honestly thought the moon hoax conspiracy theory was one of the most far-fetched, but now I think it's pretty convincing. Those pictures of the lunar module.....
2 biohazard930 2015-12-25
What do you find strange about the pictures of the lunar module?
1 afraid_of_sharting 2015-12-25
I was surprised how small and thrown together it looks.
2 biohazard930 2015-12-25
Is that what you found convincing about the theory? If so, what did you expect it to look like? It's small size makes sense to me. I'm not sure about the "thrown together" comment, though.
1 afraid_of_sharting 2015-12-25
I think its appearance, along with the tasks it had to perform (landing, launching, reconnecting to the main capsule), the fuel it would require, the inventory of stuff it would need to carry, with no instances of failure, no detailed artifacts remaining, all left me feeling doubtful that this thing was real.
Edit: more specifically, i was surprised that it was nearly all covered with that foil. I'm sure there's a good reason for it but it also seems convenient for covering the whole thing and making detailed design unnecessary (if it was in fact a hoax).
3 biohazard930 2015-12-25
If I understand you correctly in that it looks a bit frail, you're correct. It was designed to operate in space, an environment that doesn't require the same standards to fly on earth. In fact, it couldn't fly on earth. I'm not as knowledgable about the other points, one certainly shouldn't be made incredulous by the mere image of the craft.
3 RamenRider 2015-12-25
Lmfao fucking love that title.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
Thanks a lot for this, just finished reading it. Very convincing.
8 toneii 2015-12-25
I've studied it. The moon landing conspiracy is like most other conspiracies - ignoring all of the other evidence and focusing solely on the interesting set of anomalies.
0 thing_on_a_string 2015-12-25
'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'
good enough for the Roman courts of law, good enough for canon and common law courts for two thousand years.
the principle is still good today.
-6 lucycohen 2015-12-25
You've most likely stumbled on a few so-called 'debunking' websites and assumed they were giving you the full picture. If you study the moon landing carefully and extensively, you'll realize it was a clear hoax, you can even see the strings on the astronauts. Watch the videos again, they are like watching Thunderbirds
10 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
What video shows strings?
3 subroc77 2015-12-25
There's no video showing astronauts on strings.
-3 toneii 2015-12-25
I've watched, and the look fake but they are real. We've been to the moon and back many times, so many times that we got bored up there and never bothered to go back.
7 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
Somebody does, but I doubt they have the freedom and/or desire to post about it on your reddit thread.
There are many clues. Here's a 2015 clue.
Apparently we can't cross the van allen belts yet. So... we can't get to the moon.
4 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
That's about the Orion spacecraft. Not just going through the Van Allen belts in general.
They're talking about testing the shielding on Orion and seeing if/how it has to be improved.
3 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
"We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."
He didn't say spacecraft. He said "people."
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Read through my many other replied to this topic.
TL;DR: stricter health and safety standards.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
He was specifically talking about the near earth radiation aka can Allen belts.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
And the protection Orion needed.
Orion and Apollo need different levels of shielding, which is why he said there are challenges to overcome.
5 malayatom 2015-12-25
You say 'different levels of shielding' like nbd. We are talking about lead here - one of the heaviest elements out there. Apollo did not need radiation shielding (or did not need lead) but Orion needs to strap on heavy radiation shielding and you don't think that's a big deal?
7 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Radiation hardening is an extensive topic, so I'll try and be as brief as possible.
By today's standards Apollo did need shielding.
If you read what I linked (edit: on mobile, thought you were somebody else) you'd have seen Apollo's strategy was simply to monitor solar radiation and space weather, then to launch the mission at a time when there was a low chance of high radioactive activity.
That's a bit like looking at a weather forecast and saying there's a low chance of rain and not taking an umbrella.
Only in this case if it does rain you die.
In the 60's, in the middle of the space race, this was an acceptable risk. Now standards are far, far stricter and this -even though 99% of the time it's safe- is a completely unacceptable risk.
Hell I have to sign off a health and safety forms, wear protective gear and use three inch thick lead walls when doing practical work with radioactive sources about as powerful as a banana, standards today are insanely high.
There's also the instrumentation aspect. 60's instruments were far less complex and hardier, a few state charged particles would bother them a bit but not much.
Modern technology is far more complicated, tiny interferences and ruin your readings or just flat out destroy the instrument.
Advances in technology are another reason more shielding is needed.
Modern launch vehicles, as well as modern improvements on shielding (it's not just lead anymore, active radiation shielding is cool as fuck and basically involves force fields deflecting ionising radiation) mean that it's viable for Orion to actually be properly shielded.
So, where Apollo couldn't be shielded, Orion can, where Apollo didn't really need to be shielded, Orion does.
2 untumulted 2015-12-25
So, you're best support for NASA going to the moon is that they didn't need shields?
Come on, this thread is about making us believe a moon landing occurred, certainly their lack of shielding can't be your best proof.
BTW, I got a laser pointed at your ass. It's invisible. But on target.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Okay then, why would they need shielding?
Please enlighten me. Tell me why shielding would be needed for Apollo, give me the estimated radiation doses, say "Clearly they're too highly" and then conclude "Shielding is needed".
You won't be able to, since the estimated radiation doses weren't too high. Unless an unexpected solar event happened and everybody died, that would have been a bit awkward.
Which is why Orion is doing it properly, so that everybody doesn't just die in case something random and quite unlikely does happen.
2 untumulted 2015-12-25
Truly amazing. You start by asking why they would need shielding and end by concluding they do.
Doublespeak got a hold on you.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
At first I was talking about Apollo in the 60's, which is why I said Apollo, at the end I talked about Orion now, which is why I said Orion.
Holy shit, if you won't read what I'm writing I don't know why I bother replying.
By 1960's standards shielding wasn't needed since they would probably be fine. Just like seatbelts weren't needed, crumple zones weren't needed, hard hats weren't needed, all because you'll probably be fine without them. And, like I've already explained, they couldn't have shielded Apollo properly anyway.
By today's standards shielding is needed since probably isn't good enough, you need to be sure they will be fine regardless of what happens. Which is why seatbelts, hard hats, steel toed boots, fire resistant doors, fire extinguishers, etc, etc, etc, are all required by health and safety laws now when they were not required in the 60's.
Is this really that hard to understand?
2 untumulted 2015-12-25
Why read what you are writing?
Before it was, we had em, just not right for Orion, to we didn't have them (when requested to provide evidence of them) and I mistakingly went through all of your links before reading the rest of the comment, which told me what I already knew, and what the links showed, and contradicted your initial "expert" opinion. It said they didn't have them.
Great. I knew that. Now your comments are just getting weirder and weirder.
Is utter lack of supporting evidence that NASA went hard to understand?
Got any? You know, actual evidence? Perhaps, you know the thing that makes you sure they went (I'm picturing a cub scout pledging allegiance as your greatest source of conviction).
You can blame whatever you want. By 60's standards apparently they didn't need to keep the footage, could slip in a few fake moon rocks, perhaps by 60's standards, the crosshairs could fall behind the object and launching off the moon had no effect on the surface.
Those darned lax standards.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Okay, I'll give you this point, I thought what I was saying was clear but I see why it might not be clear for everybody.
When I talk about radiation shielding I typically mean additional radiation shielding, like layers of lead or layers of a composite material designed specifically to prevent radiation passing through.
Apollo had no additional radiation shielding.
However Apollo did have its hull, and the hull provided some shielding, while not explicitly being designed as radiation shielding.
The hull does, by being a decently thick bit of metal, act as a form of radiation shielding. Shit, a sheet of paper or basically any material can act as radiation shielding.
Apollo's hull provided enough radiation shielding for the mission to fall within the 60's safety 'standards', as long as no unexpected solar flares went off at the wrong time and killed the instruments as well as everybody onboard.
Orion, however, will have proper radiation shielding, designed explicitly to be and act as radiation shielding, it looks like Orion will use the following technology for its shielding:
I've been focusing on Earth-orbiting spacecraft and the VA belts (since that's what this discussion, and the original video, was about), but keep in mind that Orion is designed to go to deep space, not just the moon. So the Apollo-era style of "Let's time it right and hope no solar events happen, killing everybody on board" combined with the harsh radiation environment of outer space mean Orion would need shielding even by the terrible standards of the 60's, as the chance of Orion being fine without shielding for an extended deep space mission is essentially zero.
Any more questions on the scientific side? The 'fake' moon rocks and 'fake' footage (even the one OP linked as 'evidence' for the landing being fake is moronic and obviously made by a blind guy, since you can clearly see the astronaut getting up pushing on the other one with his own hand) has been analysed to death and always been debunked.
Edit: Just thought of a decent example which should clarify things, I hope:
Any material really has some inherent amount of radiation it blocks. Just like everything has a mass/weight. We have weights designed as 'weights', designed to be lifted to get swole gainz, a dice also has a weight, but nobody would life dice to get fit, so even though it has weight it is not itself a 'weight'.
In the same way Apollo block's radiation since it's made of metal, so its hull shields against radiation, but it is not a radiation shield.
And the amount blocked by just the construction of Apollo was enough to deem it 'safe' without additional shielding.
-1 thing_on_a_string 2015-12-25
so the fact that no Gemini or Apollo astronaut suffered the slightest from radiation , means that we don't need shielding today !?
so were men supermen back in the sixties, has humanity degraded in the last 50 to mere shells of what they used to be able to do !?
saying ISO OSHA or whoever and safety standards does not change the basic science back then and now.
if it was dangerous back then its dangerous now, if it was safe back then its just as safe now.
so what is it then !?
4 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Read my post again, since it seems you stopped reading after the first line as I addressed every point you made.
Yes, standards have changed.
Yes, it looks like the Apollo astronauts got lucky and weren't affected, but they just as easily could have been caught out in a solar storm and killed, which is not a risk people will take today.
2 pbae 2015-12-25
NASA got lucky 6 times without any astrounauts suffering any type of radiation poisoning?
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Yes. Like I said, the chances of something going wrong were low, but low in the 60's is ridiculously high by today's standards.
The main risk was an unexpected solar event just... killing everybody. The sun was being monitored and the mission was timed for a period of low activity, but by today's standards saying "Yeah you probably won't die, unless this happens, but the chance of that is like... one in a hundred. You'll be fffiiinnneeee" is insane.
If something unexpected did happen they had essentially no protection. 60's logic just says "Well shit it's unexpected, probably won't happen", today's logic is "Prepare for literally every single thing that could possibly go wrong or we'll lose our funding and get sued to hell even if nothing goes wrong"
Tolerances today are stupidly strict. It's good they're there, but they are awkward, to the point where when I'm working with radioactive sources I have to take a ridiculous number of precautions, even though the source is weaker than a fucking banana...
2 pbae 2015-12-25
Even with today's higher standards, we've had two Space Shuttle accidents.
What kind of equipment was being used to monitor the sun?
Like what happened on Apollo 13 but they miraculously survived?
I find it hard to believe that none of you truthers don't have any skeptical bone in your bodies and you believe the narrative 100%.
I think I'm done with the moon bullshit because every truther sticks so hard to the moon status quo.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Yep. And compared to the Apollo program, two major space shuttle accidents out of 135 missions vs... oh wait you're the guy I replied to before. Basically answered this in my other reply.
Something I have already cited. Repeating myself is quite tiring, especially as all of this information is publicly available online and only takes a few seconds of searching to get.
...
Read that again in context and what I meant should be obvious. It was clear that I was talking about unexpected solar events releasing deadly-levels of radiation, which Apollo wasn't shielded against. Not an explosion.
I'm very sceptical, that's exactly why I come here, to have my views challenged.
Don't blame me for your inability to do research and come up with any points I can't refute.
2 pbae 2015-12-25
Sorry I missed it.
Explosion?
Are you really?
I never disputed your wealth of knowledge. I just find it hard to believe that you believe all of it. You claim you're skeptical but it appears that you believe 100% of the narrative and I don't know if you know this but our govt doesn't exaclty tell us the truth a lot of times.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Yes. You said Apollo 13. On Apollo 13 an oxygen tank exploded. It had nothing to do with the radiation environment, which is what I was talking about in the post where you quoted me saying "If anything unexpected [in regards to solar activity] happened [if they were in a location too far away from Earth to return to safety in time] they would have all died".
No, it doesn't, which is why I used independent data to check the position of Apollo 17.
And good luck keeping over two hundred thousand scientists and engineers quiet about faking the moon landings. As you've probably noticed from my posts, scientists and engineers tend to be quite passionate about the truth and facts, if there was the slightest doubt about what they were doing somebody would have mentioned something.
Or, at the very least, another scientist later on would have looked at the data and said it was clearly faked, and then every single scientist or engineer could independently check their math, statements and assumptions. That's the beauty of science.
Saying that the government has lied in the past about various things has no direct link to the Apollo program being fake.
What the OP of this thread asked for was solid evidence that Apollo is fake, not flaky reasoning like that.
I came here looking for that evidence, and didn't find any.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
NASA is compartmentalized so most of the employees are on a need-to-know basis.
C'mon man, I know you're smarter than making a statement than this.
If it's a cover-up, woudn't you assume that there isn't much evidence because it's been manipulated or deleted like all the film footage from Apollo?
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Not really, NASA's quite transparent.
"Where's the evidence?!"
"LACK OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE!"
Nope.
And, yet again, there are things that you literally cannot fake. Like doppler readings off of the Apollo missions confirming their speed and altitude, and confirming they landed, done by independent researchers over the world, including the Russians. Or, again, independent pictures of Apollo re-entering.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
It's quite hard to find a source since the NASA website isn't going to state that they're compartmentalized but I found this:
source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090720
So NASA couldn't take care of one of the most monumental moments in history by making sure that the tapes didn't get erased?
As smart of a guy you are, are you going to believe that someone or a group of people decided not to look to see what's on a previously used tape before they started to record over it?
And they claim to have copies that look better than the original? The ony way that would happen is if they were digitally enhanced and this adds a layer of uncertainty as far as authenticity goes.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
In your source the same person also says that:
So the changes only really affected the budgeting.
And it's talking about a reorganisation in 2005, not the structure NASA had in the 60's and 70's during Apollo.
If you read through the entire story, then yes, I see how that mistake could happen.
The tapes were only a temporary backup anyway. They were not intended to be kept or used in the future, they were only there in case the live broadcast failed, in fact there was a large discussion at NASA over if the camera should even be sent since it served literally no scientific purpose.
Either way, the full report on the search for the tape answers quite a lot of questions.
Essentially the tapes only existed in the first place because a conversion needed to be made to allow the broadcast to be sent to normal TV's, they were then taken in a massive batch of over 200,000 tapes set to be recycled.
It's quite hard to notice something's important if all you have to go by is a cryptic name like "AP11-LCT-0001".
Either way, the original tapes still exist for the other missions, so the argument that they were lost on purpose to hide something doesn't work too well as there are tapes for the rest of the missions.
Even the original quality is still quite shite: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14v.1350943.rm
1 pbae 2015-12-25
Hmmm, that statement doesn't sound to me that compartmentalization accomplished very little. In fact, if manipulation to direct and control research was the goal, then compartmentalization is a success.
Compartmentalization has gone back to at least WW2 so it's not out of the question that it would have been implemented during the 60's NASA era.
Why did they take the camera then?
So our Military has been filming war footage as far back as WW2 for archival purposes but our govt doesn't see any significance in archiving moon footage? I feel you're stretching things a bit.
On top of that, how are you going to defend the erasing of the moon footage when you didn't even know about it until now. All you did was do a little research after I pointed to a source and then you found some source of your own and are going with it? I've said this before but you aren't that skeptical at all.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Read the rest of the paper, he meant it wasn't a big deal as in it didn't improve or damage the science being done much.
Just to broadcast it live, since some thought it would be a good idea. Which is exactly why nobody bothered with the tapes further than just having them there as a backup if the broadcast failed.
No, it's not, but that still doesn't mean that -if it was done to a large extent- it was done in an effort to split up scientists so that nobody could discover the massive conspiracy of the moon landings being faked...
Obviously they do care, since it was broadcast live to millions of people and recorded multiple times. What nobody cared about was the original footage as it served no scientific purpose and its only use was to be converted to a format that could be sent out live, and as a backup in case the live failed.
Even if the backup had to be used it would need to be converted again, so it was pointless to keep an un-converted copy.
I knew it was missing, just never really cared since it's not a big deal, things get erased all the time and those tapes weren't intended as main tapes, they were a form of temporary backup. And all the original tapes from the future Apollo missions are available.
If the science didn't line up, I would be sceptical. But the science works perfectly fine, and all of the raw data is perfectly fine, and all of the independent readings are fine. Missing tapes for one out of the six missions is not enough to make me doubt the moon landings happened.
Actual scientific data disagreeing with the narrative would be enough.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
compartmentalization isn't about improving science, it's about limting the flow in info.
So just forget archival footage then, huh? Let's just forget about one of the most important events in history. Shit, we should just erase all the archival WW2, Korean War, Vietnam or any other thing they have archived.
So how did they know that CBS or any of the other news stations weren't going to erase their footage just like NASA did?
How convenient you remember that after I mentioned it.
This contradicts your statement earlier where you said you are skeptical and come here to be proven wrong but according to this statement, you've already determined the science works so the fact is that you just come here to argue.
Hmmm, I don't remember when science explained why there wasn't a blast crater underneath the spacecraft when it landed on the moon.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
No, it's not, not with engineers anyway. Compartmentalization doesn't limit any information flow. It just says "You're the power systems engineer? Great, then you're put here with the rest of the power systems engineers". Here's the contents page from one of my spacecraft engineering books, it's chaos if you just shove four hundred thousand employees together and say "Go on build Apollo then!"
You split them into groups, like propulsions, structure, attitude, thermals, comms, whatever, then all of the group constantly cooperate. You cannot stop different systems designers from talking to each other, otherwise you end up with something that literally cannot be built.
The converted footage was archived.
Why would there be? Apollo's landing engines were extremely weak, since Apollo was relatively 'light' and gravity on the moon's weak you didn't need some Ariane-V-level of Earth-cracking thrust.
Just from experience there's no reason for there to be a 'crater', either way I'm sure somebody has done the math on this already.
And they have:
-6 pbae 2015-12-25
You know what? I just lost any little respect I had for you with you making that statement.
Don't fucking tell me what compartmentalization is. I'm not fucking stupid and I'm not weak minded like the other assholes that you're able to bait into a flame war over and you can't manipulate me.
And it took you a day to answer this question???
Who or what did you have to consult to come with this disinfo bullshit?
And I find it highly suspect that you're a genuine Redditor with good intentions since you just created your account 6 days ago and all your posts are you being argumentative.
So no sources anymore huh? You're just going to make a statement and expect me to go with it?
More disinfo?
And that bullshit explanation is just that, bullshit and you fucking know it.
Like I said before, you're punk ass just came here to argue and derail the conversation that we try and bring up. You're not skeptical at all and you're nothing but a saboteur.
And any intelligent individual could clearly see what your agenda is.
You fucking 6 day old shill.
5 EveryonesNoOne 2015-12-25
You do realize that it's the holidays and people have families to spend time with, right?
Not everyone has massive amounts of free time to Reddit 24/7 like you obviously do. I guess things are slow at the tinfoil hat factory?
What is up win this sub and their concern with the age of accounts? You seem massively paranoid and I can't wait until you accuse me of being an alt account for the guy that just schooled you, but here's the thing, I found your post in /r/topmindsofreddit and it was so funny I just had to respond.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Holy shit, I'm sorry I have a life and I don't spend my entire day on Reddit.
If you really want to know, since it was the weekend and a holiday, I decided to go out with some friend, party for a bit, got nicely drunk, a bit hungover, stayed at a friend and only got back/started feeling human again at about 4 or 5PM.
My engineering book.
Which, oddly enough, rarely mentions Apollo, and only has generic engineering practices in it which are followed by... fucking everybody ranging from NASA to Ford and Microsoft?
Not my fault you seriously seem to not understand how a business/project is run and managed.
Is Microsoft part of a massive conspiracy because they have different departments which seperate people that, wait for it, work on different things?
In the past when I used my main to debate I've had batshit insane people follow me around, analyse everything I post and try to DOX me, so I now switch accounts around a lot to avoid getting DOXed by crazy fuckers. From your reply calling me a saboteur and a shill I get the feeling that you're the kind of person that makes me use separate accounts instead of using my main.
I assumed, since you are clearly a true sceptic, unlike me, that you'd be able to do independent research.
Here's the website holding all of the archived footage from all of the Apollo mission. Used 14 randomly since it's an ancient-as-fuck website with terrible navigation. Change the 14's to 11, 12, whatever, to see the rest of it.
Ah yes, science, maths and the specifications of a spacecraft are disinfo.
If what I'm doing by researching, finding facts, finding primary sources means I'm not sceptical then I'm afraid to ask what your definition of a sceptic is.
I'm a scientist and an engineer. Oddly enough my agenda is promoting science, engineering, the scientific method and logic.
After all I have spent the better part of six years studying this subject, so bullshit arguments like your are quite annoying.
Here's a nice example of somebody not being exceedingly rude, who had genuine questions and brought new points and information I never knew about and didn't know the answer to.
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
Citations, science, facts and logic = shill
Enjoy your agenda and enjoy questioning absolutely nothing in life.
You're the opposite of a sceptic.
-2 pbae 2015-12-25
I didn't even bother reading any of your shit so you might as well not waste yourtime anymore.
Go enjoy shilling some other sucker, sucker.
3 EveryonesNoOne 2015-12-25
Disclaimer:
/u/pbae is a troll that will PM profanities and his homosexual fantasies about you if you disagree with him.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Oooh alright, thanks for the warning.
-3 pbae 2015-12-25
Post it as many times as you like, I don't give a fuck.
3 EveryonesNoOne 2015-12-25
That's why you keep PMing me your homosexual fantasies about me, right?
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Well, at least if anybody happens to look at this thread they'll see my nice, reasonable, cited, factual replies and then... well... yours.
Thanks for helping my 'agenda' =D
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[removed]
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
It's the evening now, going out with friends since I don't spend my entire day on reddit.
Have fun m8ey
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[removed]
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
Contentless comments like this aren't going to fly man. The rules on the sidebar aren't too difficult to follow and you've had dozens of comments reported in the last few days alone. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. Shouting "shill" constantly isn't doing anyone any favors and it totally cheapens the accusation when you repeat it ad nauseum.
-11 pbae 2015-12-25
I've taken the messages private as not to offend anyone.
If you see them in the mesaages section, then it's because the other user is posting them, not me.
6 subroc77 2015-12-25
Why don't you just stop entirely?
0 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
Huh? You have numerous comments, literally dozens, where you say nothing other than insult the other person or call them a shill. One or two sentence comments with absolutely no substance or content to them. You also spammed about five comments telling people they're pussies. Just overall a bunch of garbage comments.
If you have nothing of substance to say, just say nothing. Otherwise the comment sections devolve into back and forth petty insults and that's what we're trying to avoid.
4 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
So you admit he has dozens of comments calling people shills or just insulting people, as well as dozens of reported comments, and the rules say that repeated offences result in a ban but... he's not banned?
Just wanted to clarify.
-2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
Nice detective work.
2 KiwiBattlerNZ 2015-12-25
No answer? I also see you dropped the mod flair for this comment...
-1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
Great eye. Just when I was thinking this other guy had been channeling his inner Sherlock you come along and put him to shame.
2 KiwiBattlerNZ 2015-12-25
Still no answer?
You recently admitted that dozens of people have been banned for attacking other users, but when asked why this one wasn't banned, you simply refuse to answer?
That's not very encouraging. People might think you mods play favourites.
-2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
People are free to think whatever they want and I'm under no obligation to answer you or anyone else. The guy was given a warning and we're moving forward. Get over it.
2 ragecry 2015-12-25
What's with all the new user accounts trying to get other people banned for schoolyard insults? I mean they are literally sock puppets begging to have someone else banned.
And what's with multiple users pressuring a mod to do something, then mocking them for not doing it? How about fuck off bro, go mod your own subreddit. Did Timmy steal your favorite swing again? Never seen such petty forum goers in all my life.
Here's the shit post Anti_Vaccination made to /r/TopMindsOfReddit mocking your behavior:
https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/3yl7yp/top_mod_refuses_to_ban_member_who_continuously/cyeeq81
He actually tries to suggest the user was an alt of mine.
So who is Anti_Vaccination? Notice how he never participated in the discussion here, but made a shit-post to /r/TopMindsOfReddit about it? That tells me he wasn't just lurking, he was probably one of the sock puppets in this thread. It wouldn't be surprising, since I exposed him last week for using multiple sock puppets to harass other users. He deleted most of the accounts, but still has his main account P51Mike1980.
So that's my observation after showing up late here to the party. You can delete this comment if you want, I don't care.
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
I banned 10-20 accounts yesterday for trolling/shitposting/etc. My guess is that one or more of these were alts for all of these dudes coming out of the woodwork to attack me today, they seem overly pissed off compared to usual. I've also been getting angry PMs from multiple people telling me I'm a shill and that pbae is my alt and other bullshit. I can only think I pissed someone off and they're just venting their rage and butthurt. Luckily the opinions of anonymous, random strangers on the internet are not things I would ever bother losing sleep over.
1 ragecry 2015-12-25
That's...excessive. Once you realize the effort these trolls put in, their insults become pure hilarity. They might be a waste of oxygen, but their computing devices could have been put to better use. What a shame, all those devices gone to waste.
1 EveryonesNoOne 2015-12-25
He was already warned by another mod. The comment was removed but it's still visible in his comment history.
1 KiwiBattlerNZ 2015-12-25
So you admit that you mods apply the rules unfairly?
Funny... I would have thought adults could "get over" insults too... but apparently you need to protect them from being offended.
But only some of them.
1 IgnoreTheTwoof 2015-12-25
If you have nothing of substance to say, just say nothing. Otherwise the comment sections devolve into back and forth petty insults and that's what we're trying to avoid.
0 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
Good one man, thanks for this zinger.
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
Note that Gemini & Apollo missions weren't long-term so the radiation dose has to be taken in a fairly short period. Astronauts on the ISS or on any potential Mars mission need to deal with a lot more.
0 malayatom 2015-12-25
There is radiation all over the solar system - from the sun. Which is why We need a magnetosphere to survive.
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
Well, we need something to shield us from the worst, which can be anything from a magnetosphere to lead or water in the way. Also people can survive radiation just fine, it's just a matter of how much you take in, and what effects it may have. In most cases it'd just increase your risk of getting cancer, it wouldn't kill you instantly.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
You just say this so non-chalantly like it's no big deal.
And how come you didn't post that youtube link again showing the trajectory that NASA used to skirt the Van Allen belt since it seems so relevant here because you tried so hard to sell it to me last time?
0 Roarian 2015-12-25
Oh, it's you again. Back for more?
1 pbae 2015-12-25
Shit, I never left.
It was you that stopped responding to me when you couldn't address a question I was asking you.
0 Roarian 2015-12-25
You were asking the same questions you'd already asked, and nothing new was coming up. Pointless repetition isn't worth it.
2 pbae 2015-12-25
You stated that multiple probes were sent out but you never sourced it.
The only things you answered was your own rhetoric.
-1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Source for these advanced non lead based radiation shielding?
5 kevinh456 2015-12-25
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/637131main_radiation%20shielding_symposium_r1.pdf
-1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Nice - hopefully this can eventually translate into commercial deep space travel.
Not that it mattered back in 1969.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Search for Active Radiation Shielding.
I haven't kept up with Orion much so I'm not sure what their plans are (doubt it's this since last time I checked it was just an idea) but these are some active shielding plans I know of:
Confined/unconfined magnetic shielding
Plasma shielding
Electrostatic shielding
There might be newer ideas since I last looked at this topic, but search for any of those and you'll get a couple of papers on each.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
All on the drawing board still I assume.
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Active shielding still is I believe.
But Orion has moved away from the 60's era "Lead is best" thinking to more advanced protection, not as advanced as active shielding, but better than just slapping a few tonnes of lead on.
Right now it looks like a more refined version of the following plan will be used for Orion:
Which is precisely why it must be tested. The shielding is new and should work, in theory, but theory needs to be backed up by practical tests.
3 malayatom 2015-12-25
It does sound exciting though. Will be interesting to see how they are able to power it - figure there needs to be further work into graphene supercapacitors or what not.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Yep, near the end of a report titled "Meeting the Grand Challenge of Protecting’s Health: Electrostatic Active Space Radiation Shielding for Deep Space Missions" they do a brief overview of the power requirements.
I don't deal with the power subsystems much (well, not this aspect of it), so I don't feel too comfortable talking about it, sorry.
4 e39dinan 2015-12-25
I don't think that video proves we didn't go to the moon. I interpreted what he said as we don't have the technology to sustain orbit around the earth while immersed in the van Allen belts. That would be much different than the risks involved in punching straight through the VA belts on the way to the moon.
2 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
That's your interpretation, but that's not what he said.
"These are challenges we need to solve before we send people through this region of space."
He didn't say "before people hang out in this region," did he?
"before we send people through this region of space."
And no, it's not proof. IT's not "evidence." I never claimed it was. It's a puzzle piece.
5 e39dinan 2015-12-25
The guy in the video was talking about building an orbital craft, and he was discussing the challenges specific to that type of mission. The van Allen belt radiation in that scenario would be a prolonged exposure, which is completely different than punching through it on the way to the moon.
3 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
1 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
Because I said somebody has the evidence? That's not a baseless assumption.
Stupid? Maybe. Not baseless, though.
-2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Wasn't a challenge back in 1969 OP
8 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
-2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Back in 1969
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Just keep believing
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Yes I'm the one who is retarded for being a little skeptical when I hear the moon rock presented to the Dutch was fake (easy Google) and that NASA has "lost" more than 700 cartons worth of original evidence (another easy Google). Or maybe I'm retarded when I chuckle when tell me that apart from the 7 Apollo missions no one has been above low earth orbit since 1972. Or maybe I'm retarded when I laugh out loud when they say that man made a 4000 mph descent from lunar orbit to stick a vertical landing using 1960s technology with absolutely no symmetrical testing. Yeah I'm pretty retarded - maybe I should just shut off any sort of critical thinking and be smarter just like you.
2 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
If they wanted to falsify the moon landing they would delete the original evidence so that the argument would be on either side?
I don't know know whether to laugh or cry. That is some next level bullshit.
2 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
I can't even follow what your point? They purposely lost 700 cartons of evidence to mess with conspiracy theorists?
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Losing 700 cartons worth of evidence convinces me that it's fake? What does it convince you off? Losing a few cartons is incompetence - but losing blueprints, all of the telemetry and all of the original video is a fucking coverup.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
So they really did land on the moon, but are purposely hiding their evidence to fuck with us. Makes sense.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Fine as long as you don't discount the possibility that the moon landing was faked.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Clearly it doesn't matter what I say - you are not going to budge. You would rather think that the govt is purposely deleting evidence to fuck with us - which makes no sense whatsoever.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
So they developed all this advanced deep space capability (with little or no testing) and then gave it up because --- Aliens? Riiiiiiiiight.
2 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
The neutron radiation would fry anyone inside any spaceship with Fe components in the plating, because it would cause secondary incrementing gamma radiation inside the spaceship.
8 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
So I've heard. Not my field of expertise so I won't confirm or deny.
But I know that NASA are the ones claiming to have sent man to the moon and NASA are the one claiming that as of this year we don't have the technology to cross a barrier which we would need to cross to reach the moon;
ergo, NASA is lying about something.
7 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Conveniently this is my area of expertise.
That video was about the Orion spacecraft. Shockingly when saying "We must solve these challenges" they're talking about Orion, not Apollo. This should be quite obvious, but Orion is a different spacecraft to the Apollo CSM, with modern technology on it which is far more sensitive to radiation than what was used on Apollo in the 60's, meaning the shielding requirements are different.
And if you need different levels of shielding then the challenges of shielding Orion are different.
That video saying "Couldn't they just use technology from the Apollo missions or the same shielding as it must have worked back in 69'?" is the same as Bugatti saying "We need new technology for our car" and some moron replying with "Well, couldn't you just use the same tech from this Ford car? It worked then why won't it work now!?!?!"
Well, no, it wouldn't work, since it's different...
2 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
My, that is convenient.
So they were talking about the technology, yes? That's what's too sensitive to send through the Van Allen belts? The modern technology which is more fragile re: radiation vs. the old technology?
Then how come he said "before we can send people" through the belts?
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
sight
Read through my many other replied to this topic.
TL;DR: stricter health and safety standards.
0 pbae 2015-12-25
What is your area of expertise?
What do you do for a living?
And if you say you work for JPL and you specifically work at making the spacecraft, I'm going to ask you something very specific that a JPL worker should know.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Still living the wonderfully poor life of a student.
Area of expertise is mainly physics with a focus on space engineering, so astronautics, spacecraft design, etc...
I'd say more but the course I was on is quite niche with only a handful of people being accepted a year, so I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find out where I went and I'd rather not DOX myself.
-4 untumulted 2015-12-25
That was pathetic. But chin up, you'll get em next time.
Sensitive equipment...lol. The sensitive equipment are the humans. While it's true that we have become more sensitive...our bodies are as sensitive as they were 40 years ago.
We've been sending "sensitive equipment" through. As the video said, they're talking about people.
9 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Great reply, I take it you have no argument then? Really proving the OP wrong here /s
8 untumulted 2015-12-25
What's to say? That is extremely amusing.
I don't know why you think it's up anyone to prove that NASA didn't go to the moon; it's up to NASA to prove they went.
You know, not go through long drawn out examples of how it's different now, but just show the shielding used and how it worked.
You don't have that though. So you can't. Instead, you have to string together a bunch of nonsense.
That's not your fault. NASA didn't give you the tools to prove they went to the moon, because they can't give them to you. There's no solid evidence that NASA went. All "evidence" suggesting they did is utterly corrupted.
But it amazes me when some one who is dealing in their "area of expertise" wouldn't just go straight to the money shot: they used this! Boom! Eat it! And it doesn't concern you that you can't.
Like can be done with any other provable thing.
13 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Well, I can.
Here are the publicly available documents from NASA on protection against radiation for the Apollo mission.
Here's another publicly available document.
And another.
Essentially, with what was available to them then, no amount of shielding could have helped (in fact trying to shield would be harmful), so the next best option was to go through the belts as fast as possible, at a time with low solar activity and decent space weather predictions, and hope nothing broke and that none of the astronauts got cancer and died later on.
Why wouldn't shielding help? I'll be as brief as possible.
There are four main kinds of radiation.
Alpha fucks shit up, but gets stopped by almost anything, so the spacecraft's exterior was enough.
Beta fucks shit up less badly, but would still be stopped by the exterior (mostly).
Gamma usually just goes through everything, but if it interacts then it fucks everything up since it releases different kinds of radiation inside of you/the components. Stopping it would need too much shielding, so the best option is to reduce what it can interact with and hope it just goes through everything.
Same-ish for neutron.
NASA probes showed that there was far less radiation in the VA belt than expected, and that if they went through fast enough then shielding wouldn't be needed.
It was an insanely stupid risk by today's standards, which is why Orion is doing it properly this time. Although it'll still go through as fast as possible to reduce exposure.
Boom. Eat it.
3 pbae 2015-12-25
You know, there's this other user Rorian that is just like you and he totally agrees with the narrative.
But Roarian has presented evidence that you don't address or even mention which is trajectory used to "skirt" around the Van Allen Belt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YuH4rxda3Z4
Also, I found this on the NASA website in which you also don't address or even mention:
So how could NASA have predicted what shape the belt was going to be in before they launched any of the spacecrafts?
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Oh yeah, the trajectory was another aspect of it, a course was chosen which avoided the most dangerous areas like the South Atlantic Anomaly.
And the predictions were made using the original readings from Explorer (which, as your source said, was launched in 1958, years before the first Apollo missions) and other subsequent spacecraft which went through the VA belts.
Afterwards in 1962 the US brilliantly decided to detonate a nuke inside the belts, which made predicting the radiation environment even more difficult.
But even after that a large number of spacecraft went through the VA belts and returned readings, namely Ranger 3 to 9, Surveyor 1 to 7 and Lunar Orbiter 1 to 5 all (I believe, at least most) had radiation detectors in board to assess the VA belts status.
Either way, once it was realised what the VA belts were and why they were there it became possible for scientists to attempt to predict the radiation environment theoretically.
That's what I mean when I talk about how NASA predicted the VA belt's shape and status. Of course, as they also knew, the VA belt can and does change shape, it also changes how ‘radioactive’ it is depending on what the Sun’s been pumping into it, which is why -even with the data from dozens of missions- nobody could say exactly what it would be like when Apollo went through.
As for why I said the radiation levels were lower than predicted, if you check this document on Apollo’s radiation protection strategy then you'll see the following:
2 pbae 2015-12-25
And the scientists happened to be 100% correct with their predictions all 6 times?
So with 6 different mission to the moon, NASA just got lucky all 6 times and not one astronaut was harmed.
Airbus has had more flight accidents (one) than Apollo despite Apollo going into unknown territory. Then there's the Yuasa Lithium batteries that would catch on fire on board Boeing's Dreamliner but all the components in the Apollo pretty much worked to a T?
The Space Shuttle program had suffered 2 disastrous events during it's lifetime despite the fact that the Space Shuttle rarely left LEO. One was a launch accident and one was a re-entry accident but Apollo had neither despite the fact that rocket tech was relatively new at the time and they had no re-entry accidents either, despite the fact that spacecraft tech was relativey new.
You know, even with your wealth of knowledge on the subject, do you not see how a person might be skeptical as the claims NASA makes as far as the success of the moon missions?
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
No, it didn't, any research into the topic would prove you wrong instantly.
There were multiple deaths during the design, testing and development phases of Apollo. If you didn't notice, the moon landing was performed by Apollo 11. 11 isn't just a random number, it was called Apollo 11 because there were test missions before. You're acting as if NASA just sent Apollo off to the moon and got it right the first time magically with no preparation.
Apollo 1 had a fire which killed all three astronauts on board. So... yeah, three deaths isn't exactly 'working to a T'.
Apollo 2 and 3 tested the launch vehicles and deployment.
Apollo 4 tested engine restart and re-entry.
Apollo 5 tested the lunar module's descent and ascent, as well as its abort functions.
Apollo 6 aimed to test everything in one go. A huge problem was found with vibrations causing the engines to shut down and fail.
Apollo 7 was the first manned orbit test. Went well-ish, apart from the crew fighting with mission control and there being high tension between them.
Apollo 8 left the Earth and went into Lunar orbit.
Apollo 9 went into LEO and tested the lunar lander as well as the new space suits.
Apollo 10 tested every single stage of the plan, including the lunar lander in moon orbit. Apollo 10 descended to 15km above Lunar surface, just short of landing, and then returned. This was to test the descend and ascent engines in a Lunar-gravity environment.
Apollo 11 nearly aborted during the descent phase due to a computer problem.
Apollo 12 nearly aborted due to issues seen with the battery and power supply.
Apollo 13 famously had an oxygen tank explode, does "Huston we have a problem" right a bell?
Apollo 14 nearly aborted twice during descent, a (believed to be faulty) abort signal was being sent and was then ignored and the landing radar failed to get a lock and asked to abort as well, but was also ignored, and a manual landing as performed against guidance by NASA.
Apollo 15 went quite well. An engine failed to shut down properly and there was a risk that it might have damaged the spacecraft, but it didn't damage it as badly as expected.
Apollo 16 went quite well, most of the kinks had been worked out by now.
Apollo 17 went well.
So you're completely wrong and just making statements without any research.
As for the shuttle, it has two major accidents out of 135 missions. That's roughly one in seventy.
One in seventy chances for the shuttle to have an accident vs the 6 manned moon missions, most of which had problems anyway. I see no inconsistency here.
Yes, I see exactly why a person that has done absolutely no research and makes statements like "not one astronaut was harmed" and "Apollo pretty much worked to a T" would see this as a potential conspiracy. It would have been very unlikely to have everything go well throughout the entire Apollo program.
But it didn't. There's nothing suspicious at all about what happened.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
Apollo 1 never left the earth.
I was talking about accidents that happened during the mission.
And despite the fact there were far more missions for the space shuttle, NASA had a lot better understanding as far as how things should go compared to Apollo which was a new frontier.
Are you going to attribute that to beginner's luck?
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Great, I gave you a nice long list showing that accidents happened on nearly every mission, and almost all of those nearly caused an abort. You said it all went perfectly and I proved you wrong, what more do you want?
Sorry, but I really don't get what you're saying with this.
It's not beginners luck. It's extensive testing and troubleshooting by the smartest people on Earth.
2 pbae 2015-12-25
Let me rephrase then.
No accidents up while they were up in the sky? Is that clear?
NASA had far more knowledge of space and the effects of space during the space shuttle era vs. the apollo era. Apollo was a totally new frontier and they didn't have any deaths in the sky? The Russians have at least one confirmed death during the early years of their space missions. And the Space Shuttle had two disasters in the sky despite the wealth of knowledge that they had.
But Apollo, going almost 300,000 miles away from the Earth's surface didn't suffer one casualty?
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
You're obviously not reading anything I'm posting, so I'll stop replying now.
I clearly gave you a list of all the problems that happened in the manned missions.
Yep, that's exactly what happened.
You said it all went perfectly and I proved you wrong, so now you move the goalpost from "Nothing went wrong! How's that possible?!" to "Nobody died! How's that possible?!"
It's possible because hundreds of thousands of the smartest people on earth got together to work on one project.
I don't see what evidence would convince you that it's entirely plausible for nobody to have died on the missions to the moon, so there's nothing more I can say.
Tell me what evidence you need and I can try to find it. But I doubt anything can change your mind.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
Hundreds of thousands worked on Apollo?
So how many people is that? 200,000? 300,000? 900,000?
And those same hundreds of thousands of people couldn't prevent the space shuttle from blowing up using much newer tech than Apollo did?
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Shockingly Apollo and the Space Shuttle happened at different times.
NASA peak employment during Apollo (1965): ~411,000 people
NASA peak employment during the Shuttle program (90's to now, although not as much data is available for employees now): ~20 to 25,000 people
And, again, this is all a game of statistics. It's not a question of 'if' something will go wrong, it's 'when'. And when you have over 100 shuttle missions something very unlikely is bound to slip past the millions of things systems engineers have to try and consider. And when you have under twenty missions planned, hopefully most of the things that can go wrong won't.
Also, the space shuttle is far more complex than the Apollo missions. Far more could have gone wrong with it, I'm actually surprised there weren't more accidents with it since it was quite a shitty plan really.
But, again, tell me what evidence you need and I can try to find it.
-1 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
Your a moron.
-4 untumulted 2015-12-25
Then problem solved. They don't have to worry about shielding now. NASA guys wrong. Just go fast NASA guy. Maybe he doesn't read reddit. You should contact your local congressman and let him know.
How is this guys comment getting up voted? links to nothing and completely contradicted his own position. Did you even click any of the links?
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
So you think today's standards for health and safety are the same as they were in the 60's?
2 untumulted 2015-12-25
Maybe if they go through health and safety fast, they won't catch much flak.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Replied here thinking I was replying to you.
You can read it if you want.
-2 stefgosselin 2015-12-25
Humans are just as much likely to cook in outer space today as they were in the 60's.
Oh but they did not cook in the 60's, obviously because the astronauts were not even aware of the van Allen belts.
You gullible "believers" are quite funny.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Read my other posts.
The VA belts were well known about and extensively studied by the time Apollo went through them.
0 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
If they actually passed it any human inside would be dead because of neutron radidation.
-1 stefgosselin 2015-12-25
I believe that was the point I was trying to make, in a sarcastic manner.
-1 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
Oh, sorry then.
3 biohazard930 2015-12-25
What's wrong with the links?
1 untumulted 2015-12-25
They don't backup the initial "expert" opinion. They utterly changed it.
0 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
I think /u/untumulted didn't understand the difference between radiation shielding and material that just shields from radiation, while not being designed to be a radiation shield.
Admittedly, that wasn't as clear as it could have been, then again it's awkward to talk about radiation shielding shielding (like a lead radiation shield) and things which are shield against radiation (like paper, your skin, or really any material) but aren't actual radiation shielding, since that's not their purpose, it's just a thing they also do.
In the same way Apollo didn't have proper radiation shielding, but it was 'shielded' against radiation just by virtue of it being a metallic capsule.
He thought I contradicted myself by saying Apollo essentially had no radiation shielding, but then I also talked about how Apollo did shield against radiation. It's not a contradiction as Apollo didn't have specially designed radiation shielding, but it did shield against radiation since it was made of metal and other materials which, by their nature, block radiation.
Any material really has some inherent amount of radiation it blocks. Just like everything has a mass/weight. We have weights designed as weights, designed to be lifted to get swole gainz, but a dice also has a weight, while not itself being a 'weight'.
In the same way Apollo block's radiation since it's made of metal, so its hull shields against radiation, but it is not a radiation shield.
And the amount blocked by just the construction of Apollo was enough to deem it 'safe' without additional shielding.
Tried to clarify things a bit with this post.
0 DwarvenPirate 2015-12-25
Heheh, people see lots of words and think "he sure sounds smart!"
Pretty unbelievable for someone to say that the reason NASA says there is a problem now but didnt used to be is because there is no problem.
5 jupitergeorge 2015-12-25
One of the Apollo missions left a mirror on the moon to bounce lasers off to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
2 untumulted 2015-12-25
So did the Russians. They left two. (BTW, NASA left three.)
Are you saying the Russians went to the moon? Bold claims on this Christmas night.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Brutal :). But he is going with the technology is too far advanced argument and freaking deserves it.
8 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
0 malayatom 2015-12-25
Well NASA are the ones claiming to have this advanced capability from 1969 to 1972 - and all they have to show to for it are some shitty pictures, video and fake moon rock (ask the Dutch). Also they have lost blueprints for the LEM, radio telemetry data and original video. So yeah, I do t have to prove anything because I'm not the one claiming deep space capability.
3 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
-1 malayatom 2015-12-25
I said fake moon rocks. You are being disingenuous.
1 unportrait 2015-12-25
The story about the fake moon rock given to the Dutch is one that easily demonstrates which people are capable of doing any basic research themselves rather than blindly believing the story that conspiracy theorists associate with it.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
It's mind boggling that people just ignore it like its nbd. They don't seem to understand that NASA took petrified wood and purposely shaped (or molded or whatever) and passed it on to the world as the real thing. Heck the Dutch still have it in their museum even after confirming its fake. We really are fucking sheep.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Um, I'm saying that people who believe what you just regurgitated are those who are incapable of doing any basic research. I would suggest you read the actual sequence of events before spreading additional inaccuracies:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
That link is taking forever to load - what am I missing? I googled Dutch moon rock again just now and all major new sources are calling it fake.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
It was never claimed to be a moon rock by the US Ambassador who gave it as a gift, it was a misunderstanding as "My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
This is verified by additional facts such as:
It was a misunderstanding. When you look at what the actual samples look like and how they are contained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays#/media/File:Netherlands_Apollo_11_display.jpg
compared to what was given to Drees:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-0-063396B8000005DC-918_468x409.jpg
It becomes very clear. Here is another article that loads faster;
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Boy you believe anything that they tell you. Every major European newspaper has labeled it as a fake and that it was presented as moon rock by the U.S. Govt at the time. This pathetic back pedaling once they got busted isn't changing the story as reported by these newspapers.
1 unportrait 2015-12-25
How do you know it was presented as a moon rock? If they did so, why wouldn't they make it look like any of the other gifted moon rocks? Why would they give it to the person 3 years prior to any of the other gifted moon rocks? Why would it be approximately 80x larger than any of the other gifted moon rocks if they were trying to "pass it off" as real?
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Fucking ask them that - I didn't present petrified wood to the Dutch govt. lol
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
It wasn't the Dutch government. It seems as though you aren't even reading the information being provided, making this pretty pointless.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Also - let's take this guy at his word - then what the hell was he doing presenting petrified wood to the Dutch?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Statespeople are given gifts all the time, why would that be odd?
Also, who is the one taking anything at anybody's word? I've provided photographs comparing the moon rocks and the gift rock demonstrating that they are in no way comparable in size, shape or presentation. It is you who is trusting somebody (an 89 year old man no less) at their word that it was apparently possibly, even with all of this evidence to the contrary, presented as a moon rock.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Yeah common mistake I guess - passing fake items masquerading as one of the most significant artifacts in human history - happens all the time between governments and totally understandable.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Wasn't "between governments" and it wasn't "masquerading" as anything. Again, I suggest you review the information a bit more closely, it seems as though you're deliberately not taking the time to educate yourself regarding the topic.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Your right. You had me at statesmen give significant gifts which are actually fake - im convinced now. The moon landings totally happened.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Sorry dude, I can't let this one go, I've been chucking at the scenario for the last hour. You are basically implying the following:
U.S. Diplomat: Here is some petrified wood mr Dutchman. I know y'all like wooden sandals so I thought I'll get something wood related.
Dutchman: thanks! - turning to each other they say.... did he just say petrified wood? Nah no way he would gift us worthless crap. He is American, they just went to the moon, this must be moon rock!
And so a 40 year misunderstanding began. Rofl
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Again, you don't seem to be reading or absorbing the information presented to you. If you are going to ignore evidence in order to hold your manufactured sequence of events together then there is really no point in continuing.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
What part of petrified wood am I missing? This Is just too funny.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
The fact that it was never claiming to be anything else.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
So what is the purpose of providing worthless petrified wood again?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Have you ever worked in an office? Do you know what kind of useless gifts are exchanged in the corporate environment on a daily basis? I mean, have a look at some of the worthless gifts given to federal employees in 2014:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/11/25/2015-29897/office-of-the-chief-of-protocol-gifts-to-federal-employees-from-foreign-government-sources-reported
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
is there supposed to be a .html or something at the end of that link? Its not opening.
Any of those useless gifts were sold as significant artifacts of human history? Or were they just useless gifts?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
The link opens fine for me.
I'm not sure what the gifts were presented as, but again, you're the one that is claiming that the wood was presented as a moon rock without any evidence whatsoever to back that up.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
My evidence is that the Dutch put it in a fucking museum. Why do you think they did that? They thought it was moon rock in spite of being told it was petrified wood?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
And you don't believe that this could be explained by the poor vetting conducted by a museum that specializes in 17th century classical art?
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Why would they have to vet if this was presented by a US diplomat as such? And they did vet several decades later - and found out it was a fake. Now that guy is saying - well, it never said moon rock on the plaque. Riiiiiiiiiiigght
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
How would the museum know what the US Diplomat presented it as? They're simply getting a third-hand account of what it was, making it even more likely that it was a misunderstanding.
Regardless, you're still choosing to believe that it was presented as a moon rock even though:
Rather than it simply being a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
It's becoming abundantly clear that even with obvious evidence to the contrary, you will believe whatever you wish.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Ok - so how did the scenario pan out again? Dutch were given fake moon rock from somebody not connected to the US govt? And then, with no confirmation as a diplomatic gift, they assumed that it was a moon rock? And put it on public display in a museum with gratitude and thanks to the US govt and the US govt never corrected them? And then when the found out it was fake, the US govt did not just say - hey we never gave you that - but just said, we can't explain it (as reported in every euro newspaper)?
Face it dude, you are in denial. But please continue - I'm enjoying watching you twist in the wind.
edit: petrified moon rock presented to the prime minister of the netherlands by the US ambassador no less. What was the US ambassador doing with petrified wood?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
The "Dutch" weren't given anything. It was a private gift given to a former head of state. The "Dutch" were given their moon rock later and it appeared much different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays
What does "confirmation as a diplomatic gift" even mean? It was a private gift given to somebody.
Do you think the US Government has people going to every museum on the planet fact-checking the items on display?
Again, do you have any idea how many gifts are exchanged on a daily basis between Ambassadors and other parties? Do you think these are all tracked and documented? If so, where is this documentation? Do you have a list of all gifts exchanged in 1969? Of course they "can't explain it", it was a private gift given to somebody in 1969. Unlike yourself, they aren't willing to jump to conclusions regarding what happened without any evidence.
Again, you have provided zero evidence, so of course I'm in denial. I'm not going to believe somebody with zero evidence for their claim when it counters all of the evidence available.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Indeed they haven't been keeping track of any of the moon rocks. Of the original 137 rocks distributed only 30 can be accounted for (and even this is speculation).
What do you mean no evidence? It was a US ambassador who gave petrified wood to the prime minister of the netherlands during the visit of Neil and Buzz no less. lol I mean, what more constitutes evidence? Why is the US ambassador giving away petrified wood as private gifts? Please explain.
Also there is no such thing as private gifts when you are acting in the capacity of an officer of govt.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
It wasn't the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, you aren't even reading the information being provided to you, this is getting absurd.
Ambassadors give gifts, many even more worthless than petrified wood, I've provided evidence supporting this fact.
What is your proof for this claim?
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
It was Prime Minister Willem Drees. C'mon dude. Its in all the documentation.
I understand giving useless gifts like pens or soccer balls. But Petrified Wood - and specifically petrified wood that was "mistaken" for moon rock? Lulz - keep it coming bro - your rationale is definitely from the moon.
When you are THE representative of a govt, i.e. the ambassador, you just don't toss out private gifts during official visits. But ok, I can give you this point - doesn't matter. The head of state of a developed nation and a close ally was given petrified wood and was told it was moon rock. Or what else do you think happened?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Former Prime Minister.
How is petrified wood so hard to believe? You understand that if this was an actual moon rock that according to auctions of other moon rocks it would be worth approximately $160 million going by weight? You'd think there would be some kind of evidence you could provide demonstrating that such an incredibly valuable gift was given, but you have to resort to conjecture.
He wasn't the Head of State, he hadn't been in office for over 10 years.
I think that somebody was given a gift at 89 years old, didn't propertly hear what it was and drew their own conclusions. This is supported by comments from his family as well as the fact that it looks nothing like any of the other moon rocks given as gifts.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Yes former PM. He was out of office for less than 10 years and still a member of the Dutch Labor Party. His family said he may have been mistaken - but that doesn't mean shit. Its speculation and/or they could have been coerced to say it. He was dead anyway - so they could say whatever. He was 83 at the time.
You still haven't answered the question. What is the US ambassador doing with Petrified Wood and petrified wood crafted finely enough so that it fooled everyone including museum collectors as moon rock no less? And how does petrified wood constitute a gift of any kind or can be mistaken as moon rock? Petrified fucking wood - I can't stop chuckling everytime I bring it up.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
The museum is primarily a classical art museum, why do you trust them to be able to determine whether or not something is a moon rock? Furthermore, it wasn't "finely crafted", it was a piece of petrified wood glued to a piece of cardboard and looked nothing like the moon rocks that were given as gifts.
Because nobody had ever seen a moon rock before and had no idea what one would look like? You're somehow willing to accept that pens are given as gifts but not rocks? You'd think rock and mineral stores wouldn't exist if that were the case.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
You can't answer it can you? Why did the US ambassador give the former Dutch PM petrified wood?
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Because it was a gift? Why do people give each other pens, or toy ships, or books?
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Your funny dude. Because pens, ships or books have uses and petrified wood has none.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
So you've never gotten something like a geode as a gift? Or a statue? Or something that doesn't have any use except to be displayed?
Again, you keep resorting to conjecture because you have no evidence. Just show me a single piece of evidence that demonstrates the US Ambassador said it was a rock from the moon, then this will all be cleared up.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Yes - because petrified wood is perfect for display because of? its beauty? Did you google image this bad boy? It looks like shit. Heck regular petrified wood looks much better - but this particular sample looks like ugly rock (because it was molded like so - cause they faked it).
The evidence is that the former Dutch PM said that the US ambassador said it was moon rock. And its on the fucking plaque - with compliments of the ambassador of the united states. If the plaque came later, then it was at the word of the Dutch PM.
So lets go through this scenario again - because it does make me laugh:
US Ambassador: Your excellency, let me present to you Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Drees: Welcome
US Ambassador: Also your excellency, here is some petrified wood to mark the occasion. Its a particularly shit looking piece of petrified wood, heck it looks like a rock. But its perfect to commemorate the visit of the first men to walk on the moon.
Drees: Ah yes moon rock.
Too funny. And this whole conversation has been in a vacuum devoid of a long list of other circumstantial evidence (even the govts version is circumstantial) that doesn't add up.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Um, it looks like a piece of petrified wood and nothing like the moon samples. If they were so keen on passing it off as a moon rock then why does it look nothing like any of the moon rocks that were given away?
Please show me where on the plaque it says that it was a moon rock. Also please give me a link that proves that the former PM said that the US Ambassador claimed it was a moon rock. Otherwise, these are just points with zero evidence.
I have no idea what the sequence of events was, I wasn't there and there is no documentation stating exactly what happened. You are the one making it up as you go along without evidence or supporting proof.
"Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch NOS news that he had gotten it from the US State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details."
You are the one who is creating the details to suit your agenda. Again, you have no evidence to support your claim that it was claimed to be a moon rock.
Such as?
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Sequence of events? Neil and Buzz are visiting with the US ambassador who hands over Petrified wood which, according to the Dutch PM, was presented as moon rock. You can twist and turn all you want buddy, but no getting away from the fact that US diplomat handed over worthless shit that looks like rock (and not even regular petrified wood) to commemorate the visit of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Oops.
Other evidence - check the rest of this thread and/or the moon hoax sub.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Ok, so no evidence, at least we finally got down to that point.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Twist and turn bebe - US diplomat presents worthless crap to Dutch PM (former) and calls it Moon rock. We have a piece of shit rock in a museum - that is evidence. All you can say it was "mistaken".
The denial is strong with this one.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Well, at the very least we've managed to get you to shift your claim from "NASA gave the Dutch a fake moon rock" to "US Diplomat presents worthless crap to former Dutch PM and calls it moon rock" now that you've educated yourself a bit more regarding the issue.
Nevertheless, it seems as though you'll still cling to to the scraps of your remaining points based on conjecture without any evidence regardless, so this is entirely pointless. Thankfully your baseless claims will at least have the correct parties involved in the future.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Stop saying there is not evidence. There is a goddam piece of Petrified Wood that you will never be able to explain away - no doubt given to commemorate the moon landing. You have provided nothing but the weakest speculation - oh it was just a "misunderstanding", it was just supposed to be a random gift of shit rock not related to Neil and Buzz standing right fucking there. You have made me laugh quite a bit over the last 24 hours and I hope you continue to do so. Its fun to see to try to explain away petrified wood - oh yeah perfectly reasonable gift given the circumstances but somehow unfortunately interpreted as moon rock. Keep going.
Like I said Diplomats just don't hand out pieces of shit and call it significant artifacts. This is no mistake. He was carrying out orders. That is what diplomats do. They don't fuck around, because there are an extension of the govt reach. Not in your world though - in your world diplomats hand out fake pieces of crap posing as significant artifact - just fucking because. lol. I love it. Let me say it again - NASA fucking handed out fake moon rock.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
It's really simple, show me a single piece of evidence that demonstrates that it was claimed to be a moon rock, you have been unable to do so.
Again, if they were claiming it was a moon rock, why does it look absolutely nothing like the rocks that were given away? Why wouldn't they try to make it look similar, or the same size, be labelled as such, or have the same presentation?
You are filling in blanks without evidence due to your own biases.
Oh really? How many Diplomats have you met? You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge regarding diplomatic politics, what is your personal experience? Have you ever been to a dinner with an Ambassador? I can assure you, there are plenty of useless trinkets being given out at these events.
Ok, then show me evidence that it was ever claimed to be a moon rock by NASA.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
We have been over this. The Dutch PM was presented this piece of shit and was told it was moon rock. Your saying he is lying? I figure the Dutch people (who absolutely loved him - voted him 3rd greatest dutchman in the last century) will vigorously disagree. This is my evidence. If you disagree, you disagree with the Dutch PM and good luck with that.
I don't fucking know. I wasn't the one who presented this fake piece of shit as moon rock to the Dutch PM. And you refuse to provide any possible reasoning of why a US diplomat (THE US diplomat - the fucking US ambassador) was in possession of rock like looking piece of petrified wood while commemorating the moon landings with Neil and Buzz with the Dutch PM (former) - other than apparently its some form of a worthless gift. Right, you are getting really close to convincing me. lol
Its called fucking diplomacy and its a really fucking important and delicate job. I mean they have immunity in foreign countries and are the sole representative of the govt and citizens living in a foreign land. If there is an issue, they are the first to be yanked in front of a foreign govt for an explanation. You are going with diplomats hand out useless trinkets faking as significant artifacts? Well, you are starting to strike me as very uneducated and I can't help you out here. I hope you never represent your citizens because damn, you'll just been handing out random pieces of shit at official meetings and commemorations and totally fucking embarrassing your country.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Where are you finding this info? He was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, so I'm interested to see where your quote comes from stating that he was told it was a moon rock. Just post the quote where he says he was given a moon rock and this will be settled.
Amazing then that the plaque doesn't say anything about it being a moon rock. You'd think that this would be incredibly significant if it were being presented as a moon rock.
They aren't the sole representative, you seriously are just putting your half-baked education on display here.
I've been to diplomatic dinners, I've received useless crap from them, their budgets aren't limitless.
You are the one claiming that it was supposed to be "faking" something. Meanwhile, the plaque that it was presented on says nothing of the sort, it looks nothing of the sort and there is no evidence being provided by you demonstrating that fact.
Sorry that I require evidence before making grand claims. Again, you have yet to provide any.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Where did you see that he was nearly deaf and blind anyway? I don't need a quote - his estate presented it to the museum as such. Is that too hard to follow?
Oh yeah? Is there somebody higher working the embassies around the world? Somebody higher than rank of ambassador living in foreign lands? Geez.
Yes, I know they hand out gift bags at dinner parties. We are talking about a commemoration here - a fucking plaque for (allegedly) one of the hugest achievements of all time. Why do I have to explain this like you are a 5 year old?
It says its a commemoration of the visit of the Apollo astronauts. Why would they commemorate it with fucking Petrified Wood and why would the Dutch PM claim it as moon rock?
You are now starting to play dumb, its not as funny anymore.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
"Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp."
"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
So basically, if a nearly blind and deaf person tells you about an object, you're more likely to believe them than all of the evidence and personal anecdotes to the contrary?
You said sole representative. There are numerous representatives for any given country in a foreign country.
Amazing that the plaque doesn't state that the object is what you claim it was presented as. This is where your argument falls apart. If it was presented as a moon rock, then you'd think that the plaque that came with it would state moon rock somewhere. But it doesn't.
Because he was nearly deaf and blind and likely made the association himself? I have no idea why they gave him a piece of petrified wood, probably the same reason I have a crappy set of ugly beer coasters.
Again, provide any evidence whatsoever and your position will start to make more sense.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Yay - you are being funny again. Apparently not that sharp according to you, because he somehow confused petrified wood with moon rock. Real fucking sharp. Wonder what he kind of associations he made for the next 20 years of his life. His grandson "guesses" he just randomly made the association - and I don't blame him because you know why the fuck would somebody give you petrified wood when celebrating the moon landing.
Funny again: US Diplomat - And today we commemorate this great achievement in the spirit of human friendship with this plaque of petrified wood.... Rofl
You just said his mind was sharp. I would love to get your thoughts on Hellen Keller.
Phew, I thought I was going to have to shut down this fun conversation but looks like we are back on. Love seeing you dance around petrified wood.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
So your evidence is that somebody nearly blind who has never seen a moon rock in their lives couldn't possibly be confused when presented something at 82 while also being hard of hearing? Again: please provide me any quote where Drees states that he was told he was being given a moon rock.
It doesn't say it was anything else anywhere else. Again: why wouldn't the plaque state the object was a moon rock if it was being presented as such.
I never said that, his grandson was quoted as saying that. You are having trouble keeping up with quotes from other people, I'm not sure how to make them clearer for you beyond the use of quotation marks and links to the quotes, sorry.
So, still no evidence ... great.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
I just said his estate gave it to museum as such. Do you not know how estates work? They don't put words in the mouths of those they represent. Don't play fucking dumb. And the museum curators didn't have any reason to question it when they were given it by the estate - because it looked like a rock (and not like any piece of petrified wood that looks like wood or wood with gem like formations - no this one looked just like a rock). Not beer glasses or whatever irrelevant examples of shit gifts you have brought up.
I don't know, maybe because they are fucking lying about it and covering their asses - so we can folks like you can say - well, we never technically said it was moon rock. Why would they use a fake rock like looking substance as commemoration for the moon landing? Why did they not disclose it as petrified wood - just so make super fucking clear that this rock like substance that they are using to celebrate the moon landing isn't actual lunar rock? What did everybody in the commemoration think it was? Did Neil or Buzz step up and say hey by the way, that is just petrified wood - I know it looks like a rock, so lets just clarify its not lunar rock. No, they didn't say shit till they got busted. That is as ELI5 as it gets. Lets see you wiggle your way out of this one. When you reply - make sure to quote me when I say: why didn't they disclose this rock like substance as petrified wood during the commemoration or alternatively, what were they trying to represent this rock like substance as? C'mon, give it to me, this should be interesting. They didn't disclose it because they are lying sacks of shits who never went to the moon in the first place.
Playing dumb again - you know what I fucking meant.
See above for discussion around estates.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
I'm asking you for a quote where Drees was told it was a moon rock. I can say that my coffee mug is worth $1 million and put it in my will, that doesn't make the claim in any way factual.
Um, they did question it. You apparently again aren't reading the information being provided to you.
All conjecture. The plaque doesn't state it was a moon rock, period. If it were being presented as such, then you'd think that the label for it would claim it was a moon rock.
How do you know what they said it was or wasn't during the commemoration?
I have no idea, I wasn't there. What's we do know is that the physical object wasn't labelled as a moon rock, it doesn't look like a moon rock, it is larger than any gifted moon rock, it has different packaging than any gifted moon rock and that it was presented prior to any moon rocks being distributed.
You are somehow taking these facts to demonstrate that it was being presented as a moon rock, even though nowhere does it state that it was.
You'd think if this were the case that they'd at least try and make it look like the other moon rocks, yet they failed to do so. Not sure how you are able to account for this discrepancy. If they wanted to pretend it was a moon rock, why didn't they make it look like any of the others that were gifted?
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
Can you give me a quote when he was told it was petrified wood or anything else? All you got is his grandson, who was 9 at the time, saying that maybe he didn't hear it right. C'mon dude. You are playing dumb.
Yeah 40 years later. And then they had to pathetically back track and get his grandson who was a child back then (and no idea if he was actually at the commemoration) to say maybe he didn't hear correctly, and although his brain was sharp, he decided to make the giant fucking assumption that it was moon rock - because no one told him otherwise anyway.
You didn't have to be there. A plaque was presented with a rock like substance on it to commemorate the moon landing. And nobody said it wasn't the real thing until they got busted. You are saying they just randomly presented an earth rock to commemorate something that had nothing to do with earth bound rocks. What are we Neanderthals? Humph, you me we be best friends, we represent friendship with rock, humph. Lol. Playing dumb again.
Why? It fucking worked for 40 years till they had to run scientific tests on it. Which means it passed the eye test for several decades. Damn good job of faking moon rock if you ask me.
You are just consistently playing dumb and avoiding the logic altogether. This conversation is not fun anymore.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
I never claimed to have one. The fact of the matter is that it is petrified wood, and there is no evidence anywhere that it was claimed to be anything else. Your conjecture isn't evidence. In fact, the only piece of additional physical evidence (aside from the petrified wood itself) is the plaque, which again, doesn't state that it is a moon rock.
No, it was questioned earlier, again, you aren't reading the information you are being presented, making this very tedious.
I'm simply regurgitating what the evidence demonstrates. You are the one making baseless assumptions that lack evidence. Certainly you agree that a nearly blind and deaf person could be mistaken in thinking that they were being given a moon rock, but you have no evidence that demonstrates that anybody claimed that it was. Again, it looks nothing like any of the other rocks, you seem to be ignoring this fact.
It wasn't on public display for several decades. In fact it wasn't even on display at the museum for the majority of the time it has been available. You seem to be confused regarding the sequence of events.
Maybe if you actually read about the incident and knew the facts rather than filling in your own blanks then you would be able to engage in a way that would entertain you more. Learning something isn't always supposed to be "fun", I'm sorry that basic reading comprehension and fact recollection is such a strain for you, it might be best to take a break.
1 malayatom 2015-12-25
You know, I'm going to start doing it myself actually, it makes a lot of sense. I'm going to start handing out rocks as a gesture of my love and appreciation. It hits me at, how do I put it, a prehistoric level. I'm sure the chicks would dig it. Hey bebe, your kinda cute so have a rock, just don't ask me what it is (its from the moon).
Well, it was fun while it lasted. But you still can't provide anything close to a reasonable rationale as to why they commemorated what is apparently the greatest achievement of mankind with fake rock. And it looks like I'll never get it out of you. You just keep saying that I'm not reading my information right. I guess, I'll never know why the diplomat community uses shit rocks as commemoration plaques, specifically when rocks have nothing to do with what we are commemorating. Must be why I never joined the civil service, those boys speak a whole another language.
I bid thee adieu sir, it was entertaining there for a while.
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-12-25
This comment chain is gold, I'm dying laughing.
5 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Yeah, it's a shame I had a reply for him, where I did exactly what he said I couldn't do.
-1 untumulted 2015-12-25
Your "reply" was to completely change your position. Well done.
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
How did I change my position?
Edit: lol nice addition to your reply, if anything you changed what you said.
-2 untumulted 2015-12-25
Yeah I added the human bit.
First, I find this topic highly amusing.
Well you went from, they already had the technology, but it didn't match the Bugatti, to they road runnered the fucker.
There is no proof that NASA went to the moon. I don't really care, it doesn't mean anything to me. I thought the fact that it didn't happen was extremely far-fetched, but at the end of the day, you got to weigh the evidence, and the evidence isn't on their side.
Going with the invisible shield as proof is kind of...almost sadly like a SJW.
-2 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
You don't need to, if the neutron bomb is real you can just watch a documentary about it and how wonderful it is against tanks. And Nasa = the military, and they never lie do they, they never abuse propaganda...
3 dead_all_along 2015-12-25
lol
Personally, I'm not sure the neutron bomb is real. But I get what you're saying.
You're 100% right, the military never do lie. They're basically saints. Salt of the earth. mmhmm
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Citations please.
0 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
Read about space radiation and van allen belt. Then research effects of neutron bomb.
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Read my other posts. I know about radiation and the VA belt.
1 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
Obviously not.
2 Roarian 2015-12-25
The inner belt is mostly protons, the outer is electrons. Where do the neutrons come in, exactly?
0 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
Yeah what are neutrons and how do they affect Fe vehicles and what kind of effect does neutron raditation have on Fe components?
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
Don't divert, answer the question. Where exactly is this neutron radiation coming from? Not from the belts...
0 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
I don't feed idiots. Sorry.
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
Unless someone is carrying along a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, neutron radiation isn't really a big factor, y'know? You can find plenty of gamma radiation in space, and the Van Allen belts have protons and electrons, but there's not a lot of spontaneous neutron radiation going around.
1 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
Yes it is, if you hav ferrite or aluminum (Shield) in the ship at all, you would be fried instantly by secondary alpha and beta radiation inside. Hit by fast neutrons, anyone behind an inch or two of iron or aluminum would receive a lethal dose of secondary radiation as the neutrons slammed into iron or aluminum atoms and created a cascade of secondary radiation (alpha and beta, more neutrons and maybe some gamma)
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
Where are the neutrons coming from, exactly, in your scenario? Are you confusing them with neutrinos or something?
0 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
space radiation, van allen belt radiation.
2 Roarian 2015-12-25
The outer belt consists mainly of high energy (0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere. High-energy protons characterize the inner belt. Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) consist of high energy protons and helium, plus some HZE ions. Solar energetic particles are protons, electrons and HZE ions.
None of that is neutron radiation.
Want to try again?
1 istalkezreddit 2015-12-25
There is neutron radiation in the van allen belt. Try again.
1 Roarian 2015-12-25
Source?
1 Sumguy42 2015-12-25
Or it might turn then into mediocre super heroes.
5 FlatPlane 2015-12-25
Bart Sibrel's documentary - A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon has some damning evidence that could prove it was faked.
-6 lucycohen 2015-12-25
It was impossible to get there alive with 60's technology, we only have to look at the cars and computers then to know the moon landing was fiction
3 DostThowEvenLift 2015-12-25
You act like they threw together shit you could find in a house in the 60's. This was a multi billion dollar project. They had technology on board that wouldn't reach the hands of the public until 20 years later. On the other hand, faking the moon landing would've cost much more and would've been much harder to do.
-14 lucycohen 2015-12-25
Yes, I've examined the moon landings extensively, they are completely fake, there's no way they could have gone there with 1960's technology.
11 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
I've examined it extensively as well, they're completely real, they could have and did go to the Moon with 1960's technology.
4 FlatPlane 2015-12-25
What lead you to believe this? why do you think the moon landing is real?
7 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Studying physics and engineering at university.
Once you get past don't-go-boom-boom rocket science can be remarkably simple. Sure, it is stupidly inefficient and insanely dangerous if you just stick to the simple things, and something like Apollo would never be allowed today (yeah m8 just go through that belt of radiation really fast, you'll... er... probably be fine), but I have no doubt that with the relatively terrible standards of the 60's and 70's Apollo was possible.
As for physical reasons, the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment cuts through all the bullshit anybody can come up with to argue with why the landings were faked.
/r/reddit_mind said:
Well, that's wrong, since the Russians themselves (as well as others) made readings from the LLRE/other reflectors on the Moon, and data from the 60's onwards is available from multiple countries, as well as a literal metric fucktonne of other independent observers confirming that they received data that must have come from the Moon, or at least observing the Apollo spacecraft.
Edit: At any rate, if there was any evidence or any doubt that Apollo did what NASA said it did, the Russians would have instantly called the US out on it and accused them of faking it.
2 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
I will refer you to the 1966 issue of National Geographic, wherein they bounced a laser off the moon before the alleged lunar landings and alleged lunar ranging equipment. Therefore, there is no need for tiny reflectors on the moon to bounce a laser off it, invalidating the need for the lunar ranging experiment.
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Actually the first lunar ranging experiments were done in 1962, well before the 1966 study you were thinking of.
That was done with Q-switched ruby lasers (extremely high power, extremely short pulses of light). However these readings had a large amount of error and variance, due to the reflection just bouncing off of the surface of the moon in all directions.
Subsequent measurements had far lower error. This is especially true after Apollo 15 specifically as Apollo 15 brought with it much larger reflector arrays than ever before, gave much more accurate readings, which fit in perfectly with the theoretical error (namely the 0.11m RMS residual error) expected by the equipment NASA said had been sent to the Moon.
It would be impossible to achieve such high accuracy, low error results without the reflectors left behind on the moon.
People have said in the past "But a probe/rover could have just put them there!" and, yes, a rover could have done nearly the exact same thing, and reflectors have just been left on the moon by probes in the past.
Which is why I also gave numerous independent sources which tracked the Apollo spacecraft to the moon, proving that it was -in fact- the Apollo missions which left the reflectors behind, and not another spacecraft.
2 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
Couple questions:
Have there been current experiments conducted wherein lasers were shot at areas of the moon without the lunar reflectors? How much of these results have been improved by more sensitive equipment, better lasers, etc?
By how much have the lunar reflectors been disturbed by moonquakes?
I've read that a laser pulse will grow wider over a distance. How large will a laser get over 250,000 miles? (If what I've read is correct).
I will agree that you have a good argument, and we can put that in the "they went to the moon" pile. However, due to the large amount of scientific anomalies, I still find that there's insufficient evidence to show that we went.
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Not that I'm aware of, the data from just doing that is... okay, but not really worth the time if you can use the reflectors for more accurate readings.
If they have been it's not enough to be noticed, this links in with what I'm saying next.
Using the document linked before, they say the laser divergence is about two arc seconds, you can roughly approximate this as a triangle with an angle of two arc seconds, a side 384,400km long (average distance to the moon) and you'll get the side opposite the angle as how wide the beam is at the moon.
Awkwardly I don't know what the convention was in the 60/70's, so 2 arc sec's is either the actual beam divergence of half of it...
That gives a beam width of roughly 4km, but there are a lot of other sources of error and atmospheric effects to consider, so the actual beam will likely be larger. Using your value of 250,000 miles this'd give a width of about 2.4 miles (3.9km).
So I'd say the beam width is, to one significant figure, either 4km or (if they gave the half-angle) 8km.
NASA cites the beam width ass roughly four miles, which is about 6.4km. Eh, falls within what I'd expect.
Any potential shifting by moonquakes is unlikely to have moved any of the reflectors that much. And, since they're retroreflectors, even a change in the angle they're pointing (so it's not directly towards the earth) shouldn't affect them too much.
Sure, there might be some anomalies, but that's science. What matters is finding your sources of error and figuring out what went wrong. In my first year at university I remember getting readings for, say, the speed of light using a Michelson–Morley interferometer (far more boring than it sounds) and being about fifty times off the speed of light. Turns out I fucked up my calibration, explained that, explained how to correct for it theoretically (key point here, you can't just say "I was twice what I thought so I halved it to get the right answer because... that gave the right answer!" you need to find theoretical justifications first), did it, and then I was only about 20% off the actual speed of light.
People see 'wrong' answers or 'anomalies' in science and instantly assume it's wrong or some kind of conspiracy, since they stop at the numbers and don't bother reading the rest of a 50 page long article or paper on the science which then explains sources of error, what went wrong, corrections, etc...
Edit: As a side note, turns out that the US laser ranging experiments were discontinued since it costs quite a lot of money to get a laser that accurate and powerful firing at the moon a lot. Other countries/universities/independent researchers might still be using the reflectors though.
2 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
Thanks for your answer. I appreciate you responding to it in a scientific manner. Again, I'd say the lunar ranging experiments can be put into the 'we did go' column.
I should mention I used to believe that we did go to the moon. But after looking into the moon missions, there appears to be a great number of anomalies. I've raised certain things in my initial post which, I think, can't be explained away by experimental error or similar reasoning. I could very well be wrong, but I find it unlikely at this time.
Aside from getting a very accurate distance measurement, what other benefits could shooting the moon with a laser provide?
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
No problem.
Like what? I'm decent(ish) at most aspects of physics, along with engineering related to astronautics and most spacecraft systems, I know some topics better than others but after a bit of research I should be able to answer most questions, unless it's something very specific and obscure.
None really. Just the distance can be used for a lot of things, you can verify various things like Einstein's relativity, Newton's laws of gravitation, orbital motion and a few other things like seeing how fast the moon is moving away from the earth, if it's accelerating away, decelerating, whatever. Depending on how accurate the distance data was you could even try 'detecting' other planets with the moon's motion.
But all of that could have been done with a (relative) handful of readings, there was no real point in keeping it going after the first few years once enough data was collected. Well, I imagine you could extract some information like... the movement of dust on the moon by looking at the trend in reflected intensity off the reflectors, since a steady downward trend in reflection could let you extrapolate how dust much dust has built up on them over time. Then again the performance of the mirrors would degrade over time as well,, which complicates things. Yeah, this is why you can find 100 page long papers on 'simple' sounding things, there's a lot to take into account.
Anyway, I'm surprised the US paid for it for so long considering how useless taking more data points became after the first few years.
1 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
There's a lot of problems with the radiation, I find.
In particular, after the missions, the dosimeters of the astronauts were said to be within expected limits. Link
However, years later it was found that the moon gives off more radiation than expected. Link In particular, the link provided states "Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected"
Why didn't the original dosimeter readings reflect this greater than expected radiation?
Moreover, why do none of the pictures suffer from any sort of radiation damage? Outside the magnetosphere, one would expect a photographic plate to pickup stray cosmic rays, in addition to other ionizing radiation.
Further, the spacesuits weren't made of any particularly dense material. Link Why was this deemed to be sufficient protection for the surface of the moon? Another link It appears to me this fabric is insufficient to protect against ionizing radiation.
How would you do that, exactly? Wouldn't you need a clock? (i.e, a clock onboard a GPS satellite will differ from an Earthbound clock due to relativistic effects.)
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
I don't believe NASA put much effort into predicting the radiation dose from the surface of the moon in the first place, since it wasn't thought to be a major source of radiation, and only major sources (like the VA belt, solar particles, cosmic rays and high energy neutrons) were taken into account, so there isn't a prediction for lunar-surface-based radiation exposure to compare against, only the predictions of additional radiation caused by being outside the protective spacecraft.
And keep in mind that the radiation doses noted here are averaged out over the entire mission, Apollo 11, for example, took about eight days, with only a few hours of that spent on the surface of the moon. So even if the expected radiation dose was, say, doubled (even though at most it's only 40% more) over four or so hours out of nearly 200 hours of mission time, the average dose wouldn't increase by a perceptible amount.
Actually the averages did vary between individuals as well:
A 20% difference over the entire mission average would more than account for a few hours of heightened radiation from being on the surface of the moon, vs. the astronauts that never stepped onto the surface. There's no inconsistency with the dosimeter readings since the time spent on the surface was far too small to notice that the moon was radioactive. A 40% increase on estimates that must have been, by NASA not even including them in their analysis, minuscule, is not that much of an increase.
Additionally as the article says:
The increase is tiny. And the author on Discovery seemed to know that, since under half of the article is actually on it and the rest is on generic GCR's.
As for why the increase is small, I'll try and explain the science behind it.
I tried to find the actual scientific paper this used, but I couldn't, so there's not much to go off of.
As far as I can tell they're talking about parts of the surface of the moon becoming radioactive because of high-energy galactic cosmic rays, which does happen. However GCR's have a huge distribution of energy from a few eV to 40TeV (IIRC, did some radiation hardening projects a while ago and that's the upper bound I found), so it's hard to predict what will happen.
Now, GCR's can either just decay on their own and randomly release a shower of various particles, or they can interact with whatever they hit. Now depending on the kind of interaction and what was interacted with various kinds of secondary particles will be created and will 'shower' out in the original direction of travel. Meaning that any particles which interact with the surface of the moon (so, they were very likely travelling towards the moon) would shower 'downwards', into the moon's surface.
When the article talks about higher than expected radiation levels on the moon, it is (as far as I can tell) talking about additional radiation caused by the secondary particles created when GCR's interact with the moon's surface.
I can't remember if I explained this to you or somebody else, but there are four main kinds of radiation, all of which could (with varying degrees of likelihood depending on the GCR's energy) be produced by a GCR interaction.
Any additional gamma rays (or high energy neutron's, although I doubt they'd occur that often, if ever) will be travelling into the moon, so they pose no extra risk. And, even if they were going towards the astronauts, the likelihood is that they would just pass straight through them (and the sensors) and have no effect.
Alpha's would be blocked by the suit.
Beta's are the only one that might contribute more to the radiation dose of the astronauts since they're mildly penetrating and have a 'decent' chance of interacting with them, but the majority of them would be directed towards the moon anyway, so it wouldn't make too much of a difference.
Back to the tiny chance of neutron's interacting with materials on the moon. It is possible for neutrons to interact with atoms and 'stick' to them, creating a new unstable isotope which becomes radioactive. These would be quite concerning as they could then emit radiation in any direction, even towards the astronauts. But, again, this exposure to radiation is tiny, as is said in the article, that even taking into account the extra radiation:
The only true radiation concern was solar events. I'd happily go anywhere in space as long as I knew there were no solar flares or CME's about to happen. Normal background galactic radiation is... not good for you, but it won't kill you too quickly, unlike a solar event which -if it's powerful enough and aimed towards you- is just a straight-up death sentence.
Radiation damage would only look like a bit of static/fuzziness/tiny white dots. You'll definitely see them on film, but the quality of video is so low that you can't distinguish the static-from-shitty-video from static-from-GCR. As for photos, the chance of taking a photo and having the shutter open at the exact moment when a weakly-interacting GCR does interact is tiny and any interactions would, again, only produce small white dots at most.
Looking at modern high-res pictures form the ISS you still can't really see the effects of radiation, but it's quite in some videos since they look a bit static-ish with random white dots everywhere.
Well, from the article you linked:
The only real concern was alpha radiation, which is blocked by paper, and beta radiation, which can be blocked relatively easily by a thin layer of metal. As for gamma and neutron radiation, you just sort of hope it'll go through you, since there's no real way to block it.
There are a few predicted effects from relativity that can be tested just with light. I believe gravitational droppler shifting (
so, instead of an ambulance going past sounding different because it's moving towards/away from you, it'd sound different because... er... if you're above it the gravity would 'pull' on the sound waves and slow them downactually I doubt that even happens and the mechanics for relativistic shifts are completely different...) was one of the things they tested.Basically, shine your laser at the moon and when it reflects back relativity predicts it'll have a slightly different colour.
1 Sarcasticus 2015-12-25
Thanks for your answer. Your responses seem quite reasonable.
Couple questions: When you list your 4 types of radiation particles, where do X-rays fit in? As I understand, it's ionizing radiation which is the real danger.
Would we not see little blips indicating fast moving particles?
The ISS is inside the magnetosphere though. As I understand it, the magnetosphere protects against X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays. I would imagine there would be evidence of these on the photos.
This guy link seems to think the average amount of radiation received was vastly above safe levels.
Ultimately, I think the "didn't go" radiation arguments are that there's too much radiation. And the "did go" radiation arguments are that there's not enough radiation to do enough damage. I'm not a physicist, so both arguments have validity in my mind.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Anything ranging from invisible radio waves to visible light and X-rays to gamma rays falls under electromagnetic radiation.
Here's a little graph... thingy of the EM spectrum.
Shorter wavelength means higher energy. As an easy example, when light hits an object it gets absorbed, excites the electrons of an atom so they go up in an energy level and when the electron goes back down it re-emits the light.
For higher-energy EM radiation, like X-ray and gamma, the electron goes to such a high energy level that it pops off the atom.
This means that the atom now has a charge, making it an ion, which is why high-energy EM radiation is called ionizing radiation.
Luckily for us high energy EM radiation doesn't really interact too often, it just passes through most things without hitting an atom and making the electron come off, and as the likelihood of an interaction is low it's only really a concern when you have a high number flux (amount/number of) of ionizing EM radiation, since if you have millions of gamma rays going through you some are bound to do some damage.
Which is why the main concern for Apollo was a solar event causing a huge increase in ionizing radiation flux, as then the chance of serious damage being done is hugely increased.
You only really see the blips if a particle has interacted with your film, and (for the same reasons I explained before) usually the chance of this interaction happening in the tiny time the film is exposed is very low, so low that even if an interaction did happen you would only see -at best- a single white dot, which would be hard to notice anyway.
The magnetosphere can only protect against charged particle radiation affected by a magnetic field, so beta and alpha radiation would be deflected by the magnetosphere as alpha radiation is (and this a bit of a generalisation) composed of two protons and two neutrons, giving it a positive charge. Whereas beta radiation is essentially just a high energy electron, which also has a charge.
These particles then get deflected in a few different ways, some just go straight past the magnetosphere, some get caught in the VA belts, some go on to make the Aurora Borealis, and some just go through the field anyway.
X-rays and gamma rays are both electromagnetic radiation, they're just a kind of light, so the Earth's magnetic field has no real effect on them and they go straight through. I haven't studied this much but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from at least some (if not most? Seriously have no idea how important this is to us not all dying) of this radiation as the X-rays/gamma rays tend to interact with the atmosphere, so very few of them get far enough to interact with us.
He makes quite a few points that NASA though of already, and that I (think) I've covered.
He quotes:
And asks how they were protected against the flares.
They weren't, which is why the 60's Apollo practices are seen as very unsafe today.
Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but Apollo's main way of protecting against solar flares was planning. They observed the sun using multiple Earth and space based systems and timed missions to when they thought the sun wouldn't be too active. Additionally if a solar flare or CME or whatever did happen, they had roughly eight hours before the main brunt of particle radiation made it to Earth, so there was some time to get the astronauts back and cancel the mission... as long as they could get back in eight hours that is.
The rest of his points mostly just restate this:
Yep. It was not the safest plan, but NASA was confident they could predict solar activity well enough for it to be safe-ish.
Completely right, but no such events occurred and NASA's predictions were right.
Yep, not the safest plan.
Not sure how accurate those figures are, and I'm leaving in a bit so I don't have time to check, but solar activity varies heavily and is not omni-directional. Solar flares and CME's occur in a particular direction, so even with 15 flares a day it's highly unlikely that any of them will be directed towards Earth because of how incredibly huge the sun and solar system are.
Additionally NASA also provided a graph showing the (additional?) dose astronauts would have received if the missions were badly timed and ended up running in months/days of high solar activity (given in the radiation document you've already seen)..
That's fair enough. The topic is quite complicated, to the point where radiation hardening is a specific job position and a single person would work in that role for their entire life.
Mostly the problem of people not understanding how dangerous radiation is has been caused by the media. In movies, TV-shows, books, games, on the news, everywhere, it's cool to portray radiation as this thing that instantly kills you and makes you into a mutant, when it's really not.
As a quick example your smoke detector probably uses some kind of radioactive source like Americium-241, but since it's an alpha source it gets blocked by basically anything and is perfectly safe. Wouldn't surprise me if there's some article somewhere from around the time they were made mandatory about how the government wants to force everybody to put multiple sources of deadly radiation inside their homes and how it'll give all our children cancer or something like that.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Oh, and lastly for this bit:
From the same NASA radiation document it'll say somewhere that the maximum allowed dose was 400rems. I would accept a dose of 400rems, sure it won't be healthy but it (probably) won't kill you. Hell, even 1,000rems shouldn't be deadly. 5,000rems kills you in a month.
IAEA has such strict regulations as, unlike for astronauts, they expect continuous radiation exposure over multiple years. radiologyinfo has the estimate that "Accumulated dosage estimated to cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people: 1,000.00mSv", 1,000mSv is 100rads. When you have thousands of employees working in the same radiation environment for 10, 20 years even a small dose builds up, and 5% of thousands is still a good few dozen or hundred, so regulations are very strict in such environments because of how many people are exposed and for the length of time.
If the chance of astronauts getting cancer due to their exposure was 5% (which it wasn't) then... well... there's like four of them, 1/20 get cancer, eh, 4 is less than 20, meh, should be fine (60/70's logic isn't really up to today's standards).
It's in the nature of engineers, scientists and those that set health and safety laws to half or double most things for redundancy. Building collapses under 40 tonnes of load? Build it for 80 tonnes. Plane wings expect max 2m of flex in strong winds? Build it for 4m of flex. 1,000rems start causing adverse effects to health? Limit it to 500rems.
0 Dogeholio 2015-12-25
A specious argument, it could have easily been placed by an unmanned probe.
In answer to your edit: in what way could the Soviets have proven the US landed on the moon ?
Radar is not able to track a vehicle the size of the Apollo outside of fairly low orbit.
Radio telemetry does not provide distance information.
8 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
What evidence would make you think the Moon landing was real, if any?
Edit: for your edit.
Yes, it does, thanks to Doppler shift, that's exactly what this shows, which is why I linked the raw data in my previous post..
-2 monopolywitness 2015-12-25
Or all the world powers are in cahoots on the grand stage & we sold them the most subtle weapon of Television?
6 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
So your reply to me giving independent observations is saying that literally every independent observer is part of the conspiracy?
-5 monopolywitness 2015-12-25
I don't care about your metric fuck tonne of "data" The boob tube has this world hypnotized, all I'm saying .
-3 stefgosselin 2015-12-25
The lunar lasers prove nothing. This has been adressed many, many times.
Russians were bouncing laser beams off the moon before Apollo missions, this is far from being a reliable proof of a manned mission.
Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NASA fell short as far as that fairy tale is concerned.
3 DostThowEvenLift 2015-12-25
The moon's surface is very absorbent and bumpy. Bouncing a laser off the moon and having it land exactly where it came from would be a statistical impossibility without a retro-reflector.
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Okay, I'll ask you what I've asked others, what extraordinary proof would you need?
Edit: nevermind, just saw your other reply
4 Jedy_hacker 2015-12-25
Ok , people the actual conspiracy , is not landing on the moon , that was easy part, the Soviets "faceplanted" some animals on the moon before Nasa even attempted the "hoax" / "Landing".
The thing you must study about this is how they got back after they've landed.
I give them the landing , they could of survived a suicide burn on the Moon with 1960's technology; but placing the "Lunar lander" back into Lunar Orbit , rendezvousing with the ""left behind part of the spacecraft", Docking the two Spacecrafts and setting course for Earth with Manual human controls = ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL DID THAT HAPPEN WITH 1960's TECH.
They aren't even allowing the astronauts on Low Earth Orbit on the ISS to course correct the ISS (increase the delta V ) when it's Delta V is getting too low, because the astronaut might overdo it or under-do the "Burn", no way in hell a human with manual controls would of known when to Start or stop thrusting and in which direction, to get back to Earth safelly , especially the FIRST GODDAMN TIME.
1 Roarian 2015-12-25
You act as if there's no such thing as mathematics, man. Do you think they played it by ear, just kinda guesstimating?
3 SilliusSwordus 2015-12-25
i dont know why you bother responding, he's obviously completely ignorant of how a space mission works and doesnt care enough to correct that ... the fact that all maneuvers are planned out in detail months before using very predictable orbital mechanics and practiced by the crew on the ground ad nauseum. etc.
4 Revrant 2015-12-25
Here is the short version. Deep dive, it becomes obvious
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSJxEMw0MCI
4 Middleman79 2015-12-25
It begins arguing the earth is flat. I've seen the curvature of the earth many times, it isn't. You can go on my roof terrace and see a whole horizon of the Mediterranean. It definitely curves. From flying over Canada last January I saw the curvature of the earth. Thus type of thing makes us look stupid.
2 Revrant 2015-12-25
Ask any scientist, you cannot see the curvature from that low of an altitude. If you work out the math (I have) at 120,000 ft you would only be able to see 1% of the curvature of the earth. From a plane any curvature would be impossible to detect with the naked eye. In any case, that Flat Earth stuff is a big part of Dubay and his books, the NASA / moon hoax stuff just fits into that.
5 Middleman79 2015-12-25
Yes. You must be correct. In my 36 years on this planet I have never seem the curvature of the earth from an international flight nor from being able to see hundreds of miles of clear land/sea. You oh wise one have educated me. Grow the fuck up.
2 Revrant 2015-12-25
lol dude you can come here to be a condescending asshole all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the science. Flat or globe you wouldn't be able to see the curvature. If you think you have, you're wrong, it isn't possible. Don't blame me, that's reality for you. Your snide attitude and inability to grasp basic facts about geometry hurts us and makes us look more stupid than anything. If you think you can see it and want to keep on believing, good for you but you're delusional. That makes us look real good.
4 Albator_H 2015-12-25
There is 2 pieces of evidence that trouble me. The First one is the fake Earth shot from "something funny happened on the way to the moon" where they shut down all the lights inside and use a transparency in the window to make it seem they were filming the earth from further than they really were. However, there was an excellent rebuke of that one. Someone took a screen grab of the earth as seen from an unrelated sequence where Armstrong was in the foreground and we see the earth through a window and matched it to a weather satellite image from the same day and it match. The 2nd one I find more problematic. On Apollo 16 there is this shot of them going up a hill in the rover. The problem is that in the background you see the same landscape as in a previous Apollo mission. But they are suppose to be miles away from that location.
Less evident is the color shot brought back from the Jade Rabbit rover, the color are drastically different than what we saw from the Apollo mission.
None of it is fully dismissive of the possibility of having actually been there. But I find those really problematic.
1 mitch1975 2015-12-25
Having a discussion elsewhere on reddit, can you help me out with links to the recurring backgrounds?
1 Albator_H 2015-12-25
Sorry, I'm only on my phone. But I know I saw it on one of those top ten moon conspiracy proof.
3 reddit_mind 2015-12-25
The conspiracy is about the timing - when it actually happened. This makes a huge difference because at the time, the space war was 'won', and no country had the tech to verify for any proof. By the time they did, the proof was already there, but they could've land there themselves if needed. So, it's hard to prove either way.
3 untumulted 2015-12-25
Doesn't quite work like that. It's NASA's claim. They need to prove they went.
Perhaps they can show the original footage?
4 lucycohen 2015-12-25
It's been lost, oops!
2 Swazimoto 2015-12-25
Is the video that shows them saying the famous "small step" a re-creation or just not the original copy?
5 Roarian 2015-12-25
All the footage still exists, it's just not on the original physical tapes. Kinda like the Doctor Who situation, where some episodes are preserved because people made copies, and the copies survive.
3 Swazimoto 2015-12-25
Thank you i thought people would take my comment to be sarcastic but i truly was in the dark about that fact, though i had heard several times that the original tapes were lost
1 Roarian 2015-12-25
People don't really understand the state of technology at the time, in more than one way. Aeronautics for example got a ton of development due to warfare and a hefty percentage of the budget, while other fields were still relatively primitive. Video storage was expensive and cumbersome still, which is why a lot of it was reused to save on costs.
2 Swazimoto 2015-12-25
That makes a lot of sense, people tend to generalize these kinds of things
3 fzombie 2015-12-25
Amateur radio enthusiasts and scientists were independently able to track and receive transmissions from predictable paths. If people never went to the moon then they must have sent up a rocket that went to the moon without people and broadcast a ton of information back. It doesn't really seem like they would go through wasting billions of dollars to launch recordings of a launch on a real rocket and not just send the people up.
1 Clickheretoo 2015-12-25
I'm not trying to be an advocate for the arguement that it is a hoax but I can see one possibility that could explain this. What if the mortality rate was extremely low? Say 3%? It's a lot harder to win the space race when all your astraunots die whenever you try. Imagine the media coverage after they were so hopeful if it all went wrong?
3 negative_commentary 2015-12-25
The point of faking it is that we were in a race with Russia to be the first country to put a man on the moon.
By pretending to do so we forced Russia into spending every penny they could scrape together into developing technology to send a man to the moon, then we sat back and watched them research themselves into poverty, effectively ending the cold war.
We can't even develop a reliable self-driving car. How could we possibly have had the technology to send multiple people all the way to the lunar surface in 1969?
The telemetry calculatioins alone to make that happen would have required computational power we don't even have today.
7 kevinh456 2015-12-25
Teaching a computer to see and make decisions is a lot more complicated than doing physics calculations that were performed by hand until the mid 1970's. The physics calculations are basic algebra and calculus. The math was all invented before computers existed. They used to fill rooms full of people to do the work.
"the word “computer” once referred to a person whose job involved doing calculations by hand"
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/tech-time-warp-week-wwii-computers-rooms-full-humans/
On the other hand, the math and computer science to do computer vision has only emerged in the last couple decades.
Source: I have a degree in computer science and I've done work on computer vision. It's fucking hard.
-1 negative_commentary 2015-12-25
Subjective observation is not a source.
Mr. degree in computer science.
2 kevinh456 2015-12-25
At least you live up to your username.
1 kevinh456 2015-12-25
A brief history of computer vision: http://www.egavves.com/a-brief-history-of-computer-vision/#sthash.aPFY46do.dpbs
2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-12-25
We have never been to the moon. Follow the links people are giving and really consider what is being said. If you stop reading at the first argument that you have a problem with then you haven't given yourself a fair chance.
Start here, Dave McGowan's discussion, read it all: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
Here is analysis of problems with official moon photos: http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax/
William Cooper's thoughts on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrhO6TCuF4
It is on you to do the reading and further research if you really want to know. You can easily find someone to comfort you with words like "don't worry, of course the moon landings were real, anyone who says otherwise is (insert derisive insult here)."
It is possible that you should start with another topic before this one though. It is important to realize that mainstream consensus does not equal truth. This is easy to demonstrate with an example. At one point lead paint was considered safe. Exposure to it caused behavioral problems in children that were blamed on parents. But people were called crazy if they questioned the safety of lead paint. Learning about the history of the use of techniques used to manufacture consensus allows you to escape the trap that mainstream consensus = truth. Bernays is a good place to start for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays One of his important publications 'Propaganda' (1928) http://whale.to/b/bernays.pdf
3 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
1 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-12-25
The first link is 13 pages. The first one is mostly preamble. Please try to read more of it.
2 crestind 2015-12-25
/r/moonhoax
2 pbae 2015-12-25
Hey OP, the reason they call it a cover up is because they obscure the evidence and they don't want any evidence around.
If anyone outside of NASA and the govt had solid evidence that it was faked, then we all would know about it and the moon landing would be a non issue.
But as time goes on, we start to learn the truth.
-General Smedley Butler -Gulf of Tonkin -Operation Northwoods -Libor -Etc....
But the moon landings is like the JFK assasination. We're never ever going to know if they were true conspiracies, although there's a lot of evidence that points that way.
1 KingLesbian 2015-12-25
Check out this info.
1 Empty_Allocution 2015-12-25
Upvoted you because this link is also in the top comment in this thread.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
5 Roarian 2015-12-25
The arms in particular look unnaturally fast when you do that, plus they still look incredibly light on their feet even with those huge bulky suits on - so yeah, if it's not low g, it sure is a convincing imitation of it.
8 shilllord 2015-12-25
It says in the video title "...double speed".
Somebody took the moon footage, speed it up twice for fun because they now look like "teletubbies"... and idiots are now using it as an evidence for moon landing hoax?
2 killerjavi98 2015-12-25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dAOcGtJH08
Micro-satellite to inspect if Americans did land on Moon
0 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
The ISS has effectively 0 gravity - if you want to compare Earth, the Moon and the ISS, the former are necessarily gonna be more similar since they're both variations on having significant gravity, while the latter nixes that. On earth or the moon, objects fall, what goes up comes down, the works. On the ISS, not so much.
In what universe would 1/6th gravity look more like freefall than like 1 gravity?
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
Let's analyse that. Your statement would be true under the assumption that an astronaut weighs approximately the same they do on Earth. (and that people on Earth can jump a foot in the air without meaningfully bending their legs, which seems... unusual.) 100kg on Earth would be something like 1/6th so about 16kg on the Moon, which leads to making bigger jumps with the same level of effort.
However, for that to be true we have to assume that astronauts are A) the same mass as they are on Earth, or close enough - and B) that they are delivering the same amount of force to their jump.
A) is easy-ish to check. We'll assume that astronauts weigh, on average about 80 kg - a healthy amount for a fit man. I don't know the exact amounts, and they'd sooner edge towards lighter than heavier, for obvious reasons. I looked up the weight of the suit and found it's generally listed as 200 pounds, or 91 kg, for an EVA suit on Apollo 11 (presumably pre-inflation.) The suit is already heavier than the entire person it's supporting, then.
B) The suit is resistant to deformation when inflated, which is why most of the movements in it are ungainly and imprecise, something easily detected in a lot of footage featuring it. The movement method used on the moon, as per the astronauts own statements, was also more along the line of skipping than trying to jump really high - there's a few clips where that does happen, and they reach considerably higher there than in this clip.
These seem like relevant points to take into account for any calculations.
Anyway, since there's more obvious measuring points in other videos - particularly objects like sand which can't be affected by any system or pulleys or whatnot - and the low g is consistent there, it seems unlikely even in the moonhoax scenario that any fakery would have just flubbed the most obvious stuff. Either NASA is super-competent or incompetent - you can't have both.
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 Roarian 2015-12-25
Where on Earth can someone who weighs 200kg jump like that?
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
2 Roarian 2015-12-25
I mean, I can change the variables too and make it fit, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be favorable for the 'fake' scenario. If they were using lighter suits and whatnot, why would they not incorporate the 6 feet hops you imagine should be there?
1 clowncar 2015-12-25
That's what got me reading about this. George W. Bush, a few years ago, talked about America going back to the moon, but an official at NASA lamented that we just don't have the technology to do that. Made me wonder: But we had that technology starting in 1969.
4 SilliusSwordus 2015-12-25
uh, iirc all we had then was the space shuttle. Everything else was long since retired and in scrap heaps. Space shuttles could only achieve LEO.
1 amisupposedtopost 2015-12-25
As with most conspiracies, the evidence is admittedly circumstantial.
In 2001 (back when conspiracy theories were still fun) Fox television aired this documentary: https://youtu.be/MIy8ZqqK5G8
Hopefully you find some food for thought in it.
0 lucycohen 2015-12-25
You will need to spend a lot more time on this, anyone who does will be left in no doubt it was a hoax
6 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
-3 lucycohen 2015-12-25
It's all been posted on here before, I can see you're new to the topic, all I'd say is keep watching documentaries and learning more, examine the evidence carefully, at some point you'll get the light bulb appear over your head, everyone does in the end
2 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
I've spent a lot of time on this and have yet to be convinced.
What changed your mind?
3 stefgosselin 2015-12-25
Extaordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is it that has you so convinced? Hopefully not that pre-recorded, over dubbed, filmed off a nasa screen that America was shown. As a data scientist quite interested in physics, I can assure you if you follow the flight path and speeds of the missions (among hundreds of other ridiculous details), just this in itself is enough to totally see the moon missions for what they really are: US government funded propaganda at it's finest.
10 years ago, I was a loner in my circle of friends and family, called out as being crazy for having such delusional ideas. Slowly but surely, over time I have had dozens of people come to me saying over time they had switched sides. Sorry it's taking you a long time.
Maybe, go read the whole 'wagging the moon doggie' series, and just pit your good old common sense against the facts presented in those articles.
Hey. You still have a right to believe in whatever you want, just like I respect my grandkid's Santa Clause.
As far as I am concerned, both tales are kept alive and handed down, relying on the natural gullibility of humans to survive.
Maybe in another 50-75 years when we have not gone back, people will start asking questions and better understand they have been played.
3 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Well, it's good that that's exactly what I did a few years ago.
One of my assignments was to check the flight path of any spacecraft. I looked around a bit and found independent raw readings of Doppler shift from Apollo 17 (I think it was 17 anyway).
Then using the shift I found the velocity, acceleration, height, etc...
And it fit perfectly, within error, to what was expected.
Here's where I got my data from:
www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
They performed almost exactly the same analysis I did.
If you check... one of my other posts, I give even more independent sources from various countries, universities and even some random guy with a powerful radio.
Of course, when I gave independent sources somebody replied saying that all the super powers (including the Russians and US) are actually working together and that each of those sources was a member of the conspiracy... yeah.
So, what would convince you that the landings did happen? Since I get the feeling nothing could convince you, and if that is the case then we're both wasting our time.
2 lucycohen 2015-12-25
So many things, you can even see the guys are on strings. I've also spoken to rather honest people from NASA
4 biohazard930 2015-12-25
I've never heard of this before. Where do you see the strings?
3 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
Extreme, sensational comments, vague and without proof... As damaging to the conspiracy theorist name as possible.
3 subroc77 2015-12-25
Show us astronauts on strings, please
0 server_busy 2015-12-25
The Van Allen Radiation Belts would have cooked those guys in that tin lunch pail to a crisp.
4 blaaaahhhhh 2015-12-25
Says who?
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
4 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
1 thing_on_a_string 2015-12-25
they have advanced applied engineering, totally different from advanced science or tech (which is universal and only constrained by money). everybody knows the science, if they can be bothered to follow it and read the papers.
2 lucycohen 2015-12-25
Back then it seemed semi-believable, but now in 2015, we realize that there's no way they flew there in the cardboard boxes, if they had tried they'd all be dead. It was simply a Kubrick production
0 garrettrinpoche 2015-12-25
would've been easier to actually land on the moon than it wouldve been to convincingly fake it in 1969.
0 thing_on_a_string 2015-12-25
go look at what NASA had in their big sheds/studios/sets.
they had massive scale detailed models of the Moon, and cameras on tracks to simulate approach and orbit.
a sci-fi movies directors wet-dream. Kubrick no doubt used this for 2001 and the other.
2 garrettrinpoche 2015-12-25
holy shit they tried to simulate the mission to prepare for it!? illuminati confirmed!
-1 subroc77 2015-12-25
Well, I thought about it and you're wrong.
-2 Generati0nY 2015-12-25
No, just no
http://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
[deleted]
-3 lucycohen 2015-12-25
The whole moon landing hoax makes NASA look incredibly stupid, you can even see the guys are on strings in the videos, it's like watching Thunderbirds
6 Rockran 2015-12-25
No you can't.
4 subroc77 2015-12-25
You've said you can see astronauts on strings several times in this thread and have yet to show any evidence.
-1 Generati0nY 2015-12-25
The tech didn't exist in the 60's to fake a Moon landing. This is what you're all conveniently ignoring...
5 lucycohen 2015-12-25
It's 10,000 times easier to fake it than it is to go there, watch the Stanley Kubrick films from the 60's and you'll see how easy it was to fake it
3 Roarian 2015-12-25
It's funny since even 2001, arguably the best depiction of space up to that point, ended up with a lot of very obvious issues - they filmed without a vacuum so you can see the effects of air all the time, lighting is wonky at best and inconsistent, and the gravity never worked as it should.
I don't see how Kubrick could have helped here. All the stuff that would have to be faked had to be figured out anyway since Kubrick wasn't able to do it.
1 Generati0nY 2015-12-25
I'm glad you brought that up. That very point is addressed here.
http://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1I
Kubrick didn't have the tech to fake it.
-3 1lostsheep 2015-12-25
We got to the moon and back i assure you. My proof? The USSR. If we faked everything we ever saw of the moon landing Soviet Russia would have called bullshit instantly and would smear us with propaganda but they did not bc they were tracking us independently as well and they have no reason to keep a lie that could have boosted their egos during the Space Race during the Cold War.
8 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
What evidence would make you think the Moon landing was real, if any?
Edit: for your edit.
Yes, it does, thanks to Doppler shift, that's exactly what this shows, which is why I linked the raw data in my previous post..
8 lucycohen 2015-12-25
Superb link
8 untumulted 2015-12-25
What's to say? That is extremely amusing.
I don't know why you think it's up anyone to prove that NASA didn't go to the moon; it's up to NASA to prove they went.
You know, not go through long drawn out examples of how it's different now, but just show the shielding used and how it worked.
You don't have that though. So you can't. Instead, you have to string together a bunch of nonsense.
That's not your fault. NASA didn't give you the tools to prove they went to the moon, because they can't give them to you. There's no solid evidence that NASA went. All "evidence" suggesting they did is utterly corrupted.
But it amazes me when some one who is dealing in their "area of expertise" wouldn't just go straight to the money shot: they used this! Boom! Eat it! And it doesn't concern you that you can't.
Like can be done with any other provable thing.
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Brutal :). But he is going with the technology is too far advanced argument and freaking deserves it.
13 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Well, I can.
Here are the publicly available documents from NASA on protection against radiation for the Apollo mission.
Here's another publicly available document.
And another.
Essentially, with what was available to them then, no amount of shielding could have helped (in fact trying to shield would be harmful), so the next best option was to go through the belts as fast as possible, at a time with low solar activity and decent space weather predictions, and hope nothing broke and that none of the astronauts got cancer and died later on.
Why wouldn't shielding help? I'll be as brief as possible.
There are four main kinds of radiation.
Alpha fucks shit up, but gets stopped by almost anything, so the spacecraft's exterior was enough.
Beta fucks shit up less badly, but would still be stopped by the exterior (mostly).
Gamma usually just goes through everything, but if it interacts then it fucks everything up since it releases different kinds of radiation inside of you/the components. Stopping it would need too much shielding, so the best option is to reduce what it can interact with and hope it just goes through everything.
Same-ish for neutron.
NASA probes showed that there was far less radiation in the VA belt than expected, and that if they went through fast enough then shielding wouldn't be needed.
It was an insanely stupid risk by today's standards, which is why Orion is doing it properly this time. Although it'll still go through as fast as possible to reduce exposure.
Boom. Eat it.
3 RamenRider 2015-12-25
Lmfao fucking love that title.
5 jupitergeorge 2015-12-25
One of the Apollo missions left a mirror on the moon to bounce lasers off to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
-3 lucycohen 2015-12-25
The whole moon landing hoax makes NASA look incredibly stupid, you can even see the guys are on strings in the videos, it's like watching Thunderbirds
0 malayatom 2015-12-25
There is radiation all over the solar system - from the sun. Which is why We need a magnetosphere to survive.
7 kevinh456 2015-12-25
Teaching a computer to see and make decisions is a lot more complicated than doing physics calculations that were performed by hand until the mid 1970's. The physics calculations are basic algebra and calculus. The math was all invented before computers existed. They used to fill rooms full of people to do the work.
"the word “computer” once referred to a person whose job involved doing calculations by hand"
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/tech-time-warp-week-wwii-computers-rooms-full-humans/
On the other hand, the math and computer science to do computer vision has only emerged in the last couple decades.
Source: I have a degree in computer science and I've done work on computer vision. It's fucking hard.
1 kevinh456 2015-12-25
A brief history of computer vision: http://www.egavves.com/a-brief-history-of-computer-vision/#sthash.aPFY46do.dpbs
5 afraid_of_sharting 2015-12-25
Well i honestly thought the moon hoax conspiracy theory was one of the most far-fetched, but now I think it's pretty convincing. Those pictures of the lunar module.....
1 Empty_Allocution 2015-12-25
Upvoted you because this link is also in the top comment in this thread.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
It was never claimed to be a moon rock by the US Ambassador who gave it as a gift, it was a misunderstanding as "My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
This is verified by additional facts such as:
It was a misunderstanding. When you look at what the actual samples look like and how they are contained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays#/media/File:Netherlands_Apollo_11_display.jpg
compared to what was given to Drees:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/27/article-0-063396B8000005DC-918_468x409.jpg
It becomes very clear. Here is another article that loads faster;
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858
2 malayatom 2015-12-25
Fucking ask them that - I didn't present petrified wood to the Dutch govt. lol
2 lucycohen 2015-12-25
That's the final nail in the coffin then!
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
It wasn't the Dutch government. It seems as though you aren't even reading the information being provided, making this pretty pointless.
1 pbae 2015-12-25
Hmmm, that statement doesn't sound to me that compartmentalization accomplished very little. In fact, if manipulation to direct and control research was the goal, then compartmentalization is a success.
Compartmentalization has gone back to at least WW2 so it's not out of the question that it would have been implemented during the 60's NASA era.
Why did they take the camera then?
So our Military has been filming war footage as far back as WW2 for archival purposes but our govt doesn't see any significance in archiving moon footage? I feel you're stretching things a bit.
On top of that, how are you going to defend the erasing of the moon footage when you didn't even know about it until now. All you did was do a little research after I pointed to a source and then you found some source of your own and are going with it? I've said this before but you aren't that skeptical at all.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-25
Thanks a lot for this, just finished reading it. Very convincing.
2 unportrait 2015-12-25
Um, it looks like a piece of petrified wood and nothing like the moon samples. If they were so keen on passing it off as a moon rock then why does it look nothing like any of the moon rocks that were given away?
Please show me where on the plaque it says that it was a moon rock. Also please give me a link that proves that the former PM said that the US Ambassador claimed it was a moon rock. Otherwise, these are just points with zero evidence.
I have no idea what the sequence of events was, I wasn't there and there is no documentation stating exactly what happened. You are the one making it up as you go along without evidence or supporting proof.
"Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch NOS news that he had gotten it from the US State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details."
You are the one who is creating the details to suit your agenda. Again, you have no evidence to support your claim that it was claimed to be a moon rock.
Such as?
5 EveryonesNoOne 2015-12-25
You do realize that it's the holidays and people have families to spend time with, right?
Not everyone has massive amounts of free time to Reddit 24/7 like you obviously do. I guess things are slow at the tinfoil hat factory?
What is up win this sub and their concern with the age of accounts? You seem massively paranoid and I can't wait until you accuse me of being an alt account for the guy that just schooled you, but here's the thing, I found your post in /r/topmindsofreddit and it was so funny I just had to respond.
1 Bruch_Inboo 2015-12-25
Holy shit, I'm sorry I have a life and I don't spend my entire day on Reddit.
If you really want to know, since it was the weekend and a holiday, I decided to go out with some friend, party for a bit, got nicely drunk, a bit hungover, stayed at a friend and only got back/started feeling human again at about 4 or 5PM.
My engineering book.
Which, oddly enough, rarely mentions Apollo, and only has generic engineering practices in it which are followed by... fucking everybody ranging from NASA to Ford and Microsoft?
Not my fault you seriously seem to not understand how a business/project is run and managed.
Is Microsoft part of a massive conspiracy because they have different departments which seperate people that, wait for it, work on different things?
In the past when I used my main to debate I've had batshit insane people follow me around, analyse everything I post and try to DOX me, so I now switch accounts around a lot to avoid getting DOXed by crazy fuckers. From your reply calling me a saboteur and a shill I get the feeling that you're the kind of person that makes me use separate accounts instead of using my main.
I assumed, since you are clearly a true sceptic, unlike me, that you'd be able to do independent research.
Here's the website holding all of the archived footage from all of the Apollo mission. Used 14 randomly since it's an ancient-as-fuck website with terrible navigation. Change the 14's to 11, 12, whatever, to see the rest of it.
Ah yes, science, maths and the specifications of a spacecraft are disinfo.
If what I'm doing by researching, finding facts, finding primary sources means I'm not sceptical then I'm afraid to ask what your definition of a sceptic is.
I'm a scientist and an engineer. Oddly enough my agenda is promoting science, engineering, the scientific method and logic.
After all I have spent the better part of six years studying this subject, so bullshit arguments like your are quite annoying.
Here's a nice example of somebody not being exceedingly rude, who had genuine questions and brought new points and information I never knew about and didn't know the answer to.
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
Citations, science, facts and logic = shill
Enjoy your agenda and enjoy questioning absolutely nothing in life.
You're the opposite of a sceptic.
1 ragecry 2015-12-25
That's...excessive. Once you realize the effort these trolls put in, their insults become pure hilarity. They might be a waste of oxygen, but their computing devices could have been put to better use. What a shame, all those devices gone to waste.