The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did we land on the moon?  (Read 202621 times)

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #350 on: 15/08/2009 19:31:07 »
I'm beginning to find this thread fairly tortuous.
OK, I'll admit is. It was all a conspiracy - along with satellite tv and the Hubble Space Telescope.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #351 on: 15/08/2009 23:24:33 »
Hear hear.
But it won't lie down.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #352 on: 16/08/2009 20:39:24 »
"So they “cherry pick” evidence from our moon trips to “prove” that they were supposedly faked.  Fact is, as with virtually every happening, evidence points to the trips as real, and evidence points to them as fake.  "
OK, Redress the ballance. Cherry pick the evidence that the moon landings are fake.
If you actually find something that hasn't been discussed and explained before then post it.
Otherwise please don't post anything more.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #353 on: 16/08/2009 23:54:19 »
You'll be lucky.
In any case, I know, FOR A FACT, that YOU are a part of the conspiracy so you would say that wouldn't you?
You just want to suppress the facts. Admit it. :-\
 

Offline demografx

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #354 on: 03/09/2009 03:52:30 »

How do we know this accusation isn't a coverup/smokescreen for YOUR conspiratorial involvement?

The plot thickens!
.
.
.
.
or is it my head?...
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #355 on: 22/10/2009 14:18:47 »
The hoax was proven a long time ago.  You people seem to be trying to bury the evidence that has been posted to reduce the number of people who see it.  Here is a collection of stuff I've made.  Some of it has already been posted in this thread but if it's going to get buried and ignored, what else can I do but repost it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

(The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=1&oq=a+funny+thin#

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.

Here it is doubled.

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.
One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no blast crater under the lander.
http://thoughtworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/picture1.jpg

That is discussed in this four part video series.
------------------------------------------------------

Look at the picture in reply #7 of this page at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=714&page=1#14424

The shadow of the rod is proportionally longer than the shadow of the bag. Evidently, that's how they got those pictures of very dark shadows--they drew them.

Here's more on the bogus shadow issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11053&hl=apollo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The moon rocks are often presented as proof the missions were real.  There are plausible explanations that would explain them.

People say the Soviets would have snitched.  There are explanations for that too:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f
 
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Have you read Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?
 http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It someone were to make a deathbed statement saying the moon missions were faked, the press would never report it as the press is controlled.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to come forward. Look what happened to these guys.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Here are some videos.
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=what+happened+on+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=f&aq=f#

This keeps going on and off-line.  If there's nothing in this link, do a Google Video search on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Moon_Hoax
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.

Here's a link to the entire conference.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561


The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo

These two are important
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
---------------------------

---------------------------
---------------------------
(23 parts)

The Chinese space walks were obviously faked in a water tank and NASA's official position is that the Chinese space walks were real.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
 
The pro-Apollo posters at the forums of both the "Clavius" and "Bad Astronomy" websites tap danced around the evidence that the Chinese space walk was faked because they have to agree with the official US government version and they can't say it was faked without looking silly.  Here are the threads.  They're hilarious.
 
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/79327-congratulations-china-but-live-tv-launch-broadcast.html
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=2206
 
They pretty much destroyed the credibility of those two sites when they didn't seriously address the evidence.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
 
It's pretty clear that they're government damage-control sites.

Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606
« Last Edit: 24/01/2010 14:39:02 by Cosmored »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #356 on: 22/10/2009 18:46:15 »
The hoax was proven a long time ago.  You people seem to be trying to bury the evidence that has been posted to reduce the number of people who see it.  Here is a collection of stuff I've made.  Some of it has already been posted in this thread but if it's going to get buried and ignored, what else can I do but repost it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you could not bother to waste our time or yours.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #357 on: 22/10/2009 23:54:30 »
This thread seems to be borked - I can't post to it as intended and just get a response saying:

"The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:"

 

Offline demografx

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #358 on: 24/10/2009 01:34:18 »
So the First Moon Tourism (1-800-FLY-MOON) tickets I bought for my family are bogus? Sheesh, $18 million down the drain........

That's the last time I respond to another late night infomercial! Harrumph!

                       
« Last Edit: 24/10/2009 01:40:33 by demografx »
 

Offline demografx

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #359 on: 24/10/2009 01:48:57 »

The hoax was proven a long time ago.  You people seem to be trying to bury the evidence that has been posted to reduce the number of people who see it.  Here is a collection of stuff I've made.  Some of it has already been posted in this thread but if it's going to get buried and ignored, what else can I do but repost it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, you could not bother to waste our time or yours.


BC, when I attended a "How To Email Scam" conference, I learned that ALL CAPS would be more effective. Also, he might consider posting the above MULTIPLE TIMES IN SEQUENCE to REALLY get the point across! And the more links added, the higher the credibility!
http://j-walk.com/other/conf/index.htm
« Last Edit: 24/10/2009 01:52:03 by demografx »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #360 on: 24/10/2009 03:11:18 »
The thing I don't understand is why is it that some folks don't want the reality of the moon landing to be real. What would be the motivation for trying to create such a hoax?  There was none. It was not a hoax. The landings were real.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #361 on: 24/10/2009 13:43:06 »
Quote
What would be the motivation for trying to create such a hoax?  There was none.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
-------------------------------------------------

The video evidence shows the missions were faked.  Our not knowing exactly why they faked it doesn't make the evidence go away.  There are several plausible scenarios; we just don't know which one is true.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #362 on: 24/10/2009 14:12:49 »
It still comes back to the fact that NASA would be totally and utterly discredited if, on a subsequent mission to the moon by some other nation, no evidence could be found of the original moon landings.

Until you can absolutely prove that these landings were faked, it must be taken that they were not.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #363 on: 24/10/2009 14:58:51 »
Quote
It still comes back to the fact that NASA would be totally and utterly discredited if, on a subsequent mission to the moon by some other nation, no evidence could be found of the original moon landings.
The anomalies in the video and still pictures prove that Apollo was a hoax.  The reason they weren't too worried about another nation going to the moon might have been because they knew that it was impossible for there to be people on the moon without a few feet of lead shielding to protect them from space radiation.  In my last post there is some stuff about space radiation.  Be sure to check these out.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

The only people who can be sure about the true levels of space radiation are government people who have high security clearances and have access to the actual data gathered by space probes.  The rest of us only know what they want us to know.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #364 on: 24/10/2009 18:23:09 »
You can't have it both ways.
If this "Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR." was a reason for faking the moon landings then tyou can't say that te Russians were in on the fakery. If they weren't then how come they didn't spot that the signals were not sent from the moon?
Also this
"The only people who can be sure about the true levels of space radiation are government people who have high security clearances and have access to the actual data gathered by space probes.  The rest of us only know what they want us to know"

Is simply wrong, I can measure the radiation exposure at the earth's surface at sea level and at the top of a mountain and extrapolate the dose in space.
It's not healthy, but it's not lethal
The talk of several feet of lead is just silly.
We know that we can survive the radiation provided that we are behind a sheild that's equivalent to the earth's atmosphere.
In terms of simple areal density that's the equivalent of about 2.5 inches of lead. Of course, lead has a much higher mean atomic number than air so it's a rather better screening agent.
Then there's the fact that, for a short mission like a moon shot, we can put up with a rather higher dose rate.
The shell of the space ship will offer enough protection without added lead sheets.

Face it, there's no real evidence that the moon landings were faked.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #365 on: 24/10/2009 19:26:10 »
Quote
If this "Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR." was a reason for faking the moon landings then tyou can't say that te Russians were in on the fakery.  If they weren't then how come they didn't spot that the signals were not sent from the moon?
There are several plausible scenarios.

There might have been an unmanned lander on the moon sending the signals; if the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology.

The Soviets might have been colluding with the US government.  Here's the stuff I posted about the Soviets from the above post-
Quote
People say the Soviets would have snitched.  There are explanations for that too:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f
 
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Have you read Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?
 http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
I can measure the radiation exposure at the earth's surface at sea level and at the top of a mountain and extrapolate the dose in space.
So you're saying you can measure space radiation as accurately as a probe that's actually in space.  Nobody's going to take that one seriously.

Listen to what this video says about Van Allen.

I posted this link above but I guess I'll have to post the whole article so everybody is sure to see it.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early 1950's, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters ofnorthern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series ofrocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed "rockoons" - 12 to 15 miles into space.

They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic raysswirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.

Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.

Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.

That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles.  The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.

 It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance.  His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts.  There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was   equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.

 Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959.  He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

 "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said.   Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself.  These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

 Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.  It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners.  National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.

 It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or  another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration.  One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.

 All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?

 The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of  radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.

 In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk.  Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.

 The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.

 NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted.  Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight.  We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.

 It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus?    We had to speak to Van Allen.

 Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."

 "Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

 "Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them."  In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he  once called deadly.  When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."  So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?
 If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them  to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate.  If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Van Allen found out some things by sending rockets into space that you couldn't find out by measuring radiation levels at the top of a mountain.

Quote
We know that we can survive the radiation provided that we are behind a sheild that's equivalent to the earth's atmosphere.
According to the stuff I've found the Van Allen belts shield the earth from radiation.  Supposedly it's not just the atmosphere that protects us.

If we haven't seen the actual data collected by space probes, we have no idea what types and levels of radiation are out there.

Quote
Face it, there's no real evidence that the moon landings were faked.
There's a mountain of video evidence that the missions were faked.  The reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation.

In the seventh post from the top where all the info is I pointed out that, when the speed of the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look like natural movements on earth.  When the speed of some of the later missions is doubled, the speed of the movements is unnaturally fast.  According to Jarrah White, the later missions used a combination of wire supports and about a 67% slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity.  We can deduce that they used a crude 50% slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and later improved the method but that made the footage of different missions inconsistent.

There's the fact that the corner of Collins' jacket and dogtags bounce around the way they would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.

(50 second mark)

I know there's micro-gravity at the point where they were supposed to be in that footage, but that gravity looks pretty strong.

This is only a small part of the evidence that they faked it.  I don't see how anyone could say there's no evidence that they faked it with a straight face.
 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #366 on: 24/10/2009 20:29:31 »
It still comes back to the fact that NASA would be totally and utterly discredited if, on a subsequent mission to the moon by some other nation, no evidence could be found of the original moon landings.

Until you can absolutely prove that these landings were faked, it must be taken that they were not.

That is hardly a good way of looking at it. If they were faked as you rightly say NASA and America would be totally discredited, so if they were faked, NASA would spend massive amounts of energy, to prove they were not. To seek a totality of proof, is hardly empirical, surely you look at all the facts and sit with the greatest weight of evidence.

It could be both, they did go to the moon but they Faked the moon landing video etc to hide information from Russia. That way everyone would be right. ;)

I'm still- with jury out, on the subject
« Last Edit: 24/10/2009 20:31:39 by Littlestone »
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #367 on: 25/10/2009 13:17:03 »
Quote
It could be both, they did go to the moon but they Faked the moon landing video etc to hide information from Russia.

So, in your opinion, are the examples of fakery that I posted really fakery?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #368 on: 25/10/2009 13:29:22 »
"There's the fact that the corner of Collins' jacket and dogtags bounce around the way they would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.
"
At about 1 min 15 you can see that they are tied down so it's no wonder they act as they do- it's not gravity it's a tremendously complicated piece of technology- a bit of wire.

Also, "The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. "
Yeah, like I remember being impressed by the crane that the dentist needed to move the vest about with.
If that's the calibre of your evidence...
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #369 on: 25/10/2009 14:58:40 »
Quote
At about 1 min 15 you can see that they are tied down so it's no wonder they act as they do- it's not gravity it's a tremendously complicated piece of technology- a bit of wire.
I'm not talking about the astronauts.  I'm talking about the corner of Collins' jacket and his dogtags.

If you take a jacket on a hanger and bounce it up and down, the corners will behave exactly like the corner of Collins' jacket does.  Would that be possible in an environment like the one in this video below?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=TejsnPThmd4

I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' dogtags while running in place with some keys hanging around my neck.  I only had to impart a little extra horizontal motion to my upper body. 
Look how the dogtags in this video behave.
(1:49 time mark)

Do you think it's possible to duplicate near-zero gravity behavior in full earth gravity?
 

Offline GoneToPlaid

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #370 on: 25/10/2009 15:48:35 »
So, in your opinion, are the examples of fakery that I posted really fakery?

Not in my opinion. Every one of the hoax claims in the links you provided has been debunked. Most notably, every single one of Jarrah White's claims has been easily and thoroughly debunked.
« Last Edit: 25/10/2009 15:52:40 by GoneToPlaid »
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #371 on: 25/10/2009 16:00:26 »
Quote
Not in my opinion. Every one of the hoax claims in the links you provided has been debunked.
If the speed of the Apollo 11 footage is doubled,  the movements look like natural movements in earth gravity.  If the speed of some of the later footage is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.  Shouldn't it all be consistent?
Quote
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.

Here it is doubled.

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.

How about the issue of the way Collins' jacket corner bounces around?  What about the way the dogtags bounce up and down?
(50 second mark)

I've never seen this satisfactorily explained.
 

Offline Rob260259

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #372 on: 25/10/2009 16:10:53 »
Cosmored, the moonlandings were real and reality. No doubt about that.
You say they were faked? Faked six times?! Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistensies or visual errors that even the casual uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to the sixties and the movies that were made then. Could NASA have produced such a fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of engineers and scientists familiar with the geologic studies of celestial bodies?

Cosmored, most people are smart enough to believe reputable engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who, based on actual empirical evidence, state that the landings were a fact. Some people however believe some anonymous high-school dropouts who found everything they needed to conclude the moonlandings were a hoax from a few YouTube videos.

The Apollo missions were tracked by the Madrid Apollo Station, the Goldstone Tracking Station, the Jodrell Bank Observatory, the Chabot Observatory, the Corralitos Observatory, the Jewett Observatory, the Honeysuckle Creek station and the Bochum Sternwache. You say that all the hundreds of engineers and scientists at those stations were fools?
 
The point about conspiracy theories is, that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there are always some guys who will believe it. And if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit, then ignore it. Considering there was a space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not you think the Soviets would found out about the hoax through their intelligence networks? And think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up this hoax and keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?

As GoneToPlaid wrote today, every one (EVERY ONE) of the hoax claims have been debunked so many times. Some very easily, some with the use of people specialized in photography, physics, engineering and so on.

 

Offline Rob260259

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #373 on: 25/10/2009 16:18:12 »

Cosmored,
all your questions (and I mean ALL your questions) are answered in this extensive website:

newbielink:http://www.clavius.org/index.html [nonactive]

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #374 on: 25/10/2009 16:24:14 »
Cosmored,
it's not clear what you mean by "dogtags".
Do you mean this?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #374 on: 25/10/2009 16:24:14 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums