Did we land on the moon?

  • 436 Replies
  • 204145 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #250 on: 07/12/2008 13:59:48 »
It's well known that the atmosphere shields us from a lot of radiation. It figures that, without the atmosphere, we would be exposed to a lot more radiation. However people can survive reasoanble amounts of radiation so there's no problem with short haul space travel. A mission to Mars would be a problem but just nipping out to the moon for some rocks isn't a major health issue. I for one would love to take that risk (though if I could put it off for 20 years it would make sense)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #251 on: 07/12/2008 16:16:40 »
Can you get low gravity Zimmer frames? I'll join you.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #252 on: 07/12/2008 17:22:39 »
OK here is an anomoly.

How come the films taken did not get contaminated with radiation fog?
CONCLUSIONS
Modern high-speed film emulsions are extremely sensitive to exposure to the high-energy form of radiation
experienced in low earth orbit. The payload structure does not provide sufficient shielding to block this high
LET radiation. These results indicate that high-speed photographic films are possibly not suitable for image
recording in space shuttle payloads without special shielding. Preference should be given to lower sensitivity
films where possible and testing should be used to verify the choice of material.
http://www.musc.edu/cando/symp99/acrobat/rad.pdf
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #253 on: 07/12/2008 18:23:06 »
I thought that the early hi res pictures of the Moon, taken by unmanned craft, were scanned photographs, taken and developed on board. That system worked pretty well. Vacuum tube imaging was pretty rubbish until a couple of decades ago.
It is only relatively recently that solid state image technology has been good enough for good quality pictures.

How radiation-hardened is the equipment used in other un-manned space missions, in any case?

BTW, AKF, are you really not old enough to have seen the event, first hand? Were you really so wise at the time as to spot all the 'flaws' in the production, or did the idea of the conspiracy only get to you later, when it appeared on 'fashionable' websites?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #254 on: 07/12/2008 20:08:07 »
"Modern high-speed film emulsions are extremely sensitive to exposure to the high-energy form of radiation experienced in low earth orbit. "
And didn't exist at the time.

They were taking pictures on the moon. There was no shortage of sunlight. Why in the name of all that's holy would they have taken high speed filem?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #255 on: 07/12/2008 22:36:12 »
As I said. 125th at f8 would be fine for normal film. A bright sun with no cloud. In fact, they would be using fine grain (i.e. SLOW/ ISO 50 or 100) film, in all probability.



Any more 'anomalies'?

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #256 on: 08/12/2008 09:56:33 »
The point is that radiation affects all film, not just high speed film. Apparently this was how radiation was first discovered. There was no evidence of this happening on the early films and photographs, although there was mention of white flashes from some astronauts, yet none was mentioned by others. Worth remembering that the film used went through Van-allen's belt 2 times then in orbit around the moon, during decent and ascent from the surface with no atmosphere and during both landing and take off. Prevention of radiation contamination would have required thick lead film canisters, and a lead camera, both of which were never mentioned so presumably never used.

http://www.orau.org/ptp/Library/mddc1065.pdf The following document dates back to 1948 Titled Photographic Film as a Pocket Radiation Dosimeter, which led to the used of small samples of film used as badges for people working in the radiation industry. Proving that Modern High speed film is not required to record radiation contamination.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2008 11:13:15 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #257 on: 08/12/2008 17:57:15 »
AKF, why do you ignore my crucial point which relates to total dose of radiation?
Months and months in low Earth orbit compares with a few  hours of actual transit time through the belts (they only extend to a few Earth radii, at most and the craft is traveling relatively fast at that time).
You make assertions about the implied levels of radiation. Have you researched to find the actual levels and doses? It would be easy to integrate the dose over a typical Moon shot and to compare it with the space station experience. If you want to convince me (and yourself, I should hope),  then you should do the calculation. I have often pointed out to you that the actual numbers count in Science. Hand waving doesn't prove anything.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #258 on: 08/12/2008 18:31:24 »
Anyone ever taken their holiday snaps through a security Xray machine? They usually survive. The worst you get is a bit of background fogging. This is much worse for some films than others. Since, as AKF says this was how such radioactivity was discovered, the scientists had plenty of experience of what films to use.

From time to time people have Xray images taken of themselves- in my case it's generally my teeth.
These involve enough radiation to fully expose the film, but they have little or no effect on the people. It seems that film is more sensitive than people. This is also consistent with the discovery of radioactivity being due to its effect on film rather than people.

Since films go through the radiation exposure of  space travel without undue effects it's fair to assume that  people can.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #259 on: 09/12/2008 13:34:00 »
This might help as it mentions some measurements. Both publications are worth a read.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm

Quote
Problems Involving Radiations of Manmade Origin
Protection against manmade sources of radiation is a ground support function concerned mainly with the protection of the ground personnel, the general public, and the environment against detrimental effects of radiation. Much of this effort involved routine health-physics procedures governed by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regulations (Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971) and U.S. Department of Labor Standards (Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971). However, certain problems concerning spacecraft radioluminescent sources were peculiar to the Apollo Program. The chief problems were leakage of radioactive material from radioluminescent switch tips, and emission of excess soft X-ray radiation from radioluminescent panels. Both of these problems were solved.



http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

Quote
They spent a few hours within the Van Allen belts and estimates of the total exposure during their entire flights were about 2 rems (the equivalent of about 100 chest x-rays or about 40% of the maximum permissible dose of radiation according to OSHA standards).



There appears to be enough radiation present to cause problems with the films used. Even radiation on the dials, which alone should have given condierable cause for concern. Add to this the man-made radiation from nuclear explosions, together with natural solar and cosmic radiation plus the flashing lights observed by some astronauts, which represent the radiation striking the film on board and we should be able to determine whether or not any fim canister had been to the moon and back or not by observing the footage for radiation contamination.

BC you imply that special raidioactive resisting film was used
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #260 on: 09/12/2008 13:34:43 »
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98.jhtml
 
Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have been relatively safe for films. However, as airports step up their security measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that has a greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but we expect them to become increasingly common.

This new equipment is intended for checked luggage, although it is possible that boarding-gate security checkpoints will use it in the future. Because your checked luggage may be subjected to these new units, we suggest that you hand-carry your film and request visual inspection.

Historically, fog caused by x-ray radiation has appeared as lines or patterns across the width of roll film. The patterns are usually widely spaced lines followed by many more closely spaced lines. This happens because the image of the plastic core at the center of the roll and the individual laps of the film are projected onto the other laps of film in the roll. Undulating or wavy patterns may also occur throughout the length of the roll; this happens when the film is x-rayed at an angle and the shadow from the end of the film spool and magazine alters the exposure. Shadow images from other objects may also be evident. For example, film x-rayed inside a camera may show images of camera mechanisms

The fog caused by the new airport inspection units is usually more pronounced. It typically appears as soft-edged bands 1/4 to 3/8 inch (1 to 1.5 cm) wide. Because the new equipment uses a higher and more focused x-ray beam, the banding will be very dark on negative films and very light on reversal films. Depending on the orientation of the film to the x-ray beam, the banding may be linear or wavy, and can run lengthwise or crosswise on the film. It can also undulate, depending on the combination of the angle of exposure and the multiple laps of film on the roll. However, the fog will usually lack the more subtle patterns produced by traditional types of x-ray equipment.

X-ray fog may appear as follows:

    * On Black-and-White Negative Films--Dark areas in patterns as described above.

    * On Color Negative Films--Dark areas with neutral or brown patterns.

    * Color Reversal Films--Minus-density area with patterns as described above.

CAUSES

X-ray fog can result from exposure to x-rays from medical equipment, airport inspection equipment, industrial x-ray sources, and other sources of x-rays, as well as from gamma rays from radioactive materials.

Airport x-ray inspection equipment is the most common source encountered by most photographers. Except for the new types of inspection units described earlier, most inspection units in use today are relatively safe for films with an ISO speed or Exposure Index (EI) of 400 or lower. However, multiple exposures without reorientation of the film, cumulative doses of more than five exposures, and malfunctioning inspection units can cause fog. Films with an ISO speed or EI higher than 400 require added precautions because they are much more sensitive to x-ray exposure. Even with "film-safe" x-ray units, you should limit exposure to one inspection. For films with a speed of 1000 or higher, request visual inspection if allowed by local regulations or law.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Other factors can affect the severity of x-ray exposures on photographic films. Film that is--or will be--underexposed and film that you intend to push-process may be particularly vulnerable to x-ray exposure.

Underexposure. X-ray fog occurs in the lower exposure range of the film. Film that is underexposed has more of the image recorded in this range. Therefore, the effects of x-ray exposure may further reduce the quality of underexposed images.

Push Processing. Push processing involves overdevelopment of film to increase the effective speed and increase the density of underexposed images. Just as overdevelopment increases image density, it will also increase the density of any fog, including x-ray fog.

Limiting x-ray exposure is increasingly important for film that may be subject to underexposure or push processing.
PREVENTION

At airport inspection stations, be sure to look for posted advisories on potential effects on film. Requesting visual inspection of photographic materials is still the best preventive measure, when it's allowed. For easy inspection, carry the film in a clear plastic bag.

If you choose to place your film in luggage that you will check, ask if the luggage will be x-rayed. Be aware that security procedures in some locations may prohibit informing passengers whether or not their checked luggage will be x-rayed. Because of random x-ray examination of checked luggage and differences in procedures worldwide, we suggest that you not carry film in checked luggage. By hand-carrying your film, you will know if it is subjected to x-ray inspection.

If possible, you may want to have your exposed film processed locally before passing through airport security. X-ray exposure has no effect on processed film.
CORRECTION

You can compensate for any overall fog during printing of negatives, but if the fog is significant, prints will show a loss of shadow detail and reduction in contrast. Also, x-ray fog commonly appears in patterns; it is impossible to compensate for it in printing, because you can't separate the fog exposure from camera exposure.
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #261 on: 09/12/2008 17:29:38 »
But this is surely old refuted stuff.
The films on Apollo were carried in metal canisters much reducing any potential fogging. We also have more recent evidence - I presume you would not dispute that the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 missions actually took place? Both used on-board film/development (this was before the age of digital photography and the film images were developed on board before scanning and transmission).

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #262 on: 09/12/2008 17:34:54 »
In this document it states even lead lined canisters will not provide the film with protection from radiation.

NAS A/TP--2000-210193
The Effect of Radiation on
Selected Photographic Film

“a standard lead-lined film bag will not
prevent radiation damage,and there is no place in the Shuttle that offers any real protection from
radiation.”

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010004099_2001000061.pdf
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #263 on: 09/12/2008 17:40:25 »
So then you do think that the Lunar 3 and Lunar orbiter projects were a hoax? Interesting. That opens up a whole new conspiracy theory since one was US and the other was USSR. Global conspiracy to pretend they orbited the moon.

Keep taking the tablets.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #264 on: 09/12/2008 18:27:41 »
AKF
Your acres of quotation are all very interesting but you don't support it with any actual numbers, relating an Xray machine with the Van Allen belts.
As I keep telling you  - the actual numbers are the important issue. If you reqally want to convince us to take the idea more seriously you
need to tell us the total dose that might be expected. That involves some SUMS, dear boy. (Or find someone who has already done them and can show their workings).

In any case, if we forbad people to ever be exposed to radiation which can fog a film, we'd never be allowed to have an X ray picture, would we?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #265 on: 09/12/2008 18:44:41 »
Here's part of the conclusion from the page AKF cited.
"The 120-day samples were used to determine which films fell into the good, marginal, and unsatisfactory
categories. Of the three different types of photographic films tested, only the motion picture
films had results that were entirely unsatisfactory. IMAX motion picture films have been used in
the past with excellent results. However, the films were only manifested on Space Shuttle
missions that never exceeded 20 days or 200 nautical miles in altitude."
It seems that, apart from motion picture film, a few months in space doesn't cause insurmountable problems.

Since we also know that people are less susceptible to the effects of radiation than film is, we can conclude that the people who went to the moon wouldn't have been zapped.
Numbers would be good but even without them we know that people could survive the radiation dose unscathed.
As a reason to think we never went to the moon this is a complete red herring.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #266 on: 09/12/2008 18:55:34 »
This really is old and boring stuff.
We went to the moon. Get over it.
The conspiracy theories, over the years, have got increasingly more desperate as they are debunked point by point.
The problem with this sort of guff is, rather like UFOs and other conspiracy theories, you can never completely debunk it to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist. What they have is rather analogous to a religious faith - a blind belief, regardless of evidence, that someone is doing them over.
Never-mind that we can point to a HUGE amount of evidence to the contrary. Never mind that we can point to extant 'kit' like the lunar-reflectors that are used, almost on a daily basis, to measure the earth-moon distance. Never mind that such kit cannot have been possibly 'placed' on the moon by remote...
Faith is impervious to reason, and this sort of conspiracy theory is much more allied to theology than science. Science starts from observation. Theology starts from a-priori assumptions.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2008 19:11:38 by Bikerman »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #267 on: 10/12/2008 10:15:30 »
Bikerman. I have to agree with you here. It is indeed old boring stuff. And it does not matter one bit whether they did or did not land on the moon. My problem was with a landing happening in 1969, when technology was very basic to say the least, including photographic technology. The arguments against a successful landing are strong on viewing the conspiracy video’s. The arguments for and against are indeed pointless as either way we cannot undo history.

Your last comment about what is the point of an argument about lunar landings when more pressing immediate problems are worthy of attention is a valid one.

The thing about radiation is that it does leave a lasting imprint on film. In fact it leaves an imprint on everything including the meteor’s that hit the earth and indeed the rocks that are to be found on the lunar surface. So stating we have manufactured a film that avoids radioactive contamination and can still react to solar radiation to form a clear picture without fogging. And that placing a film inside a camera or a canister may reduce fogging, but will not prevent it may be in need of some thought. Careful analysis of the original photograph and video footage against footage taken onboard low altitude orbit might prove very interesting.

Here lies a reliable method of proving or disproving whether the film and film footage went to the moon and back!
I will leave this to the experts in photography.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2008 10:17:24 by Andrew K Fletcher »
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #268 on: 10/12/2008 16:14:44 »
But there is no doubt, whatsoever, that film went to and from the Moon at that time because there are pictures of the far side, from manned and unmanned craft. If no film could survive then where did the pictures come from? Are you saying they were all TV pictures? How could they have been recorded (as the far side pictures would have had to be)? An AMPEX VT machine would have been required if it had been TV.
You still have not come up with any quantitative arguments about this and, I think I may have mentioned it before, THE NUMBERS COUNT.

btw, what was 'basic' about the film technology in the 1960s that would make it react any different to ionising radiation? That's just a 'filler' comment which proves nothing. Give us some numbers.

If you are prepared to leave it to "the experts in photography" then you just have to accept that you have no argument. You are the one who claims the conspiracy - you have to prove it.

We've buried this particular 'anomaly' give us another, less 'wishy washy' than that one.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #269 on: 10/12/2008 19:05:21 »
Long range photography will bare the scars of radiation. No doubt about that. The point I have tried to make is that the footage from the landing craft will / should bare the same radiation marks. If it does, they went to the moon. If it don't they did not go. simple enough.
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #270 on: 10/12/2008 22:36:53 »
Andrew,
what you are doing is starting from an assumption and using it to disprove a hypothesis. The assumption is that there should be some fogging or other artefacts on the film and the hypothesis is that we did not go to the moon.
That is getting it completely wrong. We know that we went to the moon - there is no reasonable doubt about it. I could spend hours discussing the various lines of evidence but there is no need since they exist in books, papers, websites and other testimony.
The question, therefore, is if there are no radiation effects on the film then why not?
One reason could be that the metal shielding used was sufficient to prevent such damage. Another could be that we overestimate the amount of damage that would be produced. Whatever the reason, we know that the film went to the moon - it is beyond doubt. To turn this around and say - if we can't explain why there is no fogging then we didn't go - well, I'm sorry but that is silly..

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #271 on: 10/12/2008 23:13:28 »
Long range photography will bare the scars of radiation. No doubt about that. The point I have tried to make is that the footage from the landing craft will / should bare the same radiation marks. If it does, they went to the moon. If it don't they did not go. simple enough.
Actually, you started off by claiming that humans couldn't survive the radiation. You later said that there should have been enough radiation to fog photographs and that was, somehow, a proof about the medical risk.
In fact, photographic film has worked more than adequately under all sorts of space conditions. So what are you saying now?
Do you really believe this rubbish or do you just hate to be wrong?

btw, what is "long range photography"? The camera doesn't care how far the light has traveled.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #272 on: 10/12/2008 23:18:28 »
The medical risks associated with radiation are well established. There are other risks associated with how the body rapidly deteriorates in space and that walking on arrival back on earth proves somewhat difficult. Worth remembering when watching the footage of the return to earth.

Long rage photography refers to the location of the camera and the target in the lenses. I.E. we know the camera is at X when the photograph was taken so we can use this to determine the level of radiation in the pictures. What did you think I meant?
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Bikerman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #273 on: 10/12/2008 23:35:05 »
I take it that you are aware that astronauts DO and HAVE suffered the effects of radiation? The most recent study I can think of looked at the vastly increased incidence of cataracts in astronauts:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/531868

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #274 on: 11/12/2008 11:00:34 »
So we have established and seem, all, to agree that there are some effects due to radiation. But we also seem to be agreeing that the effects are detectable rather than lethal. The detectable effects of alcohol on the liver of drinkers are no proof that people haven't been drinking the stuff for years.
There were also effects on the astronauts' skeletons - very detectable, too. Could that prove they didn't go?
If these guys had been told that they would lose their legs as a result of the trip, I bet most of them would still have wanted to go.

Quote
Long rage photography refers to the location of the camera and the target in the lenses. I.E. we know the camera is at X when the photograph was taken so we can use this to determine the level of radiation in the pictures. What did you think I meant?
Dunno. Your answer still seems to imply that both ends of the process count; i.e "location" and "target". I just think the original statement was somehow designed to give some weight to the argument - but it doesn't.

In any case, without quoting some actual quantities, you have no argument. You still have produced none.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #275 on: 11/12/2008 16:43:22 »
No I mentioned the proof of location being relevent to the level of radiation in that photographs taken from X must have relied on the camera being at X so therefore can give a reliable reading of radiation in the films used at X so this can be used to validate or invalidate original footage by camparison of both films. I don't have access to examine both lots of films, do you?
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #276 on: 11/12/2008 18:12:02 »
No. But I'm not trying to prove something!
I can say that I have seen some extremely clear pictures taken from any number of space probes, though. It is clearly not a huge problem.

We seem to have gone from radiation being too deadly to consider a Moon shot to it being strong enough to detect on sensitive film. So that seems to have knocked that particular evidence on the head.
Got any more?
« Last Edit: 14/12/2008 00:49:05 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline mistyB

  • First timers
  • *
  • 6
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #277 on: 07/01/2009 21:47:42 »
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?

I think mythbusters explained this pretty well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #278 on: 10/01/2009 20:36:18 »
I haven't looked here in a long time.

Here's all the stuff I've been able to find on space radiation.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

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

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen
 
These two links are about James Van Allen
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
---------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(this has 22 parts)

*

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #279 on: 10/01/2009 20:52:19 »
Quote
I think mythbusters explained this pretty well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/10/project-apollo-art-of-deception.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, some people came up to me and said that I was full of BS, because to them, the Discovery Channel show "Mythbusters" blew the entire Apollo Hoax theory to pieces.

I have viewed the show, and my take on the "Mythbusters" is this: They are well paid by US government agencies to push through propaganda when necessary! It must be stated clearly that the Discovery Channel is well funded by US agencies, especially NASA! If you stop and think about it, the episodes about "busting the Apollo Hoax theory" were all conducted in NASA's own facilities! Also, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that they had to "debunk" the Apollo Hoax, or have their show's funding from NASA cut off, and therefore be out of a job!

I therefore dismiss the Mythbusters for what they are... Propaganda experts, and shills for the government. They were even exposed for being used by the government when experts confronted them on their episode about RFID chips! If you dont believe me, go ahead and google "Mythbusters RFID episode exposed" for yourselves. You will see clearly how they had to tow the line, or else!

But, alas, the media again comes to the rescue of NASA and the government, and now people who watched those episodes have their eyes again closed to the idea and thought that the government faked Apollo. Must I remind people again how the idiot box has been proven again and again to be a great propaganda tool for brainwashing people, and not letting viewers see the truth about the world around themselves?

People cannot fathom the idea of one of the greatest endeavours in Human history being a massive fraud. Apollo believers will stoop to all types of distortions of science and common sense to defend the lie. You want proof? Go and look at some of the videos under the "Moonfaker" series for yourselves, and look at the comments by the Propagandist! It is so astonishing to see how duped and brainwashed some people are!

Logic, and science failed or were severely distorted when it came to Project Apollo, as revealed in some great sites such as "NASASCAM". Believers dismiss logic due to the massive PRIDE that was generated by the thought of being able to land a man on the moon, and return him safely to Earth. People forget about the dangers of space radiation, micrometeorites, and the extreme temperatures on the moon, just for a start due to power of such pride. The idea that they have been lied to all of these years generates so much fear that believers would rather defend the lie, than live in a world of uncertainty with the truth!

Understanding the hoax of Apollo was my initial springboard into the realm of truth seeking. Now after almost 30 years of knowing how the government used the project as a massive propaganda ploy, I am not afraid to help others to understand and see the truth for themselves
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the MythBusters videos does correct a mistake made by the hoax-believers.  The one on parallel shadows pointed out correctly that the light source was further away than the hoax-believers thought.  Correcting that mistake doesn't prove the landing were real though.  There's lots of simple evidence such as the Apollo 15 flag waving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1

There are a few famous mistakes made by hoax-believers.  None of them, when corrected, show the moon missions to be real though.

*

Offline bryan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 19
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #280 on: 14/01/2009 18:53:27 »
I certainly did not, i'm not sure if you did.
But Neil Armstrong and his mates did.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #281 on: 14/01/2009 22:21:43 »
Cosmored
When you write such miles and miles of stuff, how can you expect anyone to read it, let alone follow up all your links - most / all of which I can guarantee, will be equally cranky.
A simple quote of some proper data would stand a chance of getting a serious dialog going. (Serious~? - well you know what I mean)

*

fr0sty

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #282 on: 17/01/2009 05:05:49 »
i have just 1 thing to say I'm not posting links from youtube or from nasa,
but when i look at the videos i see people playing around,why because there lives are not at grate danger,
one other thing i know magic the art of distraction show you some thing before hand to pre set your mind for what it sees next,
I'm referring to the luna rover,if they didn't show you the clip of the driver getting in to the rover from onbord camera it stops you thinking why hasn't he moved ?? he looks like a action man not action men,first drive on moon and not a wave not a look to camera nothing,there nothing to say it is a living man in the toy car and watch on 42 in TV and look at the landing module looks like from the clangers,if they went the video is fake and the pic

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #283 on: 17/01/2009 17:24:04 »
Quote
not a wave not a look to camera nothing
He was an astronaut with a job to do - not an actor or a show off.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #284 on: 22/01/2009 16:58:24 »
Will someone who suspects hoax try to re-create the movement dynamics clearly visible in the astronauts movements. I think you will find it impossible.

Edit: I mean the little slow motion hop stride they had to do to get around.
« Last Edit: 22/01/2009 21:58:55 by Vern »

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #285 on: 22/01/2009 22:37:34 »
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
« Last Edit: 22/01/2009 22:39:11 by sophiecentaur »

*

fr0sty

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #286 on: 22/01/2009 23:44:33 »
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
iv seen them trip over wires,iv seen them with there reflective visor up with the so called sun direct in face and not go blind or get are eye ?? what ever nasa says if it wouldn't make you blind why do all space suites still have gold reflective vizor's for ?
i have never seen them show any sine that there lives could end any sec if they had a accident ?iv seen them play around as if it was all just pratice ????
i haven't seen a video with them showing total ore and wonder at what they are seeing,people get emotional at a good view on earth and can hear it in there voice ,is there 1 out there i haven't seen,
iv herd (think it was buzz not 100%)say he smelt the salt air as they entered earths atmosphere ?? did they have a window open ??
i see nasa other day admit that they still cannot grow a lettuce in close orbit never mind in sopace ?
WORK THIS OUT HOW MANY SPACE STATIONS ?ON 2ND ONE,MOON ONLY IS IT 4 DAYS AWAY,WHY NO MOON BASE ?? FULE NO ISUE DONT TAKE ANY TO GET THERE OR BACK JUST TO GET UP SOME SPEED THATS ALL (HOW OFTEN DOES A COMMET REFULE AND HOW MANY 1,000 IF YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN FLYING AROUND WITH OUT RE FULEING ??

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #287 on: 23/01/2009 12:44:50 »
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
I guess we'll have to go back to the moon and see if the footprints are there [:)]

The thing is that nobody guessed what the movment dynamics would be like; who knew you needed to hop around on the moon instead of a normal walk?
« Last Edit: 23/01/2009 12:51:56 by Vern »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #288 on: 23/01/2009 12:50:03 »
Quote from: frOsty
i see nasa other day admit that they still cannot grow a lettuce in close orbit never mind in sopace ?
I think that low earth orbit is in space. Some things will grow; some things won't grow; I don't know what you can get from that.

*

fr0sty

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #289 on: 23/01/2009 12:53:36 »
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
I guess we'll have to go back to the moon and see if the footprints are there [:)]
lol and nasa better make a luna rover with a round wheel on the front with 2 boots on it :)
im just saying the pic and vid dint look real (i like taking pic with SLR and dig but i know it isn't often you get a good pic but to get more than 1 very good pic on the moon with all the issues,and i didn't relies silver paint would protect a camera from the extream cold iv put food in freezer in silver foil and still froze ???

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #290 on: 23/01/2009 14:04:41 »
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

*

fr0sty

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #291 on: 23/01/2009 15:05:40 »
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
so the robottic rovers didnt or couldnt colect rocks ?
or place a reflector for a earth based laser ?
all i know i see nasa other day admit they cannot grow a lettace in close orbit and they dont know why :)
all i say is pay your taxes to fund going to mars all they need is a red filter lol :)

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #292 on: 23/01/2009 16:45:12 »
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #293 on: 23/01/2009 17:32:19 »
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
Those rocks were followed by the press and guarded more closely than the gold at Fort Knox.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #294 on: 23/01/2009 21:27:46 »
Quote
FULE NO ISUE DONT TAKE ANY TO GET THERE OR BACK JUST TO GET UP SOME SPEED THATS ALL (HOW OFTEN DOES A COMMET REFULE AND HOW MANY 1,000 IF YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN FLYING AROUND WITH OUT RE FULEING ??

Do you know any Physics at all?
That is the most nonsensical statement I've read for some while. A comet doesn't need refueling because it never starts or stops anywhere - its total energy remains the same. Do some basic reading before you start holding forth about stuff you don't understand.

*

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 7709
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #295 on: 23/01/2009 21:31:33 »
Hahaha [:D][:D], comets needing refulling![:D][:D] That's a good one! [:D][:D]

*

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #296 on: 23/01/2009 21:47:25 »
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

Didya not know - meteors all show signs of extreme heating. Are you saying the moonrocks showed that too?

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #297 on: 23/01/2009 21:53:13 »
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

Didya not know - meteors all show signs of extreme heating. Are you saying the moonrocks showed that too?
Good point; why didn't I think of that?

*

fr0sty

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #298 on: 24/01/2009 05:12:58 »
Quote
FULE NO ISUE DONT TAKE ANY TO GET THERE OR BACK JUST TO GET UP SOME SPEED THATS ALL (HOW OFTEN DOES A COMMET REFULE AND HOW MANY 1,000 IF YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN FLYING AROUND WITH OUT RE FULEING ??

Do you know any Physics at all?
That is the most nonsensical statement I've read for some while. A comet doesn't need refueling because it never starts or stops anywhere - its total energy remains the same. Do some basic reading before you start holding forth about stuff you don't understand.
you are not reading what is said are you look at what i said once you get your speed it will not take any more fule to get to the moon than to get to mars OR ARE YOU SAYING IT IS ALL UP HILL ??? the comet was a reference in how far you can go once you have your speed up turn fule off till time to slow down or did nasa say they had to go full throttle all the way to moon and back ?? did they ?? if the subject upsets you why reply ?
« Last Edit: 24/01/2009 05:19:29 by fr0sty »

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #299 on: 24/01/2009 09:21:04 »
Meteors must all show signs of heating. I agree with that. There must have been a pretty violent event to fragment so much space debris and this would have also added to the heat evidence on the rocks would you agree on that?

LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

Didya not know - meteors all show signs of extreme heating. Are you saying the moonrocks showed that too?
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with