How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

namloc1980 · 16-12-2010 09:06PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

If you care to read back over my posts from days ago you'll understand that all this has already been discussed. More horse poo............. next please! Jodrell Bank isn't independent BTW.

Well done. What a pursuasive argument you put up. Typical of the hoax believers. No substance or anything worthwhile behind their arguments.

namloc1980 · 16-12-2010 09:24PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're correct. NASA have taken it upon themselves recently to alter many of the original photos to make them more credible. The originals are still available, which makes it more sad TBH

Do you have proof that NASA have taken it upon themselves recently to alter many of the original photos to make them more credible or is it just yet another opinion? Any chance you could show us the originals??

Phill Ewinn · 16-12-2010 09:42PM

Are you reading this thread? And what have you put up, dodgy photos....
You can google anything I've said and/or find out for yourself. Uprising has said he doesn't want to start referencing his sources because of the response he'll get from the hoaxers. It's clear that there are only two sides to this debate. Those who believe the hoax and those who don't. There's no inbetween ground. What you do have to look out for is the tell tale signs of a story that's comming apart. Like your apollo moon rock that's different from the debris scans from the recent impact. Or suddenly finding water in them etc........ it's a hoax. Believe it or not.

Divorce Referendum · 16-12-2010 09:54PM

The games up. I have the video that proves the moon landings are fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPUpmW04OIY

Cork24 · 16-12-2010 09:54PM

This is Real i have no doubt in my mind that this is Real. why would NASA fake it? and tell me this how can they Fake or Space Ship coming down at 350 Miles p/hr from the Sky into the Sea ?

if it fake the Rocks were did they come from those rocks can match any part of the Earth we live in!

Hoaxers say why not go to the moon again and show us? Well it cost Money and Money NASA dont have to waste 700Tones of Gas & a Space ship to prove people Wrong,

What NASA and Europe and japan are working on is some how get people Living on Mars, As this Planet is dying and we need to move on and live on other Planets, look for new live in Space find another Planet like ours with Oxygen and Water for us animals to live.

When Virgin Airlines are taken people up to space may be you can give them a few extra pounds and maybe they take you to the moon..

Cork24 · 16-12-2010 09:58PM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The games up. I have the video that proves the moon landings are fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPUpmW04OIY

WOW i would love the Computer Software that guy is using to Zoom into maybe a 4pixel pic like that and still great Image!! f**k me adobe photoshop is just being kick out the Window!!! :eek: and same goes for Mac Final Cut!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0&feature=fvw

namloc1980 · 16-12-2010 10:00PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Are you reading this thread? And what have you put up, dodgy photos....
You can google anything I've said and/or find out for yourself. Uprising has said he doesn't want to start referencing his sources because of the response he'll get from the hoaxers. It's clear that there are only two sides to this debate. Those who believe the hoax and those who don't. There's no inbetween ground. What you do have to look out for is the tell tale signs of a story that's comming apart. Like your apollo moon rock that's different from the debris scans from the recent impact. Or suddenly finding water in them etc........ it's a hoax. Believe it or not.

So basically your argument amounts to: the moon landings are fake coz i said so!

uprising2 · 16-12-2010 10:32PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hasselblads were also used during the Skylab missions during the 70's with no evidence of this fogging. The early Space shuttle missions also had film cameras. Maybe the Skylab and space shuttle were faked as well?

No namloc, those missions you mention went how many miles up again?, Radiation on the moon my friend pay attention, and on the way there passing the VAB, not 1000th the distane like what your talking about

PS its not the camera's I'm talking about, its the film.

Divorce Referendum · 16-12-2010 10:32PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Are you reading this thread? And what have you put up, dodgy photos....
You can google anything I've said and/or find out for yourself. Uprising has said he doesn't want to start referencing his sources because of the response he'll get from the hoaxers. It's clear that there are only two sides to this debate. Those who believe the hoax and those who don't. There's no inbetween ground. What you do have to look out for is the tell tale signs of a story that's comming apart. Like your apollo moon rock that's different from the debris scans from the recent impact. Or suddenly finding water in them etc........ it's a hoax. Believe it or not.

On the subject of moon rock how come paul renne a leading geochronoligist found glass spherules dating back to 3.8 to 4 billion years old.

Tiny melted fragments from the lunar rocks were dated at the noble gas geochronology laboratory at Oregon State. Duncan and Paul were able to use radiometric dating techniques to determine when the rocks had melted after being struck by meteorites. What is particularly intriguing, Duncan says, is that this apparent spike in meteorite activity took place about 3.8 to 4 billion years ago - an era that roughly coincides with when scientists believe life first began on Earth, as evidenced by the fossil record of primitive one-cell bacteria

Unfortunately, we haven't found many any old rocks on Earth because of our planet's surface is constantly renewed by plate tectonics, coupled with erosion," Duncan said. "By comparison, the moon is dead, has no atmosphere and provides a record of meteorite bombardment that we can only assume is similar to that on Earth. The oldest glass spherule found on earth is 165 million years old. The earth with its very dynamic environment doesnt preserve these glassy objects.

So the moon rocks certainly arent a hoax.

Divorce Referendum · 16-12-2010 10:41PM

uprising2 wrote: »

No namloc, those missions you mention went how many miles up again?, Radiation on the moon my friend pay attention, and on the way there passing the VAB, not 1000th the distane like what your talking about

PS its not the camera's I'm talking about, its the film.

Just out of interest uprising. What level of radiation would you expect from the van allen belts and also from the moon. How long would you need to be exposed to this radiation for it to cause damage. How do you know the film would have been affected if say hasselblad added protection against it.?

namloc1980 · 16-12-2010 10:51PM

uprising2 wrote: »

No namloc, those missions you mention went how many miles up again?, Radiation on the moon my friend pay attention, and on the way there passing the VAB, not 1000th the distane like what your talking about

PS its not the camera's I'm talking about, its the film.

Yes I know that's why I said film! So outside the discernible atmosphere where the shuttle and other spacecraft orbit there is some magic shield against this cosmic radiation that would fry a camera film on the moon but remarkably left other camera film's untouched. Pray tell what is this shield? Also what is the radiation effects of the VAB? How lethal are they and how long did the astronauts spend traveling through them?

Phill Ewinn · 16-12-2010 11:31PM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

So the moon rocks certainly arent a hoax.

Didn't say moon, what I said was Apollo. Although it's nice you're taking an interest.

Divorce Referendum · 16-12-2010 11:45PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Didn't say moon, what I said was Apollo. Although it's nice you're taking an interest.

Apollo is a hoax? A come on i think we can all say that apollo is real. Whether they went to the moon or not is the question we are debating. What is this you are saying below then about moon rocks?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Are you reading this thread? And what have you put up, dodgy photos....
You can google anything I've said and/or find out for yourself. Uprising has said he doesn't want to start referencing his sources because of the response he'll get from the hoaxers. It's clear that there are only two sides to this debate. Those who believe the hoax and those who don't. There's no inbetween ground. What you do have to look out for is the tell tale signs of a story that's comming apart. Like your apollo moon rock that's different from the debris scans from the recent impact. Or suddenly finding water in them etc........ it's a hoax. Believe it or not.

Phill Ewinn · 16-12-2010 11:48PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The had another look at the Apollo moon rocks and had a look at the ejected debris from the lunar impacts using these scanners and found they were not the same. Different to each other.
You won't believe the moon landing hoax untill Sky News tells you it's so. You could be waiting.

From the top.

Phill Ewinn · 16-12-2010 11:52PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

So outside the discernible atmosphere where the shuttle and other spacecraft orbit there is some magic shield against this cosmic radiation

Called the geomagnetic field outside of which stuff is vulnerable to the cosmic radiation in the Van Allen belts.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yhow long did the astronauts spend traveling through them?

Maybe 60,000 miles at 25,000 miles per hour. Gotta be two hours at least. Google roen per hour of the Van Allen belts for yourself.

Divorce Referendum · 17-12-2010 12:10AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

From the top.

So the apollo moon rocks are fake then.

namloc1980 · 17-12-2010 12:21AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Maybe 60,000 miles at 25,000 miles per hour. Gotta be two hours at least. Google roen per hour of the Van Allen belts for yourself.

Good idea. So according to this the health effects of radiation in rems per hour is:

5 to 25 rem can cause genetic damage
50 rem can alter white blood cells
75 to 125 rem can produce radiation sickness
400 rem will kill 50% of exposed people
500 to 600 or more rem will kill almost all exposed people

And according to this the rems per hour of the VAB while in a spacecraft is:

Van Allen: Positive ions 0.3 rem/hr
Electrons 1 rem/hr

So even if the astronauts were 2 hours in the VAB, which is probably a little longer than what they were but we'll go with it, they would have got 1.3 x 2 = 2.6. Of course if you spend a prolonged period in the VAB you will get fried, but the Astronauts were only a couple of hours at most in them. Thanks for clearing that one up for us anyway.

FISMA · 17-12-2010 12:29AM

So Phil and Up,
You are, fundamentally, trying to prove that we did not go to the moon, correct?

Interesting. Please explain how that logic works.

Phil,
The question has been asked before. Perhaps, you could help us help you

What evidence or proof will you accept from the scientific community that would allow you to conclude that the moon landings were real?

Anything at all.

Divorce Referendum · 17-12-2010 12:34AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Called the geomagnetic field outside of which stuff is vulnerable to the cosmic radiation in the Van Allen belts.
.

Not true the shuttle astronauts are vulnerable in this area. They are subjected to the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA). Google it.

Cork24 · 17-12-2010 01:12AM

Radiation is only cause by sun flares which happens once in ao while NASA now have cameras pointed at the sun to warn anyone that may be in space. No more damage that Gamma rays can do to us down here

Phill Ewinn · 17-12-2010 01:24AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Not true the shuttle astronauts are vulnerable in this area. They are subjected to the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA). Google it.

AFAIK there's also a shielded area within the ISS. Interesting stuff, even within the belt there's a good chance of getting dosed.

Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."

namloc1980 wrote: »

So even if the astronauts were 2 hours in the VAB, which is probably a little longer than what they were but we'll go with it, they would have got 1.3 x 2 = 2.6. Of course if you spend a prolonged period in the VAB you will get fried, but the Astronauts were only a couple of hours at most in them. Thanks for clearing that one up for us anyway.

Even if those figures were true the Apollo lauches coincided with a time of solar maximums.

At geosynchronous orbit, doses are "still low compared to interplanetary space due to geomagnetic shielding", according to Radiation Hardening In Space.

A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: "On page 256 of 'Astronautical Engineering' there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding."

So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.

For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the "occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled" that the limit of an "effective dose of 50 mSv" "in any single year" "be not exceeded". 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.

How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?

The trip through the Van Allen belts took about 90mins from NASAs source. Two days to reach the moon.

Phill Ewinn · 17-12-2010 01:26AM

Cork24 wrote: »

Radiation is only cause by sun flares which happens once in ao while NASA now have cameras pointed at the sun to warn anyone that may be in space. No more damage that Gamma rays can do to us down here

You could google ''Cosmic, radioactive radiation: Sunspots during Apollo 13'' for more info.

Divorce Referendum · 17-12-2010 01:34AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

AFAIK there's also a shielded area within the ISS. Interesting stuff, even within the belt there's a good chance of getting dosed.

Ya and I think that shuttle astronauts would be more exposed than apollo astronauts so maybe the shuttles are fake as well

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Even if those figures were true the Apollo lauches coincided with a time of solar maximums. ote: At geosynchronous orbit, doses are "still low compared to interplanetary space due to geomagnetic shielding", according to Radiation Hardening In Space.

A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: "On page 256 of 'Astronautical Engineering' there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding."

So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.

For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the "occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled" that the limit of an "effective dose of 50 mSv" "in any single year" "be not exceeded". 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.

How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?

The trip through the Van Allen belts took about 90mins from NASAs source. Two days to reach the moon.

In fairness what is that ****e above. 15 flares a day? Which of the apollo missions was this on?

Phill Ewinn · 17-12-2010 01:44AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Ya and I think that shuttle astronauts would be more exposed than apollo astronauts so maybe the shuttles are fake as well

In fairness what is that ****e above. 15 flares a day? Which of the apollo missions was this on?

Google ''Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields'' As I said

Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."

The shuttle doesn't cross the belts. Also NASA still plan on sending more probes to find out what the story is before astronauts reach the moon. They sent one last year and plan sending others. If they were up there walking around during a solar maximum they'd hardly need sending probes.

Divorce Referendum · 17-12-2010 01:54AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Google ''Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields'' As I said

Flares are directional. How do they whoever 'they' are know that 15 of them reached/hit the astronauts everyday?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The shuttle doesn't cross the belts. Also NASA still plan on sending more probes to find out what the story is before astronauts reach the moon. They sent one last year and plan sending others. If they were up there walking around during a solar maximum they'd hardly need sending probes.

The shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA). Are you disputing that? The sama isnt as bad as the outlying parts of the van allen belts nevertheless shuttle astronauts are subjected to some radiation but they also have some time in each orbit to recover.

17-12-2010 01:58AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

If they were up there walking around during a solar maximum they'd hardly need sending probes.

There's a difference between a short three day visit to the moon and a long duration mission. Learning more about the amount and types of radiation that would be encountered is vital.

And while this "15 flares a day" claim might be true, it's unlikely that all 15 were directly at the spacecraft.
But "15 a day" is an incredibly high amount regardless, and I too would love to see something to back this claim up.

And notice how you are totally ignoring the protection the astronauts got form the spacecraft itself.

It's almost like you're just regurgitating arguments you had swallowed without a scrap of critical thought.

17-12-2010 02:00AM

uprising2 wrote: »

No namloc, those missions you mention went how many miles up again?, Radiation on the moon my friend pay attention, and on the way there passing the VAB, not 1000th the distane like what your talking about

PS its not the camera's I'm talking about, its the film.

So uprising how exactly do you know that radiation damages film?
Where are you getting this information and how exactly do you know it's true?

Phill Ewinn · 17-12-2010 02:18AM

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between a short three day visit to the moon and a long duration mission. Learning more about the amount and types of radiation that would be encountered is vital.

And while this "15 flares a day" claim might be true, it's unlikely that all 15 were directly at the spacecraft.
But "15 a day" is an incredibly high amount regardless, and I too would love to see something to back this claim up.

And notice how you are totally ignoring the protection the astronauts got form the spacecraft itself.

It's almost like you're just regurgitating arguments you had swallowed without a scrap of critical thought.

Precisely during the years 1967 to 1970 the Sun is again in a high activity, a cycle "solar maximum", with a special high Sun activity. This can be proved by the number of sunspots. According to this number of sunspots the sunwinds and the radioactive radiation in space are strong (Wisnewski, p.198-199).

According to Wisnewski the average number of sunspots between 1967 to 1970 is 127 sunspots a day. The sunwinds are strong. A manned flight to the "moon" seems not to be possible considering the radioactivity (Wisnewski, p.199).
Also the danger of Sun activity is mentioned in the NASA press map only with one single sentence:

<Every solar outbreak during the mission will be watched by the worldwide network of alarm stations for sunwinds.> (Wisnewski, p.198)

So there is no other measure than to "watch". When the astronauts should be on the "moon" at a moment of an outbreak of the Sun they would be adviced to start from the moon and to fly to the main atmosphere ship in the moon orbit. But the sunwind is faster than the so called start procedure... (Wisnewski, p.198)

I can hardly be criticised by someone who believes in a dodgy hoax now can I.

17-12-2010 02:33AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Precisely during the years 1967 to 1970 the Sun is again in a high activity, a cycle "solar maximum", with a special high Sun activity. This can be proved by the number of sunspots. According to this number of sunspots the sunwinds and the radioactive radiation in space are strong (Wisnewski, p.198-199).

I can hardly be criticised by someone who believes in a dodgy hoax now can I.

Well considering that that passage doesn't say how many solar flares there was during the Apollo missions, let alone how many were aimed at the spacecraft itself.

So where precisely are you getting this figure of 15 flares a day, and how do you know it's true?

And do you notice how I'm asking you to back up your claims, not outright rejecting them?

So what evidence would you accept that would convince you the moon landings happened?

FISMA · 17-12-2010 02:37AM

To the lads talking all this "radiation will kill you stuff," one question:

What's the frequency of this radiation?

A few quick calculations will tell us how easy it is to block this stuff.

This reminds of people looking at the screens on the door of their microwave ovens and asking - how can this screen block microwaves but not light, if both are electromagnetic radiation?

Just bad science.

How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

Comments