• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moon Hoax conspiracy

skepticalcriticalguy said:
ERich, do yourself a favor. Get off here for an hour, go watch Dark Side of the Moon, and then come back and take these guys to school.

But watch the whole thing before you come back.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3288261061829859642
Click to expand...

Hey, I have already schooled these guys. They are lying, making up debunks, saying ludicrous things like "theres no temperature in space" etc.

You can always give me a hand. I'll watch that movie later. Thanks for the link.
 
ERichardson said:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Click to expand...

Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
Click to expand...

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
 
ERichardson said:
Hey, I have already schooled these guys. They are lying, making up debunks, saying ludicrous things like "theres no temperature in space" etc.
Click to expand...

And saying things like the Lunar Module had to run air-conditioning 'cause the moon is soooo hot is much better than the difference between 3Kelvin and 0 Kelvin.

Of course, you ran away.
 
ERichardson said:
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, they were invented.

A colleague has a set of mask layers that he designed by hand for a microprocessor (IIRC in1968), in the UK. About 18" from my monitor at work. (It is quite a good reminder what can be achieved *without* computers).

Several other people have mantioned this, BUT WHY WOULD THE SOVIETS KEEP QUIET,

According to Neil Armstrong's Biography First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong (Hardcover) by James R. Hansen (Author) the Soviets tried to draw attention away from the mmn landings with their own moon shot, of an unmanned probe during the mission.

Neil Armstrong also discusses the creation of a digital flight simulator for the moon landing.

A true scotsman would be interested enough to read this book ;-)

(seriously, it is worth reading)
​

Many people seem to assume that because certain tasks are quicker with compters, they are impossible without them.

Face it, the first atom bombs were designed without modern computer simulations.

How many people would be needed to keep it a secret, and why wern't the ideological enemies of the US revealing this. The KGB seemed fairly good at finding other secrets. And how many patriotic Americans would have to be kept quiet? Are that many Americans never likely to talk; or would some consider it their duty to free speech to reveal the cover-up?

Maybe the Soviets were actually colluding with the US in the secret world government, and Kennedy was about to reveal this, which is why he was assasinated.


Logistically it would be simpler to actually get to the moon than fake it.

Disclosure of interest

I believe in geostationary satellites.

And in the cock-up theory of history. (Anyone who has worked in/with a large organisation would understand). Secrets come out, unless there is a really good reason not to.
 
ERichardson said:
Hey, I have already schooled these guys. They are lying, making up debunks, saying ludicrous things like "theres no temperature in space" etc.

You can always give me a hand. I'll watch that movie later. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...
and here i thought you were just asking questions, lol

BTW, heres some more info on the flashes in the astronauts eyes from the apollo missions
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S4CH2.htm

wonder how they faked that? seeing as how they never went into the van allen belts....
 
ERichardson said:
Hey, I have already schooled these guys. They are lying, making up debunks, saying ludicrous things like "theres no temperature in space" etc.

You can always give me a hand. I'll watch that movie later. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

I have been reading through this thread, and ER you have not rebuttled a single piece of contradictory evidence to your claims. You simply either ignore the evidence, or spout out more woo that is completely unrelated. The moon hoax has been debunked so many times SO long ago that you should actually be embarrassed coming in here with these questions. You refuse to believe the facts. You only choose to believe what fits in with your little hoax. You do realize that you watched a video on youtube and then had your mind made up that it was a hoax right? Is this responsible research? Did you even bother to look at the overwhelming evidence against you? This method of thinking is dismissed very quickly in this forum, so I suggest you do some better research other than watching a Woo video and then being convinced of a massive government conspiracy.
 
Does ER seriously think he has destroyed any arguments here?

The temperature thing was regarding a need for air conditioning in the LEM. He was shown this idea was nonsense, so he shifted the goal posts. Big surprise.

Everything he says is shown for what it is: ie nonsense. He then raises a new bit of nonsense and claims victory.

Where do people like ER learn this style of argument? Is there a school of useless debate somewhere that people like him attend?

Or is it just natural arrogance combined with blind ignorance?

Is there a cure for this kind of "reasoning"?
 
For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest.
Click to expand...

Equivocation of VanAllen Belt particle radiation to high intensity dental x-rays is shows the author to be either knowingly misleading his audience or grossly ignorant of the subject.

Pick one ER, there are no other choices.

Here's a little experiment. When having x-rays taken do you 'see' the effects of the x-rays? No, you do not. Why?
1) the beam is focused only on the part of the body that the doctor wants an image of. There will be scattering but the greatest flux will be through that part of the body it is aimed at.
2) x-rays do not stimulate the retina. They are of too high a frequency. However, if the beam were strong enough it could burn the retina out in which the affected cells might send one signal of a bright flash and then never work again.

The particle radiation of the V-A Belt is mostly absorbed by the hull of the ship but the ones that do get through and enter the eye and strike the retina will stimulate it into sending a signal but are not strong enough to burn the cell. You still get to see.
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
Does ER seriously think he has destroyed any arguments here?

The temperature thing was regarding a need for air conditioning in the LEM. He was shown this idea was nonsense, so he shifted the goal posts. Big surprise.

Everything he says is shown for what it is: ie nonsense. He then raises a new bit of nonsense and claims victory.

Where do people like ER learn this style of argument? Is there a school of useless debate somewhere that people like him attend?

Or is it just natural arrogance combined with blind ignorance?

Is there a cure for this kind of "reasoning"?
Click to expand...

No the air conditioning is in reference to thier suits and they did have an airconditioning system in them that was battery operated. Please quote me where i mentioned the LEM
 
jaydeehess said:
Equivocation of VanAllen Belt particle radiation to high intensity dental x-rays is shows the author to be either kmowingly misleading his audience or grossly ignorant of the subject.

Pick one ER, there are no other choices.

Here's a little experiment. When having x-rays taken do you 'see' the effects of the x-rays? No, you do not. Why?
1) the beam is focused only on the part of the body that the doctor wants an image of. There will be scattering but the greatest flux will be through that part of the body it is aimed at.
2) x-rays do not stimulate the retina. They are of too high a frequency. However, if the beam were strong enough it could burn the retina out in which the affected cells might send one signal of a bright flash and then never work again.

The particle radiation of the V-A Belt is mostly absorbed by the hull of the ship but the ones that do get through and enter the eye and strike the retina will stimulate it into sending a signal but are not strong enough to burn the cell. You still get to see.
Click to expand...
i remmeber an experiment i did several years ago, get an old tv (with antenna, like rabbit ears) and tune it between stations, turn the lights off (make sure the room is dark) now turn the brightness of the tv down so you can just barely see the snow, and watch for a while, every now and then youll see the screen flash, thats one of those high energy particles hitting the antenna

not sure if i remembered everything right, or if its even the same particles, but it goes to show cosmic radiation isnt instantly lethal or anything like the CTers claim
 
ERichardson said:
No the air conditioning is in reference to thier suits and they did have an airconditioning system in them that was battery operated. Please quote me where i mentioned the LEM
Click to expand...

And it was pointed out to you that the suits didn't have air conditioning. They used liquid cooled under garments to take away excess body heat, not to stop the heat from the Lunar surface.

Do you know how long Neil and Buzz spent actually outside in their suits?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom