Moon Hoax conspiracy

[gumboot]

The glass breaks and the mercury goes floating away

-Gumboot

 

[CptColumbo]

You feel the need to limit the discussion to American endevours?

OK,Apollo 1, three dead
Apollo 13 near disaster

So out of 17 missions and 51 astronauts and 3 dead, 3 nearly killed.

Space travel was then and still is now a very dangerous endevour.

Have you read through the clavius site yet?

So how about those dead astronauts ER. Its been mentioned a few times now. Do not go saying you were refering only to the 6 missions that went to the Moon because that just artificially chooses a special subset upon which to base your conclusions. You cannot exclude dead Russians and you must include those who died on the launch pad. If you must put your false limits to the set then why include the shuttle mission dead? None of them were in space when they died.

During the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs (not counting Apollo/Soyuz, or Skylab missions) there were 8 astronauts who died during training:
Theodore Feeeman
Elliot See
Charles Bassett
Clifton Williams
Edward Givens
Gus Grissom
Ed White
Roger Chaffee
4 due to plane crashes
3 in Apollo 1
1 in a car crash
Training was also a dangerous endeavor (or endeavour).
There were also many potentially deadly accidents during each program. Gus Grissom nearly drowning after his Mercury flight. During Gemini 8 Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott faced blacking out when a stuck thruster put them in a spin. Snoopy, the Apollo 10 LEM, suffered Gimble Lock above the Moon. So the missions didn't always go flawlessly, ask the crew of Apollo 8 about the smell.

No, the Nixon administration was hardly involved at all. The quest for the Moon was essentially an LBJ operation. Started in earnest with JFK, and then really kicked into high gear when he was assassinated.

Apollo 8, with Borman and Lovell and Anders, orbited the Moon in December 1968. That had the Command and Service Modules, no Lunar Module. Nixon was still not in the White House, although he'd won the election. He'd only been in office 6 months when Apollo 11 did its giant leap for mankind thang.

While the actual Apollo missions began during the Johnson Administration, the conception of the Apollo program can be traced back to a meeting at the White House in Nov. 1962. This would be during the Kennedy Administration.
http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/index.html

You guys talk about one of my favorite subjects, and I'm at work all day. Good job defending reality JREFers.

 

[NeoRicen]

Time is important, it is fatal if exposed long enough. No time qualifiers were added to the question.

Dude, you gotta back up your statements, you can't just say it's fatal without facts and when pretty much every astronomer on the planet disagrees with you.

 

[~enigma~]

In the tradition of posting cat pictures...I think this is fitting for this thread...

 

[babazaroni]

Time is important, it is fatal if exposed long enough. No time qualifiers were added to the question.

Well if you are going to be a semantic twit, then fine. Since you asked about VA exposure for the astronauts trip to the moon and back, we just assumed you meant those times. Silly us.

 

[The Atheist]

350 posts in 12 hours. Does he get a prize for that?

On the moon hoax?

For ####'s sake.

 

[uk_dave]

I suspect ERichardson is a sockpuppet.........

....of Darat.

It's all part of the JREF covert operation to move the CT forum away from 9/11 CT fantasies.

But some of us here (me) are paranoid enough to see through this ruse.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The simple question posed to me was "do you agree it isn't fatal?". My answer is no. What is so hard to understand about that?

Time is important, it is fatal if exposed long enough. No time qualifiers were added to the question.

So do you agree that two short one hour exposures over a period of ten days in what was a reasonably shielded vehicle would not have been dangerous to the crew, given that the formost authority on the the Belts says it wouldn't have been a danger to them, and that missions from the Gemini Programme had been in the Belts for well over two hours prior to any Apollo flight, that many of the Shuttle flights have spent large perioids of time in them as well, and that the ISS regularly passes through the South Atlantic Anomoly where the belts reach down closer to Earth?

 

[PhantomWolf]

BTW, ERichardson, I've now addressed a number of posts to you dealing with your points, it'd be nice if you would respond to them so I know that you have actually read and understood them.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I don't like taking the side of a CTer, but if I recall correctly, this device essentially consists of an array of small "half-cube" mirrors. Imagine a cube with 3 sides removed - with each interior surface being a mirror. With this setup, a light source such as a laser will always be reflected straight back to the source, so the device only really needs to be pointing in the general direction of Earth which, on the Moon, is up.

This doesn't seem right. Even if the Earth were always right overhead, it still takes up a very small portion of sky. And I don't think it is overhead all the time. What about the famous picture "Earthrise"? It certainly wasn't very "up" there.

Yup, THE driest. Zero precipitation. Even the Sahara Desert got snow once, but not Antarctica. (weird huh, no snow in Antarctica... go figure...)

-Gumboot

But Antartica gets blizzards. Are the winds simply blowing snow around that's already on the ground (I'm not being sarcastic, this is a sincere question).

the took off their space suits and ran really quick back to the LM

So now we're full circle, back to how long people can survive in a vacuum.

The simple question posed to me was "do you agree it isn't fatal?". My answer is no. What is so hard to understand about that?

Great. So it's not fatal. So they can survive. So it's not a hoax. QED.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Glad you mentioned the plates. Why are the photos taken on the moon not affected by radiation?

i would guess the same reason they had to bring special equipment to measure the radiation, normal film isnt effected by it

If Kodak developed special film for the lunar missions, THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF IT. Kodak claims that the film they provided was in fact standard Ektachrome 64 ASA, used on earth. Which leaves us with the question still, how could the camera possibly work on the moon and even if it did how did the film come out visible?

Film is altered by a mere 5 rems of radiation. On the way to the moon the astronauts were exposed to 500 rems of radiation, which is enough to result in nausea, vomiting and diarrhea (100% chance within four hours), damage to the gastrointestinal tract, cataracts, loss of vision, bone marrow damage (Moderate to severe), and a 100% chance of permanent sterility within one to two hours. I’ll deeply discuss radiation in my next article. Think about at the airport when you have to put your camera in a lead box to pass through the detector, if you don’t the film will be ruined by radiation. Even in severe sunlight film can be destroyed. Not one of the Apollo pictures has any sign of radiation damage. The astronaut’s suits would need to have been made of lead to protect them from radiation. No lead was present on the space suits or on the rocket.

http://nicholasweiss.com/NASA2.html

Film comes in two parts - the base and the emulsion. The base is the celluloid strip inside the cassette, and the emulsion is the photosensitive chemical coating it. The most difficult part is coming up with an emulsion that produces a realistic colour balance, and that's probably what Kodak were thinking about. Indeed, Apollo used the commercially available Ectachrome E-3 emulsion, so there was nothing new there. The Estar base, however, was made from extra-thin polyester material formulated for cold temperatures, specifically aerial and high-altitude photography.

About the radiation: Firstly, rem (Röntgen equivalent man) is a measurement of absorbed dosage, specifically for human tissue. It has no meaning for anything else. Time is of slight importance, since the body can recover more easily from a short, high-intensity dose than a longer or repeated low-intensity dose. If you're talking about equipment or accumulated dosage in general, the standard units are gray or rad. And no, you can't just switch the units - they mean different things.

Secondly: Where in the name of Bog did those figures come from? They're so wildly divorced from reality that they're not even answering subpoenas! The highest dosage absorbed by any mission was Apollo 12, around 2 rems for the astronauts (which means a lower figure in rads), owing to a minor solar event during the mission. Well below even your own figure for the minimum radiation that would affect film.

Radiation data for the Van Allen belts are available, but at a cost. As with any purchased service, the source (NASA et al) would be held liable if the figures were too far off, and any attempt at artificially lowering the figures would be quickly discovered by satellite manufacturers, not to mention other nations. It is, however, fairly complicated to go from measured particle flux to an actual dosage figure, which is why the astronauts all carried dosimeters.

Thirdly: Why would you use lead to shield against particle radiation? Polyethylene or some similar material consisting of low-weight isotopes produces far less secondary radiation when stopping incoming particles. Lead is useful against X and gamma radiation, both of which occur only in minuscule amounts in cislunar space. Add to this that you're just as exposed to them in LEO as on the lunar surface, since the magnetic field doesn't block them at all.

Fourthly: The Russians had already sent a probe carrying a few different small animals on a round-trip around the moon and back to a landing a few years earlier. All the animals survived the journey.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just wanted to pick this one up, while reading the thread, so maybe it's already dealt with:

Think about at the airport when you have to put your camera in a lead box to pass through the detector, if you don’t the film will be ruined by radiation.

Has anybody here ever put their camara in a lead box at the airport? Have you, ER? Of course not, what would be the purpose of sending it through the x-ray when in a lead box?

And what are all these "Film Safe" signs for?

Hans

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I've seen the footage of Aldrin punching Sibrel. Now, maybe my woo wires are getting crossed, but didn't John Glen punch somebody too? Or did he get punched? Something about "what's the frequency, Kenneth?"

What was that incident about? Has it ever been explained?

 

[gumboot]

But Antartica gets blizzards. Are the winds simply blowing snow around that's already on the ground (I'm not being sarcastic, this is a sincere question).

The "snow" is ice eroded by the wind. While snow falls in nice little flakes, by contrast the stuff blown about by 100 Km/h+ winds in Antarctica is irregular and often sharp chunks of ice that has been ground off the continent. Very unpleasant.

-Gumboot

 

[MRC_Hans]

The simple question posed to me was "do you agree it isn't fatal?". My answer is no. What is so hard to understand about that?

OOookay. We need to be vewy, vewy specific with this fellow, otherwise he won't understand. No problem at all:

Now, ERichardson, do you agree that the radiation in the Van Allen Belts is far from fatal to astronauts passing through them inside a spacecraft at the speed and timescale relevant for a lunar mission?

(I hope I covered everything there)

Hans

 

[Brainache]

I've seen the footage of Aldrin punching Sibrel. Now, maybe my woo wires are getting crossed, but didn't John Glen punch somebody too? Or did he get punched? Something about "what's the frequency, Kenneth?"

What was that incident about? Has it ever been explained?

Just in case you are being serious about not knowing the story:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20010619.html

Had nothing to do with astronauts unless Dan Rather was leading a secret double life.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

OK, that was Dan Rather. (And therefore way off topic). Now I'm more confused. Didn't John Glenn get punched, or punch somebody? Was that Sibrell?

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

How do you know they werent collected by an unmanned craft, or fell to earth as meteorites?

A better question might be how do we know they exist, and can we the people test their chemistry ourselves? Or do we take their word for it?

(I'm not a moon-hoaxer, just being skeptical).

 

[Brainache]

A better question might be how do we know they exist, and can we the people test their chemistry ourselves? Or do we take their word for it?

(I'm not a moon-hoaxer, just being skeptical).

Skeptical, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[MRC_Hans]

A better question might be how do we know they exist, and can we the people test their chemistry ourselves? Or do we take their word for it?

(I'm not a moon-hoaxer, just being skeptical).

Depends on what you mean by "we the people" and "them".

If "you" are an acknowledged university or scientific institution somewhere in the world, including Russia, you can apply for and get (or could, I suppose they're "sold out" by now) a piece of moon rock and do your own experiments. And obviously, lots of them did. Which means that "they" are independent scolars all over the world. So yes, we take "their" word for it.


Hans