• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged moon hoax not / debunking video

FatFreddy88 said:
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
Click to expand...

James Collier, an unsuccessful journalist and almost a complete ignoramus on nearly every scientific subject he attempted to study. Not an authority on radiation, that's for sure. Van Allen himself specifically repudiated Collier's argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
Click to expand...

Jarrah White. A good example of poor use of YouTube. White abandoned his debate on radiation at IMDb when his ignorance was revealed and he had one of his infamous rage meltdowns. And he was invited to present his radiation findings to a group of qualified scientists in his hometown, but he declined.

He's ignorant on the subject and he knows it.
 
Jarrah White. A good example of poor use of YouTube. White abandoned his debate on radiation at IMDb when his ignorance was revealed and he had one of his infamous rage meltdowns. And he was invited to present his radiation findings to a group of qualified scientists in his hometown, but he declined.
Click to expand...
It's only fair to show Jarrah's side of the story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4

Here's the debate.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495?p=1

Jarrah says in the video that he left the debate because his posts were getting deleted and he couldn't make his case. I know that happens on forums because it has happened to me.

Why don't you invite Jarrah to debate on neutral ground where the moderators don't delete anything for any reason? I've found the moderators at the Spurstalk forum to be objective.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
That video ignores the issue of space radiation.
Click to expand...

I started a thread about radiation asking about the radiation, from the perspective of non-hoax of the lunar landings.

The radiation isn't significant enough to be a problem for human beings, especially ones that travel with radiation shielding.
 
Van Allen himself specifically repudiated Collier's argument.
Click to expand...
You people seem to be missing the point of the article.

The message of this article...
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

...is that Van Allen started working for NASA and changed his opinion for one reason or another.

(excerpts from the article)
------------------------------------
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
------------------------------------
Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.
------------------------------------
Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed.
------------------------------------
One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
------------------------------------
"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them."
 
Radiation is not covered in the video in the OP. This is all, therefore, a red herring, as Jay pointed out. Please take your radiation claims to the other thread, and let us stay on-topic in this one. Or else it will become a useless, noisy morass.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
(excerpts from the article)
------------------------------------
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
------------------------------------"
Click to expand...

They achieved both of the highlited things in the apollo missions. They steered clear of the worst parts, and had adequate shielding for the parts they did briefly encounter.
 
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88
(excerpts from the article)
------------------------------------
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
------------------------------------"

***************************************************
They achieved both of the highlited things in the apollo missions. They steered clear of the worst parts, and had adequate shielding for the parts they did briefly encounter.
Click to expand...
You're misrepresenting the article by showing things out-of-context.

Here's the part you skipped.
-----------------------------------------
Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration.
-----------------------------------------
All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?
-----------------------------------------
NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight. We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.
-----------------------------------------

I urge viewers to read the whole article.

Here's an excerpt from an old article that's off-line now.

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.
 
Radiation is not covered in the video in the OP. This is all, therefore, a red herring, as Jay pointed out. Please take your radiation claims to the other thread, and let us stay on-topic in this one. Or else it will become a useless, noisy morass.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Radiation is relevant to this topic because the guy in the video in post #1 assumes that radiation isn't a factor in space. The whole hoax argument is that they had the technology to go to the moon in radiation-free space in a craft without heavy shielding but, since space radiation made necessary a craft with heavy shielding, it was impossible to build the craft. The hoax-believers also maintain that, if the levels of space radiation are what the alternative source say, it would be impossible to walk on the moon with a mere space suit.
 
At what point in the video does he state this assumption?
Click to expand...
He doesn't state it. He talks as if there were no danger of space radiation in space. Anyone who's been following this issue knows the position of the hoax-believers. He seems to be trying to sway people who haven't been following the issue by misrepresenting the position of the hoax-believers. By ignoring the radiation issue he's misrepresenting the position of the hoax-believers.

What he's doing is trying to mislead those who are new to the issue.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You're misrepresenting the article by showing things out-of-context.

Here's the part you skipped.
-----------------------------------------
Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration.
-----------------------------------------
All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?
-----------------------------------------
NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight. We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.
-----------------------------------------

I urge viewers to read the whole article.

Here's an excerpt from an old article that's off-line now.

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.
Click to expand...
And where is your proof they faked the highlighted part?
 
And where is your proof they faked the highlighted part?
Click to expand...
You know I'm not in a position to prove something like that. The point is that NASA's "Studies" can't be trusted because they're the ones accused of lying. Their figures on the types and levels of space radiation can't be used as proof.

The point of the article is that Van Allen changed his position. He originally stated that, "Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed". Later, he changed his position.

The theory is that he was either bribed or threatened by NASA. His original position was different from the NASA "Studies".
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You know I'm not in a position to prove something like that. The point is that NASA's "Studies" can't be trusted because they're the ones accused of lying. Their figures on the types and levels of space radiation can't be used as proof.

The point of the article is that Van Allen changed his position. He originally stated that, "Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed". Later, he changed his position.

The theory is that he was either bribed or threatened by NASA. His original position was different from the NASA "Studies".
Click to expand...


I am accusing you of lying, does that mean we can discount everything you say?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You know I'm not in a position to prove something like that. The point is that NASA's "Studies" can't be trusted because they're the ones accused of lying. Their figures on the types and levels of space radiation can't be used as proof.

The point of the article is that Van Allen changed his position. He originally stated that, "Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed". Later, he changed his position.

The theory is that he was either bribed or threatened by NASA. His original position was different from the NASA "Studies".
Click to expand...

What a freaking dodge. If you have no proof they faked it, you have no proof. You can only prove someone is lying by proving they are lying, not by accusing them of it.

Real proof would be experimental results contradicting the ones done by NASA, or actual evidence of fabrication.

ETA: Looks to me like Van Allen rightly adjusted his opinion based on the experimental results. Go figure... happens all the time in science and engineering.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
I disagree. Radiation is relevant to this topic because the guy in the video in post #1 assumes that radiation isn't a factor in space.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
At what point in the video does he state this assumption?

Red herring.
Click to expand...

FatFreddy88 said:
He doesn't state it.
Click to expand...


So you lied.



FatFreddy88 said:
He talks as if there were no danger of space radiation in space. Anyone who's been following this issue knows the position of the hoax-believers. He seems to be trying to sway people who haven't been following the issue by misrepresenting the position of the hoax-believers. By ignoring the radiation issue he's misrepresenting the position of the hoax-believers.

What he's doing is trying to mislead those who are new to the issue.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

The fellow in the video is talking about the possibility of faking the video (140 minutes or whatever it was) of the extravehicular activity on the moon. Radiation on the way to the moon is supremely IRRELEVANT to the topic he is discussing. Your fixation with it in this context is a red herring.

Look: When I create a work instruction for a GFRP panel at work, I am not required to to provide evidence that the battery in my car has not died from the cold. Your radiation fixation is equally irrelevant and asinine.

If you want to discuss radiation, find another thread. It is off-topic in this one.



Idle observation: we need a red herring smiley.
 
Last edited:
The fellow in the video is talking about the possibility of faking the video (140 minutes or whatever it was) of the extravehicular activity on the moon.
Click to expand...

The footage supposedly taken on the moon was shown to have been faked in a studio long ago. These clips on the flag are some of the clearest proof there is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

If he acts as if this didn't exist, he's trying to mislead those who are new to the subject. Once people have seen the clip of the flag waving because of the breeze cause by the astronaut's approach, there's really nothing any of you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think the Apollo footage was really taken on the moon. It's simply too clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom