View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 12 Dec 2012, 23:41

Ok, let's look at the radiation issue. I understand the basic argument is that we should expect the astronauts that went to the moon to suffer from serious radiation effects, is that right?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby really? » 12 Dec 2012, 23:49

Arouet wrote:Ok, let's look at the radiation issue. I understand the basic argument is that we should expect the astronauts that went to the moon to suffer from serious radiation effects, is that right?


That is the basic argument and it would be correct as far as I know if the astronauts would have spent an amount of time within the belts beyond what was need to traverse through them. Here's one answer.
If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km. http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html


Just from the fact that it only took 3 days to travel 240,000 mile says these astronauts were traveling fast and that the amount of time traversing through these belts which are not that wide to begin with would be just hours at most. I've know this for a long time.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 12 Dec 2012, 23:59

Yes, that's exactly the first thing I would have wanted to check out. How much exposure and for how long would be needed to have effects. Flying to Mars and flying to the moon would have drastically different exposure rates. Also passing through a few times would be different than passing through on a regular basis.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 13 Dec 2012, 03:10

Misha wrote: ProfWag, have you gone through White's "Radiation Anomaly" series?

I did not watch the videos if that's what you're asking. When watching videos, one is not nearly as attuned yo the accuracy of the information being presented and rarely are the sources revealed so we often don't know the true source if the information. Thoughts just get whizzed by without us stopping to think.
Herre's an example. From Jarrah's website under FAQ of what is the most compelling evidence:

"First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts 10, 11"

The referenced sites are:
10. “Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March 1959.
11. “The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961.

Now, would anyone like to take a stab as to why his very first comment isn't worth a hill o' beans just by doing some quick critical thinking?
My guess is, however, that in his videos series, I would have missed this important note, but you "go on whitch ya' bad self" if you want to worship this guy.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 13 Dec 2012, 03:17

Arouet wrote:Yes, that's exactly the first thing I would have wanted to check out. How much exposure and for how long would be needed to have effects. Flying to Mars and flying to the moon would have drastically different exposure rates. Also passing through a few times would be different than passing through on a regular basis.

Don't forget the degree of trajectory,the location of the belts themselves, and Gemini 10! (Note, based on his "eulogy" on his homepage, Jarrah himself respects what Neil Armstrong did on Gemini 8 so my guess is he doesn't have an issue with Gemini 10, but I could be wrong since it would throw quite a wrench in his theory if he believes the Gemini 10 mission was as successful as 8.)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 13 Dec 2012, 03:49

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: ProfWag, have you gone through White's "Radiation Anomaly" series?

I did not watch the videos if that's what you're asking. When watching videos, one is not nearly as attuned yo the accuracy of the information being presented and rarely are the sources revealed so we often don't know the true source if the information. Thoughts just get whizzed by without us stopping to think.
Herre's an example. From Jarrah's website under FAQ of what is the most compelling evidence:

"First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts 10, 11"

The referenced sites are:
10. “Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March 1959.
11. “The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961.

Now, would anyone like to take a stab as to why his very first comment isn't worth a hill o' beans just by doing some quick critical thinking?
My guess is, however, that in his videos series, I would have missed this important note, but you "go on whitch ya' bad self" if you want to worship this guy.


Ok, think I know what you're getting at, but I'll let Misha and syd have a go first.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 13 Dec 2012, 05:56

Arouet wrote:Ok, think I know what you're getting at, but I'll let Misha and syd have a go first.

If one is inclined, they could look up the references, but my point can be made just by looking at his quote and sources.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 13 Dec 2012, 05:57

Misha wrote:Ok, ProfWag. Instead of Leggos how about Lincoln Logs? Just Kidding. Actually, it was Arouet who suggested taking one piece of evidence and running with it. My biggest contention with Apollo is the radiation issue. ProfWag, have you gone through White's "Radiation Anomaly" series?


Guys, this was just a suggestion. Please in no way do I want to head up this debate. Frankly, it won't make a hill of beans difference. No, I am not dismissing you fellas, but this topic would essentially take a huge number of hours.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Dec 2012, 06:13

ProfWag wrote:Okay, then let's just believe what Jarrah White says and disrepect the thousands upon thousands of academics who have actually studied this subject hands on and throw their conclusions out the window.

That appears to be a lie and misrepresentation -- can you name the 'thousands and thousands' of 'academics' who have studied this subject 'hands on'? No, didn't think so. Can you name any peer-refereed papers that somehow refer to the success of the Apollo missions? No, didn't think so.

Standard pseudoscep play and deference to 'authority', and even going further and making up the authorities on this occasion.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 13 Dec 2012, 06:15, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 13 Dec 2012, 06:15

Misha wrote:... but this topic would essentially take a huge number of hours.

Which is exactly why I didn't read an 1,800 page book on the possibility of 2 JFK coffins...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 13 Dec 2012, 06:24

SydneyPSIder wrote:Standard pseudoscep play and deference to 'authority', and even going further and making up the authorities on this occasion.


An appeal to an actual expert in the field opining on their area of expertise is not pseudoskeptical and is not a fallacy. (whether those authorities exist is a separate question).

PW: The thing I think you were noting was the 10 yr timespan from Van Allen's article to the date of the moon landing.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 13 Dec 2012, 06:31

SydneyPSIder wrote:That appears to be a lie and misrepresentation -- can you name the 'thousands and thousands' of 'academics' who have studied this subject 'hands on'? No, didn't think so. Can you name any peer-refereed papers that somehow refer to the success of the Apollo missions? No, didn't think so.

Yes, I can. Right now we were supposed to be discussing the radiation belts since I thought we agreed to stick with one subject at a time. I'll be happy to post those references for you after our current discussion which I'M waiting for others to post to. (actually, I thought I already had posted reference to the academics and success of the moon landings, but couldn't find it. Must be the pain killers. Sorry.)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Dec 2012, 06:32

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Standard pseudoscep play and deference to 'authority', and even going further and making up the authorities on this occasion.


An appeal to an actual expert in the field opining on their area of expertise is not pseudoskeptical and is not a fallacy. (whether those authorities exist is a separate question).

PW: The thing I think you were noting was the 10 yr timespan from Van Allen's article to the date of the moon landing.

So where's your actual experts?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Dec 2012, 06:35

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:That appears to be a lie and misrepresentation -- can you name the 'thousands and thousands' of 'academics' who have studied this subject 'hands on'? No, didn't think so. Can you name any peer-refereed papers that somehow refer to the success of the Apollo missions? No, didn't think so.

Yes, I can. Right now we were supposed to be discussing the radiation belts since I thought we agreed to stick with one subject at a time. I'll be happy to post those references for you after our current discussion which I'M waiting for others to post to. (actually, I thought I already had posted reference to the academics and success of the moon landings, but couldn't find it. Must be the pain killers. Sorry.)

Please do. Although I'm not sure how 'experts' presented with the same hoaxed information are going to come up with anything interesting? Just as 'medical experts' are used by big pharma to sell drugs that turn out to be dangerous after a few months on the market tested on the real population and with deliberately fluffed safety trials in order to get them to market.

In reply to your sudden convenient fixation and derailment onto 'radiation', here's the same portal link to inform research as cited twice above already: http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Dec 2012, 06:53

It's a waste of time feeding the trolls, especially when they get into a tag-teaming frenzy because they're losing a point, but here's a direct quote from the FAQ site cited 3 times now:

[A]s demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.

10. “Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March 1959.
11. “The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961.
12. “Radiation Protection During Space Flight”, E.E. Kovalev. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, December 1983.

Any 'research' published by NASA post-1963 would have to be looked at incredulously as they had decided by the mid-60s that they would have to fake it. Hence you would need independent corroboration from a trustworthy scientific source, if such a thing exists, much like the ESA probe that got a completely different spectographic result from an analysis of actual moon dust than the Apollo team produced in conjunction with American faked results occurring after that. Talk about 'bad science', you guys wrote the book on it.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron