Apollohoax had a thread about the size of the Earth in the Apollo 17 photos:

Earth appears to small in lunar sky

reply # 8 shows how one determines how big the Earth should look:







And Czero 101, it was you who put the nail in this "Earth too small in the photos" coffin:




Great job!

Actually, Atomic, it wasn't me.

It was "Count Zero" who posted that last image. I wasn't even a member of that board at that time.

While our names are similar, and in truth, have the same origins (William Gibson's book of the same name), we are not the same person.

So... credit where credit is due... Good job, Count Zero, and good job to you, too, Atomic, for digging up that thread...



Cz

oops.


That's what I get for assuming. The names were so similar I figured that they were the same person.


My bad.

I never said NASA called the Belts "totally safe" to travel through. I pointed out that NASA (and Apollo astronauts), and its supporters, have always argued that the Belts were safe, if you travel through them quickly (ie: under 2 hours) as Apollo 8 - 17 supposedly did.

But now, that argument has apparently been revised. I've noticed that NASA's supporters are NOT arguing that the Belts are safe for travelling through, like the Apollo astronauts supposedly did 20 times (10 x each way) without any problems.

What are they arguing now? That the Belts are not "totally" safe for manned lunar missions, etc.

OK, so the Belts are not "totally" safe. But then, why were they considered safe enough for 10 Apollo manned missions to go through them, almost 40 years ago?!?!

Shouldn't they still be safe enough to travel through in 2020? Are the new studies really necessary? Well, it seems the studies are "extremely important", according to the project chief.

NASA - aka "Contradictions 'R Us"



Look at what NASA said here, regarding the VA Belts and Apollo...

References to the van Allen Radiation Belts have appeared many times in the news. This is mainly because people are intrigued by the idea that Earth is surrounded by what many think is a lethal zone of radiation that can kill astronauts instantly, or cause major problems for Earth in other ways.

Of course, all of this is wrong and leads to many people being overly worried about something that is rather inconsequential. Apollo astronauts passed through these radiation belts many times enroute to the Moon with no ill effects. It is certainly true that prolonged exposure (days to weeks) to the particles in these belts can cause radiation damage in both humans and satellite equipment. That's why the International Space Station and Space Shuttle trips stay well below the inner edge to these belts.

The Apollo trajectories grazed the outer edge of the Belt system and never actually went inside.

1969 - May 18 - Apollo 10 astronauts travel near van Allen Belts enroute to the Moon.

1969 - July 16 - Apollo 11 astronauts travel near the belts and land on Moon.

1969 - November 14, Apollo 12 astronauts pass near the belts enroute to the Moon.

1970 - April 11, Apollo 13 astronauts travel near the van Allen Belts.

1971 - January 31 - Apollo 14 astronauts travel near the van Allen Belts.

1971 - August 7 - Apollo 15 astronauts travel near the van Allen Belts.

1972 - April 16 - Apollo 16 astronauts travel near the van Allen Belts.

1972 - December 7 - Apollo 17 astronauts travel near the van Allen Belts.

http://radbelts.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/RadNews.html

The NASA author first states "Apollo astronauts passed through these radiation belts many times enroute to the Moon with no ill effects."

But then, he states that Apollo astronauts never actually went inside the belts at all - they only went "near" them!!


Now, let's look at the 1973 NASA report you linked....

During a complete Apollo mission, astronauts were exposed to widely varying radiation sources. These included the Van Allen belts, cosmic rays, neutrons, and other subatomic particles created in high-energy collisions of primary particles with spacecraft materials. Spacecraft transfer from low Earth orbit to translunar coast necessitated traverse of the regions of geomagnetically trapped electrons and protons known as the Van Allen belts...

The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km (? 300 nautical miles)] when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly (figure 1). Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.

Particles within the Van Allen belts, in spiraling around the Earth’s magnetic lines of force, display directionality. This directionality varies continuously in angular relationship to the trajectory of the spacecraft. Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation for use in the Van Allen belts had relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux would be measured accurately. The Van Allen belt dosimeter (figure 2) was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

This report mentions the "simple solution" is to zip through the Belts as fast as possible, during manned lunar missions.

It also notes that the Belts "are absent over the north and south magnetic poles", but it does not say anything about Apollo missions going out (and/or back) via north/south pole trajectories.

NASA astronauts have never said they avoided travelling through the Belts, by taking a specific route - each way - that only goes "near" the Belts.

But now, the claim is that the Apollo missions only went "near" the Belts!

Another 'revision' by NASA!


If the Belts were actually avoided by Apollo, then why didn't NASA mention anything about that in their 1973 report? Why didn't any of the Apollo astronauts mention it, either? Al Bean didn't even know he (er, supposedly) went through them!

And once again - what about the new VA Belt studies?

Is BU not aware that the astronauts don't even have to go through the Belts, but only go "near" them, during manned lunar missions?

If not, then NASA should probably fill them in, asap, don't you think?


For almost 40 years, all we've heard from NASA (and its supporters) is that the Apollo astronauts were safe, because they zipped through the VA Belts in less than 2 hours, which resulted in harmless levels of radiation exposure.

Now, they're telling us that the Apollo astronauts didn't even go through the Belts?!?!

How are we supposed to believe them, when they just keep changing their story as they go along?

I didn't believe them before, and this kind of crap only helps confirm it...

Turbs

If you were genuinely intersted in finding out why the author of that page mentioned astronauts "travelled near the belts", why don't you ask him? His email is at the bottom of the page you linked.

Shing.F.Fung@nasa.gov
Dr Shing F Fung

In my opinion, he's just been sloppy with his use of language. Either that or he made an error. All the information I've ever seen states that they did traverse through the belts, choosing a trajectory that would minimise exposure within the design parameters of the rocket.

Hardly a case of NASA trying to rewrite history.

Re launching through the gaps at the poles - this would require a LOT more fuel. Someone else with knowledge of how the rocket equation works can explain further!

I'm really tired, Turb, so this will be relatively brief.

1. Radiation exposure has always been a concern, to one degree or another, but with the knowledge and technology they had at the time NASA felt that the risks were minimal and from an operational standpoint, it did not pose a problem.

Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation




You continue to argue from the standpoint that YOU don't understand how they could have accepted those risks.

Guess what? YOU weren't there. YOU didn't make the decisions. Scientists and engineers smarter than you and I (and probably smarter than you and I combines - and I honestly do not mean that as an insult towards you, Turb, but as a compliment to those extremely intelligent scientists and engineers) studied the issue, knew the problems, figured out ways to reduce the risks to acceptable levels.

Your constant bickering about how YOU don't understand it or how YOU wouldn't accept those risks are inconsequential because YOUR OPINION doesn't change the FACT that THEY WENT through the weaker portions of the VAB and then went to the Moon.

As to why they are revising their standpoint on radiation safety, well lets see. They haven't sent anyone through the Belts in over 35 YEARS. Do you NOT THINK that maybe some conditions have CHANGED in the Belts since then? Don't you think its actually a pretty darn GOOD IDEA that they study the CURRENT (or at least, more current) CONDITIONS to increase their current and older knowledge of the Belts to see if they can maybe MAKE IT EVEN SAFER? And maybe since they're designing the new Lunar Landing Vehicle to be able to land anywhere on the Lunar Surface - rather then being limited to just the near-side, near-equatorial landing sites the Apollo LEM was limited to - maybe they want to try different, more direct trajectories to the Moon that might mean longer potential exposure times in the Belts, which would require better / different shielding on the Orion Crew vehicle, which would require MORE STUDY and RESEARCH of the belts to get a BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENVIRONMENT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH.

Hmm, let's see... where else might there be an example where, at one point in history, there was one safety standard that was globally accepted and then, after years of studies and research they updated the standards to provide more safety...?

How about SEAT BELTS!

Until the mid to late 1960's seat belts were an OPTION on almost all cars. Then they started noticing that a rather large number of people were DYING as a result of being thrown through windshields in car accidents. Eventually, they were made MANDATORY. THEN, after even MORE STUDY and RESEARCH, they concluded that the number of people who were dying, even when they were wearing seat belts, was still too high...

so they started introducing AIRBAGS!

After some trial and error in getting the system right, automobile manufacturers started offering them as options, then as standard equipment. Then, they were MANDATED. Nowadays you can't buy a new car that does not have at least two, if not SIX of them.

But just because we now have stricter safety standards for cars, does that mean that seat belts didn't save lives when they were introduced and then mandated? OF COURSE NOT. Pretty much the same principal applies here, Turb, whether you agree with it or not or can even understand that comparison or not (and I'm gonna take a wild stab at it and say NOT to at least the former).



Lets be accurate here, Turb. 24 men passed through the Van Allen belts twice, and of those 24, 3 made 2 round trips (Lovell, Young & Cernan). Someone else can dig out the individual doses they received on their individual flights. I'm not going to bother because its clear that YOU DONT'T YET UNDERSTAND how radiation doses are calculated, or how they effects wear off over time, or how the radiation shielding worked in the CM, so, like most of the other infomation given to you, it would be wasted on you.


And you'll keep on hearing that, Turb because that's exactly what they did.



As to the page you quoted, ok, so you managed to find the one page where instead of saying they went THROUGH THE EDGE of the belt, they went "near" the belt.

Well WHOOP-DI-DOO!

One article out of the how many other hundreds that say they went through the edge? The fact that you clamp on to that ONE ARTICLE as some sort of proof of misrepresentation is a sign of desperation on your part, Turb, plain and simple. Personally, I'd take the word of the Mission Reports, you know, the 100+ page documents that are available for you to look through that fully detail all the aspects of each individual mission, than a one page summary that is intended to give "a collection of {short} articles {and single sentences} and significant historical events that have appeared in the newspapers and other literature about the van Allen belts, plus a short comment about what the scientific perspective is about each story."

Bottom line, yet again Turb, is that all you have done is express your unfounded opinion, which is based on a lack of knowledge about the subject and serves to, again, prove NOTHING other than your outright refusal to actually LEARN about this subject.


Hmm... well... so much for this being brief, eh?


Have a good night.


Cz

Hey Turbonium , i just wanted to say that i am only questioning these apollo missions for a few months now , but in this very short laps of time , i already saw this wide spectrum of time passed in the belts comming from let's say 'firm believers' , and this clearly show how sensitive this radiation topic is , i think it's one of the main argument against these apollo missions , four months ago when i started to get interested in the radiation issue , i was mostly encountering answers like "they spend 3 hours total in the belt's" then it was more "2 hours total" , then more recently , i saw a lot of "20 minutes max" (40 minutes total) , i also have some "they completly avoided the belt's" (pretty rare tough) , but clearly these belt's seems an embarassing issue for them , and when you look the official radiations of these apollo missions you quickly understand why it is embarassing , the 3 most embarassing ones being , apollo 11 , 195 hours and only 0,18 rad , apollo 13 , 144 hours (but many hours in the less shielded Lunar module) and only 0,24 rad , and of course my favorite , apollo 15 , 295 hours , 19 hours of EVA , and only 0,30 rad this one is really magical ! , so when you know that they officially admit , doses rates of 2,27 to 3,63 rad/hour peaks in the belts , you understand why they want to get rid of the vague "less than 2 hours" because less than 2 hours can very well be more than 1 hour , and more than 1 hour at even 1 rad/h already kicks the official radiations out the genuine possibility , that's why they slowly but surely slide to a 'safer' 20 minutes , 10 minutes , 5 minutes maybe ? and soon if no one care , they will officially declare that they completly avoided them of course. and by the way , you can't avoid the outter belt except if you really pass by the poles , and you can't avoid having a diagonal trajectories after your translunar injection , meaning you will NEVER cross the belt's with the smallest possible distance with current or past technologies , unless you are able to do perpendicular to earth surface trajectories. (diagonal mean more distance m, meaning more times in the belts , unavoidable im affraid ...)

Thank you for calling the NASA Hoax Department. We're afraid no one can take your call right now, but please hold, as your call is important to us.

JSC29295 - SPACE RADIATION CANCER RISK PROJECTIONS FOR EXPLORATION MISSIONS: UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION AND MITIGATION

CUCINOTTA, SCHIMMERLING, WILSON, PETERSON, BADHWAR, SAGANTI, AND DICELLO

January 2001

From Section 1 (INTRODUCTION)

The NASA approach to radiation exposure in space is based on predicting the risk (probability of both short-term and long-term health effects). The determination of what constitutes an acceptable, i.e., “safe” risk level is and will remain a matter for continued attention. Setting radiation limits requires consideration of mission performance requirements without deviating from the highest ethical standards. An upper bound on levels of acceptable radiation risks for space exploration has not been determined and could be set higher than that of low Earth orbit (LEO) because of the nature of such missions (National Academy of Science, 1967).

The design of a mission to a given risk limit uses the predicted radiation environment as input for calculating possible radiation effects. However, mission safety can only be predicted within a defined confidence level, corresponding to the statistical nature of such a calculation. Mission design studies include cost versus benefit analyses of approaches to improve crew safety with higher confidence. Such studies are based on estimates of the uncertainties in such projections. The uncertainties at this time are large, and reducing them is one of the primary objectives of the NASA Space Radiation Health Research Program (Anon, 1998). This places even greater importance in having a realistic estimate of the uncertainty in the predicted risks since too large an estimate of uncertainty will result in excessive costs, while too small an estimate of uncertainty will result in excessive risk.

************************

From Section 2.1 (ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF RISK - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE)

Recommendations by NAS in 1967 (NAS, 1967) noted that radiation protection in manned space flight is philosophically distinct from protection practices of terrestrial workers because of the high-risk nature of space missions. The report of the NAS-1967 did not recommend “permissible doses” for space operations noting the possibility that such limits may place the mission in jeopardy and instead made estimates of what the likely effects would be for a given dose of radiation. In 1970, the NAS Space Science Board in response to a request from NASA made recommendations of guidelines for career doses to be used by NASA for long-term mission design and manned operations. At that time, NASA employed only male astronauts and the typical age of astronauts was 30-40 years. A “primary reference risk” was proposed equal to the natural probability of cancer over a period of 20-years following the radiation exposure (using the period from 35 to 55 years of age) and was essentially a doubling dose. The NAS panel noted that their recommendations were not risk limits, but rather a reference risk and that higher risk could be considered for planetary missions or a lower level of risk for a possible space station (NAS, 1970). Ancillary reference risks were described to consider monthly, annual, and career exposure patterns. At the time of that report, the major risk from radiation was believed to be leukemia. By the end of the 1970’s it was apparent that the risk of solid tumors following radiation exposure occurs with a much higher probability than leukemia’s although with a longer average latency period before expression.

In the early 1980s several major changes had occurred leading to the need for a new approach to define acceptable levels of radiation risks in space. First, the maturation of the data from the Japanese atomic bomb (AB) survivors led to estimates of higher levels of cancer risk for a given dose of radiation. Second, the makeup of the astronaut population was changing with a much larger number of astronauts including mission specialists, the addition of female astronauts, and career astronauts of higher ages that often participate in several missions. In 1989, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) issued their Report No. 98 that recommended age and gender dependent career dose limits using as a common risk limit of a 3% increase in cancer mortality above the background of average cancer mortality in the US population. The dose limits recommended by the NCRP correspond to average career duration of 10-years with the doses assumed to spread evenly over a career. The limiting level of 3% excess cancer fatality risk was chosen by comparing rates of occupational death in the “less safe” industries. The average years of life loss from radiation induced cancer death (about 15 years) is less than that of other occupational deaths. The use of cancer fatality instead of cancer incidence as a measure of risk limitation occurred for several reasons. Historical career dose limits referred largely to leukemia risk, which had a poor prognosis for cure until the 1980s, and therefore incidence and fatality were approximately the same. Fatality is also a more useful measure when comparing to other occupational deaths since a large range of responses and suffering occurs for individual cancer types. Also, estimates of cancer risk must rely on the accuracy of record collection in exposed groups. In some aspects, but not all, the collection of records related to cause of death is more accurate than collection of records on cancer incidence, especially when the totality of all types is considered (NCRP, 1997). Finally, it should be noted that continued improvements in cancer treatments and prevention may affect how risk is limited in the future.

***********************************

i'll be honest. I didn't have the time to read all 240 something pages so i don't know if anyone has already posted this but the 4 main things that took me to believe that the moon landing was a hoax were,,,,

1) the flag is waving
2) the lighting is all wrong
3) in several of the photographs the same backdrop was used, even though they claimed it was a differant location
and last but not least 4) we didn't have the technology!

Welcome to the thread. And FYI, yes, all your questions are covered in extensive detail in the previous pages.

On to your opinions:

1: Where is it waving? What is happening that is causing it to wave? Why is a waving flag on the Moon under certain circumstances proof that it was fake?

2: How is the lighting wrong? How should the lighting look on the Moon, in a vacuum? What evidence do you have to back up that the lighting is wrong?

3: Where is it claimed that pictures that look similar were at different places? How do you know it was a backdrop? What is the "Real" Lunar Surface supposed to look like? If they were not on the moon, where were they?

4: How do you know? Were you alive back then? Have you examined the technology, the computers, the spacecraft, the EVA suits from that time period? How about the technical documents from Apollo and that time frame... have you read any of them?

Do you have any verifiable, accurate proof to present to us to back up any of your claims? If not, where did you find the information that brought you to the conclusions you have formed about Apollo?

BTW... it's ok to say "I don't know". Those 3 words are generally the start of a fantastic learning experience. And hopefully, you are here to learn about Apollo. Feel free to ask questions, but please, don't just come in, say it was fake because "I think it was" and then not take advantage of the people here who can show you how to answer those questions for yourself.



Cz

ok ok, i'm sorry for asuming and stuff.

but i've saw mulltiple tv shows and documentarys that have explained these things to me and because of them i believe it is fake.

No need to be sorry...

And just so you know, anything that was on those shows that had anything to do with any of these people:

Dave Percy
Bill Kaysing
Bart Sibrel
Ralph Rene
David Groves

Has been totally debunked as either misinterpretations due to lack of genuine knowledge of some pretty basic things (like photography, for example), blatant misrepresentations and/or skewing of the actual facts, or total outright fabrications (typically those come mainly from Bart Sibrel, but the others aren't above a few dozen white lies to sell a few more books or videos... well, except for Kaysing - RIP - and I don't think anyone knows the whereabouts of David Groves these days...)

If I might make a suggestion to you... actually two...

First of all... if there's anything you're unclear about or kinda shaky on whether you believe it to be fake or not, please do ask us here. There's a lot of people here who have a lot of knowledge about this subject and would be happy to answer as best we can, provide you are willing to keep at least a somewhat open mind.

Secondly, visit this site:

http://www.clavius.org

It addresses most of the major Moon Hoax theories, plus gives a lot of really good background information about Apollo and about a lot of the science and technology behind it.

Have fun...


Cz

I don't know Cz...

Based on what John said about driving the LRV, I can imagine he might have wanted to make left turns rather than right, so he could see the terrain where he was going (depending on the phase of the sun relative to your path, it was often difficult to perceive details in the surface. Zero phase driving (with the Sun at your back) was real bad as pertains to seeing depressions, craters, ridge line definitions and that sort of thing. Charlie said he was always cinched up tight in that seat belt...it was generally a fairly bumpy ride, and of course, a left turn would tend to make one go right.

But frankly, from their discussions, they never liked to go much faster than 5 or 6 klicks (maybe 3-3.5 MPH...5 FPS or so), although they did get up to maybe 10KPH at times, and they'd pick the thing up and turn it around on occassion, rather than turn around or use reverse (the LTV had reverse, but you really couldn't see where you were going in reverse at all, since the rear view mirror had been taken off the thing).


However, I can imagine John getting cozy with the thing and playing with Charlie that way!

LLL,
Aerodynamics is inapplicable to this craft. There were none. It didn't need any.

The fact is, those panels you see were very thin, and merely covered external compartments. They didn't need to be thick metal.
You should see some of the pictures of the ascent stage during rendezvous and docking after lunar liftoff, when those panels bucked under the forces of liftoff!

The beauty of the LM was on the inside...it was certainly more than skin deep.

What is priceless, as well as comedic, is your comment above.



Excuses have not been given, simply explanations which should spark you to actually examine what a true spacecraft like the LM was actually made of, and what its structure was. You have absolutely no idea what the LM actually was, or how it was made, do you?

I suspect, dear Lil, that you are correct!

Thank you Posty...


And yes, please, Ninety9 and LLL, do a little reading, will you!

Who did that?

Apollo 8 was an exceptional accomplishment.
However, it seems apparent you cannot come to grasps with the simple fact that it was a logical next step in the program. We had the proven capability to do that mission. Why not try it, when everything we had gathered said we could do it?




Spaceflight is always a problem. However, the problems associated with a lunar orbit mission as opposed to an earth orbit mission are not so grave as you imagine. We had the spacecraft which was capable. We had the trajectory mathematics fully worked out (and we had already been to the Moon many times), and we had the CMC software installed and tested and ready to execute the plan.

What do we do from that point?

Sit on our hands and imagine everything that can go wrong and never do it?

C'mon Turb, certainly you've got to see the logic in this step.

Oh, you mean like this?

Looks like John Young backed into something.

Jeez, Cz.,..I couldn't have said it better myself, that's for sure!

Precisely, UNKNOWN!
That's it!

The exterior covering of the AFT equipment bay, an unpressurized compartment, were made of very thin pieces of metal...
The compartment flexed on liftoff, and the results to that external covering were apparent.


Kinda looks like that guy backed into a truck, don't it?

Damn alien truck drivers never signal before turning.

Oh - don't forget Jack White. If you read a claim by him regarding Apollo, then there is a 100% chance he has got it wrong. He's
like the Apollo K-TEL SLICER:

"He crops, he alters, he omits, he lies... and that's not all!"

Oh, yes, I realize that he should be added to that list of people not to believe. There's quote a few more to go onto it actually, but I was merely pointing out the more well-known names that I have seen reference in some of the various television specials that talk about the Moon Landing Hoaxes.

Jack White is more of a "local phenomena", imo, and as far as I know, his stuff is generally limited to a different message board. I don't think he;'s ever been on TV, or at least, I've never seen him on TV.



Cz

After the small Earth , and the badly assembled lunar module (even if i see that many of you still believe this losely assembled pieces of .... was a real craft supporting the life of 2 astronauts on the surface of the moon) , there is a time where you must just leave , even in a simulation of moon landing , a times come where the simulation end , and when this time come , you need to simulate a lunar liftoff , probably the hardest piece of footage to simulate decently , and certainly the most hilarous moment in the whole apollo manned moon landing fakery .

Tonight , i just tough i have to show you these 3 lunar liftoff (and some docking) videos just in case anyone missed them , i personally think that it is just impossible to still believe the apollo moon landing where real after looking at these 3 videos , but i agree this is just my biased opinion , so go check for yourself and tell me what you think about them :

first video (my personal favorite) , apollo 11 , liftoff and rendez-vous , unreal scene , note that the video quality is almost irrelevant since the motion of the craft is the most interesting (and funny) part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GDxPAcO-h4

-from 45" to 1'45" note the moon surface , very close of that craft , you can almost feel that its only 2 or 3 meters away ... certainly not miles away , look the motion of the craft , does this look real to you ? your choice.
- at 1'43" as a bonus they seems to have simulated an shooting star !
- from 1'50" to 3'55" don't miss the approach prior to docking , a great moment in messed up science fiction effect.
notice the instantaneous stops of motion (including rotation) wich are virtually impossible , except for these pioneer stunters that defy the law of motion ! , i noted the major ones (i give you the time frame)

-2'11" instant stop on the right of the frame
-2'28" instant stop in his rotation
-2'58" instant stop in his rotation
-3'05" major instant stop , a must see.
-3'22" another major instant rotation stop

plus several minor ones (that are not less strange nonetheless)

let's see apollo 14 one now , (my second favorite i must say) :

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

- ~10" note no blast crater under the rocket engine CD-Nozzle , some say it is normal because the pressure was only 1,5 psi , the problem is , 1,5 psi is a static pressure calculation (P=F/A) , that doesn't even take the gas temperature into account , and anyway is totally irrelevant to determine if this exhaust gas will have the power to dig a crater , since the pressure we must know is the dynamic pressure ( density times velocity squared divided by 2) , unfortunately NASA lost their engine specification and we don't know the density and velocity of the exhaust gas at nozzle exit , how sad is this ? poor nasa jokers.

- ~25" note the terrain at 45° south West (on the frame) of the flagpole , you see these little bumps ? you might think when the engine will start , if some dust is blowed away , there is good chance that these bumps got flattened right ?
let's see what happen then.
- 30" nope , there was clearly dust blown-away , but these bumps didn't seems to be affected (ok the video quality isn't top-notch there but still..) this is just as a bonus.
- 48" the lunar module is climbing and orbiting around what ressemble a cement pancakes , the motion of the craft is also ridiculous , wich is perfectly coherent with the fake moon surface (i told you the lunar liftoff was the hardest part to simulate , no surprise they messed up so badly there).
- 57" again the approach prior to docking , unfortunately in this video we only see a little part of this scene , we can confidently say that they improved since apollo 11 simulation , but as we can see this is clearly not perfect yet , another major instant stop will occur in this very limited laps of time.
- 1'09" there you go , major one. (instant stop)
- note the overall feeling of 'careless' in the astronauts comments .
- 1'17" the inspection of the craft , nothing special there , except that it doesn't look that much convincing than the rest.
- 2'15" the docking , the motion of the lunar module looks funny to say the least , the whole docking scene look as cheap as the losely assembled panels we've seen on the lunar module for me.
- 2'27' something move pretty fast on the command module , i don't know what it is honestly , but doesn't look real.
- 3'22" as a bonus a blue windows in the command module , are they in low earth orbit already ?

and to finish apollo 15 one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHs2bVlNdpE

nothing special about that one , except that they clearly improved a lot since apollo 14 ,except that bad idea of following the lunar module with a projector (check his shadow on the ground with a constant halo around it) , and also that the moon surface seems almost completly flat (look the horizon) , and after about 25 seconds they don't seems to climb anymore , also note the motion of the craft wich seems to swing from right to left , while the apparent trajectorie looks the same.

so what do you think about these videos , mislabeled tapes ? possible , but certainly not real manned moon liftoff that's clear to me at least.

a little addendum , there is the liftoff to docking time , with a little margin of error , about 5 to 15 minutes , of each lunar landing apollo missions.

A11 : 4h30
A12 : 3h30
A14 : 1h45 << should enter in the definition of perfect if this is real of course ...
A15 : 2h00
A16 : 2h10
A17 : 2h15
less than 3 hours average , what a great performance ...

and

Shuttle to ISS : more than 1 day (in our mastered low earth orbit environment with today technology) .

Again, you're just posting your uneducated opinion. And, as always, your opinion does not mean that the things that you cannot explain or understand did not happen.

But, for the sake of argument, how is "real" LM liftoff from the Moon supposed to look? And what proof do you have? You seem to be proclaiming yourself to be an expert on how these things are supposed to look. Where di you study this? How many times have you witnessed an LM liftoff that fit how its supposed to look, according to you?


Cz

how many time did i witnessed a lunar liftoff , this one is easy to answer , not a single time , the problem there is , no one ever witnessed a lunar liftoff to this day , a thing you seems to have an hard time tu understand.

So what you're saying is that you have no idea if what those video's show is real or not, but "in your opinion" they look wrong because you don't know what they're supposed to look like.

You can't actually prove they're fake... you just think they are.

Is that about right?



No, actually there were 12 people who witnessed an LM liftoff... the 6 crews of the Apollo missions that went to the Moon and returned safely.

That seems to be something YOU don't want to - or will not - understand.



Cz

EDITED to add the last quote and reply

What do you have to say about the analysis showing that the Earth was exactly the size in the photos that it was supposed to be? If you disagree, please show how the analysis was in error.

nothing to say , except that you firmly believe that they shot these photos on the surface of the moon with the hasslblades camera , and i think they faked the whole thing , including shooting the photos in a wide range of camera , maybe including this hasslblades , maybe including different optics , and that these supposedly hard print crosses in each photos can very well be added aftermath , fitting the photos they would like to show , for me this earth is way to small by just looking at it , i can see the lunar module , this is not a very wide angle photos at all , and the earth is roughly the size of the moon (a little bit bigger maybe) if you make the moon 4 times smaller on that photos , it would look like it was taken in a wide angle photos (because the moon would look extremly small) so this photo can't show the real size earth whatever these engraved crosses tell's us.

Those videos are just plain funky. Image quality and breaks are one thing, but this just looks like the craft is held up and controlled with wires, with craft and moon filmed by different equipment. But hey, I also have problems with videos of steel-framed buildings imploding with and without planes hitting them, so...

You're saying that Webb opposed the new Apollo 8 plan - because they were "going to send the CSM to the Moon without a LM"? What is your source(s) for this claim, MID?
I'd like some details on this before I make any comments.

You also say that Webb "..finally relented because he trusted the people who were actually doing the mission". Really? As you already know, Webb resigned 2 months before Apollo 8. That's hardly a show of faith and trust in the people doing the mission!!

It's abundantly clear that Webb left because he was seriously unnerved by NASA's 'revised' plans for Apollo 8.



As I've pointed out many times, only a small group of people would know (or need to know) that Apollo was a hoax. Or more precisely, very few people would know that the Apollo program had turned into a hoax, or that it had to be hoaxed, as soon as Apollo 8's plans were revised into a work of pure fantasy.





First of all, Webb did not "retire" from NASA - he resigned, which is altogether different. And second, he continued to work, for several more years after he had resigned from NASA. Nothing to support a "tired old man" argument.

I do agree that Webb probably resigned because "he wanted to". But what was the reason(s) he resigned? That's the relevant question.



I agree. His job at NASA could have killed him, in many different ways.



Well, as you'll already know from reading my answers above, I'm arguing that Apollo became a fraud, starting with the Apollo 8 mission, through to (and including) the final mission - Apollo 17.

Webb took the NASA post in Feb. 1961, and resigned in Oct. 1968 - almost 8 years in total. Imo, his first 7 years at NASA didn't include any faked missions. We achieved manned missions in LEO, but only after several years of intense effort, dedicating massive resources.

But all those years of genuine progress came to an end, the minute he looked at the revised plans for Apollo 8.

Well, postie, it does seem quite clear to me, that he meant what he said about only going "near" the Belts during Apollo.

Anyway, I'll ask him about it, as you suggest, to confirm it.

But today, NASA does NOT feel the risks are minimal regarding a manned mission they've planned for 2020!

Why? Well, because they know much, much more about the Belts now, compared to what they knew back in the 1960's!

Which means? Well, it means that NASA has now come to realize that the Belts are actually far more dangerous to manned travel than they once thought, like 40 years ago, when they (supposedly) sent a bunch of astronauts through them!

So Apollo 8 - 17 were pretty lucky the Belts didn't cause a single problem, for any astronaut, or any capsule?

I'm not sure what NASA's current position is on that.

Does anyone else know?



Dang, I'm out of time - more on this later....

Maybe its because I'm a bit tired, but does anyone else see that this post from Turbo can be interpreted as an admission on his part that the Moon landings were real...?


Anyway... on with the rebuttal in my next post...


Cz

Given the different mission objectives, which in turn dictates a different mission plan, and given that they are designing a new spacecraft with new materials, I'd say its a safe assumption to make that NASA wants to make sure that they are using the right materials to provide for a higher level of crew and vehicle systems safety. Apollo's CM was a single use vehicle, so systems needed to only be designed to survive for the amount of exposure predicted for that one mission - of course with certain safety margins in case of extended stays. Since they are planning for the Orion CEV to be reusable, it makes sense that they would want to study they effects of longer and multiple exposures on the systems to minimize the amount of time needed to refurbish the vehicles between flights. I'd also say that its safe to assume that, since basically everything about the new missions will be new, it would be foolish for them to proceed under certain assumptions garnered from research about radiation exposure that is 40 years old.

Why is it such a difficult concept for you to grab that they would want new research to base their decisions upon when designing the new spacecraft and the new missions?

The data they had back then lead them to make certain decisions that minimized as much of the risk as they thought possible. For them to proceed with only that same data some 40 years on would be foolish, possibly fatal.


This is true, to a point. Given that NASA had no mandate for a Manned Space Program that took men outside of the Belts, there was little need to continually research those effects. That is not to say that the research stopped entirely. Radiation exposure is a hazard on current manned missions and is still studied on Shuttle and ISS missions.


This is also true from the standpoint that the manned missions they are planning are significantly different than the missions that took place during Apollo. But even IF they were planning to do an exact, step-by-step repeat of the Apollo missions, they would STILL not use research that is out of date.


I would say that luck had some small role in it in the sense that there were no dangerous, major solar events during the missions, but it was hardly the main reason they were successful. They studied the situation as best they could for years and designed the spacecraft and space suits with the best materials they could use within the design parameters of those items. They didn't use lead shielding in the spacecraft because it was too heavy, so they did materials research to find out what other materials they could use that would be light enough to keep the craft withing its design weight parameters and still provide sufficient and acceptable levels of protection for the crews.



I think its obvious that, since they are renewing their investigations of the Belts as it relates to humans passing through them, NASA's position is that it wants as much current information as it can gather so that they can make informed, reasonable, scientifically sound decisions regarding vehicle design and crew safety.

Its really that simple and that logical.



Cz

Can I repeat?

In the early 1980s several major changes had occurred leading to the need for a new approach to define acceptable levels of radiation risks in space. First, the maturation of the data from the Japanese atomic bomb (AB) survivors led to estimates of higher levels of cancer risk for a given dose of radiation. Second, the makeup of the astronaut population was changing with a much larger number of astronauts including mission specialists, the addition of female astronauts, and career astronauts of higher ages that often participate in several missions.

Translation: "Analysis, shanalysis, it looks too small, therefore it was too small." Gotcha.

Thanks, Obviousman...

I probably should have read that post of your fully. For those others that didn't here's the link to it

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2099213

Here's the link to the document Obviousman quoted from:

JSC-29295
SPACE RADIATION CANCER RISK PROJECTIONS FOR EXPLORATION MISSIONS:
UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION AND MITIGATION

Also, here's another good reference document:

Space Radiation Health: A Brief Primer

And if you do a Google search for "JSC 29295" you will again find that document, as well as a lot of other documents regarding space radiation.



Cz

Why not do some maths on it? It shouldn't be all that hard to work out the angular size in the sky Earth takes up from the moon. After having calculated that, calculating the angular width of the photographs is peanuts.

I'm not going to do calculations, though. If you claim Earth has the wrong angular size in the photos, then it is you who should do the math.


EDIT: Also, are there any specific pictures in which Earth's angular size is wrong?

All this "just look at the LM - it's just held together with tape" argument must be one of the most ignorant parts of the hoax argument. What do they expect a vehicle designed to operate in vacuum to look like? As shown by the picture Waspie has posted, pretty well all satellites these days use the same techniques for thermal control. Whether it's the LM, a communications satellite or the Hubble telescope, there is the same rumpled oven foil appearance, the same fastenings and tape holding it in place. This is state-of-the-art aerospace engineering, and if they don't understand why, they are the ones who need to do some research.

Video 3 in the LandingApollo conspiracy debunk series!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fC2yozHHdEo

Did I? I don't remember that.

It was actually Lilly who posted that back on pg. 246:







Cz

I'm glad about that, I thought my memory was going.

LLL,

You didn't actually investigate this before you replied, did you?


Let me give you a little more explanation.


The LRV had independent front and real wheel steering, as I said. Further, it had a really neat system called Double Ackermann Steering.
Simply explained, this was the reason the vehicle could turn on a dime.

The inboard wheels turned at a greater angle than the outboard wheels in a turn (inboards at 50 degrees, outboards at 23 degrees...the inboard wheels over twice as much of an angle as the outboards). The angle between the inboard wheels was only 80 degrees at maximum turn, the outboards; 134 degrees. What this means is that if the outboard wheels lose contact with the surface, as they did in the picture represented, the turning angle would be enhanced, not decreased.


This vehicle could turn more than 90 degrees immediately if it's outboard wheels didn't make contact with the ground.


Please take some advice and research the systems on the vehicle...

Your astronautical engineering degree is coming through very clear here, LLL, and it's not attractive (the whole post was illustrative of that, but this just stuck out!).

Is it possible you have any idea what you're talking about?

Do you have any idea about the orbit that the LM attained with its impulse, or the orbit of the CSM around the Moon at the time of lunar liftoff, and the requirements of that particular profile (since we have a spacecraft with limited resources remaining, and a need to get docked)?
Do you have any idea what the orbit of the ISS is...it's altitude, the size of the Earth, the orbit insertion attained by the Shuttle, and that fact that we can utilize low energy to rendezvous with the ISS (since we have a spacecraft with about two weeks of resources on board)?


Do you have any idea of the difference between taking a 200,000 pound spacecraft in an orbit that's about 23.000 miles long to meet a 500,000 pound station at an altitude that's about 100 miles higher than the EO insertion altitude---and taking a 5,000 pound spacecraft to meet a 40,000 pound fully maneuverable spacecraft in an orbit that's only about 13 miles higher than the LMs...and which is only about 7000 miles long?

I'm trying to figure out why you think that the Shuttle rendezvous time with the ISS has anything to do with the LM ascent stage's rendezvous with the CSM in lunar orbit....it befuddles me how you can compare apples to oranges and arrive at some sort of conclusion...?

You are a piece of work...you know that?
Know anything about the LM ascent stage and it's snappy behavior under thruster fire?
You say it's impossible, but you don't back that up with anything substantive.


You say the surface looks only meters away, yet that's it...you provide nothing to back up your idea. It's quite some distance below them and they're moving out pretty fast...but of course, you have no visual reference and can't scale anything...so your argument is all wet.










You can't see under the exhaust nozzle at liftoff through the LM window, and the APS made no contact with the lunar surface LLL...you're dead in the water here. There was on fact no blast crater from the DPS on landing, since there was no "blast" to cause such a thing, but you're talking about ascent here. Done deal.

There was no contact between the APS and the surface.


Perhaps you would like to stop this nonsense and get to your QUESTIONS now?






This is all silliness.

Did you know you were looking at time lapsed photography?
It doesn't look real to you...that's not proof.
It was real, I guarantee you.







Oh that was definitely a special one. That you don't see that is amazing.

(the "halo" is typical zero phase photographic effect... I suggest you study that a little)

After about 25 seconds, they were pitched over at a 45-55 degree angle, and were way up...they were moving downrange fast...how can you tell they're not climbing (they are, but at a much lower rate than their initial vertical phase)? Is there some visual reference you can use to scale the picture and show that they're not climbing?

Did you know that the typical behavior of the LM ascent stage was to "sway" or undulate gently, which is what you see, as the thrusters nudged her into a flight path(she was rather light, and snappy in response...). This was the same on every Apollo mission, described by Buzz Aldrin during the ascent of the Apollo 11 LM, and felt by everyone who ever flew one off the surface of the Moon.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "apparent trajectorie looking the same..."
And frankly, I don't want to know...


How about you stop with the nonsensical posts that describe what you lack, and ask questions about what you don't (apparently) understand?


Posts like these do nothing for the discussion...there's too many disjointed things presented.
There's a better way to learn things than to post long sections that do nothing but state your opinion which is based upon nothing but a lack of knowledge...


ASK SOME QUESTIONS !

Thank you, Gav,

...for saying so emphatically, that a free-return trajectory does not require entering lunar orbit!

I was waiting for that. Nice job.
It rather put's the nut-case White to rest on this issue, rather nicely!





...you're pretty good at this film stuff, yuu know?