NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

[robc]

what kind of crap photos are these? this is the dumbest halfassed idea i've ever heard.  Hey lets look at a bunch of low res images blown way up, does that pixel look like a guy holding a camera smoking a cig?  oh and this pixil looks like godzilla, nasa has edited proof of godzilla on the moon!

735662[/snapback]

haha, perfectly said. Couldn't have said it better myself...

robc

[robc]

I mean really.  Listen to yourself.  Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?  WOW.  Spend your time on something more useful.  NASA has no reason to fake the moon landing and we'll leave it up to you to waist your life trying to prove otherwise.  REALLY, get a grip on reality.  Do you really think that NASA went through all the trouble to fake three astronauts landing on the moon?  I seriously doubt it.  And I have seen those programs that come on tv that try to prove it was faked.  I've also seen the rebuttals to everything in those programs and I know many people that work for NASA.  Buddy, give it a rest.  The moon landing wasn't faked.  What is your deal anyway?  You sit at home late at night researching the Apollo 12 moon landing to try and see if you can uncover evidence of some giant conspiracy within NASA.  If it were true, it would have to be the best kept secret ever.  Somebody somewhere would have said something or leaked it to the press.  A little bit of advice.  Spend your time on things useful to yourself and the rest of society.  I guarantee that you will come up empty handed trying to prove that there was a conspiracy and that the moon landing was faked. 

robc

734610[/snapback]

It's crazy to think they could land on the moon in 1969 but keep making excuses why they haven't gone back, and excuses why they haven't even photographed the supposed landing sites in 36 years! They are still screwing up with the Space Shuttle!

I haven't heard any explanation for the chair and people except that it's all "gold foil"! And you wonder why I have trouble believing that? And the new arm pic is not even being acknowledged as anything at all yet.

Gus Grissom and others were killed to maintain the illusion. The majority of the techs don't even need to know about what they are really doing. They're all sworn to secrecy in the name of "national security" anyway.

Live in a bubble of illusion - I won't.

734665[/snapback]

You wonder why they haven't gone back to the moon. You don't ned to be a rocket scientist. Its simply too expensive. If you want to see them go back, call your congressman and senators and get them to give NASA more money... Its actually quite simple. Just like the other guy said. When you take a picture and blow it up so that its huge, the pixels can look like any number of things. Like he said, you'd probably believe that NASA has documented evidence of Godzilla on the moon.

I want to know if you sit at home all day long looking up Apollo pictures on the internet with some lifetime dream of being the person to prove that NASA has created some huge conspiracy and that they didn't actually land on the moon. I hate to be the one to break it to you but your gonna come up empty handed.

Good luck on waisting the rest of your life on false hopes and dreams... Because I'm not...

[turbonium]

You mean, like Clementine did?

what kind of crap photos are these? this is the dumbest halfassed idea i've ever heard. Hey lets look at a bunch of low res images blown way up

I couldn't put it better!! I thought it was fitting to combine the Clementine photo "proof" with the "what kind of crap photos" comment. Amazing how a non-descript LITTLE BLACK DOT will satisfy moonies as "proof" of the landing, as they criticize mine. Um, I could point to your LITTLE BLACK DOT and say it's proof of Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory on the Moon!!

Well... it is.

We haven't heard any explanation from you for why structures resembling the RCS plume deflector support struts and porch handrail would be in the same image with what you claim to be a man sitting in a swivel chair beside a monitor.

Well....it isn't. Everything you can't find an explanation for is "reflective gold foil"! Even though NONE of it is GOLD and NONE of it is REFLECTIVE!! There is nothing remotely like "foil" in the images.

Seeing as how you've casually dismissed all of the evidence presented in support of the position that the object you previously identified as a "bare human arm" is, in fact, the folded S-band antenna, it's not surprising that people aren't lining up to be brushed off yet again.

Right - as I find the "antenna" in a clip where it now MOVES! And GRABS material! And has FINGERS! That is some smart antenna!

Yet, Ralph Rene and Bart Sibril continue to breathe

Last I heard, they weren't Apollo astronauts or involved with NASA to have inside information!

You wonder why they haven't gone back to the moon. You don't ned to be a rocket scientist. Its simply too expensive.

Right - 113 Shuttle missions haven't cost diddly squat, have they?

I want to know if you sit at home all day long looking up Apollo pictures on the internet with some lifetime dream of being the person to prove that NASA has created some huge conspiracy and that they didn't actually land on the moon. I hate to be the one to break it to you but your gonna come up empty handed.

Good luck on waisting the rest of your life on false hopes and dreams... Because I'm not...

That's OK- you hang on to that LITTLE BLACK DOT as your proof. And you think I am imagining things! Obviously people who will believe in a LITTLE BLACK DOT as proof because NASA tells them it is proof might need to bring themselves in for de-programming.

[Nethius]

That's OK- you hang on to that LITTLE BLACK DOT as your proof. And you think I am imagining things! Obviously people who will believe in a LITTLE BLACK DOT as proof because NASA tells them it is proof might need to bring themselves in for de-programming.

736025[/snapback]

NASA knows where they landed, and these "dots" fit to where they lander should be.

It's a lot more believable then you're drawn in people and arms.

[turbonium]

That's OK- you hang on to that LITTLE BLACK DOT as your proof. And you think I am imagining things! Obviously people who will believe in a LITTLE BLACK DOT as proof because NASA tells them it is proof might need to bring themselves in for de-programming.

736025[/snapback]

NASA knows where they landed, and these "dots" fit to where they lander should be.

It's a lot more believable then you're drawn in people and arms.

736820[/snapback]

OK - so the dot shows us nothing but a dot, therefore not exactly proof of squat. But, NASA says the dot is right where they landed - so of course that makes it believable.

Ummm,, geez, that works for me!

btw - the people and arms aren't drawn in - that's how they actually are - no need for drawing them in.

[Nethius]

Must I point you to Sunofone's post earlier?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...e=post&id=15854

Regardless if the picture is a dot or not, you wouldn't believe it anyways. If the image resolved more then a few meters per pixel, you would just say it was a fake picture.

Do you believe that we could send Man to the moon today? Do you believe we can send rovers to the moon today? What if a new mission to the Moon brought back images from the moons surface showing a lander, would you then accept the fact that we went to the moon?

Edit - oops - changed "mars" to "the moon"

Edited July 16, 2005 by Nethius

[turbonium]

Must I point you to Sunofone's post earlier?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...e=post&id=15854

Regardless if the picture is a dot or not, you wouldn't believe it anyways.  If the image resolved more then a few meters per pixel, you would just say it was a fake picture.

Do you believe that we could send Man to the moon today?  Do you believe we can send rovers to the moon today?  What if a new mission to the Moon brought back images from the moons surface showing a lander, would you then accept the fact that we went to the moon?

Edit - oops - changed "mars" to "the moon"

737087[/snapback]

Sun's post is his humoring those in denial of the obvious.

You're putting words in my mouth in the typical ''just say it was a fake'' straw grasping reply. If it's real, let's see it. No, we still can't cross through the Van Allen Belts and solar flares haven't been solved yet either. If it's independent and verifiable then I can accept it as proof. Problem is.....they haven't proven anything

[pallidin]

Why can't we cross the Van Allen belts?

[turbonium]

Why can't we cross the Van Allen belts?

737414[/snapback]

Radiation - big time. The shuttle went 400 miles out and it was already becoming a dangerous hazard so they had to pull in their orbit to keep out of harm's way...

[frenat]

If you are orbiting within them for an extended period of time then yes they would be more harmful. Apollo went through them quickly and then only through the edges. See here.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

and here

http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

[turbonium]

It's becoming quite amusing to read articles on "future" manned missions to the moon.

From a 2005 article..

Radiation Protection and Science Goals for Short-Term Lunar Missions

Scientific Committee 1-15 on Radiation Protection and Science Goals for Short-Term Lunar Missions is preparing a report on astronaut safety in future missions to the moon. The major issues that will be addressed in this report are: (1) acceptable levels of risk for astronauts in lunar and interplanetary space missions; (2) short-term and career dose limits for lunar missions;

Astronauts who venture beyond the protection of Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere risk exposure to levels of radiation far exceeding those on Earth. Of all the risks they face, this one is probably the most straightforward to control-by providing adequate shielding. However, because shielding adds weight, cost, and complexity to space vehicles, it is very important for designers to have a good, quantitative understanding of the true risk and its degree of certainty.

This report assesses our understanding of radiation hazards in space. It also considers the additional research needed to reduce the areas of uncertainty, research that must be completed prior to undertaking the detailed design of a vehicle carrying crew members into space for periods of extended exposure. The report finds that it will take more than a decade of research to answer even the narrowest set of key questions, although happily the needed studies can all be conducted on the ground rather than in space.

Such missions beyond low Earth orbit will expose crews to transient radiation from solar particle events as well as continuous high-energy galactic cosmic rays ranging from energetic protons with low mean linear energy transfer (LET) to nuclei with high atomic numbers, high energies, and high LET. Because the radiation levels in space are high and the missions long, adequate shielding is needed to minimize the deleterious health effects of exposure to radiation.NOW we need adequate shielding!!

Below is from a 1989 report on radiation....

This report of the Task Group on the Biological Effects of Space Radiation summarizes current knowledge of the types and levels of radiation to which crews will be exposed in space and discusses the range of possible human health effects that need to be protected against (Chapters 1 and 2). It points out that recent reductions in facilities for radiation research raise concerns about how best to acquire needed new knowledge. The report goes on to suggest other steps to be taken and the types of experiments needed to reduce significantly the level of uncertainty regarding health risks to human crews in space (Chapter 3). In Chapter 4 the task group recommends priorities for research from which NASA can obtain the information needed to evaluate the biological risks faced by humans exposed to radiation in space and to mitigate such risks. WHAT?? NASA needs to get a radiation study from a thinktank??

If the necessary facilities, expertise, and funding were available now, it would take approximately 10 years to provide data that NASA needs to assess the best way to provide appropriate safeguards for its spaceflight crews.

This is from a 1998 article on the hazards of radiation...

Once thought to be a slumbering cocoon of charged particles embracing the Earth, new research shows these radiation belts can become extremely powerful in a matter of seconds.

Such sudden changes pose far greater risks to orbiting telecommunications satellites -- and even spacewalking astronauts, scientists said Monday at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

"We had thought the radiation belts were a slow, lumbering feature of Earth, but in fact they can change on a knife's edge," said space physicist Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado.

Detected 40 years ago, the doughnut-shaped particles belts extending more than 20,000 miles around the planet were thought to be very stable, waxing and waning over a period of months.

New observations by an array of satellites show changes in the planet's own magnetic field can accelerate electrons in the belts to nearly the speed of light, transforming them into what some researchers describe as "killer electrons."

"Many of the satellites up there now, and future spacecraft like the space station, have the potential to be severely impaired by light-speed electrons," Baker said.

NASA has selected a scientific instrument called LAMP (or Lyman Alpha Mapping Project) to be developed by Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®) and flown on its upcoming Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission. LRO is the first space mission in NASA's planned return of robots and humans to the Moon. LRO will carry six instruments when it launches in 2008.

LRO's primary goals are to identify useful deposits of lunar resources such as ice in the Moon's polar regions, to characterize future landing sites and to document radiation hazards to future lunar explorers.

"Our team is very excited to take part in LRO by contributing LAMP to the mission," said LAMP Project Scientist, Dr. David Slater, a principal scientist at SwRI. Stern echoed his enthusiasm. "LRO is going to be a groundbreaking NASA mission, with the potential to make historic discoveries about the nature of the Moon and its potential for renewed exploration by astronauts."

President Bush has established the goal of a human return to the Moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond -- particularly Mars. Beginning no later than 2008, the first in a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface are on tap to research and prepare for future human exploration.

Also a priority is using lunar orbiting radar, not only to peer into darkened craters in a search for water ice, but also to find safe landing sites. Similarly, a laser survey of the Moons polar regions is advised to help determine safe touchdown zones for future craft.

To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules in the interim

Now We'll Study It!

So NOW it's dangerous!

Mooning Us

Rad

Edited July 17, 2005 by turbonium

[frenat]

Those all seem to be talking about long-term effects of radiation. For missions much longer than the Apollo missions were. Why do you think a mission the length of a typical Apollo mission would have a radiation problem?

Edited July 17, 2005 by frenat

[The Caspian Hare]

Typical overengineering approach by NASA - evidence of a risk-averse bureaucratic culture, not evidence of a conspiracy.

[turbonium]

But it goes to an important point -

"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth."

-JFK address before joint session of Congress, Washington, D.C., May 25, 1961

So 8 years later, they apparently do just that, with five more successful landings out of the following six missions...

From 1969 to 1972 - 7 total missions, 6 of which landed men on the moon.

The below page is the Radiation Plan for the Apollo Missions.......

It would seem that radiation was no problem, before Apollo.

Just keep a low Earth orbit, zip through the Van Allen Belts, and the rare major solar flare will be avoided thanks warnings from the Solar Particle Alert Network!

And then, Apollo was a success - 7 missions without any radiation problems, six manned landiings! No astronaut has had any effects to this day! It would seem that they were correct in that pre-Apollo report, but.......

The below report items are from 1989 and 2005.....

Astronauts who venture beyond the protection of Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere risk exposure to levels of radiation far exceeding those on Earth.

The report finds that it will take more than a decade of research to answer even the narrowest set of key questions, although happily the needed studies can all be conducted on the ground rather than in space.

Because the radiation levels in space are high and the missions long, adequate shielding is needed to minimize the deleterious health effects of exposure to radiation

If the necessary facilities, expertise, and funding were available now, it would take approximately 10 years to provide data that NASA needs to assess the best way to provide appropriate safeguards for its spaceflight crews.

Hmmm....

And in 2004, Bush says the plan is to land on the moon by 2015 to 2020.

1961 - plan manned moon landing - 1969 - 8 years later did so (supposedly)

2004 - plan return landing on moon -2020 - 16 years later. (at latest)

The radiation hazard is considered one of the major obstacles to overcome before the new missions. And there is no system that can "warn" the astronauts of solar flares quickly enough, and are also quite unpredictable. Of course, that "Solar Particle Alert Network" never did mention what the hell the astronauts would do even IF they could be warned in time! ("Warp 7, Beano, full shields!")

Hmmmm.....

[theSOURCE]

I've always wondered about that thin foil shielding the Apollo LEMs had. Why do we still need such thick shielding today if the technology existed back in the late 60s for such light weight protection against radiation?

I have a relative who works in a highly radioactive environment, and despite his heavy protective gear, he's only allowed exposure for 15 minutes at a time.

Curious...

[DataCable]

Turbo, those radiation concerns are aimed at missions to Mars or long-term habitation of the moon, and are not applicable to the two-week jaunts of Apollo.

I have a relative who works in a highly radioactive environment, and despite his heavy protective gear, he's only allowed exposure for 15 minutes at a time.

A) Legal restrictions on radiation exposure are a poor indicator of what would be lethal or even harmful to the average person. Such restrictions invariably provide a very generous margin of safety, if only because the writers of such restrictions can't know what degree or type of non-occupational exposure any given individual may encounter.

and 2) Cislunar space is not a "highly radioactive environment," and thus the comparison isn't valid anyway.

[The Caspian Hare]

Once again, this is evidence that NASA is being overly cautious, not evidence that we never went to the moon. Radiation is not a "major obstacle" to space flights, it's just one of many risks that have to be taken into account.

[Nethius]

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

About 20 miles about [sic] the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

In fact, the Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! And they pass through it twice, once outbound, and again on their return. They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft. Here is a link to a webpage that describes the radiation environment and physiological effects on the Apollo astronauts.

Also, the belt is toroidal in shape (like a donut) and the trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft were designed to avoid the worst part of the Van Allen belts. Even the discoverer of the Van Allen belts, Professor James A. Van Allen, has noted that the belts would not have been dangerous to the Apollo astronauts given their trajectories and their spacecraft.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:

Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy

[MeV] electrons protons

1 0.15  ~ nil 

3 0.56  ~ nil 

10 1.85  0.06 

30 no flux  0.37 

100 no flux  3.7 

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

Edited July 19, 2005 by Nethius

[turbonium]

Turbo, those radiation concerns are aimed at missions to Mars or long-term habitation of the moon, and are not applicable to the two-week jaunts of Apollo.

741646[/snapback]

No, they are - solar flares are unpredictable events and must be considered for ANY venture by man into space, including any "two-week jaunts" to the moon. That is why I pointed out the dicrepancy between pre-Apollo reports and the 1989 and 2005 reports.

Before, during and some years after the Apollo program, issues such as solar flares have been downplayed and not considered a problem for manned space travel. No modifications to the program were needed - after all, they had the "Solar Particle Alert Network" which was all that they needed to "warn" the astronauts that a solar flare was about to occur!! And then the astronauts could valiantly jump into action.......

Edited July 20, 2005 by turbonium

[DataCable]

solar flares are unpredictable events and must be considered for ANY venture by man into space

743559[/snapback]

And they were.

[turbonium]

solar flares are unpredictable events and must be considered for ANY venture by man into space

743559[/snapback]

And they were.

744605[/snapback]

Yes - they ARE considered a major problem to overcome NOW. But during the Apollo years they were NOT considered a major problem - which makes sense if you really never intended and never did go to the moon at all. It's not "proof" of a hoax, but it certainly adds weight to the argument that they never really went to the moon. Why would they only now be considered a danger to overcome before any future manned missions when the Apollo missions were deemed to be "proof" that they were not a danger?

[The Caspian Hare]

Why would they only now be considered a danger to overcome before any future manned missions when the Apollo missions were deemed to be "proof" that they were not a danger?

They are not "only now" considering this danger. They just want to study it more, when(in my humble opinion) they don't really need to spend that much time doing it. This doesn't add any weight to the "hoax" theory.

[turbonium]

Why would they only now be considered a danger to overcome before any future manned missions when the Apollo missions were deemed to be "proof" that they were not a danger?

They are not "only now" considering this danger. They just want to study it more, when(in my humble opinion) they don't really need to spend that much time doing it. This doesn't add any weight to the "hoax" theory.

744908[/snapback]

Well, these groups are doing more than just a "study" as if it was almost trivial information gathering. The fact is that they state that any manned missions are dependent on OVERCOMING the hazards, before any future missions are actually undertaken.

The way China and others are accelerating their own space programs has caused a panic within NASA, imo. China itself states that they don't anticipate their own manned mission to the moon for 20 years or more, and also cites radiation hazards as a problem not yet overcome.

But in 1969, the danger was really exaggerated, so they say.

[DataCable]

Yes - they ARE considered a major problem to overcome NOW. But during the Apollo years they were NOT considered a major problem

They were considered a problem, and were dealt with accordingly. They were not the insurmountable obstacle you make them out to be.

Why would they only now be considered a danger to overcome before any future manned missions

Because, as I've been trying to tell you, future missions are going to be longer than two-week sightseeing tours. Any mission to Mars will, by necessity, be measured in years, during which a harmful solar event is virtually unavoidable, and any return to the moon will likely be considered a waste of resources if all they do is stay on the surface for a few days.

To be blunt, the goal of Apollo was simply to get there and get back, period. The additional missions and scientific projects were added to justify the cost of the engineering that went into simply making it possible, and that technology was stretched to include these additional objectives. But the basic design premise of the technology remained: "Get there, get back." Even if it were economically feasible to reproduce Apollo hardware today (which it isn't), it would be inadequate for any task the public would be willing to finance today, because "get there, get back" is "been there, done that."

[turbonium]

They were considered a problem, and were dealt with accordingly. They were not the insurmountable obstacle you make them out to be.

How were they dealt with? By creating a bogus "Alert Network" that couldn't do anything even if it could relay a message before the solar flare hit the astronauts? That means they dealt with it by lying that they dealt with it.