Hardscrabble Farmer says — “We did not land on the moon.”
This is amazing, and I gave him some shit for it. Kinda like this …..
However, that’s not helpful.
If you like and admire HF, and it seems that most here do, then help him out via this “intervention”. He seems worth saving. Show him the error of his ways.
Note: — Ignore any attempts by HF to halt this intervention. He might say “I don’t need it!“, or “I don’t care!”, or sundry other excuses. This is what these people do. The Road To Denial leads to destruction. So, help him out, regardless. Lead him to The Road Of Sanity.
As a side benefit, you’ll probably be helping out Bea Lever also — as he loves every and all conspiracies.
Several others here need interventions as well. I’ll get to you in due time.
If you don’t like the idea of an “intervention”, then think of it as a Question Of The Day —- “Did we land on the fucken’ moon, or not?”
I began my career as a field engineer for GE, working on the P3 Orion Sub hunter out of Warminster PA. This was around 1985. The main computer for this plane was a 64KB computer, that used banks of magnetic memory for storage (not silicon, not hard drives) each memory module was about 8K, and weighed in at about 5 pounds, inside each module were thousands of tiny round magnets, wrapped with wire, to program the 1 or 0. And they were not very reliable.
My point is, this was state of the art military grade equipment in 1985, and the computer weighed in at about 800 pounds for the same processing as the Commodore 64 (which came out in 1981)
So did they did have any computers on board, when they went to the moon?
The official story is that they did not have a computer, and achieve all this with radio signals from earth. every time they needed a calculation, they just radioed home, no problems with reception, no delay, no miscommunication between operators, etc. all in real time. to figure out when to turn on the landing thrusters, or achieve lunar orbit, or land, or take off, using a radio signal?
and, what, then they listened to ground control, and used a joy stick, and a some switches to fire rockets at exactly the right time, to land, take off, dock, orbit, etc.
They never landed on the moon,
as for keeping secrets, if you ever worked for a military h/w contractor, you know how compartmentalized the whole system is. We build circuit boards, but did not even know what chassis they were installed in or what program they were for. all classified.
Indeed, and intervention is required, but, for who?
[img?w=500[/img]
What is driving the moon doubters is not so much the particulars of the explanations as the larger view of how the power elite has operated over the past century or more.
“Being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talk show, or a reality show.”
– Barack Obama
I/S-
If you iz so smart at working the internet, how abouts you post all them links on how to survive a round trip through 6 radiation belts for them astronauts. I’ll be waiting fer them.
I think your common core has melted down. 🙂
Stucky-
So far you have offered up nothing but lip service. Where is your proof that will put HSF in his place?
HSF is still “WINNING”.
Bea
No! You will not suck me into a whirlpool of silliness, such as your Bldg-7 foolishness where you just throw endless shit against the wall for the sole purpose of throwing shit against the wall.
Just look at your response to I_S !! He told you where to find info on the radiation belts. Yet, you want HIM to do the work? Do your own fuckin’ homework.
The burden of proving bullshit must fall on the bullshitter, not the sane person.
Besides all that, I am just the Facilitator. Interventions are supposed to be a Community Affair. Let the community save HF …. not my job.
I don’t need any saving Stucky.
I asked earlier, but you demurred, why exactly is it so important for me to believe in something that I have found to be a falsehood? And why should my opinion be of any concern to anyone other than myself?
I look forward to your reply.
OK fine, we are at the point we always reach where you start name calling and never present any counter evidence. Thank God you did not go into law or you would lose every case……just sayin.
And I/S is talking big but also offers no links or evidence so we will discount him also.
Nice arguments…but the “trusting” responses need some work.
We did not go to the moon.
The $$$$ for the projects was spent to explore and test…and we
likely orbited around. The last, the Challenger, blew up, but the people
weren’t in there. They went into a witness protection system and resumed
their lives elsewhere.
Most everything is “faked” to serve an agenda. As Stucky would say, “so solly.”
WTC7 is not foolishness Stucky, it is a crime against this country and you are letting the criminals get away with it. That fight will never go away.
The blindness it burns !!
Not going to weigh in on the moon, but this thread has been eye-opening for me.
Regarding Stanley Kubrick though, it is possible he was in deep with the power elite. If you ever want to read a fascinating review on Kubrick’s last film, “Eyes Wide Shut”, check out the link below (parts one, two and three). As you may or may not know, Kubrick died just prior to the film’s release.
For those who choose not to read it, I will quote the last line from part three (final) of the series.
Here it is:
“Our civilization as a whole still has its eyes wide shut … and those were Kubrick’s last cinematographic words.”
Here is the link:
In a nutshell, this was the process that led to my position regarding the Moon landing.
1) The claim comes from a disreputable source. When I was in the Army we had a guy in our platoon that would lie as a matter of course, about any topic, for no observable reason, without shame and even when it could be readily shown to be a falsehood. This does not mean that he didn’t have other attributes that made him valuable, only that he could not be trusted to tell the truth. It has been my experience in life to distrust a proven liar. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t come to his aid, engage him socially or in other ways have an interaction with him that didn’t rely on my having to accept something he said as a true statement. I assumed he was lying because he demonstrated that he was an inveterate and shameless liar. I believe that the Government of the United States and the people who staff it at high levels are of the same stock as that man in my platoon. Too many lies, never an apology when caught in them and a certain shamelessness and boldness with every new instance of deception.
2) It was the only scientific advance in the history of mankind to be predicated upon a political pronouncement.
Read that again, because it is central to the logic I have used to get to this point.
In a political speech given by the President of the United States of America in the midst of a Cold War with the USSR at the height of a propaganda campaign based on Space rival programs, we were told that scientific advance would occur by a specific date.
If you can provide one other example of such a pronouncement coming to fruition in recorded history, now would be a good time to present that evidence. Science proceeds at the pace of discovery, not at the whims of elected officials.
3) Evidence of pre-planned fabrication and after action destruction of evidence. The Kubrick involvement, the faked sets, the lost videos and negatives, the bogus moon rocks, the undeveloped technology, the anomalous lighting issues, the altered films, etc.
4) The Van Allen Belts
5) The reaction of the political establishment and its agencies in dealing with legitimate inquiry.
6) Verifiable falsehoods created and maintained by the Government during the Cold War in order to maintain an economic stranglehold on the US taxpayer to wage war against an enemy they knew was not capable of matching it’s efforts. They knew it, we paid for it and all we got was this lousy T-shirt.
I have no doubt that I have invested perhaps a hundred hours or more into this topic and I wouldn’t advise anyone else to try it unless they were extremely curious because, like 9/11, it is a rabbit hole that does not come out into a sunny field filled with clover. I wish I had those hours back. I wish I still believed the story as much as I did that Summer day in 1969 when I sat with my parents watching that finely scripted little turn of phrase by Neil Armstrong, but I am not in fourth grade. I no longer write letters to Santa, believe that my vote counts or accept any assurance from any government agency other than a demand from the IRS that I will be prosecuted if I don’t pay the vig.
I didn’t create this belief because it is “comforting” or it “explains” a disordered world to me in a simple way. I had my nose shoved in the reality of how Governments, especially oligarchic fiefdoms in an age of decline and corruption, operate. I may have to contribute to their treasuries against my will, but they cannot as yet force me to believe their lies by decree or by having willing apparatchiks shame me into conformity. I have been down that road and discovered that the most important person I have to prove anything to is myself.
I hope this helps to clarify my cretin-like intellectual rationale for disbelieving The Narrative.
We never went to the Moon.
Critical thinking at it’s finest……..thanks HSF.
Stucky says: “The burden of proving bullshit must fall on the bullshitter, not the sane person.”
Stucky also says: “It’s been almost 5 hours since I asked HOW does one keep SO MANY (whatever the number) people silent for SO LONG”
Stucky, by your own logic it is up to you to prove that “they” COULDN’T keep (a number of people that you don’t even know) silent.
Have at it.
HSF… Re your “The [Moon landing] claim comes from a disreputable source.”
Who’s more disreputable than Bill Clinton, an inveterate liar, who has been accused of lying even when he didn’t need to.
Re the Moon landings, in his autobiography, “My Life,” Clinton wrote,
“Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon…The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn’t believe it for a minute, that ‘them television fellers’ could make things look real that weren’t. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn’t ahead of his time.”
The inference is that Bill Clinton, who was in a position to know, believes that the Moon landings were a series of hoaxes. Surely you don’t believe Bill Clinton, a most disreputable source?
Hardly a convincing argument, especially considering this line-
“…Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon”
Spaceship Columbia?
Was it a time travel adventure too?
You can’t make this stuff up, really. That guy was President? Wow. Just wow.
The command module of Apollo 11 was named columbia. What am I missing?
“2 …. In a political speech given by the President of the United States of America in the midst of a Cold War with the USSR at the height of a propaganda campaign based on Space rival programs, we were told that scientific advance would occur by a specific date.” ————– HF
Horse-pucky !!
What “specific date” did he set? Answer; none.
He set a GOAL. Governments, business, and science set goals ALL THE TIME. What he said was —–> “I therefore ask the Congress …. to provide the funds to meet the national goals. First, I believe that 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 the earth…..”
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
Thank God for Youtube.
.
“”People love conspiracy theories… they are very attractive. But it was never a concern to me because I know one day somebody is going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left.” ——Neil Armstrong, 2012
I’ll believe Mr. Armstrong over you.
starffcker, noted, I thought he was mistakenly referencing the Shuttle. I’ve not heard many people refer to the Apollo command module as a “spaceship”.
Gotcha
“What “specific date” did he set? Answer; none.”
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html
No need to equivocate.
HF
Your items #1, #5, and #6 have nothing to do with science. Rather, it’s Political Philosophy. Your comments are at the root source of every conspiracy theory out there …….. THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL AND THEY LIE TO US, therefore, you can’t believe a word they say!!!!!
Yes, the government is evil. Yes, they lie to us. But, what follows the “therefore” abover is completely illogical. For the statement to be true, the government would have to lie 100% of the time. And the fact is, no government ever lies 100% of the time.
The Art of the Lie is that one must mix in doses of truth. Lies AND TRUTH is what keeps the people guessing 100% of the time. And that’s the position you’re in …. trying to GUESS whether or not the government is lying about the moon landings. Clearly, your distaste for this government leads you to conclude the answer is “Yes”. But, at the end of the day, all you have is a “feeling”.
Again, I’m talking only about your items #1, #5, and #6.
You do mention some science stuff in #3, and #4, which I will get to promptly.
At the very least there are clearly fake pictures in the mix. Why fake it if you have real?
Also, there is no rational explanation for loosing the original Apollo data. Hence, it becomes a measurable probability that the data never existed.
Don’t look now Stucky, upon review of this thread your position is like the stock market. The Dow is down 27.08 and so is your support level. You and the Dow getting the downers today.
“4) The Van Allen Belts” ———— HF
I don’t know jack shit about Van Allen belts. Neither do you. Sure, maybe you spent gobs and gobs of time READING ABOUT THEM. Yeah, well I’ve spent gobs and gobs of time reading about the human brain …… that doesn’t make me a brain surgeon.
You’re an amateur. So am I. What I suspect is that you’re only reading stuff about the Van Allen Belts that support your preordained conclusions.
Maybe you should read the opposing view.
==========================================================
“There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel.”
This general charge is usually made by people who don’t understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.
———-
“It doesn’t matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.”
This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can’t be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it’s the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must — somehow — have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.
The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.
But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.
———-
“The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.”
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth’s latitude — twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo’s translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth’s equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
———-
“NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the more intense parts of the belts.”
True, but the point was to validate the scientific models using hard data, and to ascertain that a spacecraft hull would indeed attenuate the radiation as predicted.
———-
“We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts.”
This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.
Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.
The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it’s not as if there’s a clearly demarcated boundary. It’s a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?
———-
“It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts adequate protection.”
The “six feet of lead” statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.
While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.
Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.
The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!
———-
“Official NASA documents describing the pre-Apollo studies of the Van Allen belts clearly state that shielding was recommended for the Apollo spacecraft, yet no shielding was provided.”
Commensurate with the common perception of radiation as an inescapably deadly force is the notion of radiation shielding as universally heavy and dense. Percy and others seem to rely on the notion that radiation shielding, if present, would have been very conspicuous — or prohibitively bulky.
As discussed in the previous question, shielding against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the principles of radiation shielding.
And it must be kept in mind that shielding was only one element of a multi-pronged solution for safely traversing the Van Allen belts. It was never intended that the shielding in the command module would provide the only protection for the astronauts. The shielding was adequate to protect the astronauts against the circumstances of the trajectory and exposure duration worked out by the mission planners.
———-
“NASA apologists come up with different numbers for estimates of the exposure in the Van Allen belts. This suggests they really don’t know what they’re talking about.”
All the estimates we’ve seen lie within the same order of magnitude and generally outline a plausible method of computation. This stands in contrast to the conspiracist estimates which generally have no quantitative support.
Computing the precise exposure for Apollo astronauts is very difficult. That’s why the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure the actual exposure. The factors involved in computing expected exposure analytically include:
Exact trajectory. The Van Allen belts are not uniformly shaped. They have thick and thin spots. And the level of radiation is not constant at all points. Toward the center of the belt cross sections there is more radiation than at the edges. Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don’t know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.
Exact velocity. Exposure time is very important to a correct computation of radiation dosage. Because the velocity of the spacecraft is constantly changing, the same ambiguity which governs the geometry of the trajectory also governs the rate at which it is followed. And most enthusiasts (and all conspiracists) lack the information and skill to precisely determine the velocity of the spacecraft during the Van Allen belt traversal, and therefore the exposure time.
Exact energy and flux. In any given cubic meter of the Van Allen belts there will be a soup of particles at various energy levels and fluences. Energy describes the velocity of the particle, how far it will penetrate, and how much damage it will do if it hits something. Flux is the density of particles, how many of them pass through a given area in a second. Generally, the higher the energy the lower the flux. Low-energy particles (i.e., protons 30 MeV and below) can be ignored because they do not penetrate the spacecraft outer hull. But at each point along the trajectory through the Van Allen belts there is a different continuum of flux and energy. It requires a lot of mathematics to fully solve this system. And since some of the variables are hard to determine, they’re typically approximated.
Probabilistic factors. Even should a high-energy particle penetrate the spacecraft hull to the interior, it will only cause problems in the human organism if it is absorbed in tissue. It is possible for the particles to pass through the body without colliding, in which case they are harmless. The human body varies in density. Particles are more likely to collide with dense tissue like bone. The amount of absorbed radiation is a statistical probability based on how much radiation is detected by dosimeters.
To summarize then, a fully accurate analytical solution must first determine the exact trajectory of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This will give a continuous function describing particle flux and energy at each point along the trajectory.
At each point in the trajectory we will have a function giving flux per given energy level. So a 100 MeV proton will have, say, a flux of 20,000 particles per square centimeter per second at that point in space. But for other energy levels the flux will be different at the same point. The total irradiation inside a spacecraft will be the sum of all the fluences at energies capable of penetrating the hull and shielding.
And at each point along the trajectory the velocity of the spacecraft must be determined so it can be known how much time the spacecraft spends at that point. This is multiplied by the conglomeration of fluences to arrive at a dose.
This dose is simply the amount of radiation present. It must be converted to a meaningful value that describes its likely effect on human tissue. Again, energy and fluence come into play, because low-energy particles (but still high enough to penetrate the shield) are likely to accumulated in the outer layers of the skin and cause damage which is sloughed off harmlessly. High-energy particles are absorbed in the bones and internal organs, causing much greater injury.
The procedure for analytically computing a radiation dose is simple enough in principle as outlined above, but of course is very difficult to actually carry out. This is why engineers generally don’t try to compute the dosage to any great degree of accuracy ahead of time. They are happy simply to arrive at an order of magnitude which provides adequate design criteria. The actual radiation exposure is always measured, not computed.
———-
“So then was it measured on Apollo?”
Yes. Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.
———-
“New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed stronger and more dangerous than NASA says.”
Sibrel misinterprets the source article published by CNN. It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.
Sibrel and others argue that NASA has under-reported the intensity of the Van Allen belts for many years as part of a cover-up. They argue that the real magnitude of the radiation is now being made known, and that it’s strong enough to have precluded a successful Apollo mission.
Unfortunately that’s a very naive argument. The United States has never been the only spacefaring nation, nor the only nation ever to study the Van Allen belts. Canada provide valuable data to the Apollo project, and the USSR duplicated all the U.S. research, and may even have conducted more. For thirty years the same body of engineering data used to produce the Apollo spacecraft has been used by all nations in designing communication satellites, probes, and other devices intended to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts. If this data had seriously under-reported the actual radiation present, the spacecraft engineered to those standards would all have failed prematurely due to radiation damage.
This is a very important point since it involves the financial interests (to the tune of billions of dollars!) of countries with no special desire to protect the reputation of the United States. Had this data been seriously wrong, someone surely would have complained by now. Satellites are insured against premature loss, and the insurers want to make sure the spacecraft are engineered to the best possible standards. There is immense worldwide economic incentive to having the best available data on the Van Allen belts, so it’s highly improbable the the U.S. has been intentionally providing erroneous data to the entire world for thirty years.
———-
“An orbital nuclear detonation in 1962 code-named Starfish Prime created a third Van Allen belt composed of high-energy electrons. This belt was a hundred times more intense than the existing Van Allen belts and was computed to have a half-life of 20 years.”
The authors give no reference for the claim that this artificial radiation belt was “a hundred times” more “intense” than the naturally-occurring belts. Nor do they define what is meant by “intense”. The Starfish Prime test did in fact produce a temporary artificial radiation belt, and it’s true that this belt persisted longer than anticipated. But it was not an impediment to the Apollo missions because it had dissipated to a safe level by then, and was very small (and easily avoided) to start with.
Radioactive half-life applies to radioisotopes only. It does not apply to clouds of magnetically-retained charged particles. The authors imply that their theory is confirmed by expert authors, but in fact the author they cite discusses only the general concept of radioactive half-life. Bennett and Percy are responsible for having misapplied it to this problem. Radioactive half-life and particle belts have nothing at all to do with each other. The dispersal of this belt doesn’t have anything to do with radioactive decay, and a great deal to do with solar weather and shifting magnetic fields.
The authors argue that such a radiation belt would still be highly intense to this day. However they have shown no evidence that any of the radiation from Starfish Prime is still there. Instead they refer to irrelevant scientific principles and claim it “must” still be there.
———-
“A secret study done by the Soviet Union and obtained by the CIA determined that a meter of lead would be required to shield against deep space radiation.”
Many conspiracists allude to this alleged report, but none of them can attest to actually having seen it. Since they can argue the alleged report is closely held by the CIA and therefore still top secret, the conspiracists are protected from refutation. No one can prove the non-existence of any document, much less one that is allegedly classified by an intelligence agency. Unfortunately it’s more straightforward to note that the conspiracists cannot expect the world to accept an argument based on evidence which they cannot produce. If it’s so top secret, how do they know about it?
It’s fairly easy to show that such a document likely does not exist. We know that great thicknesses of lead are not required to shield against particle radiation. We know that Soviet science and engineering were excellent. We note with no small amusement and no small suspicion that the conclusion of the alleged report contradicts the commonly accepted principles of physics, and that it instead bears a striking resemblance to the naive assertions of inexpert conspiracy theorists who claim that only thick sheets of lead are suitable for radiation shielding. The alleged report is plausible to the lay reader but utterly unconvincing to the scientist.
History provides the final proof. Had the Soviets actually believed that great thicknesses of material were required to shield against radiation, they would have questioned the design of the Apollo spacecraft. The spacecraft clearly did not provide a meter of lead shielding, yet NASA claims it successfully traversed the Van Allen belts. Yet the Soviets acknowledged then and continue to acknowledge today that the Apollo program was a clear success.
In recent years the Western world has been able to examine the Soviet spacecraft design which was to have carried cosmonauts to the moon. They did not provide a meter of lead for their spacecraft either.
———-
“Soviet cosmonauts have been quoted as saying radiation was a very grave concern.”
And NASA officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing. Radiation is a very great concern, but there’s a vast difference between a “concern” and an insurmountable obstacle. The conspiracist argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that these problems couldn’t have been solved.
Bea
Here’s a challenge for you ———> say something actually interesting or informative.
Otherwise, fuck off and leave the heavy lifting to the real thinkers here.
“3) Evidence of pre-planned fabrication and after action destruction of evidence. The Kubrick involvement, the faked sets, the lost videos and negatives, the bogus moon rocks, the undeveloped technology, the anomalous lighting issues, the altered films, etc.” ———– HF
Well, dahum! You’re just throwing shit against the wall.
Nevertheless, each and every item you list is discussed in the same general detail (references included) at the same web page as I copied above regarding the Van Allen Belts.
That web site is here —> http://www.clavius.org/
Science regularly make even greater fools of stupid people. Stupid people refuse to acknowledge that which they don’t understand when it contradicts their established world-view – rationalized ignorance: life is easier when you do not have to accept that the preconceptions you held as the basis for prior decisions were flawed, based on a better understanding of the information you had available to you AT THE TIME – related to the Dunning Effect (Low IQ people overestimate their IQ, high IQ people underestimate their IQ)
Points on the moon landing:
1.) Production crews involved: NO SHIT this is not even remotely circumstantial evidence – you have a bunch of scientists and engineers who were more interested in taking the AV club cameras apart than shooting something worth watching. A highly politicized event that is to be captured for historical and/or PR reasons – you go to the professionals, who happen to work in TV/movie production. Kubrick learned his craft on a shoestring budget. Gee I wonder why they’d want to use someone who knows how to produce quality shots on the cheap?
2.) It was not a scientific advancement. PERIOD.
What hypothesis was tested?: NONE.
What were they trying to disprove?: NOTHING
It was an achievement in engineering. I’m not doing the following research for you: Has a project ever been done on time? In the history of mankind? When there is an entire national movement behind it? Pretty sure the answer is a resounding: YES (Hoover dam for one – I lied)
3.) Van Allen Belts: Highly energetic particles trapped in the earth’s magnetic field, forced towards the poles. Also known as beta radiation – considering we were working on nukes for decades before hand, we had already figured out how to handle beta radiation – shielding beta radiation, not a huge obstacle to overcome, especially when you flightpath takes you through the belts as quickly as possible (and through the weakest parts).
4.) The evidence that supports the faking of the evidence is thin at best. Mostly comes from people who don’t understand what they’re talking about parroting bullshit from people who don’t understand what they’re talking about – but it sounds like it might, under a limited set of very specific and unlikely circumstances, make someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about think twice (which isn’t hard). Not going to go through and refute every stupid conjecture but as a guideline: if you’re getting your arguments from http://www.fakedmoonlandingevidence.com then you probably don’t know how to breathe from your nose.
5.) ‘The reaction of the political establishment and its agencies in dealing with legitimate inquiry’: WTF?? By what standard do you define ‘legitimate inquiry’? Can you imagine the turnover rate if someone actually had the job of replying to every crackpot with a typewriter?
How about this
“Dear Walmart, I’m a perfectly rational day-laborer, can you explain to me why you’re selling bread made of dried and ground human flesh? I have it on good authority this is true and want a full, public investigation at no cost to me. Please review the boxes of notes I have written on cocktail napkins.
Sincerely, BuddyGuy”
Form letter reply:
“Dear (Idiot name here),
Fuck-off, we’re not wasting our time to answer every idiot question we get that isn’t based in the reality the rest of us occupy.
Regards, Walmart”
BuddyGuy: “See, I knew it – Don’t buy bread from Walmart, you’re eating people! What more evidence do you need?” (Maybe some actual evidence?)
Motivation for wading into this shit storm:
Yes, there is such a thing as a conspiracy. No, just because someone somewhere has come up with an idea for a conspiracy does not mean it is true. Logically you cannot disprove a negative, it amounts to proving a statement which does not happen in science. Conspiracy theories tend to be full of logical fallacies that are carefully worded to make them difficult to find.
Ignorance is not bad – merely not knowing something is the first step in learning/self-betterment.
Willful ignorance is mildly bad – deciding to ignore the facts that don’t support your argument is the beginning of stupidity.
Rationalizing ignorance should be a crime – These are the flat-earthers, the morons who have effectively created a religion based on holding the rest of the world back (much as liberals are regarded on this site). Denouncing the religion makes you a heretic, facts are to be picked and interpreted by the cult-of-ignorance’s priests and disseminated to the masses – none may contradict the position of he-that-wears-the-most-tinfoil. These people are not scientists, not sceptics but their business card says differently, they are in the business of selling a lie – “But why?”: because they crave the attention, they’ve never been particularly smart but now they have a whole mailing list of cretins and fools (ironic since it’s amazing they’ve been able to learn human language) who are begging for more. Parasitic cancers on the earth that should be segregated in a cave to protect the rest of the world – they can live in their bubble, we’ll have the rest.
I’m out not. Ignorance on this level makes my blood boil – lost a friend to the conspiracy lot.
Stucky- This should snap HSF out of his confused state:
listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/
One more time
http://www.listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/
“I don’t need any saving Stucky.” ———– HF
Of course you don’t. Poetic license. Just having fun with ya.
.
“I asked earlier, but you demurred, why exactly is it so important for me to believe in something that I have found to be a falsehood?” ———— HF
It doesn’t. You can believe that Unicorn Farts bring prosperity, if that floats your boat.
.
“And why should my opinion be of any concern to anyone other than myself?”
If nobody cares about what anybody believes, then WTF are we all doing here? Why are we giving our opinions from ant-shit to zygotes if none of it matters? Because we enjoy our own bloviating? Or, because we want to influence people, to show them what’s coming and, if possible, to correct the error of their ways? I’m just hoping you see the error of your thinking.
Also, as I mentioned in another thread, it has to do with credibility.
Suppose you really did have a neighbor who believed bottled Unicorn Farts brought prosperity. He talks about it all the time and tries to convince you it’s true. He even invites you to attend his First Unicorn Church of Farters, and don’t forget to donate. What would you think of this person’s other prognostications? You would take them with a grain of salt, guaranteed. Likewise, next time you write about something concerning science, I will have to wonder if you know what the hell you’re talking about.
Of course, that works both ways. Just as I believe you — and your surprisingly large cohort of other Moon Landing Deniers here — are delusional, lacking in critical thinking skills, and just plain nuts … well, I’m sure you think I’m just as blind, a dumbass, and actually part of the conspiracy.
Even if the astronuts could have survived the Van Allen belts, there is no f’ing way they could have survived the Van Halen belts. Their riffs are too fast and difficult for mortal men. It’s all a lie.
Bea Lever does his “research” and regales us with some fucking bullshit from …….. listverse!!
hahahahahahahaha
The stupid burns fiercely amongst us.
FWIW, I’m personally convinced that the US did land astronauts on the moon, but I do see some odd discrepancies in the photos of the landing. I’m another one wondering if the landings were real but some of the photos were faked. Why that would be, I don’t know.
Persnickety
In order to account for variations in observation, people will resort to conspiracy theory.
Anyone who studies history seriously knows that there is rarely a completely reliable, authoritative version of the facts surrounding any notable occurrence. The tidbits of inconsistency upon which most conspiracy theories rely occur constantly in connection with any activity we undertake. It’s only when important activities are closely scrutinized that these details receive close attention. In other words, it’s natural for people to believe that there should be no inconsistency in legitimate activities. So if we observe an inconsistency, we take that alone as evidence that the intuitive explanation must be flawed and we should search for a more complicated answer.
Bea Lever inserts the dagger of truth…………………… 🙂
http://www.aetherforce.com/nasa-admits-they-cannot-get-past-the-van-allen-radiation-belt
Yes, it is like 9/11…we are left with 3 basic questions:
1) Would the government fake the Moon Landing to advance it’s interests?
Of course. This is a no-brainer. There is no limit to the amount of evil any government, and particularly the US government, will undertake to advance even it’s most minor interest.
This, however, is logically, legally and in no other way proof of any action. Period.
2) Is it possible that the Moon Landing was faked?
Yes, barely. A thousand things would have to go right and a whole bunch of very intelligent people would have to have remained silent for nearly five decades.
3) Is it likely the moon landing was faked?
Quite simply, no. Granted, it was a politically driven mission to get to the moon before 1970, and yes, NASA barely got it in under the wire. But why not stop there? If you fake the Moon Landing, get away with it, get a big geopolitical win, why go back 5 more times, faking each with more and more eyes on you all the time. All risk for no gain.
Also, yes, space radiation is dangerous and the Van Allen belt protects us here on Earth from a good deal of it…but that doesn’t mean it is fatal to go beyond the Van Allen Belt. In those days NASA was full of big-time risk takers with a whole lot of guts…we are basing the radiation element through our current pussified society lens.
On one other note, My uncle was life-long friends with Neil Armstrong. They flew the X-15 together. They were on the cover of the Science section of the Bakersfield Californian one day in January, 1970…only a couple of months after Armstrong would have gotten out of quarantine. Neil Armstrong was present when my Uncle received his Astronaut Wings in 2005.
In all that time, either Neil Armstrong kept the secret from my Uncle or my Uncle kept it from his entire family for almost 5 decades.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/improvingflight/rocket_pilot.html
Yes Stuck……….NASA admits they cannot get past the radiation belts. Match…point….we WIN !!
Stuck , what didn’t you just copy and past the entire fucking Encyclopedia Britannia?
flash
Because you already have.
DRUD
You are TRULY a Light that shines in a Sea Of Dark Insanity.
If you were to ever turn towards The Dark Side Of Dumb-ass-ishness — as many here have — it would be the end of me. I would no longer be able to continue posting here.
I am buffeted left and right by the maroons of TBP. Where are my so-called friends? Playing with their ding-a-lings and mooning their mamas, that’s where. But you …. you are the Rock where I can rest my weary head.
Thank you.
Stuck, I don’t really mind, I have scroll button…just pointing out what a hypocrite you’re are. How many thumbs down would you like with that C&P eh Herr Doppleganger?
DUD the shinning light……….BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
His brother’s girlfriend’s cousin’s sister saw Neil Armstrong at 31 FLAVORS and asked him if he really went to the moon………………….BLAH BLAH BLAH
DUD is Stucky’s lap dog, need we say more?
Farris Bueller confirmed to DUD that Stucky is always right. Thanks DUD.
Thanks, Stuck…but you may be laying on the man love a little heavy.
Bea…I might be offended if your opinion carried any weight whatsoever…you know, at calling my mom’s brother an obscure acquaintance and by belittling a great man not too long in his grave.
Like I said, if your opinion carried any weight whatsoever.
After all the lies and deception we have endured as a people – with a government that refuses us peace and prosperity – with a MIC / Banking cabal that foments war and conflict for profit all the while harvesting the rest of “our” time and labor – it’s a wonder anyone believes anything the media spews.
But I do have a question.
I’ve never been a SCUBA diver so I’m asking how much oxygen was required to bring along for what – three days – for exploring the surface?
Was there sufficient room on the lunar module for three days’ worth of oxygen for three grown men or was there some sort of oxygen making technology I am unfamiliar with?
Olga – FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
Olga, the air we breathe is 78% nitrogen and only about 21% oxygen. We use only a little bit of oxygen from the air in our lungs with each breath. Our need to exhale is not triggered by lack of oxygen but by buildup of CO2.
Spacecraft, submarines, and certain types of diving gear (not SCUBA but rebreathers) work by removing the CO2 and adding just enough oxygen to replace what you used. This amount isn’t that much for one person. I haven’t run the numbers but I don’t find it at all hard to think that the Apollo craft could carry enough oxygen for three men for the duration of the flight.
Stucky said: “Anyone who studies history seriously knows that there is rarely a completely reliable, authoritative version of the facts surrounding any notable occurrence. The tidbits of inconsistency upon which most conspiracy theories rely occur constantly in connection with any activity we undertake. It’s only when important activities are closely scrutinized that these details receive close attention. In other words, it’s natural for people to believe that there should be no inconsistency in legitimate activities. So if we observe an inconsistency, we take that alone as evidence that the intuitive explanation must be flawed and we should search for a more complicated answer.”
This is true, but needs to applied carefully. Any time you are looking at human accounts you have a myriad of subjectivities and should not get too focused on minor differences of memory, etc. However, for the moon landings (and 9/11 and some other things) we have extensive physical evidence, and can focus entirely on that. For Apollo, there is extensive evidence that the USA built enormous rockets that were large enough for the task and did actually work, as seen by millions at the time and available to review on film. My lingering doubts, which again are only about the reality of the photos and not about the reality of the overall mission (which I am certain of), can be analyzed looking at just the physical evidence and known principles. It seems like this would be a pretty easy issue for a smart generalist, like the XKCD guy Randall Munroe, to go through the apparent discrepancies and either disprove the problem or confirm that it doesn’t make sense.
On a more general point, there are lots and lots of conspiracy theories today, and I have to wonder if this isn’t because people are constantly being lied to, and know it, but with that general cognitive principle are in great trouble trying to figure out what claims are lies and what are fact.