NASA conspiracy theory cool Sh!T

[Sludgenutz]

OK, enough already. It's true. They were there. All of the lunar landers that got to the moon were actually fired into space and travelled thousands of miles. There's no conspiracy, no Hollywood fiction.

Unless you disbelieve this too...

Thankyou, Ginormous! The fact is, the Moon landings were successful and repeated with no loss of life. People need to get it through their thick skulls and grow up.

Maybe NASA needed to spend a billion or two extra, to prove that what they accomplished was real beyond the foolish conspiracy industry while they were going to the Moon. Perhaps they never had the foresight to conceive so many would doubt what is obvious.

Good God, even the Soviets knew the truth.

[uOpt]

I just find some things hard to believe. Like NASA hiding some stuff. I just wanted to debate it here.
I STILL dont believe that they lost/taped over the moon landing tapes. NO WAY.
sorry dudes. just cant

NASA is a large organization.

You need to start reading Dilbert.

That'll answer all your questions about this.

[tone?]

Lol

[Redmist]

Lets just say that if you live in America, then growing up with what you see as National Heritage is a given.
Only 6% of Americans believe the landings to be a hoax, so any questioning of the 94% belief system is going to be met with hostility.
Try growing up in Europe or anywhere else with differing facts/propaganda.... the % of non-believers is certainly a lot higher due to this not being our Government or tax dollars.

As Daemon states, questioning scientific basics is not automatically conspiracy theory, just simply not swallowing what doesn't click with scientific logic.

In the case of conspiracy theorists, they typically argue indirectly. They don't pit the merits of their theory against the merits of competing theories. Instead they try to erode confidence in some "official story" to the point where it seems arbitrarily incredible, whereupon their conspiracy theory is supposed to stand as the "default" conclusion when the official story fails. The conspiracists never put the conspiracy theory "default" to the test to see whether it too make sense.



I am not a conspiracy theorist either, but I do have issues with the obvious radiation problems of which NASA were not even aware off 40 years ago, nevermind all the other scientific claims such as air conditioned suits utilising water cooled sublimation plates, relying on outside space vaccuum temperatures to freeze water in direct sunlight at over 200 deg F. Not possible.
What about the clearly unpressurised gloves worn by the astronauts in lunar footage, whereas within a pressurised suit in a vaccuum they should look like blown up rubber gloves and be unuseable.
When questions like these are put to NASA, they have no credible answers.
However, when tested by scientists, the official NASA explanation just does not stand up.

There is certainly no point in arguing about topics such as these, as people's view points will not change.

How about these two photos.......

Both belong to NASA, but only one is a fake !

Can you tell which one?Apollo_movie_before_B%26W.jpg

moonfake2.jpg

[BigJoe77]

Every time I start to think I'm underestimating humanity and I should really give people as a whole more of the benefit of the doubt, something like this pops up. Thanks, folks.

[uOpt]

As Daemon states, questioning scientific basics is not automatically conspiracy theory, just simply not swallowing what doesn't click with scientific logic.

Except that those who do usually don't have a clue about science, neither as in the subject itself, nor in how scientific work flows.

That incoherent radiation garbage is the best example: do you know how sensitive computers are to many forms of radiation? Still, our satellites work just fine. Why? Because they are shielded and because there are levels of radiation that are acceptable.

This stuff usually comes from people who don't understand how a humbucker or the shielding in a guitar works either.

[PVFan]

Every time I start to think I'm underestimating humanity and I should really give people as a whole more of the benefit of the doubt, something like this pops up. Thanks, folks.

set everyone straight then. also, could you say your point a bit differently? cuz I haven't the foggiest notion what it is.

is it a suggestion to question nothing? to accept the media nipple and slurp greedily of the syrup? to stray not from consensus and conform to the beliefs of neck-bearded mouth-breathers? to avoid rationality at all costs, no matter how much you want to believe in the unexplored givens of forced fact?

or, are you saying the opposite with your Harmony-Central-styled and insubstantial comment? To learn as much as one can about something as fascinating and important and controversial as this?

about the issue of radiation and the Apollo missions (mostly the Van Allen belts, which has always bugged me despite believing in the moon landings all my life) here is an article on the radiation problem regarding the Apollo missions. It's a long and thorough article with which I am not finished yet:

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

...which contains this quote:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

and this one, supplied here for context and to get people to click the link:

"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."


(and, I know this isn't the original thread topic, but it is what the thread became. Okay tone? Can we still talk about it?)

[sosomething]

long overdue

[PVFan]

now that I'm over my skootch-induced seizure



it's a good thread, as far the actual discussion goes

[tone?]

(and, I know this isn't the original thread topic, but it is what the thread became. Okay tone? Can we still talk about it?)

Sh!T yeah........no worries dude.

Its interesting.

[exnihilo]

Happy 40th anniversary Moon landing!

cg

[daemon barbeque]

Except that those who do usually don't have a clue about science, neither as in the subject itself, nor in how scientific work flows.

That incoherent radiation garbage is the best example: do you know how sensitive computers are to many forms of radiation? Still, our satellites work just fine. Why? Because they are shielded and because there are levels of radiation that are acceptable.

This stuff usually comes from people who don't understand how a humbucker or the shielding in a guitar works either.

Well, Shielding metal or plastic ,unmoving parts is not a big problem. But again, use a suit to stop any kind of radiation and talk to me later! It would be cheaper to give "important" people and soldiers an anti-radiaton clothe in cold war era ,than building special bunker, put enough food and water for 2 years etc.

I do my PhD with some "not so basic" material, equipment and had a pretty intense scientific education.

shows clearly that NASA didn't have any clue about that 40 years ago and still try to figure it out.

I am ;and as I can see Redmist too; far away from being blind or uneducated or plain stupid or ignorant. I do my best to stay competent. I Doubt!

[daemon barbeque]

Lets just say that if you live in America, then growing up with what you see as National Heritage is a given.
Only 6% of Americans believe the landings to be a hoax, so any questioning of the 94% belief system is going to be met with hostility.
Try growing up in Europe or anywhere else with differing facts/propaganda.... the % of non-believers is certainly a lot higher due to this not being our Government or tax dollars.

As Daemon states, questioning scientific basics is not automatically conspiracy theory, just simply not swallowing what doesn't click with scientific logic.

In the case of conspiracy theorists, they typically argue indirectly. They don't pit the merits of their theory against the merits of competing theories. Instead they try to erode confidence in some "official story" to the point where it seems arbitrarily incredible, whereupon their conspiracy theory is supposed to stand as the "default" conclusion when the official story fails. The conspiracists never put the conspiracy theory "default" to the test to see whether it too make sense.



I am not a conspiracy theorist either, but I do have issues with the obvious radiation problems of which NASA were not even aware off 40 years ago, nevermind all the other scientific claims such as air conditioned suits utilising water cooled sublimation plates, relying on outside space vaccuum temperatures to freeze water in direct sunlight at over 200 deg F. Not possible.
What about the clearly unpressurised gloves worn by the astronauts in lunar footage, whereas within a pressurised suit in a vaccuum they should look like blown up rubber gloves and be unuseable.
When questions like these are put to NASA, they have no credible answers.
However, when tested by scientists, the official NASA explanation just does not stand up.

There is certainly no point in arguing about topics such as these, as people's view points will not change.

How about these two photos.......

Both belong to NASA, but only one is a fake !

Can you tell which one?Apollo_movie_before_B%26W.jpg

moonfake2.jpg

[Sludgenutz]

Happy 40th anniversary Moon landing!

cg

Indeed. A great acheivement for mankind.

[PVFan]

Well, Shielding metal or plastic ,unmoving parts is not a big problem. But again, use a suit to stop any kind of radiation and talk to me later! It would be cheaper to give "important" people and soldiers an anti-radiaton clothe in cold war era ,than building special bunker, put enough food and water for 2 years etc.

I do my PhD with some "not so basic" material, equipment and had a pretty intense scientific education.

shows clearly that NASA didn't have any clue about that 40 years ago and still try to figure it out.

I am ;and as I can see Redmist too; far away from being blind or uneducated or plain stupid or ignorant. I do my best to stay competent. I Doubt!

dude I read the page you included at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...activemoon.htm but it seems to say that there is only a problem "if people will be staying there for more than just a few days." The folks who have been there didn't hang around too long. Is it possible the old suits were adequate for a few hours outside the lander?

[daemon barbeque]

dude I read the page you included at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...activemoon.htm but it seems to say that there is only a problem "if people will be staying there for more than just a few days." The folks who have been there didn't hang around too long. Is it possible the old suits were adequate for a few hours outside the lander?

Well, that's the way to keep things "possible"
You can't easily shiled the cosmic ray, and with those giant Bouble on thir heads, their eyes, brain and anything else couldn't handle it. Even if they could handle it, they wouldn't live long!

I'm done with argumenting, I am shure nobody gives a crap and believe in what they want to /told to. Cheers!

[uOpt]

Well, Shielding metal or plastic ,unmoving parts is not a big problem. But again, use a suit to stop any kind of radiation and talk to me later! It would be cheaper to give "important" people and soldiers an anti-radiaton clothe in cold war era ,than building special bunker, put enough food and water for 2 years etc.

I do my PhD with some "not so basic" material, equipment and had a pretty intense scientific education.

shows clearly that NASA didn't have any clue about that 40 years ago and still try to figure it out.

I am ;and as I can see Redmist too; far away from being blind or uneducated or plain stupid or ignorant. I do my best to stay competent. I Doubt!

But you realize that in the 1960ties they just didn't care as much about radiation exposure as they do today, right?

I am not sure whether all this is worth my time and attention, but a quick google shows that there are no, as in none, documents put up by the moon landing skeptics that state specific radiation levels that they think must apply on the moon and how harmful they would be to humans.

The only specific report I find is NASA's own "the radiation challenge":
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/284273main_R...on_HS_Mod1.pdf

They also have basic guidelines about what we think today is safe levels of radiation:
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/RB_Module3_10.pdf

Keep in mind in 1970 those considered safe levels were "quite a bit" different to put in mildly.

So where are the calculations made by the opposite side? All I see is ramblings without any numbers stated.

Since you have a scientific background you also know about alpha, beta, gamma, radio (incl. microwave) and x-ray radiation, right? And that some of these are very easy to deal with and other can be dealt with by just limiting exposure. It's not that the astronauts walked around for a week in spacesuits, we talk what, about 8 hours total time outside the LEM for each mission? If you compare that to levels that you are exposed to in other environments for much longer time.

%%

Overall it is clear that the skeptics just exploit the fact that the health effects of the various kinds of radiation are complicated and very few people can make calculations going from radiation levels to absorption. Aks people are having too much difficulty dealing with something invisible like radiation and that makes them scared.

Furthermore, the radiation problem is much more statics-driven that let's say the trajectory problem or the re-entry problem, and the latter two also have physical objects to grasp and nice shiny fiery effects on TV. Common people on the street are notoriously bad at statics and probabilities, with a heavy bias to only express the world in absolutes, as in 100% yes, 0% no or vice versa. That doesn't exactly prepare them to deal with radiation.

So going for radiation is just the last straw that skeptics cling to because it is hardest to beat some sense into people on the street about it.

[daemon barbeque]

Even NASA have no clear calculations about moon's surface radiation, how should the "disbelievers" count it?
You can't count the typical Solar Wind and Cosmic ray dariation since it's reflective, unstable, and has changing sources.
The truth is, the Radiation type that we get on Daily basis is non Ionising, and bigger kind of wavelenghts.

Now, the Cosmic radiation OTOH is Ionizing and alpha,Gamma ray based. Many different kind of particles are just jumping, bumpin around on moons surface, and anythiny flying outer World's Magnetic Field get's the Bombardemend. 8 hours of constant X-ray exposure (On High Level) would kill anyone. it would burn tissues, change DNA source, cause mutations and whatnot. Cosmic ray is a much more dangerous/powerfull source of radiation! And with a Visible Bubble head protection, you won't have any way to get isolated from it!

If you read those articles clearly, you will see that even NASA doen't have that under controle. And they never had it 40 years ago!

[Redmist]

I appreciate what you are saying here, but there are detailed rad readings about subsequent Appollo missions where solar flares occurred when nauts were meant to have been on the moon. They should have been killed. Do a search for moon + radiation.

I really want to believe that we put man on the moon 40 years ago, it certainly seemed to consolidate the whole human race at a time when we nearly blew it apart, but unfortunately, some things just don't add up.

Put it this way, NASA were able to put men on the moon within 7 years of Kennedy promising that they would do so, with only 32k of computing power for telemetry on board at the time and a very rudimentary understanding of high energy proton and electron radiation in outer space.
Current shuttle missions, which get no higher than 400 miles, (lower than the belts), have reported the particles passing through modern shielding into the retinas of the nauts, percieved as shooting stars to the freaked nauts.
NASA themselves stated in 2005 that it would be decades before they would have the technology to send man to the moon again because of shielding problems. Satellites can have plenty of shielding as they only need to travel a short distance into orbit, and do not need weight to be at an absolute minimum, also having rad protection from the belts themselves.
There are MANY unanswered questions which have been put to NASA apart from the obvious ones which were answered to divert attention from the real scientific paradoxes, for which they have no answers at all.
There is real evidence of doctored photos, footage, and unrealistic scientific reasoning.
Now the original tapes have been wiped!

Just like other controversial topics, I don't think anyones' opinion will be changed with this thread, but it is interesting to read about just how much people believe what they read or hear.


Do the math, or at least keep an open mind.

[3'scompany]

I'll admit that I am not well researched on this subject, but one question keeps coming to mind vis-a-vis radiation. The argument I'm hearing here, if I'm not mistaken, is that the radiation on a largely-not-understood body would be too much for people to handle, correct? I'm also hearing that we just don't know what the radiation levels are like and we need to understand them more.

Isn't it entirely possible that we don't really know how much radiation there is, and as a result, the shielding available for those conditions at that time was sufficient? If we don't know enough about radiation levels, why is it automatically assumed they are too high? How can you even take a definite stance on the issue? What am I missing here?