# The LRO takes pictures of the Apollo landing site



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

NASA has taken pictures of the moon with LRO, and on those are the Apollo landing sites included. What I want to see now is how the conspiracy theorists are going to wriggle out of this one, there are people who has built entire careers on disputing that man's been on the moon.


My guess is however that they will claim that the photos are forged, and then continue to trick people as if nothing has happened.

There is though potential for hilarity



O yeah, link for the gents reading pleasure:
Apollo landing sites imaged by LRO


----------



## Deadnightshade (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> There is though potential for hillariousness (is that even a word?)
> [/URL]



It's actually "hilarity" 

Well i don't know,I'm not entirely convinced that the moon isn't made out of cheese


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Deadnightshade said:


> It's actually "hilarity"
> 
> Well i don't know,I'm not entirely convinced that the moon isn't made out of cheese



Cheers man, fixed


----------



## gunshow86de (Sep 8, 2011)

Excellent. Grainy, black and white pictures are sure to silence the skeptics.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> Excellent. Grainy, black and white pictures are sure to silence the skeptics.



These people aren't skeptics, just crazy conspiracy theorists. 
By all means, they should continue to ignore the evidence and claim man never landed on the moon. Seems plausible.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

I agree with guitarman, being a sceptic is a good thing, being a bull-headed moron is not as good


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 8, 2011)




----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Check out the man Ralph René and his views, he is dead so I wouldn't normally disdurb his memory. However if you are willfully misleading people, then you are a bastard, and does not deserve that consideration



This was one of the few with him that I could find, he turns up at about 4:00


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

It is typical for the blind sheep to harass those who dare to question status quo. They attacked Galileo Galilei, they attacked Charles Darwin, they attacked Alfred Wegener, and they've attacked the people who point out the problems with the US moon-landing propaganda. They'd rather believe the lies put forth by their government, but like the faithful Nazis who rejected Einsteins theories due to his ancestry, they will go down in history as the blind and pitiful fools they are!

But if they would just open their eyes for once, and listen to the skeptics, they would realize the truth! That the moon landings did not happen! That the moon landings COULD NOT have happened! Why? It is so obvious! Because the Earth does not HAVE a moon!


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> These people aren't skeptics, just crazy conspiracy theorists.
> .




Cmon dude..thats a broad sweeping statement... labelling people as crazy. Its an age old trick of the media as it stiffles discussion. It immediately associates someone with a stereotype, and creates a pre-conception as to what the person might be about...so its a no-no in my book.

Heres one for all you Kubrick fans haha
According to this DVD old Stanely faked the moon landings for NASA
Anyway Im not endorsing this idea, but if you lke Kubrick, and stuff about moon landings/faked moon landings, well then its pretty interesting.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/73665/Kubrick_s_Odyssey__Lunar_Hoax_pt__01/

The rest of the movie is at the side.

Edit: Just to clarify this documentary is about "The Shining"


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

There is overwhelming evidence we landed not he moon, and I have yet to hear a skeptical, rational argument against that.
My statement stands.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> I have yet to hear a skeptical, rational argument against that.
> My statement stands.



Of course you havent, how could you, what with your pre-concieved notions and such.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> Of course you havent, how could you, what with your pre-concieved notions and such.



Wow, how mature...my conclusions come not from preconceptions, but from the research and evidence on this topic. Honestly dude, keep it civil. Instead of offering a debate, you fall back on thinly veiled insults. Show me the EVIDENCE. Until then, I stand by my assertions.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Wow, how mature...my conclusions come not from preconceptions, but from the research and evidence on this topic. Honestly dude, keep it civil.



How mature, keep it civil?.. what are you on about man? the emoticon flipping the bird?
That was a joke and no offense intended whatsoever..you missed that huh?

I just think it s a bit much to label people who dont subscribe to what you believe as crazy. Thats all, no hard feelings.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> Cmon dude..thats a broad sweeping statement... labelling people as crazy.



Well, they are. Look at their claims and look at their rebuttals to the responses to their errors. The basic gist is:

Them: It has to be fake because the sky is green
Us: The sky isn't green
Them: Well, it's fake because the sky is green​
Rational people do not suffer from such blatantly obvious reality detachment issues. Therefore, the "Moon Landing Was Faked" people are crazy.

Ray


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

ElRay said:


> Well, they are. Look at their claims and look at their rebuttals to the responses to their errors. The basic gist is:
> 
> Them: It has to be fake because the sky is green
> Us: The sky isn't green
> ...


Exactly. If, in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, people still cling to a belief such as this, and can't even offer a rational argument in their defense, that's crazy.
No worries man, we're cool, guess I misinterpreted what you were saying.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

The definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over, while expecting a different outcome. That is exactly what these loonies do, thus, fitting even the clinical definition of crazy.


I love how Buzz Aldrin handled these people. A documentary filmer cornered him, the kid obviously thought that the man in front of him had been with faking the moonlanding, and he was going to ask patronizing questions until that crook admitted! 

Buzz took offence, and laid him out with a straight right. To his defence he told the jerk he wanted to be left alone, but the filmer persisted


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> The definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over, while expecting a different outcome. That is exactly what these loonies do, thus, fitting even the clinical definition of crazy.
> 
> 
> I love how Buzz Aldrin handled these people. A documentary filmer cornered him, the kid obviously thought that the man in front of him had been with faking the moonlanding, and he was going to ask patronizing questions until that crook admitted!
> ...





Neil Armstrong wasnt so tough...this is the same dude. They both should of just swore on the thing and shut all the hoaxers the hell up, instead they walked away.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> Neil Armstrong wasnt so tough...this is the same dude. They both should of just swore on the thing and shut all the hoaxers the hell up, instead they walked away.
> 
> 
> [ url ]http://someyoutubevideo[ /url ]




Except that would make those means legitimate. Neil Armstrong does not need that kind of crap, and if some punk with a camera thinks he's being clever, fine. I actually think it's disrepectfullness at it's worst to try and discredit two men that has done more for the advancement of mankind than the filmer ever will.

The first men to walk on the moon does not have to prove anything, instead, according to occams razor, the crazies should instead try to prove their point, which they up to date has not.

Should also be noted that that Buzz is younger than Neil, Neil might not have the physical strength anymore to punch someone where it hurts.


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 8, 2011)

This is pertinent:


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Except that would make those means legitimate. Neil Armstrong does not need that kind of crap, and if some punk with a camera thinks he's being clever, fine. I actually think it's disrepectfullness at it's worst to try and discredit two men that has done more for the advancement of mankind than the filmer ever will.
> 
> The first men to walk on the moon does not have to prove anything, instead, according to occams razor, the crazies should instead try to prove their point, which they up to date has not.
> 
> Should also be noted that that Buzz is younger than Neil, Neil might not have the physical strength anymore to punch someone where it hurts.



Well he was Im sure approaching Armstrong in what he thought to be the quest for truth, and not to disrespect the guy.

The first men to walk on the moon get a free pass, and dont have to proove anything?.. I dont agree with that at all. Simple thing to swear on the bible and shut the naysayers up for good.

We should just get men back on the moon and that would be the end of the debate...lets start a whip around!


----------



## Xaios (Sep 8, 2011)

I say we pack all the conspiracy theorists into a rocket, fire them off towards the Sea of Tranquillity, and let them see for themselves.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> We should just get men back on the moon and that would be the end of the debate...lets start a whip around!


Maybe we could do that if people were more worried about actually making advances/doing more in the hard sciences, than bitching about crap they think we haven't done yet, based on nothing but speculation and making things up. 

NASA's funding = dick right now.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Well, I am looking at it this way.
We can't send men on the moon because we can't even calculate the radiation levels. The moons oozes with neutron particles, which are not blockable with those flimsy suits. Fun enough, the moon is so bright because of reflections and radiation, Neil armstrong didn't get even eye burns, let alone a tan. Nor did cameras have problem with...

I am somehow not convinced about the answers.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> Well he was Im sure approaching Armstrong in what he thought to be the quest for truth, and not to disrespect the guy.
> 
> The first men to walk on the moon get a free pass, and dont have to proove anything?.. I dont agree with that at all. Simple thing to swear on the bible and shut the naysayers up for good.
> 
> We should just get men back on the moon and that would be the end of the debate...lets start a whip around!



Occam's razor is a principle for scientific evidence, the most common use it to multiply the number of "hitches" that would make a theory come together, the lowest sum is the most probable. In other words, the most simple theory is often the most probable.

However it also stipulates carrying of evidence, which means that the "attacking part" in an argument is the ones that have to supply the evidence. defendants really don't have to prove anything, and that isn't because they landed on the moon, it's just standard scientific procedure. These nuts have however shown in the past that they only resort to scientific argumentation when they think it helps their cause, while ignoring everything that disproves their paranoid visions.

An example, you are a well respected professor in physiology, I am grad student with hybris. As the man of medicine you are, you of course advocate the use of penicillin, however, I claim that penicillin is just a tool for the new world order to get mind control substances into the population, and confronts you. Then you really don't have to do jack shit, I have the entire burden of evidence, I am the one that is to do all the research, and failiure on my part to present such evidence is the same as that you are right.
It's the same with the moon landings, the conspiracy theorists called them out on it, and it's their job now to try and prove it never happened.

And we have been back, there's like eleven people that has been there. The last crew even left laser measuring devices on the moon, so that we can measure the distance within like micro mm.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> Maybe we could do that if people were more worried about actually making advances/doing more in the hard sciences, than bitching about crap they think we haven't done yet, based on nothing but speculation and making things up.
> 
> NASA's funding = dick right now.



Well India hope to have a man on the moon by 2020, and China with a more conservative estimate 2030, so we might not have to rely on NASA at all.

India to spend &#163;1.7bn sending man to the moon - Telegraph


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> Well he was Im sure approaching Armstrong in what he thought to be the quest for truth, and not to disrespect the guy.


Even if we assume that this person had no ill intent, why would anyone do as he asked? If a unknown person came up to you and demanded that you swore on a bible that X or Y, would you be inclined to do so? Or would you rather be inclined to think that the person was plotting some shenanigans? I would be.

And is Neil Armstrong even a Christian? And if he is a Christian, does his faith allow him to take oaths (see e.g. the Quakers)?


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> Even if we assume that this person had no ill intent, why would anyone do as he asked? If a unknown person came up to you and demanded that you swore on a bible that X or Y, would you be inclined to do so? Or would you rather be inclined to think that the person was plotting some shenanigans? I would be.
> 
> And is Neil Armstrong even a Christian? And if he is a Christian, does his faith allow him to take oaths (see e.g. the *Quackers*)?


It's 'Quakers', but man did I ever laugh when I read that.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> And is Neil Armstrong even a Christian? And if he is a Christian, does his faith allow him to take oaths (see e.g. the Quackers)?



I checked just now, he's a methodist.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> It's 'Quakers', but man did I ever laugh when I read that.



D'oh! Fixed ...


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> I checked just now, he's a methodist.



Source?


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> Source?



His biography, he states:

I am a methodist, and has always been.

This was in response to the claims from the muslim worls that he heard the muslim call to prayer _on the moon_, converted to islam, and now lives in Lebanon.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Occam's razor is a principle for scientific evidence, the most common use it to multiply the number of "hitches" that would make a theory come together, the lowest sum is the most probable. In other words, the most simple theory is often the most probable.
> 
> However it also stipulates carrying of evidence, which means that the "attacking part" in an argument is the ones that have to supply the evidence. defendants really don't have to prove anything, and that isn't because they landed on the moon, it's just standard scientific procedure. These nuts have however shown in the past that they only resort to scientific argumentation when they think it helps their cause, while ignoring everything that disproves their paranoid visions.
> 
> ...



Hey man Im well aware of what Occams razor is and how many moon missions there have been, and the laser receptor etc.

From what i understand conspiracy theorists have been attempting to proove it never happened since it happened.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> Hey man Im well aware of what Occams razor is and how many moon missions there have been, and the laser receptor etc.
> 
> From what i understand conspiracy theorists have been attempting to proove it never happened since it happened.



Sorry, I didn't think you were aware

But I don't really see what you are saying in your second paragraph, could you rephrase it?


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well, I am looking at it this way.
> We can't send men on the moon because we can't even calculate the radiation levels. The moons oozes with neutron particles, which are not blockable with those flimsy suits. Fun enough, the moon is so bright because of reflections and radiation, Neil armstrong didn't get even eye burns, let alone a tan. Nor did cameras have problem with...
> 
> I am somehow not convinced about the answers.



Alright, I'll have a little go...

You know that big gold thing over his face? That was a visor. And yes, the cameras did have problems with, when Apollo 12 astronauts accidentally pointed theirs at the sun and rendered it essentially useless. You know you can adjust your cameras exposure for extreme sunlight conditions. Even our low-tech earth cameras have this feature. The metal containers housing the film protected against any radiation, of which there is not as much as you'd think. Neutron radiation was even less than anticipated, and those suits are hardly flimsy.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> His biography, he states:
> 
> I am a methodist, and has always been.



Do you mean "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong"? If so, do you have a chapter/page-number, because I cannot find this quote when searching through the text.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Sorry, I didn't think you were aware
> 
> But I don't really see what you are saying in your second paragraph, could you rephrase it?



The CT's have brought forward evidence of what they believe to be a faked moon landing etc.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well, I am looking at it this way.
> We can't send men on the moon because we can't even calculate the radiation levels. The moons oozes with neutron particles, which are not blockable with those flimsy suits. Fun enough, the moon is so bright because of reflections and radiation, Neil armstrong didn't get even eye burns, let alone a tan. Nor did cameras have problem with...
> 
> I am somehow not convinced about the answers.



1. The cosmic radiation is negliable here, due to that the suns magnetic field, the earth's magnetic field and the interplanetary magnetic field deflects them (radiation is only charged particles after all, well, except gamma radiation of course). The ratio of the suns radiation to galactic radiation is 1:10^-9 (roughly)

2. During it's active periods, the sun sends out less radiation (due to solar winds decelerating particles). NASA then had to send up the moonlander during a period of increased solar activity.

3. As with all radiation, what really is damaging is the exposure time (Longer exposure time increases the statistical risk of radiation freeing radicals in the body, damaging DNA). The austronauts weren't really on the moon or in space long enough for the solar radiation to become a problem. It has however been shown that astronauts later have developed cancer types associated with cosmic radiation.

4. The radiation on the moon is not mainly UV particles, therefore on-one can get a tan by solar radiation, they also had polarizing visors to protect from light. 

5. The camera was set to a high light exposure, mainly because the moon is not as light as it looks like in the pictures, they needed all the light they could get, and secondly because they wanted the reflection of the moon to drown out any stars that could interfere with the picture. After all they were there to see that moon, not the stars


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

Always an interesting watch, plus mmmmmm, Kari Byron:


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> Do you mean "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong"? If so, do you have a chapter/page-number, because I cannot find this quote when searching through the text.



Sorry, I should have mentioned it's not a direct quote, but more along the lines of. I am also sorry to report I have no page reference.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

1000 Eyes said:


> The CT's have brought forward evidence of what they believe to be a faked moon landing etc.



And nothing they have brought forth has been of any scientific merit.


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Mythbusters



Why are you posting these? They're obviously in on the conspiracy!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Why are you posting these? They're obviously in on the conspiracy!


 
I figure the people who believe the landing happened can enjoy nodding along in agreement, and the conspiracy theorists can drool over Kari Byron.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well, I am looking at it this way.
> We can't send men on the moon because we can't even calculate the radiation levels. The moons oozes with neutron particles, which are not blockable with those flimsy suits. Fun enough, the moon is so bright because of reflections and radiation, Neil armstrong didn't get even eye burns, let alone a tan. Nor did cameras have problem with...
> 
> I am somehow not convinced about the answers.


 
I have a sneaking suspicion that if any country in the world other than America would have landed on the moon, you'd be just fine accepting it as true.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Sorry, I should have mentioned it's not a direct quote, but more along the lines of. I am also sorry to report I have no page reference.



So let me start by saying that I'm just skimming through the text, but the impression I'm getting is that Neil Armstrong is not very religious (possibly a deist):


> While working as a test pilot in Southern California in the late 1950s, Armstrong applied at a local Methodist church to lead a Boy Scout troop. Where the form asked for his religious affiliation, Neil wrote the word Deist.





> On CBSs Face the Nation on Sunday, August 17, 1969, three weeks after the Apollo 11 splashdown, the issue of Madalyn Murray OHair publicly declaring Neil an atheist resurfaced. Cronkite asked: I dont really know what that has to do with your ability as a test pilot and an astronaut, but since the matter is up, would you like to answer that statement? To which Neil replied, I dont know where Mrs. OHair gets her information, but she certainly didnt bother to inquire from me nor apparently the agency, but I am certainly not an atheist. Cronkite followed up: Apparently your [NASA astronaut] application just simply says no religious preference. As always, Neil registered another answer as honest as it was vague and nondescript. Thats agency nomenclature which means that you dont have an acknowledged identification or association with a particular church group at the time. I did not at that time.





> [Neil Armstrong's mother] wrote on October 27, 1969, to a Methodist minister in Iowa ... but when he was a senior in high school, and even more in college, he began wondering about the truth of Jesus Christ. I felt sure he was praying less. [Today] he is not teaching his own two fine sons about Jesus Christ. This fact causes a million swords to be pierced through my heart constantly.



That's about the extent of what I could find in the text.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> So let me start by saying that I'm just skimming through the text, but the impression I'm getting is that Neil Armstrong is not very religious (possibly a deist):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That sounds plausible, he is a man of science after all.


It's also notable that only Buzz had some sort off religious ceremony (communion) before landing. Neil did nothing of that nature


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> That sounds plausible, he is a man of science after all.
> 
> It's also notable that only Buzz had some sort off religious ceremony (communion) before landing. Neil did nothing of that nature



I think this goes a long way to explain his reluctance to swear on a bible. Not only was there the WTF-factor of having somebody walk up to you and demand that in the first place, he is not a practising Christian, and appears to have very little interest in religious matters.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> I think this goes a long way to explain his reluctance to swear on a bible. Not only was there the WTF-factor of having somebody walk up to you and demand that in the first place, he is not a practising Christian, and appears to have very little interest in religious matters.



I agree, I wouldn't swear on a bible if someone stuck it right under my nose


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that if any country in the world other than America would have landed on the moon, you'd be just fine accepting it as true.



So instead of counter argument you try to make my point invalid through "bias"? LOL
No man, my argument is pretty strong and I can tell you I won't believe anybody about that if I don't get scientific explenation, which NASA never evere delivered. Nice try tho!

BTW, I believe that the moon landing was real. Only without the personal tho.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> So instead of counter argument you try to make my point invalid through "bias"? LOL
> No man, my argument is pretty strong and I can tell you I won't believe anybody about that if I don't get scientific explenation, which NASA never evere delivered. Nice try tho!


 
I didn't need to provide a counter argument, because two other people in this thread already addressed your points.

Incidentally, it wasn't an attempt to prove your point invalid to begin with. It was my way of saying "I'm not at all surprised that you of all people don't believe it, given the other things you'e posted on these boards." No more, no less. Nice try, though!


----------



## steve1 (Sep 8, 2011)

you'd think that in this day and age they'd be able to get some decent pictures!

you know, something like this







Seriously though, i want better pictures. not for proof, just out of genuine interest


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> 1. The cosmic radiation is negliable here, due to that the suns magnetic field, the earth's magnetic field and the interplanetary magnetic field deflects them (radiation is only charged particles after all). The ratio of the suns radiation to galactic radiation is 1:10^-9 (roughly)
> 
> 2. During it's active periods, the sun sends out less radiation (due to solar winds decelerating particles). NASA then had to send up the moonlander during a period of increased solar activity.
> 
> ...



Radioactive Moon - NASA Science
Read this first!
They can't land there before 2020 because the radiation problem is not even solved!!!
Sorry but, Moon reflect sunlight, and we see it from here. So being directly on the moon must have much more solar effect. Polarizing light do not protect you that much. If it would be that easy, we wouldn't need extra sun telescopes, we only would put a normal filters on them.
None of the Astronauts from moonlanding had any kind of cancer. Buz aldrin is pretty mùch kicking well. None of them had any sickness either, and their equipment is far less protective. I had them infront of my eyes in a expo, so I know it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I didn't need to provide a counter argument, because two other people in this thread already addressed your points.
> 
> Incidentally, it wasn't an attempt to prove your point invalid to begin with. It was my way of saying "I'm not at all surprised that you of all people don't believe it, given the other things you'e posted on these boards." No more, no less. Nice try, though!



Check the above link, and see if my points where adressed or not!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Check the above link, and see if my points where adressed or not!


 
L O Fucking L. Did _you_ check the above link to see if your points were addressed or not? How about the part where it says "NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 "? See that? *Back* to the moon? 

Or what about the part that says "We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days"? 

Did you somehow manage to miss the implications there? Namely, that in order to send astronauts _back_ to the moon, they must have have already sent some there, and that if radiation is especially a problem for people staying for more than a few days, then it's less a problem for those that are only there briefly, which is the case with every astronaut who's been there.

Seriously dude, if you're going to use a website as a reliable source to shore up your points, you should at least make sure it doesn't also say aything that destroys your argument as a whole.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Radioactive Moon - NASA Science
> Read this first!
> They can't land there before 2020 because the radiation problem is not even solved!!!
> Sorry but, Moon reflect sunlight, and we see it from here. So being directly on the moon must have much more solar effect. Polarizing light do not protect you that much. If it would be that easy, we wouldn't need extra sun telescopes, we only would put a normal filters on them.
> None of the Astronauts from moonlanding had any kind of cancer. Buz aldrin is pretty mùch kicking well. None of them had any sickness either, and their equipment is far less protective. I had them infront of my eyes in a expo, so I know it.



A key sentence is the NASA-guy saying "We haven't solved the radiation problems for staying more than a few days". Truth to be told, NASA did a risk analysis before sending manned crafts to the moon, and they concluded that the risks of radiation were low enough so that the scientific merits of the endeavour weighed more heavily. The austronauts were also well aware of the dangers.

To the solar effect argument I think you are neglecting the fact that the moon is not a perfect reflector, the moon reflects about 8-12% sunlight, while our atmosphere lets through about 45%. That would looking at the moons surface while standing on it much less brighter than looking at the sun directly here from earth. That also would suggest that if polarizing sunglasses is good enough to dim sunlight here, it would also be good enough to dampen the reflection of the moon.

It is also correct that the two first is still kickin', however, astronauts are just not those that has landed on the moon, those that have been in space are over-represented among certain cancers (connected to cosmic radiation), also I believe, some others that has been to the moon exibits those kinds of cancer-forms.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> L O Fucking L. Did _you_ check the above link to see if your points were addressed or not? How about the part where it says "NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 "? See that? *Back* to the moon?
> 
> Or what about the part that says "We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days"?
> 
> ...



Man, you really should do it better. Ofcourse I wouldn't expect NASA to say "we didn't actually". The link is there to show
1) NASA didn't know back then, and still doesn't know the radiactive envoirenment. This shows they where even unaware of the surface and it's effects in 1969
2) NASA will not send anyone till 2020 since they can't risk people on that radioactive surface. Pretty clear isn't it. 
3) NASA will send a probe or a machine to calculate the radiation levels and types. Something they had the chance many times somehow but never did... All the Moon surface studies for nothing.....
It concludes clearly that all the Asrtronauts should be exposed at least 8 hours to hostile radiation, without NASA knowing how much radition it was. and NASA clearly states that it is a lot.

If this is not fishy for you, I rest my case.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

Armstrong and Aldrin have been to the moon. 
Our technology was suitable to protect them for the time they were there.
There's really nothing fishy about this. Standard Conspiracy theorist MO is to see things where there are none.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Man, you really should do it better. Ofcourse I wouldn't expect NASA to say "we didn't actually". The link is there to show
> 1) NASA didn't know back then, and still doesn't know the radiactive envoirenment. This shows they where even unaware of the surface and it's effects in 1969
> 2) NASA will not send anyone till 2020 since they can't risk people on that radioactive surface. Pretty clear isn't it.
> 3) NASA will send a probe or a machine to calculate the radiation levels and types. Something they had the chance many times somehow but never did... All the Moon surface studies for nothing.....
> ...


 
Here's the thing, man: All of that information comes from a site that also says man has been to the moon. You can either accept that the information on that site is reliable, or claim that is isn't. You're using the site as proof that radiation is a problem, but also saying that what it says about having been to the moon is unreliable? Make up your mind, man. Is the information on the website sound or isn't it? If you think only some of it is, on what basis are you deciding what is or what isn't? You can't just ignore some facts because you don't like them.

Also, to further degrade things for you, _nothing_ on that link, be it about whether we've been there or about the hazards of radiation, says _anything_ about the levels of radiation being too dangerous for a short trip there to be possible. It's talking about the radiation issues and how they need to be overcome in order to deal with a *long term *stay, like a moon research station or something similar. 

I can recommend a good book about argumentative logic, if you'd like. I think it'd really help.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Here's the thing, man: All of that information comes from a site that also says man has been to the moon. You can either accept that the information on that site is reliable, or claim that is isn't. You're using the site as proof that radiation is a problem, but also saying that what it says about having been to the moon is unreliable? Make up your mind, man. Is the information on the website sound or isn't it? If you think only some of it is, on what basis are you deciding what is or what isn't? You can't just ignore some facts because you don't like them.
> 
> Also, to further degrade things for you, _nothing_ on that link, be it about whether we've been there or about the hazards of radiation, says _anything_ about the levels of radiation being too dangerous for a short trip there to be possible. It's talking about the radiation issues and how they need to be overcome in order to deal with a *long term *stay, like a moon research station or something similar.
> 
> I can recommend a good book about argumentative logic, if you'd like. I think it'd really help.



The beautiful thing is that the soviets proved that short term exposure does not cause any short term damage.

It went like this:

Everyone can agree that the Van Allen belt is one of the most radioactive place in our solar system, except for the sun of course. The soviets sent in two dogs for two days deep into the VAB, where the radiation faaaar exceeds that of the moon. Turned out that they were completely unharmed from that powerful, but very short exposure. Thus showing that short term stay on the moon is not impossible due to radiation.


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> None of the Astronauts from moonlanding had any kind of cancer. Buz aldrin is pretty mùch kicking well. None of them had any sickness either, and their equipment is far less protective. I had them infront of my eyes in a expo, so I know it.



What about cataracts they suffered in old age as a result of the heightened radiation they experienced ( Blinding Flashes - NASA Science )? Oh and Al Shepard died from leukemia (though it hasn't been attributed to his time spent on the moon).

And your article addresses the issue of radiation exposure to lunar colonists - people there for an extended stay (far greater than the three days at most any of the Apollo astronauts spent there). Their suits were adequate (several layers of aluminized materials) for the short time they spent there. So yes, radiation is a big issue for long stays, but not as much for shorter stays.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> A key sentence is the NASA-guy saying "We haven't solved the radiation problems for staying more than a few days". Truth to be told, NASA did a risk analysis before sending manned crafts to the moon, and they concluded that the risks of radiation were low enough so that the scientific merits of the endeavour weighed more heavily. The austronauts were also well aware of the dangers.
> 
> To the solar effect argument I think you are neglecting the fact that the moon is not a perfect reflector, the moon reflects about 8-12% sunlight, while our atmosphere lets through about 45%. That would looking at the moons surface while standing on it much less brighter than looking at the sun directly here from earth. That also would suggest that if polarizing sunglasses is good enough to dim sunlight here, it would also be good enough to dampen the reflection of the moon.
> 
> It is also correct that the two first is still kickin', however, astronauts are just not those that has landed on the moon, those that have been in space are over-represented among certain cancers (connected to cosmic radiation), also I believe, some others that has been to the moon exibits those kinds of cancer-forms.



Again, the article states that the Moon surface is radioactive, and it creates micro Neutron bomb reactions. Right at your feet. Without huge amount of water or concrete, there is no protection against this most dangerous and hazardous Radiation. And yes, the Cosmic Radiation is pretty much full with it.

I saw the gloves and they where really not "liquid" nor "concrete" to protecte Mr. Armstrong's strong hands and arms for 8 hours.
I dare Anyone to go to Fukushima right now with those clothes and stay for an Hour. The radiation on the moon is much greater.

And no, the risk might be calculated but there where no data for radiation levels and types. The first ever attampt to get Data was in the end of 80s.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> *I saw the gloves and they where really not "liquid" nor "concrete" to protecte Mr. Armstrong's strong hands and arms for 8 hours.*


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 8, 2011)

Can you provide a reputable, academic source for your claims?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> What about cataracts they suffered in old age as a result of the heightened radiation they experienced ( Blinding Flashes - NASA Science )? Oh and Al Shepard died from leukemia (though it hasn't been attributed to his time spent on the moon).
> 
> And your article addresses the issue of radiation exposure to lunar colonists - people there for an extended stay (far greater than the three days at most any of the Apollo astronauts spent there). Their suits were adequate (several layers of aluminized materials) for the short time they spent there. So yes, radiation is a big issue for long stays, but not as much for shorter stays.



Aluminium is no protection against Neutron bombing, especially high velocity cosmic radiation.

Blinding Flashes somehow didn't effect the " first" astronauts, nor they did the film was used to shoot the pictures. All does not make sense to me.

Again, I dare anyone to take those suits and give a visit to fukushima for an Hour.

I worked with X ray before and I know the effects of 20 years of expsure, with clothes and other protective walls etc. The moon surface should provide times million of that ray in one second, + the Neutron Radiaton. Protection with Cloth and Alu? No way!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

"Man can't have been to the moon, because the radiation levels are too dangerous."
"We know that the levels aren't too dangerous for a short stay, because man has been to the moon and survived."
"But man can't have been to the moon, because the radiation levels are too dangerous."

Rinse, repeat. I can't see this thread veering from that.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Can you provide a reputable, academic source for your claims?


 
He already tried that, and it said we've already been to the moon .


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Aluminium is no protection against Neutron bombing, especially high velocity cosmic radiation.
> 
> Blinding Flashes somehow didn't effect the " first" astronauts, nor they did the film was used to shoot the pictures. All does not make sense to me.
> 
> ...


 
Got proof for _any_ of that?


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Again, the article states that the Moon surface is radioactive, and it creates micro Neutron bomb reactions. Right at your feet. Without huge amount of water or concrete, there is no protection against this most dangerous and hazardous Radiation. And yes, the Cosmic Radiation is pretty much full with it.
> 
> I saw the gloves and they where really not "liquid" nor "concrete" to protecte Mr. Armstrong's strong hands and arms for 8 hours.
> I dare Anyone to go to Fukushima right now with those clothes and stay for an Hour. The radiation on the moon is much greater.
> ...



1. Astronaut footing and gloves are very thick, obviously not thick enough but still provides some shielding

2. Cosmic radiation is full of neutron perticles yes, cosmic radiation is however almsot non-existant on the moon. The radiation from above on the moon is from the sun. Radiation from the sun is mostly alpha and beta radiation. Alpha radiation is protons, the can do a lot of damage to the human genome, however, they are extremely easy to stop, a sheet of paper is fully sufficient. Beta radiation is electrons, smaller and faster than alpha particles, they are also harder to block. The sheets of aluminum in their suits are however good enough as blockers, protecting them from that nasty beta radiation.

3. They knew however that our solar system is full of radiation, the Van Allen Belts were discovered in -58. I would actually say that they did not know all the risks with the mission, but they took a calculated risk, and it payed off.


With regards to my previous post about the VAB, they consists almost entirely of neutron radiaton, and as I wrote, it is fully possible to survive in those conditions short term.


And yes, Fukushima... What you are neglecting is that there are different kinds of radiation. The one that is wreaking havoc in Japan is radiation from among others, cesium 137, which emitts gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is photons, photons have no mass, therefore they are unblockable. It would not be wise to stand next to Fukushima in a space suit, because you would need immense amounts of lead (or other dense element, like osmium) to be safe from the gamma radiation. The argument about X-rays are just as useful, since X-rays have just a little less amount of energy than gamma rays, which makes them almost as unstoppable.

To mix together types of radiation is just as mixing together a slingshot and a shotgun. The slingshot it pretty easliy stopped, you could do that with a piece of cardboard, I would not recommend taking on a shotgun slug with cardboard


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Can you provide a reputable, academic source for your claims?



Radiation on the Moon

same as the NASA one.

For the Neutron radiation

Neutron radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiation protection: a guide for ... - Google Livres

See page 60.It also reffers to other sources. That book is an awesome read BTW.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> 1. Astronaut footing and gloves are very thick, obviously not thick enough but still provides some shielding
> 
> 2. Cosmic radiation is full of neutron perticles yes, cosmic radiation is however almsot non-existant on the moon. The radiation from above on the moon is from the sun. Radiation from the sun is mostly alpha and beta radiation. Alpha radiation is protons, the can do a lot of damage to the human genome, however, they are extremely easy to stop, a sheet of paper is fully sufficient. Beta radiation is electrons, smaller and faster than alpha particles, they are also harder to block. The sheets of aluminum in their suits are however good enough as blockers, protecting them from that nasty beta radiation.
> 
> ...



NASA disagrees with the Cosmic radiation part.

"The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies"

8 Hours without liquid/Concrete + Lead protection is extremely long, especially when the Neutrons are very High Velocity and creating microreactions under your feet.

I am sure NASA could create a similar testing habitat and test some animals in those clothes and see what happens. But that would prove them wrong anyway, so why waste money?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

Dude, we've provided you with FACTS AND EVIDENCE disproving your claims, yet you still persist. I think you should take up Tim's offer for that book on argumentative logic.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> NASA disagrees with the Cosmic radiation part.
> 
> "The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies"
> 
> ...



Except that it's all about probablility, the earths and the suns magnetic fields divert most of the cosmic radiation, as I have said before, down to a factor 1:10^-9. That diverted radiation makes up the VAB. 

That gives us an extremely small probablility that a ray of cosmic radiation would hit the surface exactly were an astronaut is, sending a shower of neutrons into his unmentionables. 

Because that's what it said, the reaction to make the surface radioactive needs cosmic radiation. And with that kind being very scarce, the surface has a very low average radioactivity. Sure, if one lands in front of you it will get uncomfortable, but one in one billion? Come on, there's a higher risk of getting struck by lightning.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Dude, we've provided you with FACTS AND EVIDENCE disproving your claims, yet you still persist. I think you should take up Tim's offer for that book on argumentative logic.



Again, I can't see any facts to claim that the outfit has any Neuton Protection.
If you read the Links I delivered, which are not Biased, they ALL show you that a shoe cannot shield any of the Cosmic neutron radiation, which is extremely strong on the surface. The amount of energy stored in those neutrons elliminates the "short-term" argument, since the radiation level is just enough to burn all the tissues. 

Did you ever see those gloves or shoes? I did.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Got proof for _any_ of that?



The first two points are in the llink with the google scholar.
The last point you can check the 1020 eV in this link:
Cosmic ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And this link: X-ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Compare the both. Million times is understated.

Do not forget. Moon does not have any Atmosphere, no Protective magnetic field, although it has one, as protective as the earth. The Vapor and Ozone/Flour protects the earth from Neutron Radiation. Moon does not have it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Except that it's all about probablility, the earths and the suns magnetic fields divert most of the cosmic radiation, as I have said before, down to a factor 1:10^-9. That diverted radiation makes up the VAB.
> 
> That gives us an extremely small probablility that a ray of cosmic radiation would hit the surface exactly were an astronaut is, sending a shower of neutrons into his unmentionables.
> 
> Because that's what it said, the reaction to make the surface radioactive needs cosmic radiation. And with that kind being very scarce, the surface has a very low average radioactivity. Sure, if one lands in front of you it will get uncomfortable, but one in one billion? Come on, there's a higher risk of getting struck by lightning.



Thanx for keeping it Civil 

The radiation Level is very high on the moon surface. That's what NASA says. That thing (The Moon) is there for billions of years, collecting undilluted Radiation. It has not a real protection against unionized particles; neutrons and Gamma rays.

But let's make a deal. If we manage to Go "back" to moon as stated in 2020, and show the evidence of the remains I will buy you beer, build a guitar and get a tattoo that moon landing is possible. Aggreed?

BTW, Russia and China would land on the moon too. They are on ISS forever, tey would find a way to do it. The moon is a very strategic point.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> If you read the Links I delivered, which are not Biased, they ALL show you that a shoe cannot shield any of the Cosmic neutron radiation


 
And if _you_ read the link you delivered, which is not biased, it shows that man has been to the moon already.



daemon barbeque said:


> The first two points are in the llink with the google scholar.


 
That's a whole fucking book. Throw some page numbers at me. You know, like you'd have to when making a citation for a research paper to show that you know what you're talking about.

On the topic of citations and research papers, though, every professor on earth would laugh you into oblivion if you used wikipedia as a reference in a paper. Just a heads up for you there.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> And if _you_ read the link you delivered, which is not biased, it shows that man has been to the moon already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did some posts ago but here you go. Check page 60.

And for the WIKIPEDIA
I am just sending a quick link. When I send you a link for a book, you ask the page, when I send you a wiki link with the extracted data, you say it's laughable. What should I do ? 
Not all the info is online everywhere like Buckethead's face or Kim Kardashian Porn. Go and do some research 

BTW, I have my defence for my PhD this November, and my professor and other two had no problems with my citations and sources till now. No wiki included indeed. It's just for Interwebz warriors LOL

And for the first point... Again, it"s fucking NASA, why should they shoot their own feet?


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Thanx for keeping it Civil
> 
> The radiation Level is very high on the moon surface. That's what NASA says. That thing (The Moon) is there for billions of years, collecting undilluted Radiation. It has not a real protection against unionized particles; neutrons and Gamma rays.
> 
> ...



Hey man, thanks yourself. That's actually really the spirit of science, to never accept a given explanation without proving it thoroughly. People was giving Einstein grief because he did not accept text book examples.

However I do raise you with that there are no bio-matter or atmosphere to keep the radiation in on the moon. It all get's out into space again after forming. Just as heat and light does, the moon is more or less a dead environment, and a wide open system.

I'll settle for the beer man, as I'd love to buy you one if it turns out that the radiation is to great even for short trips to the moon, deal?


----------



## ry_z (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> That thing (The Moon) is there for billions of years, collecting undilluted Radiation.



To be frank, I really don't think you have any idea how radiation works. 


At any rate, there's a simple argument that the moon landings were *not* faked:

The USSR - the archrival of the US at the time - tracked the craft there and back, and never once said to the world "Look, they didn't really go to the moon! They just faked it!"


----------



## Waelstrum (Sep 8, 2011)

EDIT: Also, they left a large reflector up there, so that we can fire a laser at the reflector to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon. If we didn't land on the moon, how did it get there?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Go and do some research


 
It isn't my responsibility to do your research for you.



daemon barbeque said:


> And for the first point... Again, it"s fucking NASA, why should they shoot their own feet?


 
Again with presenting a source as fact, _except_ for the stuff they say with which you disagree. Isn't that convenient. Is the source reliable or isn't it? Make up your mind, or change your mind and stop using that source to prove your point.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

ry_z said:


> The USSR - the archrival of the US at the time - tracked the craft there and back, and never once said to the world "Look, they didn't really go to the moon! They just faked it!"



EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE NWO, FREEMASONS, ILLUMINATI AND THE JEWS. THEY SAID WE WENT TO THE MOON JUST SO THAT NO-ONE WOULD SEE THE SECRET MIND CONTROL RAY THEY HAVE BUILT ON THE MOON!!!!!!!11111


How do I know this? God told me... Seriously.



Although this is perhaps one of the most convincing arguments that it actually took place, no way the USSR would let the US get away with a fraud like that.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Hey man, thanks yourself. That's actually really the spirit of science, to never accept a given explanation without proving it thoroughly. People was giving Einstein grief because he did not accept text book examples.
> 
> However I do raise you with that there are no bio-matter or atmosphere to keep the radiation in on the moon. It all get's out into space again after forming. Just as heat and light does, the moon is more or less a dead environment, and a wide open system.
> 
> I'll settle for the beer man, as I'd love to buy you one if it turns out that the radiation is to great even for short trips to the moon, deal?



Deal


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Deal


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke just won a free beer.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

ry_z said:


> To be frank, I really don't think you have any idea how radiation works.



Really?
You mean there is no way Moon can absorb and keep radiation. That's the point. The Moon is bombarded every millisecond since forever. There is no chance for the surface to neutralize all that radiation it gets. It mostly "reflects" which is my main argument ayway. The light colored dust is full of Radiation.
So to be Frank, I really don't think you have any idea what i am talking about LOL.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I did some posts ago but here you go. Check page 60.


 
Okay, I read page 60 in full, and it said _nothing_ about this:



daemon barbeque said:


> I worked with X ray before and I know the effects of 20 years of expsure, with clothes and other protective walls etc. The moon surface should provide times million of that ray in one second, + the Neutron Radiaton.


 
Which is what I asked for proof for.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It isn't my responsibility to do your research for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with presenting a source as fact, _except_ for the stuff they say with which you disagree. Isn't that convenient. Is the source reliable or isn't it? Make up your mind, or change your mind and stop using that source to prove your point.



I don't have to agree on every point with an author for quoting it. I can cherry pick every scientific fact and leave the rest. This is how science works.As a grand Moth, you should know that there is no Force, but still try to figure out how Vader does the choke LOL.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Okay, I read page 60 in full, and it said _nothing_ about this:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I asked for proof for.



The last part you mention is a small calculation you should do yourself. Go to both Wikipedia links I sent and check the ElectronVolt levels of each particles. The X-Rays and the Cosmic rays.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> Jakke just won a free beer.



If not, I would like to have a nice Pizza with the beer (I even don't like beer LOL. Coke would be better)


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> If not, I would like to have a nice Pizza with the beer (I even don't like beer LOL. Coke would be better)



All right then


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> EDIT: Also, they left a large reflector up there, so that we can fire a laser at the reflector to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon. If we didn't land on the moon, how did it get there?




Again, I said "the landing is real, but not with Astronauts"
There are other orbiters and Mars gadgets and I am all for that. But I tell you again. I don't belive that any man has put feet on the moon, and returned alive. Even maybe Russians did and died LOL


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

You know, this really is a pointless argument. It doesn't matter whether or not you think radiation levels are too high for man to have gone to the moon because there is _overwhelming_ evidence that we have. Given that we have been there, it has been proven that the radiation levels aren't so dangerous as to prevent us from going there. If you want to make your case you'll first have to disprove that we have been there by disproving all of the evidence that says we have. Until then, you're wrong. Simple as.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> All right then



LOL, by mea beer man. That beer will be the sweetest thing ever 
The pizza must be come from High Lord. Without cheese with Aubergines please.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> LOL, by mea beer man. That beer will be the sweetest thing ever
> The pizza must be come from High Lord. Without cheese with Aubergines please.


If that's the pizza, I'd get some as well. 

But yeah, there's no risk of me having to buy you pizza, so okay.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm quietly confident that I won't have to buy one. But if I have to, it'd be one heck of a cold pizza


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> You know, this really is a pointless argument. It doesn't matter whether or not you think radiation levels are too high for man to have gone to the moon because there is _overwhelming_ evidence that we have. Given that we have been there, it has been proven that the radiation levels aren't so dangerous as to prevent us from going there. If you want to make your case you'll first have to disprove that we have been there by disproving all of the evidence that says we have. Until then, you're wrong. Simple as.



So. All the footage which somehow dissapeared is the only credible, provable source of evidence. But as it is, it's disappeard. Someone recorded something on them.
There isn't overhelming evidence, if it would, I would cherish and hail for the achievement for the mankind.

Bring me the source tapes, and an international unbiased group of experts to check the tapes. If it's not fabricated like Pearl Harbour, I will bow before you and buy you a beer. But those files are "gone". The biggest achievement of mankind is just "lost" by some idiot who overrecorded it. 

Again, I am a scientist, I dunno how old you are, but I am in science classes since the 80s LOL. Still, non of those are evidence for me.
The evidence can be recreated by,
Create a particle accelarater achieving something similar to cosmic rays (extremely hard to do)
Put those old clothes on buzz aldrin
Put him into cabin with similar radiation for 8 hours.
Put him out. If he is not fried or mutated to his balls.

If this can be done, I am going to be screaming how stupid I was.
But, that will never hapen.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Jakke said:


> I'm quietly confident that I won't have to buy one. But if I have to, it'd be one heck of a cold pizza



No you deliver the beer, and High Lord the Pizza. Actually, ve crash at his place and he buys me the pizza. You have to pay for yourself LOL


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> No you deliver the beer, and High Lord the Pizza. Actually, ve crash at his place and he buys me the pizza. You have to pay for yourself LOL


I'll add to this.
If we're wrong, Everyone who's posted in this thread can say they had sex with me that one time.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> I'll add to this.
> If we're wrong, Everyone who's posted in thins thread can say they had sex with me that one time.





Wait , does this make you the magicpimpmonsterfucker or just gay?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> So. All the footage which somehow dissapeared is the only credible, provable source of evidence. But as it is, it's disappeard. Someone recorded something on them.
> There isn't overhelming evidence, if it would, I would cherish and hail for the achievement for the mankind.


 
First of all, _all_ of the footage didn't disappear, the original SSTV telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 are missing. The original scan conversion and still photographs of that transmission do still exist. However, even if they didn't, that's just Apollo 11, which wasn't the last manned lunar mission.

Try again.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

Do I even need to keep this up? I have a feeling that you'll find a reason not to believe any evidence presented to you because you want so badly not to.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Wait , does this make you the magicpimpmonsterfucker or just gay?



Yes.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Do I even need to keep this up? I have a feeling that you'll find a reason not to believe any evidence presented to you because you want so badly not to.



Look dear Tim.
You might be Sith, but keep it unpersonal please.
Again, my scpetisism never let me down till now, and I am not letting it down because a guy called Tim makes personal accusations.

I am not believing in it as i don't believe in UFO pictures. There are footages everywhere, so do you believe in them. How can you believe an institution who tells you that the most important tapes ever are all tmissing.

Please send me links of the other moonlanding footages; live streams etc. I would like to see all of them.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Look dear Tim.
> You might be Sith, but keep it unpersonal please.
> Again, my scpetisism never let me down till now, and I am not letting it down because a guy called Tim makes personal accusations.
> 
> ...


 
I normally try not to make things personal, but I don't really like you, so I'm having a hard time. My apologies.

No, I'm not going to link you to a damned thing. You can't say in one paragraph that you won't believe video footage and then ask for video evidence in the very next paragraph. Why would I waste my time?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 8, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> It is typical for the blind sheep to harass those who dare to question status quo. They attacked Galileo Galilei, they attacked Charles Darwin, they attacked Alfred Wegener, and they've attacked the people who point out the problems with the US moon-landing propaganda. They'd rather believe the lies put forth by their government, but like the faithful Nazis who rejected Einsteins theories due to his ancestry, they will go down in history as the blind and pitiful fools they are!
> 
> But if they would just open their eyes for once, and listen to the skeptics, they would realize the truth! That the moon landings did not happen! That the moon landings COULD NOT have happened! Why? It is so obvious! Because the Earth does not HAVE a moon!



We can see the moon. It's real. That article suggested it could be a hologram. I immediately closed the window. I hope you're trolling, because if not then I am sorry.



daemon barbeque said:


> Well, I am looking at it this way.
> We can't send men on the moon because we can't even calculate the radiation levels. The moons oozes with neutron particles, which are not blockable with those flimsy suits. Fun enough, the moon is so bright because of reflections and radiation, Neil armstrong didn't get even eye burns, let alone a tan. Nor did cameras have problem with...
> 
> I am somehow not convinced about the answers.



They timed the trajectory of the craft so it went through as little radiation as possible. Most of it was stopped by the hull of the ship. In total, over the trip the crew involved were exposed to the average amount of radiation workers at a nuclear power plant would absorb over a year. Many of the astronauts actually developed cataracts due to the radiation. As for the cameras, we take pictures in far more radiation intense places on our planet. Cameras can be built to withstand it and work efficiently. The man who discovered the radiation belt between us and the moon actually said himself that it would be safe to pass through it.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 8, 2011)

Holy shit I missed a couple of pages of this thread. Hilarity.  I think my Brian Cox video echoes my sentiments on this matter. If you don't believe we made it to the moon, well please prove why because there is overwhelming evidence to prove otherwise. It's like not believing in evolution...


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Holy shit I missed a couple of pages of this thread. Hilarity.  I think my Brian Cox video echoes my sentiments on this matter. If you don't believe we made it to the moon, well please prove why because there is overwhelming evidence to prove otherwise. It's like not believing in evolution...



I like it when people "claim" how much radiation on moon is, although even NASA doesn't know it and try to solve that problem.
The Van Allen Belt is "before" the moon. The moon is as NASA claims "bald" and very dangerous.

I can prove Evolution even on a dog or tomato. But the "astronaut" landing on the moon is not plausible.

And again, 8 Hours of moon walking, jumping, flag ramming, stone collecting, picture shooting is not protected by the hull of the ship.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I normally try not to make things personal, but I don't really like you, so I'm having a hard time. My apologies.
> 
> No, I'm not going to link you to a damned thing. You can't say in one paragraph that you won't believe video footage and then ask for video evidence in the very next paragraph. Why would I waste my time?



It's normal that you don't like me. Our characters are not fitting. I am more of a Jedi LOL

And, it would be cool to get those links. I wasted my time to send you the links which even didn't get a reasonable response. So in exchange, you prove all your points with footages.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I like it when people "claim" how much radiation on moon is, although even NASA doesn't know it and try to solve that problem.
> The Van Allen Belt is "before" the moon. The moon is as NASA claims "bald" and very dangerous.
> 
> I can prove Evolution even on a dog or tomato. But the "astronaut" landing on the moon is not plausible.



I've not seen any figures for how much radiation exactly, but they know from laboratory tests where radiation surrounding the earth is most likely to be at it strongest, and planned the journey to miss these areas. Then it was just a matter of building the craft and equipment to deal with high radiation and guessing how much would be present by scaling up the lab tests. The moon is very dangerous to walk on without proper equipment, which is why they didn't spend that long there. NASA has acknowledged that they didn't know as much then as they did now (which is why we went up there in the first place!) and plan to make equipment and crafts safer for extended use on the moon in the future. It really is very plausible.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> It's normal that you don't like me. Our characters are not fitting. I am more of a Jedi LOL
> 
> And, it would be cool to get those links. I wasted my time to send you the links which even didn't get a reasonable response. So in exchange, you prove all your points with footages.


 
You've readily admitted that video footage proves nothing to you, so no. It'd be a complete waste of my time.

I'm sorry you thought your links didn't get a reasonable response. I did check all of them, because the topic is genuinely interesting to me. However, as we've established, all they really prove is that radiation is dangerous. As I've said already, that's a moot point because we've already been to the moon, so we know it isn't so dangerous as to prevent a manned lunar expedition. You've added that you don't accept the proof that we've been there, so we're at a stand-still.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 8, 2011)

Also, for the completely off-topic record, Grand Moff Tarkin wasn't a Sith.


----------



## Waelstrum (Sep 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Again, I said "the landing is real, but not with Astronauts"
> There are other orbiters and Mars gadgets and I am all for that. But I tell you again. I don't belive that any man has put feet on the moon, and returned alive. Even maybe Russians did and died LOL



So, your claim is that we did send unmanned vessels to the moon, but not manned ones? Do you realise that the first successful unmanned mission to the moon would have been almost as good? Why would they cheapen that by tacking on this huge conspiracy to an actual achievement? That would undermine the whole thing, do you really think that they'd risk pretending to do the impossible just so that their actual achievement seems slightly better?


----------



## neoclassical (Sep 9, 2011)

OK, maybe it did really happen. But I'm not totally convinced we would have made it without the nazi rockets, or reverse engineered alien velcro, computers and possibly their escort... 

Nah, guess it was real.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I like it when people "claim" how much radiation on moon is, although even NASA doesn't know it and try to solve that problem.
> The Van Allen Belt is "before" the moon. The moon is as NASA claims "bald" and very dangerous.


Sure, the moon is dangerous.
But so is strapping a gigantic bomb to your ass, and NASA was quite willing to do that.




daemon barbeque said:


> I can prove Evolution even on a dog or tomato.


A dog or tomato? I'd like to see that.


----------



## neoclassical (Sep 9, 2011)

I almost forgot:


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 9, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> But if they would just open their eyes for once, and listen to the skeptics, they would realize the truth! That the moon landings did not happen! That the moon landings COULD NOT have happened! Why? It is so obvious! Because the Earth does not HAVE a moon!



That's no moon.... It's a space station.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Really?
> You mean there is no way Moon can absorb and keep radiation. That's the point. The Moon is bombarded every millisecond since forever. There is no chance for the surface to neutralize all that radiation it gets. It mostly "reflects" which is my main argument ayway. *The light colored dust is full of Radiation.*
> So to be Frank, I really don't think you have any idea what i am talking about LOL.



WTF?

DBBQ, I certainly hope your defense isn't anywhere near astrophysics or nuclear science. 

Never mind. I don't even know where to begin with this, except to say that you're really shooting your credibility in the foot. Throughout this entire thread, you've been in tinfoil hat mode, and don't have the insight to realize how long ago you went there.

Either that, or you're intentionally trolling, which is worse in terms of deciding to crap on SS.org. 



daemon barbeque said:


> (T)he "astronaut" landing on the moon is not plausible.



However, it is entirely plausible to you that the Soviets would join the vast world-wide conspiracy to cover up the moon landing hoax. 

One point which may give you a bit of insight: You're asserting that the vast conspiracy which helped cover up the lunar landings included the Soviet Union. A hallmark of unsustainable conspiracy theories is the need to expand them to cover everyone who might possibly oppose them. 

You're asserting that the Soviets, who were willing to place missiles in Cuba to attack and kill US citizens, were delicate and squeamish about revealing a hoax which would embarrass the US government. 

I'm interested to see how you explain this point.


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 9, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> But if they would just open their eyes for once, and listen to the skeptics, they would realize the truth! That the moon landings did not happen! That the moon landings COULD NOT have happened! Why? It is so obvious! Because the Earth does not HAVE a moon!



I KNEW IT WAS A COVER UP!


----------



## Jakke (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I like it when people "claim" how much radiation on moon is, although even NASA doesn't know it and try to solve that problem.
> The Van Allen Belt is "before" the moon. The moon is as NASA claims "bald" and very dangerous.
> 
> I can prove Evolution even on a dog or tomato. But the "astronaut" landing on the moon is not plausible.
> ...



Ok, let me collect some points..

The moon does not have a high radioactivity all the time, it is only when rays of cosmic radiation strikes the surface. Those are very rare, to be precise one in a billion rays of radiation is of that type, all other 999. 999 999 rays are from our sun, consists of mostly alpha and beta particles. Those are blockable, and the astronauts space suits is fully sufficient.

The moon is what we in chemical thermodynamics call an open system, it exchanges all energy with it's environment, that's why it's cold and have no oxygen. Because of that it's open, radiation cannot linger, there is no atmosphere/bio-mass to keep it there. Moon dust cannot keep radioactivity, it's not like dirt that has a lot of biological particles and water in it. Beneath the 2-3" thick layer of moon dust, there is rock, and rock is not good at storing radiation either.

Thus, when neutron radiation is formed by a huge chance (1 in a billion), the radiation instantly deflects into space, since no atmosphere can keep it in.


----------



## Krauthammer (Sep 9, 2011)

Ah, discussion. Wonderful, isn't it? I have dabbled in skepticism in my time, and the one thing I noticed is that the term "conspiracy theorist" is such a harsh label. When someone calls out another and uses that term, it immediately makes the "theorist" a nutjob. Therefore, they cannot be capable of expressing truth, because its just a "conspiracy". This is an unfair assumption. By placing someone's opinion completely out of the realm of possibility, no one has to think that their view of science could possibly be wrong. Because that one guy is just "crazy"....

When someone's idea of the truth is threatened, it becomes personal to validate ones established thinking. Maybe this thought of reality has been in place for over 20-30 years in someone's mind. How would anyone respond to someone telling you that you have been wrong your whole life? 

Just to clarify, I believe that we have been to the moon. No question in my mind. 

But, if it is such a verifiable fact, how come no one has debunked all the contrary thoughts? And, certainly anyone would have to wonder how the DoD agency NASA could have lost the original footage of mankind's single greatest achievement? I find that really hard to believe. 

But my own conjectures point to extraneous thoughts, that what is on that footage is not to be seen by the general population. Why are there no pictures even of color on the moon? We definitely had the capability, and the missions were outfitted with color cameras. 

The establishments of the many agencies have there version of the "truth". Just because some clout-filled section of people (NASA) have went on record with all of their details does not make what they said the truth. 

A decent book, "Dark Mission" by Richard Hoagland has all sorts of theories, but I would hardly call them conspiracies. If you are into space, I highly recommend. Hyper-dimensional physics blew my mind. 19.5 degrees. 

Just because some dude with a baddass suit who graduated M.I.T. tells you that that dog over there is a cat does not make that dog any cuter.

Cheers!


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Waelstrum said:


> So, your claim is that we did send unmanned vessels to the moon, but not manned ones? Do you realise that the first successful unmanned mission to the moon would have been almost as good? Why would they cheapen that by tacking on this huge conspiracy to an actual achievement? That would undermine the whole thing, do you really think that they'd risk pretending to do the impossible just so that their actual achievement seems slightly better?



Oh man,i really wouldn't discredit it if it wouldn't be wraped with a lie to achieve political power. It's like no American is appreciating Yuri gagarin for being the first one in space. You don't hear it... It was a bigger achievement for it's time, and since it was a Soviet achievement, it's mostly "ignored" by the people.
The Pressure was too high on America back then. The Russians where too fast and already visiting the Space. America had to top it. Meanwhile, Russians where sending different vessels to try to land on the moon. They lost a lot of people and money to try to land on the moon with Cosmonauts in them. 
Again, as we saw in vietnam, Pearl Harbour, The II war in Iraq, lies and misinformation flies around when it comes to profit and political power. Too many stories, footages, pictures, maps where manipulated and published as "real" till today. It's hard to just accept them with a big "question" like radiation in my head. Also after seeing the space suits, it's almost too evident that NASA didn't take care of Radiation at all.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 9, 2011)

Krauthammer said:


> Ah, discussion. Wonderful, isn't it? I have dabbled in skepticism in my time, and the one thing I noticed is that the term "conspiracy theorist" is such a harsh label. When someone calls out another and uses that term, it immediately makes the "theorist" a nutjob. Therefore, they cannot be capable of expressing truth, because its just a "conspiracy". This is an unfair assumption. By placing someone's opinion completely out of the realm of possibility, no one has to think that their view of science could possibly be wrong. Because that one guy is just "crazy"....
> 
> When someone's idea of the truth is threatened, it becomes personal to validate ones established thinking. Maybe this thought of reality has been in place for over 20-30 years in someone's mind. How would anyone respond to someone telling you that you have been wrong your whole life?
> 
> ...



Ah, but there are colour pictures of the moon


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

I am not willing to comment on personal posts so I write in General again.
Russia couldn't do anything since they failed massively themselves and couldn't prove that time. Noone could. That is the success in it. After how many years we learned that the Pearl Harbour footage was made in Holywood?

Second, none of you can claim that the radiation is not that bad,since even NASA does not have enough info on it. They only claim it is too high and tricky, so they need twelve more years to maybe get a solution. And that's from 2008.

Yes the Moon is an open system, and it reflects all the radiation. So the cosmic rays directly reflect on the Astronauts, and I am not sure of the possibility being that low, especially if you hang around for 8 Hours.

Like Explorer would say, if all this is not redoable in an experimental scientific envoirenment, I will not believe in it. 

And no, my defense is bullet-proof, or better said Neutron-proof


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> Sure, the moon is dangerous.
> But so is strapping a gigantic bomb to your ass, and NASA was quite willing to do that.
> 
> 
> ...



Chek the Lineage of Dogs and dog breeds. You will be surprized. Begin with the Tomarctus.

The Tomato one is micro evolution. The changes of size, taste, taste, color and form is an Evolution.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 9, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> We can see the moon. It's real. That article suggested it could be a hologram. I immediately closed the window. I hope you're trolling, because if not then I am sorry.


You're missing out.
That website is hilarious.


----------



## Utnapishtim (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Chek the Lineage of Dogs and dog breeds. You will be surprized. Begin with the Tomarctus.
> 
> The Tomato one is micro evolution. The changes of size, taste, taste, color and form is an Evolution.



Ah, I see.
But examining the entire lineage of these species is quite different from "[proving] Evolution even on a dog or tomato", which was what you wrote, and which caught my attention.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I am not willing to comment on personal posts so I write in General again.
> Russia couldn't do anything since they failed massively themselves and couldn't prove that time. Noone could. That is the success in it. After how many years we learned that the Pearl Harbour footage was made in Holywood?
> 
> Second, none of you can claim that the radiation is not that bad,since even NASA does not have enough info on it. They only claim it is too high and tricky, so they need twelve more years to maybe get a solution. And that's from 2008.
> ...



I think you are missing the point here, the spontanious bursts of radiation created by cosmic radiation is deflected at once into space, no radiation stays. Therefore the moon is low in average radioactivity. 

We have to go deeper into the nature of neutron radiation, they are very high energy, and they are particles. Any radiation falling down is in the form of rays, rays=concentrated streams of some sort of matter. Therefore, if a ray would strike the surface and initiate a neutron reaction, you would have to stand right on top of it to be in any real danger, aka getting neutrons in your unmentionables. If there is nothing in the way when thay "bounces", they are deflected into space.

The probability is the same no matter how long you stay, as the probablility of winning the lottery is the same no matter how many weeks in a row you choose to play. And yes, it really is that small, the suns+the earths magnetic fields divert cosmic radiation to that point that the ratio sun to cosmic radiation is 1:10^-9


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Utnapishtim said:


> Ah, I see.
> But examining the entire lineage of these species is quite different from "[proving] Evolution even on a dog or tomato", which was what you wrote, and which caught my attention.



Somehow I think people think about " evolution from cell to human" kind of proof
No, I can proove that organizms, basic or complex evolve in time to something else. And that's the proof of evolution. It's hard to "observe" evolution in the "big sense" since our lifes are too short for it.
Eximining the Lineage from Tomarctus to Akita is a good study BTW.it's quite a big evolution, from the Jaw to the Fur, from the eyes to the brain.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Jakke said:


> I think you are missing the point here, the spontanious bursts of radiation created by cosmic radiation is deflected at once into space, no radiation stays. Therefore the moon is low in average radioactivity.
> 
> We have to go deeper into the nature of neutron radiation, they are very high energy, and they are particles. Any radiation falling down is in the form of rays, rays=concentrated streams of some sort of matter. Therefore, if a ray would strike the surface and initiate a neutron reaction, you would have to stand right on top of it to be in any real danger, aka getting neutrons in your unmentionables. If there is nothing in the way when thay "bounces", they are deflected into space.
> 
> The probability is the same no matter how long you stay, as the probablility of winning the lottery is the same no matter how many weeks in a row you choose to play. And yes, it really is that small, the suns+the earths magnetic fields divert cosmic radiation to that point that the ratio sun to cosmic radiation is 1:10^-9



I think we disagree in one main thing. I think that the openness of the moon causes it to be under radiation 24/7, and you think that the cosmic rays hit the surface very seldomly.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I think we disagree in one main thing. I think that the openness of the moon causes it to be under radiation 24/7, and you think that the cosmic rays hit the surface very seldomly.



I think so too, we both use valid physical reasoning based on our hypothesis though, and I'd say, since we can't atually test the radiation bombardment on the moon... Agree to disagree?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Jakke said:


> I think so too, we both use valid physical reasoning based on our hypothesis though, and I'd say, since we can't atually test the radiation bombardment on the moon... Agree to disagree?


----------



## Dvaienat (Sep 9, 2011)

We don't actually have any proof that man did actually land on the moon. Just the video/photo footage (which could have easily been shot in a studio) and these grainy black and white pics. Nevertheless, I'm sure we did actually go to the moon. I really don't see what the government/NASA would've got out of faking it.


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 9, 2011)

NatG said:


> We don't actually have any proof that man did actually land on the moon.



I'm curious. What would qualify as proof, then?


----------



## Explorer (Sep 9, 2011)

So... the Soviet Union, and any other countries which had any sort of observation ability, were unable to disprove the travel of the astronauts? 

You're flailing....

I wasn't going to go into detail about your misunderstanding regarding the kind of radiation hitting the moon, and your similar misunderstanding about it being absorbed, but you did remind me about something I've not thought about in a while.

I was at a presentation regarding some then-current solar flare activity, and this guy was there in the back with some tattered newspapers clippings. After the presentation, clipping guy comes up front where people are discussing the presentation, and starts demanding that scientists acknowledge the vindication of clipping guy's assertions, which were based on a complete misunderstanding of the clippings. It was suggested that clipping guy do some reading to find out for himself that he didn't understand the terms he was using, but he insisted on being refuted on the spot, which just wasn't worth it.

It was clear he had his mind made up regardless of any evidence, and was willing to grasp that evidence which he felt supported him, and to reject that which didn't support him.

----

If a conspiracy to cover up a variety of moon trips, including landings, requires governments across the world to help with the cover up, then it's fair to point that out. "Conspiracy theorist" isn't a harsh term when the conspiracy in question is so vast and powerful, and requiring even those inimical to the conspirators to cooperate. It's just not credible. 

And now, of course, conspiracy theory requires extending that conspiracy to include anyone who might have contact with the LRO. Again, not credible.

----

Out of curiosity... in what field are you defending your thesis? It's not one of the hard sciences, is it?


----------



## C2Aye (Sep 9, 2011)

NatG said:


> We don't actually have any proof that man did actually land on the moon.



I don't know man, maybe the photos mentioned in the OP?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Explorer said:


> So... the Soviet Union, and any other countries which had any sort of observation ability, were unable to disprove the travel of the astronauts?
> 
> You're flailing....
> 
> ...



Dear Explorer, If you read, I am referring to "bald and reflecting" everywhere on the thread. If it would absorb, there would be no problem. But everyone who walks on the surface get the reflected radiation from every corner, including under the feet. That is exactly what I was saying.The only place where Neutron Radiation can be absorbed are the poles, where Water in Ice form is present. Only Hydrogenic material absorbs and neutralizes the energy in the speeding Neutron particle. There is a map on the first link I sent from NASA, which shows the neutron radiation hotspots.Ifyou care to check, NASA itself claims how dangerous it is. I also stumbled upon an interesting fact that moon dust has absorbed energy, has UV radiation, and is charged with static electricity
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/humanresearch/areas_study/environment/enviro_lunar_dust.html. Not that it can't filtered, but the moon dust shows how heavily it gets bombarded.

Noone could follow human movement on Moon then. If that would be the case, USA would do it all the time to show off. We could also observe the famous Flag sitting there. But as you know, this is not been the case. 
There isn't a cover up necessary. Nobody including the US had the technology to do it, or to observe it. Exactly that makes tricking out possible.

Again, I am sure that the eagle has landed on the moon. But NOT with personal in it.

I am an equine Cardiologist and my Doctorate includes Ultrasound and radiologic imaging.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 9, 2011)

Great read, the endless comedy in this thread.

Regarding the photos themselves, however. I don't see why they would act as proof to anyone. I don't think the moon landing was a hoax, but I'm entirely confident NASA could manage to fake a few stills.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> I don't know man, maybe the photos mentioned in the OP?



You believe in U.F.Os too? So many pictures of them.


----------



## C2Aye (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> You believe in U.F.Os too? So many pictures of them.



Way to take my joke post way too seriously 

But really, I'm very much open minded to the idea of advanced evolution in our galaxy in a place other than Earth. In fact, that would be very much cool as fuck.

However, the moon landings in my mind are not up for debate. They happened. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise, so for that reason, I shall stay out of any debates on the subject because I would be useless to all you good gentlemen.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> Way to take my joke post way too seriously
> 
> But really, I'm very much open minded to the idea of advanced evolution in our galaxy in a place other than Earth. In fact, that would be very much cool as fuck.
> 
> However, the moon landings in my mind are not up for debate. They happened. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise, so for that reason, I shall stay out of any debates on the subject because I would be useless to all you good gentlemen.


----------



## Demiurge (Sep 9, 2011)

I can see how a conspiracy theory can be born from the identification of an "impossible fact," but I would think that such hardly seals the deal. For any of these high-level, legendary conspiracies, the requirement for thousands of people to remain complicit and silent for decades is just as big of a pill to swallow... especially when the US government that doesn't even do normal things right without back-biting and betrayal is involved.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 9, 2011)

I want to meet Brian Cox and show him this thread.


----------



## Dvaienat (Sep 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> I don't know man, maybe the photos mentioned in the OP?


 
For all we know those could be fake too.


----------



## C2Aye (Sep 9, 2011)

NatG said:


> For all we know those could be fake too.



For all we know, it's actually the year 3000 and we are actually grown farmed by sentient machines while they project simulated reality in our minds known as...oh, wait that's the plot of The Matrix.

You can read my stance on the moon landings a few posts up. All I'm saying is that once you say "For all we know", expect all the cans containing worms in the perceivable universe to be opened simultaneously. This phrase is also the sole reason why I chose not to argue against the conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Dvaienat (Sep 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> For all we know, it's actually the year 3000 and we are actually grown farmed by sentient machines while they project simulated reality in our minds known as...oh, wait that's the plot of The Matrix.
> 
> You can read my stance on the moon landings a few posts up. All I'm saying is that once you say "For all we know", expect all the cans containing worms in the perceivable universe to be opened simultaneously. This phrase is also the sole reason why I chose not to argue against the conspiracy theorists.


 
I'm not a conspiracy theorist whatsoever. I just stated that we've no idea whether the pics are indeed real.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 9, 2011)

Most of the 'evidence' that people put forward proving the moon landings were faked has been disproved, either by common sense of people who are qualified to investigate such claims. There is overwhelming evidence to prove we did go to the moon, and the only real points against it are hollow and lack proof. It's just conjecture. I was skeptical about the moon landings, there seemed to be some points against it that held weight. However I researched it, and many of these points were proven false with strong evidence. I mean, I am not an astronaut, a rocket scientist or physicist and to be honest, most people aren't, so obviously I'm only going on information put forward by more educated people. Seems like the best way to form an opinion as long as you understand it to a degree and keep in mind who your sources are.


----------



## wlfers (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well, I am looking at it this way.
> We can't send men on the moon because we can't even calculate the radiation levels. The moons oozes with neutron particles, which are not blockable with those flimsy suits. Fun enough, the moon is so bright because of reflections and radiation, Neil armstrong didn't get even eye burns, let alone a tan. Nor did cameras have problem with...
> 
> I am somehow not convinced about the answers.



All light is electromagnetic radiation... The moon is bright because it reflects the sun's radiation. Brightness only deals with the visible spectrum, so saying something is ridiculously bright has no bearing on how dangerous it could be.

Also, we can easily measure remotely the amount of dangerous electromagnetic radiation that's being reflected by the moon through spectroscopy; on the other hand as you and the link you posted stated we can't (to my knowledge) with certainty estimate the surface radiation by charged particles. So you're probably right in that aspect .

Though how safe something is, is by no means a measure of humanity's willingness to attempt it. They used to use x-ray machines as an entertaining/interactive way to determine how well your foot fit in a certain shoe at the store.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> After how many years we learned that the Pearl Harbour footage was made in Holywood?


 
I hate myself already for asking, but...

...proof?


----------



## wlfers (Sep 9, 2011)

^

I'm very curious about this myself


----------



## C2Aye (Sep 9, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I hate myself already for asking, but...
> 
> ...proof?



Maybe he meant off the coast of Hollywood. REALLY far off the coast of Hollywood...



...in Hawaii.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I hate myself already for asking, but...
> 
> ...proof?





> Watching CNN over the Pearl Harbor Holiday Weekend (previously known as Memorial Day Weekend) reminded us at History News Network that there may just be a reason historians so often hold the media in contempt. In the middle of a story about the Disney Pearl Harbor blockbuster up popped some black and white footage of gunners firing their weapons into the sky. According to the CNN reporter, this was"actual footage" of the Pearl Harbor attack. That is, this was not like the footage in the rest of the story that came from the Disney movie. THIS WAS REAL!
> 
> Viewers who were paying attention might have wondered. The shots looked too perfect to have been taken during the crisis. They were perfectly framed. You could almost swear John Ford was behind the camera shouting directions to the photographer to be sure to make the gunners look as damn heroic as possible. About the only difference between these pictures and those from the Disney movie was that Disney's were in color.
> 
> ...



History News Network


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 9, 2011)

Oh, okay. That's not what it seemed like you were implying at all. I must've been reading too much into what you were saying. I thought you were saying that _all_ footage of the event was staged, and that it didn't happen. It's good to see that you don't think that. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 9, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Oh, okay. That's not what it seemed like you were implying at all. I must've been reading too much into what you were saying. I thought you were saying that _all_ footage of the event was staged, and that it didn't happen. It's good to see that you don't think that. Thanks for clearing that up.



No man, I might be sceptical, but that would be too intense and dumb LOL.


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 10, 2011)

Let's all just put on aluminum foil hats and call it a day. Some of us can wear them to keep our minds from being read from the government's satellites, while others, like me, wear them for fun.


----------



## BigPhi84 (Sep 10, 2011)

ZEBOV said:


> Let's all just put on aluminum foil hats and call it a day. Some of us can wear them to keep our minds from being read from the government's satellites, while others, like me, wear them for fun.




_Yeah, but aluminum doesn't protect against all forms of radiation!!! _Where's that concrete helmet of mine? 

Love ya, DBBQ


----------



## Jakke (Sep 10, 2011)

BigPhi84 said:


> _Yeah, but aluminum doesn't protect against all forms of radiation!!! _Where's that concrete helmet of mine?
> 
> Love ya, DBBQ



Depends.... How thick concrete you'd say?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 11, 2011)

BigPhi84 said:


> _Yeah, but aluminum doesn't protect against all forms of radiation!!! _Where's that concrete helmet of mine?
> 
> Love ya, DBBQ



Zuahahah love you too man, In a MANLY way ofcourse lol


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 16, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Depends.... How thick concrete you'd say?



.... About 10 feet.


----------



## broj15 (Sep 16, 2011)

not saying the moon landings were fake but i mean... foot prints???? how can anyone tell that there is really a foot print there?? thats just crazy that they expect to see afoot print from that distance


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 16, 2011)

This, too, is pertinent:

Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


> *Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked*
> 
> LEBANON, OHIOApollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.
> 
> ...


----------



## ddtonfire (Sep 16, 2011)

broj15 said:


> not saying the moon landings were fake but i mean... foot prints???? how can anyone tell that there is really a foot print there?? thats just crazy that they expect to see afoot print from that distance



Obviously, you can't see individual footprints, but footpaths:


----------



## Explorer (Sep 16, 2011)

You know how skeptics and magicians will show how they believe something is done, and then the person claiming something unlikely is asked to repeat their feat under conditions which control for such cheating?

I think it would be interesting to see someone film, using equipment equivalent to that available during the moon visits, footage which matches that made under lunar conditions. Footage, along with a neat "the making of" kind of thing so that you know that no digital effects were employed, would be pretty neat. 

I'm really amazed that no reputable person has stepped forward to expose the great hoax. In the threads claiming conspiracies to suppress cancer cures, or to cause the Twin Towers to fall victim to explosives, there has never been a doctor who was willing to buck the system in order to become the "doctor who can cure cancer," to be "the one Democrat contractor who had an attack of conscience and decided to reveal how the Towers were wired to collapse." It's amazing that a similar attack of conscience hasn't overcome any of the thousands involved in launching any of the Lunar Missions.


----------



## Hollowway (Sep 16, 2011)

Explorer said:


> You know how skeptics and magicians will show how they believe something is done, and then the person claiming something unlikely is asked to repeat their feat under conditions which control for such cheating?
> 
> I think it would be interesting to see someone film, using equipment equivalent to that available during the moon visits, footage which matches that made under lunar conditions. Footage, along with a neat "the making of" kind of thing so that you know that no digital effects were employed, would be pretty neat.
> 
> I'm really amazed that no reputable person has stepped forward to expose the great hoax. In the threads claiming conspiracies to suppress cancer cures, or to cause the Twin Towers to fall victim to explosives, there has never been a doctor who was willing to buck the system in order to become the "doctor who can cure cancer," to be "the one Democrat contractor who had an attack of conscience and decided to reveal how the Towers were wired to collapse." It's amazing that a similar attack of conscience hasn't overcome any of the thousands involved in launching any of the Lunar Missions.



That's the exactly what I think, too. We can't depend on our government to be organized enough to, say, raise the debt ceiling, yet people think they were able to pull off a fake moon landing? Doubtful. And you're right - someone would TOTALLY break ranks, just to be famous, or make money, etc. It's suuuuper hard to keep a secret. That's why so many actual conspiracies (i.e. crimes) fail. But at the same time, a lot of conspiracy theorists are concerned about claimed hoaxes that I couldn't care less about whether they are actually true or not. I'm just not too interested in a lot of that stuff, because there is a lot of crap going on today, this minute, that I think deserves our attention.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 19, 2011)

...and I believe that these two posts are a good point at which to end this.


----------

