LOL, so the Deep State infiltrates radical groups to stop them from committing acts of violence against whites in order to insure domestic tranquility? Instead of, say, encouraging violence to justify more state power as a solution?

Well, you’re responding to something I never said. I just said that the organs of the State infiltrate radical groups. That is well known. I did not say why they do it, or that it was to prevent acts of violence. I’m sure that, in some cases, the infiltrators’ agenda is to foment violence. Or it’s to set up patsies in whatever false flag event. It’s a very dirty, sordid business.

But they surely have all the “radical” groups infiltrated, not just Black groups like NOI, but also any significant White Nationalist sorts of groups as well.

Given the US regimes track record, why believe anything they say? I am not saying I know for sure whether the moon landing was a hoax or not, but we have one of the most corrupt elites in the history of mankind in the US, I am not inclined to believe anything they say or waste any effort defending their accomplishments even if it did happen. Look at the track record, JFK, 9/11, WMD, Russiagate, etc. I do think the timing was just a little too convenient though, so I am leaning towards doubting it.

“It is good enough for me that their reported dosage readings contradict their claim of successful lunar travel, regardless of the shielding. ”

Hi Mike P. I would ask you to read this carefully, especially the last sentence. I tried Sabino’s calculation method. It is good.

The MSc Thesis of João Tiago Duarte Sabino
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395144831767/dissertacao.pdf
has a calculation example in Table 5.4, page 41. It shows how to calculate dosages for Apollo 17.

For instance, to get the LEO dosage for this mission, you first notice that the mission was 210 min=1.26*10^4 s in LEO. Then you add the protected values for Solar Maximum from Table 5.1 for LEO, that is 4.27 for trapped protons and 1.33 for GCR to get 5.6*10^-6 mGy/s.
This you multiply with the time 210 min and get
1.26*10^4*5.6*10^-6 mGy=0.07 mGy, which you find as the entry for LEO from table 5.4. The values of Sabino give the mission dosage for Apollo 17 as 5.2 mGy. The annnounced value is 5.5 mGy.

In order to calculate the mission of Apollo 7, which stayed in LEO (but in low LEO orbit) for all the time, we first calculate the time in LEO. it is 10.8 days=9.36*10^5 s. Then we take the LEO radiation the same way as before, 5.6*10^-6 mGy/s and multiply it with the time. This gives 5.6*9.36*10^(5-6) mGy=5.2 mGy. This value is too high. The announced mission dosage is 1.6 mGy. However, the reason is simply that the LEO radiation values in Table 5.1 are given for a higher orbit, for Skylab orbit at 435 km. Correctling this gives the value for Apollo 7 correctly. Sabino’s calculation method and table values are correct when correctly used.

We notice from figures 5.1 and 5.2 that the dosage for voyage stages outside VABs does not much depend on shielding. It is because the radiation is GCR, which passes the shielding. We also notice that if the LEO orbit is lower and has insignificant number of trapped protons, like with the orbit of Apollo 7, then it is irrelevant if you are in the LEO or outside VABs, as long as you do not get flares (solar storms). Thus, the difference in dosage between Apollo 7 and Apollo 11, assuming that Apollo 11 went to the Moon, is only VABs.

The flight of Apollo 11 through VABs lasted 350 min = 2.1*10^4 s according to R. A. Braeunig
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm”

From these we can calculate the dosage in VABs for unprotected flight as
3.75*2.1*10^(5-6+4) mGy =7.875*10^3 mGy=7,875 mGy.
Here the trapped proton part is so large that GCR is ignorable. From Braeunig we get the dosage for an unprotected flight as
1,442 mGy
The difference between these figures is not especially large and can be explained by different assumptions for radiation and trajectory and a different method. As Sabino’s thesis is written much later and it has been checked, I consider his numbers more correct.

However, the announced mission dosage for Apollo 11 is much smaller. It is 1.8 mGy. Let us assume the spaceship did have the shielding of 27.8 g/cm2. From Table 5.1 we can read the dosage in seconds for VAB in Solar Maximum as 58.91+2.71=61.6*10^-6 mGy/s. Multiplying this by the time spent in VABs (350 min) yields 2.1*10^4*61.6*10^-6=1.3 mGy.

For the rest of the trip we can assume Apollo 11 has the same daily GCR radiation as Apollo 7, so as Apollo 7 lasted 10.83 days and Apollo 11 8.08 days, the dosage for Apollo 11 should be 8.08/10.83 times the mission dosage for Apollo 7 plus the VAB contribution. This yields
1.6*8.08/10.83+1.3=1.2+1.3=2.5 mGy.

The strange thing is that the announced dosage for Apollo 11 is 1.8 mGy. It means that shielding was much better than what Sabino estimated, or the trajectory was better. Let us assume that the trajectory of Apollo 11 was better and instead of Sabino’s values for VAB we use Braeunig’s value. The unprotected dosage in Braeuning is 1,440 instead of 7.875, that is 1/5.46 part. From Sabino’s figures we got the VAB dosage as 1.3 mGy. Dividing it by 5.46 we get 0.24 mGy for the better trajectory of Apollo 11. Calculating the mission dosage for Apollo 11 gives 1.2+0.24=1.44 mGy. This is a bit smaller than the announced value and we can conclude that Apollo 11 did not quite have the 27.8 g/cm2 shielding.

One can conclude that Sabina’s thesis gives a good calculation method and his figures are quite reasonable when correctly used. Apollo 11 can indeed have had the announced mission dosage. It depends on shielding. Especially one must notice that the argument that Apollo 11 should have had a much higher dosage than Apollo 7 regardless of shielding is false. The difference comes only from VAB and the VAB contribution depends only on shielding.

presumably its an official NASA photo.

Why on Earth would you make that assumption after the author led with a bogus illustration?

Look, unless the reputed Apollo photo has an identifying number so that its provenance can be verified, or unless it has been downloaded from a reputable source (see below), it is a waste of your time and ours to analyze it, except for comic relief, so carry on.

The Project Apollo Archive has posted many Apollo photos online at its Flickr account:

AS17-134-20384

These images are described as new scans from the original negatives on 70mm film, which produce a 52x52mm image in the Hasselblad. Various sizes up to 4175×4175 can be downloaded from PAA’s Flickr account.

Using NASA’s image numbers with a search engine will yield official or at least reputable repositories to download Apollo images for enjoyment, inspection, or analysis. Your approach may vary, but at least please be certain you’ve got the original goods, and you’re not just beating up on somebody’s rag doll.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html

The Nation of Islam, like any oppositional group, was surely completely infiltrated by Deep State agents.

the NOI could mount a conspiracy to kill random white people (with no motive!) for a period of many months without the FBI knowing what was going on … impossible, and thus, untrue

LOL, so the Deep State infiltrates radical groups to stop them from committing acts of violence against whites in order to insure domestic tranquility? Instead of, say, encouraging violence to justify more state power as a solution?

So, right now, ANTIFA must be infiltrated and therefore ANTIFA is incapable of perforforming a series of violent attacks against whites? Sorry, I mean the “so-called” ANTIFA attacks.

Oh, and about NOI “(with no motive!)” to kill whites… DAS RITE! They dindu nuffin’.

white people have an average IQ of 105

I can agree with statement.

I have outlined to you how via ray tracing of the 3D model scene one could try to make this argument but one would have to do actual work.

I introduced ray tracing to the discussion, you clod, now you’re trying to lecture me about it. ‘Ever do any actual 3D ray tracing work utu? I doubt it.

Try to understand that all parallel lines converge in the distance and meet at their common vanishing point, irrespective of the position of the photographer or observer. That fact is illustrated perfectly in the three photos you’ve posted, but you just don’t get it.

Anyway, the ray tracing work has been done already by Luis Ernesto Bilbao, who has a PhD in Physics from the University of Buenos Aires, is Adjunct Professor, and Independent Researcher, INFIP CONICET, UBA (the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina).

Natural sunlight cannot result in the shadow divergence seen in AS14-68-9486. Moreover, while the foreground rocks have dense shadows rendering part of these objects totally black, detail is still visible on the shadow side of the LM (and the astronaut). The finding that ‘unnatural’ lighting must have been deployed has been challenged by various individuals over the years, including the Principal Image Quality Engineer at NVIDIA, USA Robin Jenkin. In AS14-68-9486 the foreground rocks appear to be on a slight rise relative to the rest of the scene. This minor difference in terrain levels is often cited as the reason for the considerable shadow divergence.

A closer inspection reveals that all the rock shadows in this image are consistent with illumination from the same light source. The key to this understanding lies within rectangle (a). Even these rocks in the mid ground have shadows falling in a direction that is consistent with the primary light source. It is only the intruders in this particular lunar landscape – the LM, the flag (and as we shall see, the astronaut) – which have shadows caused by a different, ’secondary’ light source.

Apollo 14: Second Light Source Confirmed

There is more..

“His opening paragraphs express derision and ire towards hoaxers, but the rest of his paper is surely of a higher quality than the (Marki/Makri?) one you linked to earlier, which would earn a poor grade even at an undergraduate level.”

Let us first see what I think of the quality.

I have now read the references:
R. A. Braeunig
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm”

Andreas Märki
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.01643.pdf

and the results from the MSc thesis by João Tiago Duarte Sabino
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395144831767/dissertacao.pdf
(I skipped the theory part as it is fine and I did not need it in this checking)

These references give the dosage for Apollo 11 trajectory and mission duration as follows:

If no shielding used:
Sabino: 7,870 mGy
Braeunig: 1,442 mGy
Marki: not given
The difference between Sabino and Braeunig is less than 10 times and can be fully explained by using sligthly different data for that time (it has to be partly guessed), a slighly different trajectory (it has to be partly guessed from NASA data), and a different method (simulations versus element calculation from formulate). These results agree fully that the radiation for an unprotected astronaut passing VAB on the Apollo 11 mission was on the range 1,000-10,000 mGy.

Shielding used. Notice the differences between the amount of shielding these three authors assumed:
Sabino: 1 mGy assuming 27.8 g/cm2 shielding (=100 mm of aluminium)
Braeunig: 0.16 mGy assuming 15 g/cm2 (7 g/cm2 from shielding and 8 g/cm2 from all material in the command module)
Marki: 39.6 mGy assuming 1.9g/cm2 shielding (=4 mm of aluminium), Marki concluded from the announced dosage that the mission must have had 7 mm aluminium, i.e., 5.4 g/cm2.

These values differ. Sabino and Marki are compatible, Braeunig is a decade smaller. Therefore it looks like Braeunig is incorrect. He is also the only non-professional of the three. Sabino made a MSc thesis on this, so he is educated to this area, Marki is a MSc Eng. who has a firm on this area, clearly both are from the area. Braeunig seems to be a hobbyist.

The estimation Braeunig gives to the shielding is higly questionable. He uses a very doubtful NASA figure 7-8 g/cm2 for the CM, but he adds 8 g/cm2 from other material in the CM, like oxygen bottles, measurement instruments and such. This additional material did not shield the area and it cannot give much protection. It is about the same as if in the following example: in diving you may use a dry suit. Earlier they were made of rubber and the thicker the rubber the more it warmed. But if somebody put a tractor tire on his waist, it did have much rubber, but it did not protect against coldness and it did not keep you dry. So, weight of material cannot be divided by the surface area for obtaining radiation protection. It must be a shield, not one with holes.

My conclusion is that the figures given by Braeunig are wrong. Furthermore, his post was ridiculous reading for a professional person like me: at the end he calculates how much radiation came from Bremsstrahlung. Of course, that is very minimal, so what was the point. To me it seemes that this author has no insight on basic physics if he has to calculate this thing. So, a hobbyist.

I think you have a too low opinion on Marki. I found his paper quite good and even witty.

said:
“I agree strictly speaking. On the other hand I have no problem in believing some smart maybe Aspergery young SS officers thought it would be a great idea to block up a few cellar rooms and trying them out as gas chambers for surplus people.”

Except that would be scientifically impossible, even for your “surplus people”.

Still trying to play “holocaust-lite” for which there is no more proof than their is the ‘holocaust-full blown’.

I recommend:
The alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process reviewed and demolished here.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11143&p=83723&hilit=model+asmarques#p83723

As for the Eichmann nonsense, debunked here:

https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
comments #182

“no good reason”? No, I envisage someone who was a technical nerd or just ambitious to be seen as very good at his job.

Your reference to Eichmann’s being known to be in Argentina and to his bargaining in 1943 (?1944) reminded me of a documentary that I saw where the trucks for Jews deal in Hungary was presented in a way which didn’t appear to be pushing any particular controversial line though the Kastner train (actually mid 1944) was certainly flagged as iffy. I don’t really see any doubt that (a) Hitler and many other Germans wouldn’t have been revolted at the idea of solving the JP by mass murder and overwork (b) there was pragmatism at all levels at all times from the Havara agreement to the attempted Eichmann deals and the retaining of thousands of “Jewish” officers in the Wehrmacht.

it ‘destroyed the technology’, and it’s ‘too painful’ to rebuild it

Brilliant! Good to know NASA have spent all those years since forgetting and destroying. I hope the other agencies have also destroyed the nuclear weapons technology, the bueprints for nukes, and forgotten how to operate the ones they’ve stockpiled so we can sleep in peace with no fear of a nuclear holocaust.

Thanks for information, I will continue studying this.

“How would you convince somebody that what we see on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 is not the same effect as in this picture?”

One has to make a trigonometric calculation and locate the camera coordinates in three dimensions, the direction and angle of the sun, the distances in the scene, and still consider the objective if it is not wide view. It is fairly tedious and takes time but can be done, I did it for the Buchenwald photo, the one where the man is standing. The shadow direction and length was correct, but there was a logical problem with the man’s standing position (feet much back from where the hands were).

No, but the discussion is not about railroad tracks, but about shadows created by the Sun.

Do no try to weasel out now and pretend that you did not understand my explanation I made for your sake. You know that you lost your argument using the distinction betweens the cases of converging and diverging shadows. There is no distinction. You are unable to make a compelling argument (even to yourself) why the shadows on the pict from the Moon, that are diverging, must be due to an artificial light source. I have outlined to you how via ray tracing of the 3D model scene one could try to make this argument but one would have to do actual work. Actually the ray tracing is not necessary. Just a skillful use of 1/S1+1/S2=1/F relationship in 3D will suffice. But there is no guarantee that the case of shadows created by sunlight will be excluded.

You have no physical/mathematical argument. All you got now are your feelings, Sparkon.

If you mean some random SS officer may have killed prisoners for no good reason, sure, I’m sure that could have happened in isolated instances.

Eichmann’s postwar story raises too many eyebrows. He was absent-mindedly released from American custody then basically milled around western Germany for a few years before deciding it might not be a good idea to stick around. Then his presence in Argentina was widely known to all the major intelligence services, his actions at the time suggest an operative negotiating how to come back in. His role in the Third Reich was to barter Jews for the eventual political settlement in Palestine that was clearly coming after late 1943, he would have known all the players on both sides.

The shadows are converging in the distance toward a vanishing point following the rules of perspective.

when you look at railroad tracks they always converge (that’s; how perspective works) and Sun has nothing to do with it.

No, but the discussion is not about railroad tracks, but about shadows created by the Sun.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘atrocity stories” but if you specifically mean the use of gas chambers and the selections on arrival I agree strictly speaking. On the other hand I have no problem in believing some smart maybe Aspergery young SS officers thought it would be a great idea to block up a few cellar rooms and trying them out as gas chambers for surplus people. You could find plenty of “willing executooners” today, not least in America.

As to Eichman being an “asset” that sounds crazy. I can’t think of a way to spell it out so it is at all plausible. Can you?

This is for the moon- walking on, walking on, the moon

“During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies.”
From http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm

“…(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum).”

“So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!”

“The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours”. The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.

“A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: “On page 256 of ‘Astronautical Engineering’ there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding.”

“So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.”

” For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the “occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled” that the limit of an “effective dose of 50 mSv” “in any single year” “be not exceeded”. 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.”
“How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?”

Some science stuff mixed in: http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

I imagine this guy is counting all flares on the sun. I don’t know if solar flares not facing the moon would reach the moon but the whole thing is appearing to be a game of Russian roullette, if these guys landed on the moon in their Ace Hardware landing craft of taped up tarps, tarping paper and aluminum foil. Perhaps Kubrick just had to make do.

Its indeed painful to rebuild that destroyed “studio technology” & finding hundreds of thousands willing morons as witness.

60yrs ago, those alu foils & Christmas wrappers look great & high tech on that cardboard moon lander isn’t it. Who know its such a common kitchen ware now. So are the little umbrella TV live broadcaster, foldable rover, hundreds of expensive CRT TV with pasted display …they supposed to look very high tech “60yrs ago”.

Its not fair to judge us by current standard, we truly did a great job60yrs ago…NASA complaint.

I found picts with shadows diverging (away from sun).

and you see the blurring effect caused by an existing atmosphere.

Btw: what size has the “studio” with the LEM Module far away and the mountains much further?

“wasn’t it easier just go to the moon?”
S. G. Collins in his “Moon hoax not” film

I think his numbers make sense, and correspond to a back-of-the-envelope calculation in terms of what is verifiable about the western camps and EG shootings, and overall casualties in the chaos of population transfers in the east. They definitely don’t support the atrocity stories re. Auschwitz and the AR camps. (FWIW I do believe Eichmann was some sort of asset.)

So, let me get this straight. If we can get a couple of hundred astrophysicists or aerospace engineers to publicly commit career suicide, then (and only then…) you’ll actually pay some attention.

Yeah, but not 10-Grand.

HAHAHAHA!

Just funnin’ with you Rev-OOO.

I found picts with shadows diverging (away from sun).

Thanks, that was it. It seems to leave a Holocaust death toll of 2.5 million though I can’,t guarantee that I have had the stamina to tackle its detail properly. I am sure most Jews believe or have believed at some time the 6 million figure and would probably now assume it was at least 4 million.

There are some odd suggestions in that piece which make me wonder why I haven’t yet had responses to the key question I pose which is about the deportations from all over occupied Europe of non workers. They would be along the lines of it being secret Zionist plotting with the Nazis to get comfortable Jews to move to Palestine. Of course they had to be uprooted. The trouble with that appears to be that there is absolutely no confirmation of it from the expected German sources – Eichman for one.

(1) Shadows on Earth and Moon cast by Sun are parallel. You agree on this, right?

(2) But the shadows when photographed may converge on the 2D plane of the photograph as on the picture which I have pasted already twice. You agree on this, right?

(3) You claim that on the picture from the Moon that you have pasted several times shadows diverge and that this divergence can’t be explained by the same perspective effect as the convergence in (2) and thus it must imply that the shadows are not made by Sun light but by an artificial light source. Is this accurate description of your argument?

Shadows may either converge or diverge it all depends where is the camera. It can be easily checked experimentally. It is less frequent to see shadows diverging because it happens when camera is somewhat facing the Sun and people usually do not take pictures against the Sun. But you can also perform a mental experiment. Think of the shadows as objects (sticks or railroad tracks) laying on the ground. The sticks, the railroad tracks are parallel. But when you look at railroad tracks they always converge (that’s; how perspective works) and Sun has nothing to do with it. So you can look East or West along the same tracks and they converge and by the same argument they diverge in opposite direction.

So the distinction of divergence vs. convergence that you have made does not suffice to prove that your picture from the Moon implies an artificial light source. You have to make a better argument. That’s why in the very beginning of our conversation I have suggested that the argument must be quantitative. You must calculate whether the shadows seen on the picture from the Moon are impossible to be created by sunlight. Yes, you can do it by ray tracing of the scene and a particular focal length lens but in order to do it you will have to make several assumption: positions of objects that cast shadows with respect of camera, focal length and position of Sun with respect to optical axis. It might be possible that there is no right combination of these parameters to replicate the picture from the Moon and only then you would have proven that the picture was not taken under the natural sunlight. But as far as I know nobody has done such an extensive calculations and thus the claims that you and many other are making that this particular picture can’t be made under the sunlight are unwarranted.

How can they have landed on the moon? The moon, like the Earth, is obviously a flat disk. But the moon is made of paper – so they’d make hole in it if they landed.

Parallel shadows produced by the sun alone will, when viewed from a perpendicular position, run in parallel. Viewed nearly head-on, as in the picture you showed, they will naturally converge. This one looks time-lapsed to me, but i could be wrong. Maybe there’s just some odd curvature on the ground to the right. In any case, the position of the shadows in no way resembles the tight convergence of shadows seen in many Apollo pics. These are clearly not accounted for by irregular terrain.

The shadows in your picture converge in the distance because of perspective, as we should expect.

AS14-68-9487

However, the shadows in this image diverge going away from the light, so the anomalous, divergent shadows cannot be due to perspective.

Or, you can look at it the other way and say that the shadows converge when pointing back toward the source of light. There is an entire field of computer graphics devoted to these related phenomena known as ray-tracing.

In computer graphics, ray tracing is a rendering technique for generating an image by tracing the path of light as pixels in an image plane and simulating the effects of its encounters with virtual objects.

I’ve been saying you cannot cast parallel shadows from discrete objects with a single, artificial light source, but now it has occurred to me that, if you had a gigantic light with a diameter greater than the distance between the most widely spaced objects in the scene, say by using miniatures (models) and a big spotlight at some distance, it might be possible to get parallel shadows that would be “good enough” not to attract attention. Not saying that was done, necessarily, but rather that my earlier claim about the parallel shadows needed to be amended.

Anyway, the Sun being 109x the diameter of Earth and 93 million miles away are the reasons the Sun casts parallel shadows on Earth, and on the Moon.

Well, at least so far there is not a Flat Moon theory. You’d think that big ol’ spherical Moon going through its phases would deflate the Flat Earth thing. How do you reconcile a Flat Earth with a spherical Moon? Obviously, some folks are beyond convincing.

For lurking pedants: upstream somewhere I was talking about an old 24mm lens with lots of flare, but incorrectly said it was k-mount, when actually it was a M42 screw-mount purchased in the late 1960s, while the K-mount was not introduced until 1975. I feel much better now getting that off my chest..

evidently I misread 13,000 to be 3,000. Still, 13,000 is not enough to cover all surface with 10 cm of aluminum equivalent (in the business we prefer water equivalent, meters of water equivalent, mwe).
So we still have some discrepancy.

In the problem at hand, g/cm2 or thickness in cm are nearly equivalent, once you account for the density (2.7 for aluminum). The VAB particles are essentially stopped by electrons in the shield. And all conceivable structural materials have approximately the same number of electrons per gram.

Danny Jew-Boy Needs “Leg” To “Standing Upon,” Eh?

Danny Jew-boy: well, ONE of us is sure “blooming idiot,” and if I am, then thou SURE are, eh?–ho ho ho ho ho ho. But dumbass, why not say WHY–what did I ever say that was wrong or questionable, sucker?–tell us.

Sundials have flat bases.

So here’s a test to perform. Make two sundials. Make one with a flat base. And make the second one with a base shaped like waves out in the ocean in a storm.

Publish your results.

Proof Of Manned Moon-Landing Still Awaits

Well, one fact that has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt during this little tardfest is that your Daddy shot his wad into a flower pot and raised a blooming idiot.

Unz Lies, Mis-Represents, Refuses To Grasp Simple Scientific Method, Observation Capable To Anyone W. Common Sense

Unz, Jew lying liar who lies, says,

“Basically, the Moon Hoax people admit they have no technical expertise [IT’S IRRELEVANT TO OBSERVATION/CONFIRMATION OF THEORY/THESIS]

“…and are relying upon their “common sense” that the 1969 Moon landing was “scientifically impossible.”

No, thou stupid Jew liar, we don’t say “landing” was “scientifically impossible”–we don’t have to. All we say is proof for the assertion about “landing” is non-existent, utterly lacking–THERE IS NO PROOF, sucker–get a clue, moron.

And since such PROOF consists simply of OBSERVATION of the thesis/issue/question (the “landing”), the “proof” is non-existent and utterly lacking. And since such proof and observation can be done by anyone w. common sense, then common sense (and observation) is all that’s needed, obviously, REGARDLESS of any “expert.”

Here’s a decent exposition on scientific method, which is essentially sense-perception confirming (or not) the abstract question/issue/thesis–it only requires HONEST observation and common sense; doesn’t need “experts,” et al.:

“Empirical observation is the gathering of data using only information that is directly or indirectly available to our senses.

“Empirical observation is the foundation of any experiment, and so forms a crucial part of the scientific method.

“What characterizes empirical evidence is that it uses objective observable data, as opposed to opinion or anecdote, to concisely answer a research question. Empirical evidence is always the same, regardless of who the observer is. For example, anybody can look at a thermometer and observe that it reads 10 °C, but many different observers may stand in a room and claim it’s “very cold” or “only somewhat cold.” The former is an empirical observation, the latter is simply opinion.”

Above is taken fm https://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method. Q.E.D.

I was really thinking hard how to respond to your comment in a civil way but I gave up. There is nothing more obstinate than idiocy.

It’s fairly clear that that image is a time-lapse photo, similar to the one here:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=T%2fUAXF5U&id=31F86FEEC04A9A970ACD6431B0E2677A9DCB3982&thid=OIP.T_UAXF5UCaArYX2tAOFAUwAAAA&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fnickdodgephotography.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f1%2f3%2f6%2f4%2f13640661%2f3891928.jpg&exph=222&expw=333&q=diverging+shadows+from+post+time+lapse+photo&simid=608051292067137026&selectedIndex=4&ajaxhist=0

It’s the only way you could achieve such an effect with sunlight.

Nice try, though.

I think the owner of the badastronomy site is Phil Plait. You can see from his Wikipedia page that he worked for NASA. He debated Bart Sibrel on MSNBC a couple decades ago. The YouTube video is: “MSNBC Debates Moon Landing Hoax (2002)”. Bart Sibrel mentions that Plait worked for NASA.

Of course, this does not prove anything, but Mr. Unz should not assume that an astronomer who worked for NASA for a number of years is giving an impartial opinion. He also worked for Discover magazine. Many of us who are into conspiracy analysis will be aware that mainstream publications have links to the deep state. Plait’s main field of work in recent years has been public outreach, not astronomy.

Regardless, I would say that a background in space physics would be more relevant than a background in astronomy or astrophysics, which deal with things that are outside the solar system, generally. It is space physics that concerns the Van Allen belts and other sources of radiation around our planet. There is also planetary science, which deals with what moons and planets would look like up close. As far as who would know about orbital mechanics and the complications involved with getting a spacecraft from point A to point B and maintaining a safe environment in space, that would involve various types of engineering.

I‘ve already gone to some length explaining this above. The shadows converge toward the vanishing point because of perspective.

At first, I don’t care if there was somebody on the moon or not. Same what other people believe or not. I am interested in new ideas. This is a fascinating one, because it’s shows that I am totally wrong.

Before your statement I was sure that the sundial was a clock the Romans invented and it was used all over the time. Now I know that’s wrong because the direction of the shade depends on the point of view. That is btw. a very interesting enhancement of Einsteins RT.

So please expand my view of physics and tell me more: why make two light sources only one shadow?

Don’t hurry, I can wait to next April fool day ;-).

Could it be that 7-8 g/cm2 for the Apollo CM might not be quite accurate?

Most likely it isn’t; the dosages in LEO are too high for that. What NASA tells us about it is of no consequence, they simply have lied too often to be believed on anything at all. It is good enough for me that their reported dosage readings contradict their claim of successful lunar travel, regardless of the shielding.

This is what I meant when asking why nobody wants to exit the earth from the polar regions where there is no Van Allen Belts. There is something terribly wrong in those areas, cosmic rays, those that VAB protects us against. All charged cosmic particle that come to the direction to the earth should be directed to the polar areas by earth’s magnetic field.

True, but on a real lunar mission you would hit those areas only for a very few short times. You would launch into a high-inclination LEO that traverses your intended point of departure close to the pole, circle the Earth once or twice for checks and attitude adjustments, and then take off toward the moon tangentially, thus preserving all that precious kinetic energy. The way NASA tells the story – low-inclination LEO, and THEN a change of direction in order to circumnavigate the VAB, is patently absurd. They assumed low-inclination LEO because they meant to stay there the entire time.

So how the convergence or divergence of shadows on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 is different? How would you convince somebody that what we see on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 is not the same effect as in this picture?

Another good topic is Ring Makers of Saturn.

It is expensive though.

NASA is the short bus kids. Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Leidos and General Atomics.

Norman Bergrun – Ringmakers of Saturn

Video Link

I‘ve already gone to some length explaining this above. The shadows converge toward the vanishing point because of perspective. Are you really flummoxed by this?

My #1439

In a 2D representation of our 3D world, or even of the Moon, shadows obey the rules of perspective and converge toward a vanishing point, like everything else.

Do you think a reading from a sundial taken at the leftmost post would differ from another simultaneous sundial reading at the rightmost post, or if you simply measured the angle of the shadows with respect to each post, that they would be different?

Over any substantial distance, it’s a different story, but locally, all shadows from the Sun are cast at the same angle.

“Interestingly, an orbit with low inclination is optimal for avoiding GCR when staying in that orbit, but one with high inclination would be optimal for avoiding the van Allen belts when departing from Earth orbit toward the moon. ”

This is what I meant when asking why nobody wants to exit the earth from the polar regions where there is no Van Allen Belts. There is something terribly wrong in those areas, cosmic rays, those that VAB protects us against. All charged cosmic particle that come to the direction to the earth should be directed to the polar areas by earth’s magnetic field. Notice that VAB does not protect in any way against photons, thus these dangerous cosmic rays which we do not have on LEO must be charged particle, that is, electrons or protons. But this radiation should basically be close to the earth, so I left it to the study of VABs.

I have a strong feeling that the calculation by the debunker in the link provided by out esteemed opponents has ignored this issue. Usually debunkers ignore half of the issues and cherry-pick just what they want to show. My feeling is that if you try to avoid VABs, then you take another risk, and that is why Marki in his preprint wonders why NASA today does not want to use the excellent path of Apollo 11 or do even better and exit the earth from the North Pole. (I think he has several jokes in his preprint for people who know the topic.)

About this shielding. I have a serious problem in determining it because information from NASA does not seem to make sense.

Firstly, during Apollo programs NASA did not use any special radiation shielding, so I would expect that they did not have as much shielding as what was later planned.

Then we have Simonsen (1991) in
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sshepherd/research/Shielding/docs/Simonsen_91.pdf
He gives some information. On page 8 states that moderately shielded spacecraft (5 g/cm2), such as those contemplated for advanced missions… This means that Apollo did not have so thick shielding. Simonsen considers moderately shielded to mean 2-5 g/cm2.

That was the state of knowledge in 1991, but today NASA informs us of the shielding properties of Apollo in
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html
and states that Apollo CM was comparable to 7-8 g/cm2 while a space suit is 0.25g/cm2. That would indicate that in 1969 NASA used more shielding than Simonsen saw necessary in future missions when writing in 1991.

Just to remind us, aluminum density is 2.7 g/cm3 (2 cm thick aluminum gives 5.4 g/cm2). The protection of 7 mm gives 1.89 g/cm2 while 20 mm gives 5.4 g/cm2. Marki suggested that Apollo CM might have offered 7 mm protection, that is 1.89 g/cm2, but NASA says that they had 7-8 g/cm2, that is 26-29 mm of aluminium. It does not match to Marki’s calculations: radiation with so much shielding should have been less than what is announced.

Could it be that 7-8 g/cm2 for the Apollo CM might not be quite accurate?

How accurately were they measured? Is it possible that solar activity was different during 9 and 11 missions?

Yes, it is possible that solar activity varied. However, dosage on a lunar mission should exceed that in a low-inclination low Earth orbit very substantially regardless of solar activity.

Are you willing to trust NASA numbers on the dosage? Here … they state that 11 had significantly lower dosage than 9. Could be a typo or some other mistake or just accuracy of measurements.

I was using numbers that I found in several scientific articles; those say that Apollo 11 experienced slightly higher dosages than Apollo 9. If NASA’s numbers are correct, and it was indeed Apollo 9 that had the higher dosages, that makes my argument only stronger.

Of course I don’t trust NASA on anything. NASA is the U.S. government, and that outfit never tells the truth. But I hope you are not suggesting that NASA’s known mendacity gives cause for reasonable doubt in their favour.

You cannot derail the whole official narrative with weak arguments like the one you are making.

You mean the world is not hanging on my lips? Ouch, that really hurts. A lot.

I am perfectly aware that other arguments are more direct than mine, and much more fun to review – all the funny pictures and absurd videos. I love those, too, and I was initially persuaded by them that the story must be false. Only then did I look at the scientific side of things.

Since there are lots of people who pretend that “science” is on the side of the official narrative, I think there is value, too, in showing that the tale is scientifically untenable, even if this is a little dry and laborious. I do believe that I have identified one way of doing so (but others have made similar arguments before me). I remain of course open to being proven wrong – but nobody here has done that so far, even though some of the commenters did force me to dig deeper.

Your stubbornness in believing that a story is right as long as it is not denied by specialists is quite amazing. Reads like Claud Cockburn’s dictum who held the opposite position: ‘Never believe anything until it is officially denied.’

Of course the moonlanding story is much worse than denial from the specialists, as the moonlandings are not even denied, it is a taboo subject. Why is it a taboo subject?

Maybe you did not read another comment that I wrote about professor Brian Cox who decided to not answer skeptical questions about the moonlandings as shown here

http://www.aulis.com/brian_cox.htm

Some snippets:

Brian Cox states with some vitriol in a BBC documentary that “The Moon landings happened and the question is nonsensical … it’s like saying was America ever discovered? Right? Well, yes, it was. Did we, did we work out how to… did we discover penicillin? Yes. Did we go to the Moon? Yes. That’s the evidence. There is no information content or use in debating it any more.”

Asked to clarify how this response completely proves the fact that they [the Apollo astronauts] went there, Cox replies with a remarkable lack of cogency, “Well, first of all, I don’t even accept that it needs proving, because you’ve got to be a complete moron anyway…” Cox then stops speaking.

In short: the moonlandings are a taboo subject for distinghuished scientists, like Brian Cox.

Now Brian Cox is not someone I consider as an expert in astronomy, but he is by many others and (as you may know) he is a BBC celebrity

In contrast, I see Carl Sagan as a distinghuished astronomer who popularized astronomy in particular and science in general.

He gives a nice explanation on youtube about the moonlandings that I presented in another comment. I think it is quite interesting: Sagan never says that the moonlandings DID happen. Instead he says that the moonlandings looked beautiful, were of ‘Unreal quality’ that they are inspiring and that with the moon landings we entered an ‘era of myth and legend.’ I think we can all agree with that and still consider the moonlandings are a hoax.

But for Sagan denial that the moonlandings ever took place was also taboo. Why is it a taboo subject for distinghuished scientists? – I think that is the interesting question, and not why the moonlandings were never denied by distinghuished scientists.

In the end, as explained by many other commenters here: the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.

You are absolutely right Ron’s declaration of faith seems unconvincing, to be polite and further the arguments he uses to support his faith seem about as strong as an Apollo lander.

I still consider the date (1st April) of the original article and Ron’s immediate rebuttal to be highly relevant.

…television in particular has turned out to be a mass hypnosis machine of almost unimaginable power…

TV is a propagandist’s dream tool. A passive audience means one can overlay almost any simple, emotionally stimulating storyline on top of some sketchy, implausible details and so create a new worldview for the viewing public. Once planted there, there’s little chance the public will encounter the devils that reside in the details, and in fact will self-police, (as we’ve seen above) going to some lengths to avoid them.

The first point, the advancement of technology is a little more nuanced in my opinion…

Of course.

The greatest advances have been made in the field of electronics and computation. I realize that having vastly superior onboard electronics isn’t actually going to make a similarly “vastly superior” improvement in on board operations, but it will in design engineering terms by dramatically reducing the space, power and weight required for it. Imagine the difference between the modern video camera and its batteries vs the monsters of the ’60s. Today, we actually could get live broadcasts from the moon surface in, say 360p resolution, from a reasonably sized package (I’m no video expert). Digital processing and transmission consumes vastly less power than analog.

Much more important than that is the effects the electronics/computational revolution has had on design, engineering and making of complex parts and systems. The ability to design, model and test systems with Multi-Physics/Finite Element Analysis software puts modern design engineers light-years ahead of the ’60s. Materials, shapes, structures, and entire systems can be repeatedly tested under arbitrarily stressful conditions, to destruction, redesigned and optimized in cyber space long before anything is physically built. The parts are then precision cut or formed by multi-axis CNC machines straight from the original design files for physical verification. No “artisans” required. All this happens “inline” and the result is that extraordinary physical performance can be squeezed from the absolutely minimum mass of material at very low cost in time and money compared to Apollo. Apollo was built by hand by artisans/craftsman, from drawings made by hand, of components designed by engineers working with slide-rules. Don’t get me wrong, great things can and were done that way, but the inherent errors and unpredictabilities in such a design process meant engineers had to err on the side of caution, aka: overbuild. Overbuilt sounds good, until you find you don’t have the lifting power to get it into space. We’re much better equipped to get it into space today largely because of the revolution in electronics and computational power.

We have seen also a similarly incremental advance in materials science…but again, nothing major…

I don’t really know much about the state of the materials art of 50 yrs ago. I suspect that metallurgy is not much different today, but ultra-lightweight structures using nano & composite technologies are everywhere now. Their progress has been greatly aided by the power of MP/FEA informed design as well. Little of that was available even to those working at the bleeding edge back then. Similarly, rare earths now allow high density/efficiency batteries and motors to be used in everything, but it’s only in the last 10-15 yrs that we’ve seen those spread. Neodymium permanent magnets and motors came a decade after Apollo.

You mention heat shields, and the limited advances made in that field. Well, we’re running into the limits of what materials can handle. Everything melts/burns/deteriorates at some temperature, and with refractory ceramics we’re at the limits of what can be usefully done.
I suspect that some new thinking in thermal management is the core breakthrough that allowed the development of the new Russian hypersonic missiles.

What stands out in all of this, of course, is that not one of the relevant technology fields has gone backwards from the ’60s. All have advanced, some by orders of magnitude, some by less, but all are in better shape to go to the moon today than they were in 1969. Yet, here we are with our shoes apparently nailed to the floor, or at least to LEO. There’s something very wrong with a storyline that says “the giants that walked the earth in those just got lucky, 6 times in a row”, when much of what allowed them to get lucky had yet to be invented.

Well…in order to answer that you have to look at all the various pieces in some detail…

As ever, the devils reside in the details, which is why these hoaxes (all of them) are so easy to propagate.

I too have read somewhere that the F1 rocket engine was not only much less powerful than advertised, it was also unreliable and even exhibited deep instabilities right up to the moment it was approved for flight. I have no way of assessing its problems, but it is just one of hundreds of technically dubious claims that make up the Apollo story.

If one follows the story step by step, one finds oneself running up against one “WTF?” claim after the other. How many “WTF?” moments does one have to have before tossing the whole thing over the fence? I’m well past the required number.

Do you really think that petulant gibes help make your case? The word “feel” does not apply to me any more than it applies to you. None of my points have involved trying to reduce something to one number, like a radiation dose. My overall point is that sending six teams successfully to the Moon and back in 1969-1972 is highly improbable, especially given that no one has been above a few hundred miles since then (with the Moon being about a thousand times that distance), and also given that a number of other major deceptions have being carried out, including 9/11 and the homicidal gas chamber claim following WW2. That is not reducing things to one number, but rather making an assessment based on the overall plausibility of each side of the argument.

My point about the Van Allen belts is that it is suspicious that the reasons making it possible for seven (including Apollo 13) teams to make it to the Moon and back have not been described in detail in peer-reviewed journals. (I asked for an example of such an article, and you did not provide one.) The interaction of the four areas I listed is complicated and deserves to be considered in depth. The fact that there is no such discussion in the literature is one more piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that the manned Moon missions were fake.

I never said “Van Allen Belt = instant death”. I am saying that it is one complication among many that makes it appear unlikely that people were actually sent to the Moon. Why are you using exaggerations of what I said as straw-men? This is a cheap rhetorical tactic.

I did not ask you to spoon-feed me factoids. I asked for a peer-reviewed article describing how 7 Apollo teams made it through the belts. I said that it would have to include all four areas of information I listed. When you throw out numbers like “6 minutes” it does not prove anything. I think there was only one peer-reviewed article in you latest comment, and it did not mention the Apollo mission. You provided links to sites (e.g., Wikipedia) that anyone could find. The idea that individuals would have to learn about the four areas I listed and integrate the information themselves is preposterous. There should already be numerous studies bringing the information together.

You are asking me to do a study? If one has already been done, then give the citation information. You gave a link for a supposed study on Apollo 11. There were six other missions. The link does not look like a journal article. Do you seriously think it is normal that the only studies looking into this are in obscure web archives? That is bizarre.

Evidently, there are statistical models of Van Allen belt particle spectra. It ought to be possible to look at the paths the astronauts followed and make probabilistic estimates of the numbers of particles at different energy levels. The Apollo missions carried a Van Allen Belt Dosimeter (VABD). This appears to have been inside the spacecraft. Is the detailed VABD data still available, or was it “lost” along with the telemetry data? It does not look like VABD data is discussed in the literature. NASA has technical reports, but they are vague and hardly cited at all, from what I can tell. This, again, is suspicious.

Thus, the very similar dosages measures aboard Apollo 9 and Apollo 11 directly contradict the claim that one, but not other, actually went to the moon.

How accurately were they measured? Is it possible that solar activity was different during 9 and 11 missions?

Are you willing to trust NASA numbers on the dosage? Here in Table 2

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

and here in Table I

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010172.pdf

they state that 11 had significantly lower dosage than 9. Could be a typo or some other mistake or just accuracy of measurements.

You cannot derail the whole official narrative with weak arguments like the one you are making.

That excerpt is damning.

Unless, of course, you believe that:

1. NASA solved this problem 50 years ago, but

2. then, as per astronaut Don Pettit, it ‘destroyed the technology’, and it’s ‘too painful’ to rebuild it, so, aw shucks, we’ll just have to start all over again.

He doesn’t like you.

He doesn’t like me either.

We’d better watch ourselves.

Video Link

Non-parallel shadows. Is this one under artificial lighting as well?

Decent looking lunar landers were never obligatory.

Both photos have extremely low contrast. This is consistent with flare. The “sunbeam” is just flare. And in the third photo, the dark sky in the upper left is simply due to the sun not shining directly on the upper left portion of the front element. Hence no flare in the upper left corner of the photo.

All of these effects are very easy to reproduce. All you need is a camera and a sunny day.

The earth can be photographed from the moon for exactly the same reason that the moon can be photographed from the earth. The exposures used are the same. So, in daylight, here on earth, when the moon is visible in the blue sky, you see it at close to the same brightness as the blue sky, and the same brightness as the grass and trees around you on earth. The moon reflects close to the same amount of light as a photographic grey card used to find the mid point between objects that would be reproduced as white and those reproduced as black in a photograph. In other words, it’s the middle of the grey scale between white and black in a photograph.

Here on earth you can use the “sunny sixteen” rule to set your camera’s exposure on a sunny day. You set the shutter time to the reciprocal of the film or digital sensor’s ISO sensitivity, and set the aperture to f:16. If you point the camera towards a grey scale card with those settings on the camera, the grey scale card will have the same density as the photograph of the grey scale card. And if you photograph a normal landscape scene in direct sunlight at mid day it will be correctly reproduced in the resulting photograph.

Standing on the moon you can do the same thing, and if the earth is in the photo, it will appear correctly exposed. The reason this happens is that the earth and the moon are about the same distance from the light source, the sun. So the exposure settings are the same.

If you have a camera with a flash, you can test this for yourself. Most modern cameras with a flash will calculate the exposure and the power output of the flash for you. So, stand in front of another person with that person about 5 or 6 feet away. Do this in a room with the wall behind your subject 3 or 4 times the distance between you and your subject. Take the picture. If the camera correctly exposes your subject, the wall behind your subject will be significantly darker than your subject. That’s because with every doubling of the distance, the density of photons from the camera’s flash is reduced. It’s only 25% as much with each doubling of the distance.

But the moon and the earth are both about 93 million miles away from the sun, so they both receive the same amount of light from the sun. The sun is far enough away that it takes 8 minutes for the light to reach us. But the closest star is 4.5 light years away, quite a few orders of magnitude further away. So their light is far less intense by the time it reaches us. You can stare at any star in the night sky for hours if you like with no damage to your eyes. Don’t try that with our sun.

The photons from each star are spread out further apart as they get further from the source. The light is far less dense. So while it’s certainly possible to photograph the distant stars, you can’t use the same exposure settings to record them on film as you use to expose objects illuminated by the sun here on earth or on the moon.

Thanks for your reply.

Also consider galactic cosmic rays (GCR). They are greatly attenuated in low Earth orbit, as long as the inclination is low (see my last reply to James Forrestal).

Interestingly, an orbit with low inclination is optimal for avoiding GCR when staying in that orbit, but one with high inclination would be optimal for avoiding the van Allen belts when departing from Earth orbit toward the moon.

NASA is asking us to believe that Apollo 11 and all the others initially launched into low Earth orbit with low inclination, but then took off from that orbit almost perpendicularly so as to circumnavigate the van Allen belts. This would have meant forfeiture of the kinetic energy attained in the orbit (for there is no trampoline in space to bounce against, changing direction while preserving energy). Just one more lunatic tale.

It makes no sense to begin with, it cannot work as it reportedly did, and on top of that we have Bart Sibrel’s evidence that indeed Apollo 11 never left low Earth orbit. The coffin is sealed for good, and it will stay this way longer than that of even Tutankhamun.

The shielding is very heterogeneous; 30% of the surface are rated at below 3 g/cm^2.

Look again. The x-axis on that graph starts at 1, not zero. It’s actually about 12% of the area that’s rated below 3 g/cm^2.

Indeed, you are right. This means that 30% of the surface are rated at below 4 g/cm^2 rather than 3 g/cm^2. However, that doesn’t change the fact that shielding is heterogenous; and your claim that they average out is simply false, since shielding is non-linear.

Here is Figure 6 from Turner2009

It compares the shielding in different space capsules. Notice how the space shuttle (top left) and the ISS (top right) are shielded all around with at least 10 g/cm2. In contrast, Apollo (bottom right) has a very noticeable proportion of weakly shielded areas. It clearly was not optimized for radiation protection. Let that sink in – the only vehicle allegedly built for manned spaceflight outside low Earth orbit was not optimized for radiation protection.

Here is Figure 2 from the same paper, showing the effectiveness of shielding against energy-rich particles

Since it is poorly legible, I have highlighted the aluminium trace. On the left, we see the dose equivalent as a function of shielding density (in relative units; appropriate absolute units would be Sievert); on the right hand side, we see some actual effects in a biological model. The range of the x axis goes from 0 to 30 g/cm^2 shielding; the latter value corresponds to 11 cm of aluminium. Notice how the dosage decreases only very slowly (and initially may even increase); this is due to the secondary radiation generated when energy-rich particles hit the shielding.

Figure 4 from the same paper shows how shielding affects galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which occur at a steady intensity beyond the van Allen belt. As you can see, shielding is not very effective at all.

That figure also shows that shielding can be more effective against solar particle events (SPE); however, notice that the curves shown apply to shielding materials other than, and in this application better than, aluminium.

Finally, we need to keep in mind that the Earth’s magnetic field, at low latitudes, shields from cosmic rays, except only those of the highest energies. See for example this illustration from Heinrich (1994)

Shown here are only Fe nuclei, but the situation is similar for other particle types. This effect will greatly reduce radiation exposure in low Earth orbit relative to outer space – and this applies regardless of solar activity and of the van Allen belts. This is the reason why most NASA missions – including ALL Apollo missions, even the alleged lunar ones – stayed in orbits with low inclination.

In conclusion, dosage on a lunar mission, whether harmful or not, will always greatly exceed that received on a 30 degree low Earth orbit, as long as shielding is comparable. Thus, the very similar dosages measures aboard Apollo 9 and Apollo 11 directly contradict the claim that one, but not other, actually went to the moon.

Personally, once they manage to round up a couple of hundred astrophysicists and aerospace engineers to publicly endorse the Moon Hoax theory I’ll be very glad to spend some time carefully investigating it myself.

So, let me get this straight. If we can get a couple of hundred astrophysicists or aerospace engineers to publicly commit career suicide, then (and only then…) you’ll actually pay some attention.

Hmm…. I have to say you’ve got a point. If a couple of hundreds fellas lined up and committed ritual hara kiri in front of me, they would have my attention!

Not just my attention probably…

(Hey, that would beat the hell out of Monday Night Football, eh?)

The people on the other side of the debate are, of course, NASA scientists. If you’d like challenge their credentials, feel free to try.

Well, no. The people on the other side of the debate, in this specific venue, are just…. whoever they are…

By your reasoning, if I got into a theological discussion with the local village priest, I would be debating with the Pope or Jesus Christ, or God himself. But no, I wouldn’t be. I would just be debating whoever I was debating with.

As for challenging the credentials of NASA scientists, no, I wouldn’t do that. I would just point out that, for obvious reasons, it is extremely unlikely that anybody employed by NASA would ever call out the moon landings as a hoax.

It is no more likely than the Pope or any other such religious figure, right down to the village priest, declaring himself to be an atheist.

“That is passed, and now we are in the free world where you can criticize anybody as long as it is not somebody whom you cannot criticize.”

My family come from a long line of Arizona and California ranchers. I was raised with the illusion that we were completely free in every way. I left the US decades ago, and raised my family in a small European country not too unlike Finland. I will never be able to escape my US brainwashing.

Since then I have renounced my citizenship, and after being harassed and threatened by CPB more than once I will never go back again. I live in exile. The strange thing is that my Grandfather died in exile, and so did his grandfather.

I am at heart a Confederate, a Secessionist and a Rebel, and I despise what the Yankees have done to the USA and the planet. So you need to realize that my rants are focused on a certain subsection of Americans, not so much Finns, but certainly Brits. I apologize for accusing you of taking the sheckel.

Here is the full image:

AS14-68-9486

The next one is a doozy, but first [ glorious but melodramatic music ], here is the preceding photograph showing A Sunbeam on the Moon.

AS14-68-9485

Howzzat for “optics”?

Well, in subsequent photo AS14-68-9487, that glorious sunbeam has gone into hiding behind a mysterious black thingy. Maybe the sunbeam’s sudden shyness was brought on by, you know, over-exposure.

AS14-68-9487

Anyway, I think the burden of proof is on the party making the claim, i.e. NASA’s claim that these photographs are a real record of lunar excursions by the Apollo astronauts.

I’m agnostic, but if had to state a lean one way or the other I would lean on the side of the NO MAN ON THE MOON. While there have been lots of good questions asked that have not elicited satisfactory answers, I think the four most compelling arguments that a hoax did occur are these:

1) Van Allen Belts

Are these a problem or not? If they are a problem, then how was it really solved? If they aren’t, then why has there been so much discussion from NASA as if they are a problem that needs a better solution. All of the tangential arguments are not really relevant (e.g., we went around the belts, we went at a time when they were weak, look at the dosage levels, we obviously made it through without any problems, etc.) and ultimately distracting. Again, if the radiation issue is not a problem, then why does NASA continue to insist that it is?

2) Stars/No Stars/Earth?

Lots has been said about this issue. I think it’s relevant and I find it persuasive for this reason. All three of the astronauts appeared very uncomfortable when handling this very question in the post-mission interview. Whether or not stars can be seen and photographed from the moon’s surface would have no effect on Michael Collins who was supposedly orbiting the moon while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface. Why did Collins act like a deer in the headlights and not say that he could see stars while he was on the back side of the moon?

If all the reasons for why stars could not be seen and photographed from the moon’s surface are true, then wouldn’t those same light principles have applied to the visibility of the Earth? Yet we have photos of a “too small” Earth in nice focus alongside the flag and astronaut. How can this be? Either the sun’s light washes out everything else on the moon or it doesn’t. Every debunking answer seems to contradict one of the other debunking answers creating a very unbelievable set of “facts” that govern the moon landing narrative. I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer for how the Earth can be clearly seen (and photographed!) from the moon while stars cannot.

The stars/no stars debate is exacerbated by the fact that numerous astronauts have talked about seeing stars while traveling through space, though this contradicts the experience of what occurred during the Apollo missions.

3) Engineering logistics

So many of the engineering marvels that had to occur in order to pull off everything in the Apollo missions 11 – 17 have been glossed over. For example…

No airlock on the lunar lander? Explanation: not needed. End of story. Okay.

Docking of the lunar module with the command module? No sweat. Easy-peasy. Nevermind the logistical details of how this was accomplished. There is a video of the whole thing which shows the lunar module spinning like a top and then stopping while moving in different directions. The same video then cuts away and then back right when the docking is to occur so we don’t actually see the full docking sequence. Piece of cake.

Lots of lots of “miraculous” steps like this were taken over the course of the moon missions and but for 13, just about everything was “flawless.” We know it all worked because hey…they did it and told us it worked just like they thought it would.

4) Haven’t been back (and no one else has either)

All 7 missions occurred within one presidential office term in a 3½ year window of time, and have never been close to being replicated. No other country has done it either. Despite all of the reasons why no one has been back to the moon, this very fact should shed some doubt on whether we ever went in the first place…especially when some of the reasons now are that we simply don’t have the technology.

” I do know about cars, and there is no way that thing weighed 400lbs with batteries, wheels, 8 electric motors, remote TV camera from 1969,”

So it is the weight. Possible. I do not know about those things. About this if many academic fields have been taken over. Yes, in some sense. That is, normal scientists can work on their topics and do good work, as long as they do not touch controversial topics, so nobody wants to do it. I understand them, though I never did so. If you have a work and are respected, why to mix up with things that can only harm you. Some 911Truth people, I think, got fired when they started claiming that it was a demolition. Finland used not to have this your problem. There was a different thing, you were not supposed to criticize Soviets publicly. If you did their agents wrote to our newspapers articles condemning it just like antisemitism is now condemned. Then it was anti-sovietism, but you were not punished for it. That is passed, and now we are in the free world where you can criticize anybody as long as it is not somebody whom you cannot criticize. Not much has changed.

NASA information of shielding properties of Apollo
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html
CM is 7-8 g/cm2, a space suit 0.25g/cm2

Aluminum density is 2.7 g/cm3, so 2 cm thick aluminum gives 5.4 g/cm2. The protection of 7 mm gives 1.89 g/cm2 while 20 mm gives 5.4 g/cm2.

“Well, it’s nice to see that this version of the Moon Hoax theory has been strongly endorsed by some of the other energetic Moon Hoax commenters.”

Really? I haven’t seen any. Once again, you have insulted all those who “deny” the moon landing and yet don’t believe the world is flat.

Instead of beating Nazi strawmen, why don’t you try to correlate your American Pravda revelations with the mooners and the deniers. I think you would find the the mooners are also 9/11 believers, magic bullet believers and blood sacrifice deniers.

“I imagine you believe that Prof. Widnall is part of the “vast masonic conspiracy” and the reason his lecture seems so “natural” is that he has had over forty years to “hone” his performance.”

First, you need to tell me if he was a freemason. Then you need to tell me what degree. Then you need to tell me whether his boss was a mason, then you need to tell me what degree. Of course, they keep this all secret, just like their rituals and oaths.

Guidance and Control just doesn’t interest me, but I don’t know why a guidance specialist would have to know what was going on. As Garman said, they were in a back room restarting various programs at various saved entry points. The monitors in the Command Center were just tv’s pointed at a CRT displaying numbers. No graphs, no images, just numbers. It all could have been switched in a second, and your sacred Mr. Widnall would never have known anything.

Perhaps he comes from a family with long ties to masonry. Perhaps he was hired into the “moon” program mostly because he was a mason and had already performed significant tasks for them, or because he had agreed to become a mason and perform a series of ridiculous rituals.

Perhaps he was a high level mason, commanding dozens of other masons. A master liar, and even a master murderer.

Thanks.

The UN logo is baal-earth mockery, it is our “flat” plane earth, divided into 33 sections,surrounded by Antarctica which is an ice wall. Few people knows what lies beyond Antarctica.

Yep, in plain sight. Also few people know unrestricted travel is not allowed in Antarctica. But no one questions this. I’m sure I’ll be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist” yet 32 nations signed a treaty. They’re all controlled by the same rulers.

The Van Allen belt thing, is really just more of the canard because our earth is a closed system and you can’t leave anyway.

As you suggest, what they likely refer to as the Van Allen Belts is probably the firmament. The moon is within the firmament and much closer than we’re told.

If you really think about it the whole story is laughably ridiculous. We are happily bounding through some “galaxy” at 66,600 mph, simultaneously rotating at 1,200 mph, meanwhile you can go fishing on a placid lake.

Correct. All their calculations are 666. The tilt of the earth is 23.4 degrees, less 90 degrees gives you 66.6. Many lakes are perfectly still which would be impossible if we’re spinning at 1,200 MPH and hurtling through space at 66,600 mph. Of course the North Star is always overhead regardless of the earth’s travel. 🙂

We have these things called “satellites” following us along at 66,600 mph, for 15-20 years that don’t need a fuel source because of this thing called “gravity”; yet the gravity is not strong enough to pull them back to the ground.

They cling to the “theory” of gravity which makes no sense. I suspect signals bounce off the firmament and others suggest many hot air balloons are used. We also have an extensive network of fiber optic cables on the ocean floor.

It is suggestive, but not yet a nail in the coffin. I have started to look at this issue. Firstly I looked at the part outside Van Allen Belts. The time from 1969 to 1972 was high in sunspots, but increased radiation occurs only if there is a solar storm. I found lists of major solar storms during this time. All other Apollo flights just barely managed to be out of these storms, but Apollo 17 experienced a medium size storm in December 15, 1972. See the data here, page 242, the magnetic storm of December 15, 1972
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/full/seri/Obs../0093//0000242.000.html
The duration of this storm was very short, from 20:45 to 21:15, as the page says. The values H, Z and D are components of the magnetic field, so the field strength is sqrt(H^2+Z^2), D is an angle, like this
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/comp-en.php

Comparing the field strength in Dec 15, 1972, with the superstorm of 1972 in August 4-6 (which broke all kind of things and included a terrible proton storm that would have killed astronauts) the strength of the August event is 4 times larger. This data does not tell if there was a proton storm also in December 15, but often these sun flares include proton stores. This is the only sun storm that happened when astronauts were outside LEO. In this Apollo 17 case they just left the Moon late in 14. Dec 1972. Had they been on the Moon with their 0.25 g/m2 shielding from space suits, they would have got ill or died. Likewise Apollo 11 returned July 24. 1969 and there was a major sun storm July 26. 1969. There is no way to predict these sun storms.

From this data it is clear that Apollo programs risked the lives of the astronauts quite freely, but they got lucky and managed to omit sun flares. This is the obstacle for sending a man to the Moon or further what stops repeating these flights today. Going to Mars it would be impossible to avoid sun storms, at least in high sunspot years, as there are some 8 major storms in a year.

I try to find information of the Dec.15 1972 sun storm, but most probably will not find any from the web. If there was a proton storm at that time then the dosage could have been higher, but astronauts were on the Moon orbit and maybe luckily were on the other side of the Moon.

Anyway, it is good to check also his conspiracy, but I have not yet made the final conclusions. Maybe they were simply lucky all the time.

I don’t know enough about radiation to argue it, you are doing a far better job than I ever could. I do know about cars, and there is no way that thing weighed 400lbs with batteries, wheels, 8 electric motors, remote TV camera from 1969, +++.

I despise academics not only because so many of them are arrogant supremacists like Ron Unz, but because they continue to contribute to and take the sheckel from organizations that have been taken over by globalists and cultural marxism. Below is a list of subjects that have been completely politicized:

– Climate and weather
– Anthropology
– History
– Any thing to do with space or CERN
– Race and culture
– Medicine
– Business

There are loads more, but the point here is that it was the “scientists” who had to keep “science” non-political, but they sold out, or more correctly they got jewed. In the end the only thing that matteris is if you cannot name the jew, then you are taking the sheckel.

I understand that in a small country like Finland this may not be the case, but from what I can tell Finland is following the Zionist pied piper to genocide just like the rest of western Europe. I doubt that many “scientists” are putting up a fight.

You need to make a quantitative argument.

Because image formation in photography is a mapping of 3D space onto the 2D plane (btw eye does the same thing) according to the Gaussian optics 1/S1+1/S2=1/F (which is good enough approximation) various perspective ‘distortions’ appear. This applies to shadows. Shadows will not be parallel on the 2D plane of a photograph. The question is how un-parallel they can be when illuminated by Sun? The answer to this question can be quantified and will depend on location of objects with respect to camera lens and the focal length of the lens and the angle between the optical axis of camera with the line to the Sun.

Are the shadows on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 that you included impossible to be made by Sun? You have to calculate it and demonstrate it which you haven’t done.

Proof Of Manned Moon-Landing Still Awaits

Hey thanks so much “Danny” Jew-boy, but it isn’t necessary, and I submit we should leave it up to the fearless leader, Unz, who actually is working against my theses, more in line w. thine, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho. We love it w. thy “hoaxtard,” when all thou need do is give proof or evidence which can’t seem to be done, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho

Probably you are not interested, but here is a video which describes methods of construction and test procedures in some detail:

Video Link

According to the video, the connections were made using a combination of welding (not soldering) and wire wrap (in different locations, not simultaneously).
Manual wire wrap (using a hand-held tool) was common for prototyping or “one off” systems, but in this case was automated, as was the welding.
The finished modules were “potted,” meaning encased in polymer resin. “Potting” was (and probably still is) a common procedure for electronic components which must withstand vibrations and temperature variations, such as in rocketry, including ICBMs.

One little mistake and people die

Yep.

Evidently some of these components still exist, and there is a small community of enthusiasts (hobbyists) dedicated to restoring or reconstructing the original systems. Following the links below the video link which I posted will get you to some of these, which have their own links.
For example:

Video Link
Other links will get you to memory modules as well as what is evidently the actual software.
One video on memory modules describes a potted module recovered from a scrap heap which was found to be defective at the time of recovery. Whether it was a reject from date of manufacture or acquired a defect over the course of time is not stated. Whichever, it is now junk, which was a major disappointment to whoever found and tested it.

But the point here that mooners can’t seem to grasp is that just because the computer may have actually run does not mean that it made it to the moon and back.

Your assertion seems to be that “Just because the system worked doesn’t mean they actually used it.” Say what?

Here is a lecture by Prof. Wm. Widnall on the guidance and control system, given sometime this century, in which he describes a real time, in flight correction, starting at !13:00

Video Link

I imagine you believe that Prof. Widnall is part of the “vast masonic conspiracy” and the reason his lecture seems so “natural” is that he has had over forty years to “hone” his performance.
His wife, Sheila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Widnall
by your calculation, is most likely attending her husband’s lecture in order to keep an eye on him, to make sure old Bill doesn’t go “off the reservation.”

Hey good point, I forgot that the man himself was lighter too. The reason I put it as a question was because I wasn’t sure if I was missing some other factor (a pretty obvious one, in this case lol).

Yet you’re completely unable to come up with an alternative explanation for the meaning of ““not in line with the light from the sun” other than the obvious one that I cited — the cameraman’s perspective relative to the direction of the sunlight. Hmm…

It’s not my responsibility to figure out what someone is trying to say, or “come up with an alternative explanation,” but rather to parse what is said.

I assume people have basic knowledge about fundamentals such as perspective. If I would say “The car is going down the street.” I suspect you would say “But you didn’t say it had tires!”

The statement “not in line with the light from the sun.” is nonsensical, as there is no such place on Earth or the Moon either one, but ethelred the unready was trying to use that nonsensical statement to explain why shadows appear to be diverging in AS14-68-9486/7, to wit:

This is not an anomaly. This is simply shadows on an uneven surface, viewed from a position not in line with the light from the sun. If the shadows were on a flat surface, like what you would often have in a parking lot, they would all appear to be parallel from the viewpoint of the camera, regardless of where the camera was positioned.

So who’s confused about perspective?

In a 2D representation of our 3D world, or even of the Moon, shadows obey the rules of perspective and converge toward a vanishing point, like everything else.

It’s always entertaining when people refute their own “arguments”…

There was no refutation, even when you exclude the rest of my comment.

I wrote in full:

In a 2D representation of our 3D world, or even of the Moon, shadows obey the rules of perspective and converge toward a vanishing point, like everything else.

The effect is easy to see when the sun shines through vertical blinds that are slightly open. As you stand over the shadows, their parallel arrangement is obvious, but as you walk away toward the other side of the room, the shadows will flatten out and point toward their common vanishing point.

To put the point you’re missing — or dodging — into clear, simple language, perspective makes shadows, and everything else in the scene, appear to converge in the distance, but perspective cannot make shadows diverge, as they appear to do in some of the Apollo photos.

AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly

You were trying to make some point about perspective distortion, I asked you to explain how perspective distortion played a role in any of those photos, and you’ve dodged that.

But the challenge stands, if you’re up to it.

I would like to take this time to propose that apollonian be given the distinct honor of having the last word in this comment section. I feel that he alone is eminently qualified to place the symbolic “cherry on top” of this whipped cream hot fudge, banana-split Hoaxtard sundae, thus bringing it to a merciful conclusion.

So the suit weighed 30 lbs., and the man weighed 30 lbs. For a total of 60, and the man has the same leg-strength he had when he weighed roughly 3x that much on earth, but he cannot jump higher?

Fool Needs To Have It Explained

Thou says,

“I’m not convinced either way. I’ve looked into the arguments on both sides, and I lack the technical expertise to make any definite statements. I’m not convinced humans went to the moon, but I’m not convinced they didn’t either.”

Thou don’t need “technical expertise,” fool, all thou needs is a brain (a problem for thou, we see) and sense-perception, since definition of PROOF is sense-perception (verification) for any abstract question/issue.

Now can thou figure-out there’s NO PROOF for manned moon-landing, no substantial evidence to lead to such proof?–no?–well, that’s why thou are sooooooooooooooooo hopeless, sucker: (a) thou don’t understand what proof is or would be, or how proof works, in first place, (b) aside fm not understanding what it is to be proven–human presence–like archaeologists look for evidence of human presence.

THEN thou asks,

“How do you pull off a hoax that involves hundreds of thousands of people without people figuring it out shortly after?”

Well, consider the basic criminal enterprise at top of society/culture/economy, ruling everything else, the Central-bank (US Fed), literally legalized counterfeiting, putting-out (practically) INFINITE currency, NOT real MONEY (commodity-based, which is finite in amount). See Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine for particular terms.

So by means of the central-bank these criminals absolutely control EVERYTHING else, and if anyone seriously objects or fails to comply and obey, they’re killed, meeting up w. strange accidents, etc., since ZOG controls all politicians, judges, lawyers police, Jews-media–EVERYONE (directly or indirectly)–by means of pay-offs, paying-off armies of murderers/assassins. Long as the currency continues to be accepted, the system is fool-proof. And when the central-bank begins (as is inevitable) to fail, THEN wars are started, muddying the proverbial “waters,” and the master-minds make their escape.

Then again, why are there so few NASA whistle-blowers?

See https://www.disabledveterans.org/2018/12/15/va-whistleblower-harassed-over-matrix-memes-fbi-denies-1st-amendment/ , which is just an example, sucker–get a brain. I just put in “whistleblower harassment” in search engine and got that story along w. many, many others.

When one controls the currency, ONE CONTROLS EVERYTHING–it’s just matter of paper and ink to print-up some thousand dollar bills, moron–can’t thou figure it out? And in this day and age, one doesn’t even need ink and paper–just key-strokes on computer puts currency (not real money) on the old credit-card, fool.

And the over-populated goons, morons, scum, suckers, weaklings, and inferiors don’t care about anything other than their “prosperity,” phony as it is, about to ending SOON, ho ho ho oho. Observe people KNOW (latest polls estimate up to 90 %) JFK assassination was gross conspiracy, but they don’t care nowadays–the scum, called “people,” are easily fooled and distracted by TV and football games, etc. Such is way of the corrupt world filled w. SINNERS, sad to have to admit.