Page 1 of 29 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 849

Thread: I'm back with a vengeance and undeniable proof of the Moon Hoax.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447

    I'm back with a vengeance and undeniable proof of the Moon Hoax.

    I was banned for a minute then had a personal tragedy to deal with but I have my feet back under me and I am ready to demonstrate to all interested parties that you have been deceived. The Lunar Landing is a hoax.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    The defense call his first witness: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Apollohoax CraTer data uncorrected.gif 
Views:	120 
Size:	103.1 KB 
ID:	23130

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    A few points before we start.
    A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
    1. The LEO is the lowest
    2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
    3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
    4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

    The second point that needs to be addressed is the fact that GCR's are modulated by Solar activity or solar wind if you will. The greater the solar wind the less the magnitude of GCR's reaching cislunar space and the moon.

    Now if any one has any problems with these stated facts then let's address them before we go in.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I was banned for a minute then had a personal tragedy to deal with but I have my feet back under me and I am ready to demonstrate to all interested parties that you have been deceived. The Lunar Landing is a hoax.
    You're using NASA data on the radiation belts? I think you've lost your argument already.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Should I have used submarine data instead?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,907
    No, but why would you believe NASA data on radiation belts if you don't believe NASA data on lunar missions?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    No, but why would you believe NASA data on radiation belts if you don't believe NASA data on lunar missions?
    I believe NASA used the actual Apollo data. I simply don't believe the apollo ever left LEO.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,714
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I believe NASA used the actual Apollo data. I simply don't believe the apollo ever left LEO.
    I think the point of the question was, if they are going to lie about going to the moon, then why not lie about the radiation levels too? Maybe they faked the radiation data to get people to believe the landings were fake, in the same way the Beatles (I think) planted hints in their work that Paul was dead, kind of to tease people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I believe NASA used the actual Apollo data. I simply don't believe the apollo ever left LEO.
    Why would you believe that?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,170
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I was banned for a minute then had a personal tragedy to deal with but I have my feet back under me and I am ready to demonstrate to all interested parties that you have been deceived. The Lunar Landing is a hoax.
    You were never banned; you were infracted fours times and suspended for a few days.

    Here is the earlier thread, in case anyone wants to review
    Last edited by Swift; 2018-Apr-12 at 11:15 AM.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    738
    As was pointed out to you earlier the CRaTER data occurred in a solar cycle (24) that had generally lower flux than those of the Apollo missions (20) and therefore the Apollo data will be in general less than the CRaTER data. Why won't you understand this simple fact. The radiation data of two different solar cycles can't be compared directly as the flux values vary from one cycle to another. Only as I have told you like many others, only general statements concerning flux.

    Here is a straight foreword question, please calculate the radiation values the Apollo missions received from the VARB in their generalized trajectories through the belts.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,454
    Why would the Japanese and Soviet space agencies confirm that the NASA moon landings did actually take place? They tracked the mission themselves and have enough evidential data to dis-credit the mission if there was any substance to the "fake landings" claim. I don't advocate the conspiracy against the landings but I can understand why a such an elaborate hoax might be orchestrated. If it is an elaborate hoax then it has managed to fool modern data analysing technology and best minds in the whole world for almost the past 50 years.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    738
    As a clarification to my request in post 11:
    If you can not calculate the amount of radiation received from the VARB, then cite a paper that does calculate the amount to show that this region is the highest of your four regions of radiation.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    As a clarification to my request in post 11:
    If you can not calculate the amount of radiation received from the VARB, then cite a paper that does calculate the amount to show that this region is the highest of your four regions of radiation.
    I am of the opinion that until technology caught up with NASA there was no need to lie. The ability to decipher the deception did not exist. The current state of technology is such that the disinterested can obtain a detailed examination of the facts.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    There are important correlations that can be seen by examining the CraTer data. There is no such data from the apollo era.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Space Dosages.png 
Views:	50 
Size:	98.8 KB 
ID:	23131

    This graph shows alL the Leo missions have a similar radiation profile as all the Lunar missions. Go figure.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I am going to assume that all have no problem accepting the following facts, because I will be referring back to them:

    A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
    1. The LEO is the lowest
    2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
    3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
    4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

    The second point that needs to be addressed is the fact that GCR's are modulated by Solar activity or solar wind if you will. The greater the solar wind the less the magnitude of GCR's reaching cislunar space and the moon.

    Now if any one has any problems with these stated facts then let's address them before we go in.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    It can be seen by examining the CraTer Data that the expected GCR radiation is to be something around .22 mgy/yr. This is assuming you can cancel out the contributions from severe SPE's. It can be seen by examining the graph that the most fortuitous time of space travel would have been in the first quarter of the monitoring period. Solar activity is fairly pronounced after that time.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-12 at 04:21 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Is everyone still with me?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Is everyone still with me?




    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Why would the Japanese and Soviet space agencies confirm that the NASA moon landings did actually take place? They tracked the mission themselves and have enough evidential data to dis-credit the mission if there was any substance to the "fake landings" claim. I don't advocate the conspiracy against the landings but I can understand why a such an elaborate hoax might be orchestrated. If it is an elaborate hoax then it has managed to fool modern data analysing technology and best minds in the whole world for almost the past 50 years.
    My interest is not in examining the whole spectrums of deceptions that would have to exist if the moon landing was fabricated. I contend that if you can prove that it did not happen or cannot happen then the rest is merely an academic pursuit.
    Sherlock Holmes said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. So we are faced with the improble truth and there is no getting around it. You were duped.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Where did I lose you?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Everyone is aware of the relationship that exist between GCR's and Solar activity. Most are unaware of the consequences of that relationship. The solar wind emanates from the sun and flows outward in all directions, creating the Heliosphere. This solar wind acts as an impediment to the flow of GCR's and as a consequence it causes a reduction in GCR within the heliosphere that is modulated by solar activity. It can be seen that as solar activity increases then the background radiation from sun increases and that in fact overall background radiation is higher in peak solar times than it is at minimum solar. This is in contrast to the reduced GCR levels at peak solar. This means Apollo 11 which ventured out in space at peak solar activity would have been exposed to background radiation far greater than GCR radiation. Is everyone still with me?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,039
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    Where did I lose you?
    You lose us by riding off in all directions and throwing cherry-picked, scattershot factoids at us about such things as radiation. You can believe what you wish, but neither you nor any other HB I have encountered has made a convincing case.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    You lose us by riding off in all directions and throwing cherry-picked, scattershot factoids at us about such things as radiation. You can believe what you wish, but neither you nor any other HB I have encountered has made a convincing case.
    Is it you lack the ability to comprehend the phenomena of radiation? I am simply stating the obvious in layman's term. Be specific, where is your problem with what I have stated? Point out the glaring inaccuracy and I will attempt to correct the problem.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    You lose us by riding off in all directions and throwing cherry-picked, scattershot factoids at us about such things as radiation. You can believe what you wish, but neither you nor any other HB I have encountered has made a convincing case.
    Are you the spokes person for the group? I am confused. Is it you I should confine my interest to?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    While you are considering the ramification of the first graph, consider the fact that it is an uncorrected graph and is not representative of background GCR with out a correction factor of 30% added to the D1 %D2 detector readings. Because I like you guys I have gone through the expense and effort of providing the corrected graph for your consideration.Attachment 23132

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    It only takes a high school education to interpret a logarithmic graph. It can be seen that the median dosage exceeds apollo 11" s mission dosage. Which is impossible. I know, I know that you claim it is apples and oranges, that because we are comparing data from two entirely different solar cycles a proper conclusion cannot be extrapolated. In that Watson, you are entirely wrong. As I stated earlier background radiation is the summation of GCR and Solar radiation. As one rises the other lowers. The difference in background radiation is directly related to solar activity and as a consequence we can simply compare cycles to determine which cycle had the largest solar activity and consequentially the highest background radiation.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sunspot graph.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	142.3 KB 
ID:	23133
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-12 at 05:05 PM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    So to clarify what I am saying, because Solar cycle 20 was of a greater magnitude that the solar cycles of the CraTer Data collection period, one can safely conclude background radiations levels must have been higher in the Apollo era than during the Crater data collection period. It is only logical.. The ball is in your court.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,170
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    My interest is not in examining the whole spectrums of deceptions that would have to exist if the moon landing was fabricated. I contend that if you can prove that it did not happen or cannot happen then the rest is merely an academic pursuit.
    And I completely disagree with that approach. The evidence for the landings is so overwhelming that this exercise is, IMO, ridiculous. And the last time you were here, whenever other evidence was presented (such as lunar samples) you dismissed them with handwaving.

    Beyond that, I have no interest in playing this game. You want to believe one of the human race's greatest achievements was a hoax, and nothing will convince you otherwise, have fun.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •