What - no thread about how the moon landings were faked?

[robnewman]

rob, back to school with you! You don't even know the difference between mass and weight!

You do, O Mensch, so the world is safely in your hands, right ? Did they teach you at school about solar radiation ?

[MishaK]

You do, O Mensch, so the world is safely in your hands, right ? Did they teach you at school about solar radiation ?

Wow, you really uncritically sop up every bit of conspiracy nonsense every self-anointed false prophet throws out there, don't you?

For the record (not that you would bother to absorb this factual information, since it is contrary to your warped dogma): the Apollo flights traversed the Van Allen belt at a speed of some 40,000 km/h, exposing the astronauts only to an approximate effective radiation dosage of 200 mSv. They didn't linger nearly long enough. But don't let the facts bother you too much. They never do anyway.

[Sean]

Sean,

Why does Matt Taibbi unravel the inner workings of Goldman Sachs? Why did Seymour Hersh break the news about Abu Ghraib, My Lai, etc.? Why did the late Walter Cronkite call the US military on its deception and lies? What about Hunter S. Thompson? None of that ever made any money. Your over-generalizations are simply untenable.

BTW, you've got the whole media business wrong. It is not at all consumer-driven, it is advertising-revenue driven, which is why no profitable media outlet will ever broadcast/publish news that is embarrassing to any of its advertising clients.

Your examples are from decades back, when journalism wasn't all piffle. Today media organizations are acutely aware that they must please the customer and tailor what they say very very closely to it. Most people are afraid of alternative interpretations of events of course, even when far more plausible than the offical view, eg 9/11, and only the official view is presented: at most you might get a couple of people arguing for different angles on the official view, to give a semblance of openness or democracy, when it's just conditioning and the cultural-reinforcement most people demand.

[Sean]

Rob, there's a Nasa website somewhere I'm sure you can soon find detailing carefully each of the hoax theory's claims and debunking them: it's perfectly convincing science (I'm with you part of the way on 9/11 but not here).

[MishaK]

Your examples are from decades back, when journalism wasn't all piffle.

No, siree. Matt Taibbi's article on Goldman appeared last week.

And Seymour Hersh's articles on Abu Ghraib etc. all came out in the last few years and he continues to write in the New Yorker.

Today media organizations are acutely aware that they must please the customer and tailor what they say very very closely to it. Most people are afraid of alternative interpretations of events of course, even when far more plausible than the offical view, eg 9/11, and only the official view is presented: at most you might get a couple of people arguing for different angles on the official view, to give a semblance of openness or democracy, when it's just conditioning and the cultural-reinforcement most people demand.

Once again, you simply ignore what I write. a) there still is plenty of journalism that is deeply critical of the powers that be, yet you have no explanation for it. b) what the media presents has *nothing* to do with audience preferences, but everything to do with advertising revenue.

Rob, there's a Nasa website somewhere I'm sure you can soon find detailing carefully each of the hoax theory's claims and debunking them: it's perfectly convincing science (I'm with you part of the way on 9/11 but not here).

Woohoo! Good to see you haven't completely lost your senses. There still is hope. BTW, wikipedia also does a nice job of debunking and linking to their sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories

[robnewman]

Wow, you really uncritically sop up every bit of conspiracy nonsense every self-anointed fals prophet throws out there, don't you?

For the record (not that you would bother to absorb this factual information, since it is contrary to your warped dogma): the Apollo flights traversed the Van Allen belt at a speed of some 40,000 km/h, exposing the astronauts only to an approximate effective radiation dosage of 200 mSv. They didn't linger nearly long enough. But don't let the facts bother you too much. They never do anyway.

Er, where did you get your 'facts' from O Mensch ? 'Popular Mechanics', perhaps ?

The Van Allen Belt, just for your information, PREVENTS solar radiation from striking the earth. Right ? It's beyond the Van Allen Belt that solar radiation is NOT restricted. So the question is -

QUESTION - What precautions were taken by the Apollo mission to prevent the deadly impacts of solar radiation frying the Apollo crew during the several days they were flying to the moon and back again  ? Solar radiation comes (as its name suggests) from the Sun, right, O Mensch  

P.S. Don't let facts bother you, will you ?  

[robnewman]

No, sireee. Matt Taibbi's article on Goldman appeared last week.

And Seymour Hersh's articles on Abu Ghraib etc. all came out in the last few years and he continues to write in the New Yorker.

Once again, you simply ignore what I write. a) there still is plenty of journalism that is deeply critical of the powers that be, yet you have no explanation for it. b) what the media presents has *nothing* to do with audience preferences, but everything to do with advertising revenue.

Woohoo! Good to see you haven't completely lost your senses. There still is hope. BTW, wikipedia also does a nice job of debunking and linking to their sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories

Yes, and several years before the Apollo missions it was declared by Von Braun (head of rocket technology at NASA) that it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get to the moon. So said NASA themselves. Guess that fits, right ? And you will tell us about solar radiation and the precautions taken by the Apollo crew and their rocket designers, won't you ?

Manned space travel is a fiction. The solar radiation is so intense even before a rocket gets to the Van Allen Belt. Just a few facts for you my friend.

[Sean]

Okay Mensch. Not sure about deferring media characteristics to advertising though, when advertising is still dependent on the customer, but no worries. Actually though I'm quite interested in the idea that the Apollo hoax is a smokescreen for clandestine space exploration programs: while some people wonder if people ever went to the Moon, the reality is that they've been back a whole bunch of times since...

[MishaK]

Er, where did you get your 'facts' from O Mensch ? 'Popular Mechnics', perhaps ?

The Van Allen Belt, just for your information, PREVENTS solar radiation from striking the earth. Right ? It's beyond the Van Allen Belt that solar radiation is NOT restricted. So the question is -

QUESTION - What precautions were taken by the Apollo mission to prevent the deadly impacts of solar radiation frying the Apollo crew during the several days they were flying to the moon and back again  ? Solar radiation comes (as its name suggests) from the Sun, right, O Mensch  

P.S. Don't let facts bother you, will you ?  

You're sadly very mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_allen_belt

Even the late Dr. James Van Allen himself said this bullsh!t about radiation dosages perpetrated by conspiracy theorists is a pile of nonsense.

Yes, and several years before the Apollo missions it was declared by Von Braun (head of rocket technology at NASA) that it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get to the moon. So said NASA themselves. Guess that fits, right ? And you will tell us about solar radiation and the precautions taken by the Apollo crew and their rocket designers, won't you ?

I've highlighted the key term in your statement. I'm sure a few years before that he thought the rocket would have to be twice the size of the ESB because technology simply wasn't that advanced yet. BTW, the Saturn V isn't exactly puny.

[robnewman]

Okay Mensch. Not sure about deferring media characteristics to advertising though, when advertising is still dependent on the customer, but no worries. Actually though I'm quite interested in the idea that the Apollo hoax is a smokescreen for clandestine space exploration programs: while some people wonder if people ever went to the Moon, the reality is that they've been back a whole bunch of times since...

Sean,

When somebody can talk sensibly about solar radiation and space travel I will agree with you. But so far it's sheer nonsense. Man CANNOT travel in space without being fried alive by the solar radiation. So my question remains how, in 1969, when scientists knew very little about the van Allen Belt, could the Apollo crew have withstood massive solar radiation in outer space ?

[robnewman]

You're sadly very mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_allen_belt

Even the late Dr. James Van Allen himself said this bullsh!t about radiation dosages perpetrated by conspiracy theorists is a pile of nonsense.

I've highlighted the key term in your statement. I'm sure a few years before that he thought the rocket would have to be twice the size of the ESB because technology simply wasn't that advanced yet. BTW, the Saturn V isn't exactly puny.

O Mensch,

Tell us how the astronauts survived solar radiation for days in visiting and returning from the Moon. We are still waiting. Since the levels are vastly higher in outer space than they are within the earth's atmosphere.

And please tell us about how the astronauts could operate hand held cameras using film in temperatures high enough to destroy the film they were using ?

And please tell us how they avoided being fried alive in their space suits while walking on the lunar surface and how their module did not heat to several hundred degrees temperature ?

Thank You

Gee, those batteries NASA made must be really good, right ?   - Ever put a Hasselblad camera inside an oven hot enough to cook a chicken for several hours complete with film ?

LOL 

[MishaK]

When somebody can talk sensibly about solar radiation and space travel I will agree with you. But so far it's sheer nonsense. Man CANNOT travel in space without being fried alive by the solar radiation. So my question remains how, in 1969, when scientists knew very little about the van Allen Belt, could the Apollo crew have withstood massive solar radiation in outer space ?

Yet again you counter reality with the flat assertion that it cannot be true, despite the fact that you exhibit total ignorance in all aspects of physics and can't string together even a half-coherent argument that wouldn't cause even a 5th grade physics teacher to pi$$ all over himself of laughter.

Since you never bother to follow the links I post, here a few helpful explanations from wiki:

The spacecraft moved through the [Van Allen] belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[51], pp. 160–162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[60]

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[61] However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[62]

[Szykneij]

Manned space travel is a fiction. The solar radiation is so intense even before a rocket gets to the Van Allen Belt. Just a few facts for you my friend.

Interesting statement. Do you believe there are no people in the International Space Station at this very moment? Do you believe the Mercury and Gemini space flights were faked also?

[MishaK]

And please tell us about how the astronauts could operate hand held cameras using film in temperatures high enough to destroy the film they were using ?

And please tell us how they avoided being fried alive in their space suits while walking on the lunar surface and how their module did not heat to several hundred degrees temperature ?

Thank You

Gee, those batteries NASA made must be really good, right ?   - Ever put a Hasselblad camera inside an oven hot enough to cook a chicken for several hours complete with film ?

LOL 

Wow, you keep exhibiting your ignorance in ever new areas by the minute! Did you know the moon has no atmosphere? I bet that is news to you. I bet you also don't know that in the absence of an atmosphere there is nothing to transmit the heat from the surface of the moon to the camera.

You do at least know how humans reproduce, right?

Again:

There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[51], pp. 165–67 The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.[63]

[robnewman]

Interesting statement. Do you believe there are no people in the International Space Station at this very moment? Do you believe the Mercury and Gemini space flights were faked also?

Hi there Szyknie,

The International Space Station is only in low orbit around the Earth - i.e. around 220 miles above the Earth around the start of the Van Allen Belt. The Van Allen Belt starts approximately 200 miles and extends to around 800 miles above the Earth. Beyond which distance is nothing but unrestricted attack on any manned craft from Solar Radiation.

[Elgarian]

Ignore his posts, as I will now do.

Here is wisdom.

[robnewman]

Wow, you keep exhibiting your ignorance in ever new areas by the minute! Did you know the moon has no atmosphere? I bet that is news to you. I bet you also don't know that in the absence of an atmosphere there is nothing to transmit the heat from the surface of the moon to the camera.

You do at least know how humans reproduce, right?

Again:

Wrong again. Solar radiation does not come from the 'surface of the moon'. Er, it actually comes from the Sun. And you have still not told us how the astronauts escaped the massive Solar Radiation on their travels. Nor on the lunar surface. Maybe next time you will finally answer us ?

The Sun is not the Moon. And the temperature on the Moon is hot enough when the sun shines there to melt camera film - i.e.. when the Sun is shining on the lunar surface. Right ?

[Taxes-]

here it goes again... If you people are this interested by these scientific issues, we can talk about them without having to deal with Newman's nonsense, you know.

[MishaK]

Wrong again. Solar radiation does not come from the 'surface of the moon'. Er, it actually comes from the Sun. And you have still not told us how the astronauts escaped the massive Solar Radiation on their travels. Nor on the lunar surface. Maybe next time you will finally answer us ?

The Sun is not the Moon. And the temperature on the Moon is hot enough when the sun shines there to melt camera film - i.e.. when the Sun is shining on the lunar surface. Right ?

... E X C E P T   T H A T   T H E R E   I S   N O   A T M O S P H E R E   T O   T R A N S M I T   T H E   H E A T  ! ! !

Stop using the royal "we". You are neither royal, nor do you have any support here now that Sean has bailed on you.

[Elgarian]

I am now starting to understand the astonishing extent of these conspiracies.

1. Man did not go to the moon.
2. Mozart did not compose his music.
3. Shakespeare did not write his plays.

etc....

and so, extending these ideas to their logical conclusion:

Who is really writing robnewman's posts?