No it doesn't. Every single scientific article can be categorized under the "you don't understand" pile and always results in your stock spam dismissal. YOU aren't qualified to a) understand it and b) determine whether it is any sort of control. There simply IS no damage to control. The whole bullshit about the "deadly belts" comes from people who also have no scientific credentials and erroneously use cherry picked quotes out of context. You are the archetypal example of confirmation bias and your bias is steeped in ignorance on every subject, whilst relying also on ignorant people as your sources. Well no. The big problem is that there aren't ANY hoax-nuts who are suitably educated to be able to do anything other than jump up and down and make noise.
It's not a question of whether we understand the NASA radiation data. It's a question of whether they are bogus, or real. I'm not going to just ignore something like this and take NASA's word for it. https://www.abodia.com/hoax/moon-landing-hoax/articles/nasa-mooned-america-ralph-rene.htm (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA, unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.] Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data, one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the likes of Rene as casual strangers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The first sentence of the article makes it clear that it was written by sophists. https://web.archive.org/web/20170821064300/https://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- During the period 1968-1972, the United States sent nine manned missions, named Apollo, to the Moon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The anomalies in the footage and pictures* proved the hoax a long time ago. That case is closed. What remains to be done is figure out why they faked it. I think space radiation is the most likely reason but not the only reason. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-22#post-1073703706
What do you mean "we"? You don't understand a damn thing. You aren't qualified in any pertinent field to determine whether the batshit you automatically suck up is real, let alone things that actually are! Translation, you are too ignorant to understand proper science so resort to confirmation bias by a proven imbecile. The circular reasoning of an imbecile. It's all batshit hearsay, no wonder you believe it.
quotes messed up above: What do you mean "we"? You don't understand a damn thing. You aren't qualified in any pertinent field to determine whether the batshit you automatically suck up is real, let alone things that actually are! Translation, you are too ignorant to understand proper science so resort to confirmation bias by a proven imbecile. The circular reasoning of an imbecile. It's all batshit hearsay, no wonder you believe it. Spam statement from a known forum troll who has been banned from over 100 forums. Every single piece of junk you have scattered all over the web has been debunked, despite your auto-spam cut and paste denials. You ignore the case and suck up batshit. You have not the slightest credibility or integrity. False. What remains to be done is to stop internet trolls from infecting other gullible people with their sad batshit. What you think is as irrelevant as any single thing could be. You have no education in anything pertaining to the subject. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com http://www.clavius.org http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked
Irrelevant. What are the odds of you finding something else to do with yourself that doesn't involve idiotic questions and trolling about camels etc.? They tested the crap out of everything. Apollo 11 Chance of Success – Apollo11Space
It's spam-o'clock already. Alleging batshit that is disproven from the clear visibility of launches, men in space and the whole development cycle recorded by all sub-contractors. Once again you cluster-bomb the forum with your ridiculously short-sighted junk. So let's once again review what is being suggested here. NASA who makes NONE of this equipment decides it is not fit for purpose so decides to fake it. Well guess what! That now puts every single employee engaged in getting equipment fit for purpose suddenly aware that their product is not doing what it should be doing! Of course you ran away when presented with the only scenarios available: Clavius: Conspiracy - the problem of scale THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics in considering only the two improbable extremes, so we proceed to the middle of the road. Having shown that one extreme produces an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and the other produces no conspiracy at all, we examine a scenario in which only the people who really need to know are let in. It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons. Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos. It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware. In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.
What? accusing me of trolling? I just pointed out that you don't know the difference between a real camel and a fake one - but yet you are 100 percent sure Apollo is real
It appears the odds are zero. Apollo has been verified as being 100% authentic by proof that involves 842lbs of lunar samples peer reviewed by every geologist of note. Visible lunar motion that comports to lunar gravity, involving inanimate objects that cannot be faked as such - especially the activity of surface dust. LROC images that have been established as virtually impossible to fake. Surface images that match exactly with known terrain and double verified by Japanese Selene topography (in notable cases being identical to Apollo images). Surface experiments on all missions sending back data in gigabytes that lasted for many years. LRR surface imaging involving reflectors placed on the surface by Apollo astronauts. That's just the big stuff. Analyses have been performed across multiple generations looking at surface images and orbital images, comparing these with ascent and descent footage. There is not one single thing wrong with any of these items. In the 50+ years since we first landed, not one single piece of idiotic hoax junk has stood up to scrutiny, with the most moronic implausible crap used to attempt to "explain" every aspect and failing every time. As an example, the serial forum spammer has frequently claimed that the reflectors could have been placed unmanned yet fails to understand the ridiculous number of people needed to test, build, test again, launch, track and land such craft. On top of this there exists not one single scrap of hard evidence for such events, no paper trails, no witness accounts, no launch footage, nothing. Zilch! Further, in the 50+ years since we landed on the Moon, not one single witness account, death-bed account, written confession of any kind has ever been made, there is not one single piece of out of place video, DAC/movie or image that does not fit in with the stated record. Every single mission has been examined by the world's leading experts in every scientific and engineering discipline, there has been not one voice of note that disputes the landings in any way whatsoever. There are of course money-making charlatans who try to cash in on the ignorant and gullible. These experts have examined ALSEP data amongst other things and written millions of lines of reports from it! Even today, ongoing there are still exterior agencies interacting with lunar data. The Apollo record has a consistency running through it both internally and externally, that is unparalleled in any other historical event. Every tiny aspect of the missions has been documented and examined. Finally, not one single claimant that this ludicrous 6 mission hoax took place has the integrity to honestly examine the full record. On this forum alone, the trolling and evasion has been absurd - just examining the lunar samples resulted in one clown suggesting that all the geologists are lying! Yet the same troll will absolutely and in every case automatically believe any crap that agrees with them - never once doubting their pathetic sources!
This doesn't make the anomalies* go away. The bottom line is that if the missions had been real, there wouldn't be any anomalies in the footage and pictures. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-22#post-1073703706
There are no anomalies, just totally ignorant and clueless claims, accompanied by stubborn denial of the colossal evidence and rebuttal. A collective response devoid of integrity, logic or any critical thinking! Moronic and inaccurate circular reasoning. The bottom line is that people like you have no idea what you are talking about. You attempt to dismiss truly vast amounts of proof because of this ignorant reasoning failure. You are stuck in 20 years of internet failure and fumble and troll your completely debunked garbage anywhere you can. Even if you could be instantaneously transported to a landing site, you would still deny it. Dunning and Kruger embodied.
That is not the bottom line. The fact is anomolies always exist and prove nothing. Also EVERY ONE of your so called anomlies have been disproven and are not anomolies at all
I've always wondered about the plastic that shows no signs of melting in this picture. https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ed2d9d15d?rik=Qe2Zg9pZ%2fBlBpQ&pid=ImgRaw&r=0 At these temperatures shouldn't there be at least some signs of melting? https://www.google.com/search?q=moo...0i22i30l8.16872j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120° C, 400 K), while nighttime temperatures get to a chilly -208 degrees Fahrenheit (-130° C, 140 K). -----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a satellite photograph it's clear that that's what space looks like big satellite and big astronomy is just trying to fool us.
You have always wondered about it have you? You see, when I wonder about something I attempt to get to the bottom of it using research and viable explanations. Isn't it time that you did something similar instead of "see batshit, post batshit"? At "those" temperatures? Ok, let's start with one inevitable fact. When you get the highest surface temperature at solar zenith and the lowest temperature after it has set for 7 days, between those days it changes from high to low. So anyone with a braincell would attempt to work out where on that gradient the temperature actually was. They wouldn't assume it was at "those" temperatures because both are irrelevant extremes. Steps an analytical and methodical person would take using the scientific method: Establish when the image was taken. Establish what sun angle this occurred at. Extrapolate the estimated temperature from the sun angle. Determine the melting point of plastic and assess whether there would be an issue. Bearing in mind that he tossed it onto the surface and took an immediate picture, the idea that it would melt straight away is moronic! So steps 1-4: EVA 3 CLOSEOUT 170:03:17 Young: I've got to get rid of this LCRU pallet so I can stick the...(Pause)[Fendell finds John as he makes his way around the north LM footpad, headed for the east footpad. He stops there for a moment and then continues around to the south side of the spacecraft, which is where the cosmic ray experiment is deployed.] [At about this time, Charlie places a photo of the Duke Family on the surface and takes three photos, AS16-117- 18839, 18840, and 18841.] Sun Angles (nasa.gov) EVA-3 Finis: 171.25 GET, 48.7 deg. From above, a reasonable temperature would be 330K given they are not at the equator. That is 57 degrees Celsius! Regarding plastic, LDPE will already begin melting at 105°C and HDPE will begin melting at 125°C.
That would explain its not showing any signs of heat exposure so this can't be used as hoax evidence. Check out post #533 to see the real hoax evidence.
This looks pretty interesting. Most lunar rocks are 'soft' – findings of Lunokhod-1 mission The Moon reveals its greatest secret, class C rocks https://www.aulis.com/softrocks.htm (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Moon of the Russian Lunokhod-1 lunar rover is not at all the same as the Moon of the Apollo missions. The authors said this in Volume 1 of 1971 and despite censorship managed to repeat it in Volume 2 of 1978. Whether these revelations about the true nature of the lunar surface were published by chance, or whether the authors deliberately ‘smuggled' or 'sneaked' the information through the system, bypassing official censorship, is not important. What is important is that they did what they needed to do in order to get the message across. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not simply taking this as fact. I'm just posting it. I don't see how this can be verified but if it turns out to be true, the Russians' moon mission findings being different from the Apollo findings will be one more piece of hoax evidence. For now it's just something to think about as it's been alleged that the Russians did some faking too.
An objective truth seeker would have verified this first. In fact any honest person would do such a thing. However, somebody who is engaging in a pathetic and mentally disturbing campaign to dump garbage on this forum, obviously would not - even were they actually capable in the first place of such a simple thing. The failure of this person is beyond a joke. The debunk about the Duke picture just above has been performed on every single piece of his wall of spam, yet over and over he refuses to admit any single thing and maintains his spammed list is still intact. I went through it quite thoroughly and as expected, he just ignored virtually the entire contents of this blog, all created from ignored posts on this forum! http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com
