On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.

Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer;

There is no such thing as conspiracy theory or crackpots. You are
either wrong or right. Sometimes, it is subjective. Sometimes, it is
going against what is normally believed. For example, we have this
scenario where most people believe in the God of butterflies being
supreme. Now, someone comes along and claims the God of spiders being
the most supreme instead. This someone will be regarded as a crackpot
and a conspiracy nutcase. shrug

what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

You are avoiding the issue. Your question is a separate matter. It
requires some investigation, don’t you think? Have you lost your mind
in scientific methodology?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

You have erroneously interpreted them as grunts. That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures. If your peers believe in the God of
butterflies, and you believe in the God of spiders, you are going to
feel pressure from your peers.

The subject on manned moon missions can only be decided with more
scientific investigations. Unable to face any scientific inquiries
into the matter, you have resorted to faith. You have called and
tried to dismiss the ones bringing up the questionable events as
conspiracy crackpots. You have lost your scientific methodology in
doing so. shrug

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Going back to the manned moon landing claim, the Apollo manned
missions were the only ones that have gone beyond the low earth orbit
in which the environment enjoys a relatively benign radiation of 10
RADs per year. The Apollo manned missions were also the only ones
that have supposedly gone into the Van Allen Belts and beyond. The
shuttle program only calls out for missions in the low earth orbit.
With relatively and vastly more sophisticated hardware, the shuttle
program is plagued with problems after problems while the Apollo
missions have gone in perfect performance except the staged mission 13
which the problem miraculously happened on the 13th mission, the 13th
hour, the 13th minute, and the 13th second.

The Van Allen Belts represent deadly radiation zones that miraculous
shielded all harmful solar and cosmic radiation from the living
organisms of earth. Beyond these belts, the radiation is not as
severe as in it. However, it is still deadly. The earlier deep space
probes namely the Viking and the Mariner missions did not pay very
much attention to the radiation of deep space. These probes did not
last very long. However, Pioneer and Voyagers did have their
electronics hardened for the deadly radiation. To give you an
example, the geosynchronous satellites have to withstand a radiation
of 300kRADs or more per year beyond the Van Allen Belts. The
following link should cast no doubt on this radiation amount. Each
year, the sun sheds some of its mass (2-3E-14 solar mass) with each
proton having an average energy of 1keV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

That is why semiconductor vendors such as Intersil sell devices that
can withstand some or all these radiation. Check them out.

http://www.intersil.com/military/radhardlist.asp

This is a scientific method of exposing Apollo manned missions being
an elaborate hoax. What is your scientific method of countering
this? None, so you have to resort to faith, right? shrug

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.
Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer;

what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

You are avoiding the issue.

No, that is the issue. If you cannot say what you
believe was actually done you have no case.

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

You have erroneously interpreted them as grunts.

They were not answers to my question. Neither is your
reply - it is pure bluff and bluster.

That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures.

I am waiting for you to set me straight. What really
happened in your opinion.

Martin Hogbin

BradGuth wrote:
On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.
Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer; what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

Martin Hogbin

You got a whole lot more than "grunts", my brown-nosed friend.

No answers.

Sadly, it seems you and others of your kind can not deductively put
two and two together without first checking your NASA/Apollo Qur'an to
see what's scripted.

Why not tell me then?


What brown-nosed part in the NASA/Apollo ruse did you play?

How may people do you think were in on the conspiracy?

Martin Hogbin

BradGuth wrote:
On May 7, 1:27 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 6, 10:36 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.
Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?
It is telling that no one has answered this simple
question. If the mood landings were faked, how exactly
did they do it. This is the question the moon landing
conspiracy crackpots cannot answer.
Martin Hogbin
Finding one fault with the NASA/Apollo holy grail is all it takes.
We've found dozens of faults. Your being in denial of being in denial
isn't helping, is it.
I cannot be in denial - you have not given me anything
to deny.

Denial of your denial is where you start to appreciate the greater
truth and consequences of your actions.

What actions?

Why will you not anser my question?

Martin Hogbin

On May 8, 1:25 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.
Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer; what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

Martin Hogbin

You got a whole lot more than "grunts", my brown-nosed friend.

No answers.

Sadly, it seems you and others of your kind can not deductively put
two and two together without first checking your NASA/Apollo Qur'an to
see what's scripted.

Why not tell me then?

What brown-nosed part in the NASA/Apollo ruse did you play?

How may people do you think were in on the conspiracy?

A few dozen were fully active or in charge of pulling off the show, a
few hundred and possibly a thousand had to know everything and
participate under our nondisclosure rules(or else), and of most
everyone else was so compartmentalized to death and otherwise
downright scared to death to even think anything that was the least
bit in question of whatever they and others were doing. Signing that
nondisclosure policy is what gave our DARPA/NASA goons the legal right
to having you and your family exterminated for breaking any part of
that nondisclosure policy, and they were extremely serious about it.

As I've said a thousand times before, it wasn't as though we and the
USSR weren't doing everything towards accomplishing that task of
walking upon our moon.

When most everything except the fly-by-rocket lander and rad-hard
astronaut was technically doable, how would you have faked that last
part of having landed upon and walked upon our moon?

Do you actually think our government doesn't lie, and otherwise
doesn't cover their butts?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 1:27 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 7, 1:27 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 6, 10:36 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.
Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?
It is telling that no one has answered this simple
question. If the mood landings were faked, how exactly
did they do it. This is the question the moon landing
conspiracy crackpots cannot answer.
Martin Hogbin
Finding one fault with the NASA/Apollo holy grail is all it takes.
We've found dozens of faults. Your being in denial of being in denial
isn't helping, is it.
I cannot be in denial - you have not given me anything
to deny.

Denial of your denial is where you start to appreciate the greater
truth and consequences of your actions.

What actions?

Why will you not anser my question?

Martin Hogbin

It can be proven, they had motive, means and opportunity.

The naked (meaning unfiltered) Kodak eye doesn't lie, nor do the basic
laws of physics.

Their losing those 700 boxes of NASA/Apollo mission data and much
other that's unaccounted for is simply icing on their LLPOF cake.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 7, 11:32 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:
The purpose of your reply eludes me.

Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer;

There is no such thing as conspiracy theory or crackpots. You are
either wrong or right. Sometimes, it is subjective. Sometimes, it is
going against what is normally believed. For example, we have this
scenario where most people believe in the God of butterflies being
supreme. Now, someone comes along and claims the God of spiders being
the most supreme instead. This someone will be regarded as a crackpot
and a conspiracy nutcase. shrug

what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

You are avoiding the issue. Your question is a separate matter. It
requires some investigation, don’t you think? Have you lost your mind
in scientific methodology?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

You have erroneously interpreted them as grunts. That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures. If your peers believe in the God of
butterflies, and you believe in the God of spiders, you are going to
feel pressure from your peers.

The subject on manned moon missions can only be decided with more
scientific investigations. Unable to face any scientific inquiries
into the matter, you have resorted to faith. You have called and
tried to dismiss the ones bringing up the questionable events as
conspiracy crackpots. You have lost your scientific methodology in
doing so. shrug

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Going back to the manned moon landing claim, the Apollo manned
missions were the only ones that have gone beyond the low earth orbit
in which the environment enjoys a relatively benign radiation of 10
RADs per year. The Apollo manned missions were also the only ones
that have supposedly gone into the Van Allen Belts and beyond. The
shuttle program only calls out for missions in the low earth orbit.
With relatively and vastly more sophisticated hardware, the shuttle
program is plagued with problems after problems while the Apollo
missions have gone in perfect performance except the staged mission 13
which the problem miraculously happened on the 13th mission, the 13th
hour, the 13th minute, and the 13th second.

The Van Allen Belts represent deadly radiation zones that miraculous
shielded all harmful solar and cosmic radiation from the living
organisms of earth. Beyond these belts, the radiation is not as
severe as in it. However, it is still deadly. The earlier deep space
probes namely the Viking and the Mariner missions did not pay very
much attention to the radiation of deep space. These probes did not
last very long. However, Pioneer and Voyagers did have their
electronics hardened for the deadly radiation. To give you an
example, the geosynchronous satellites have to withstand a radiation
of 300kRADs or more per year beyond the Van Allen Belts. The
following link should cast no doubt on this radiation amount. Each
year, the sun sheds some of its mass (2-3E-14 solar mass) with each
proton having an average energy of 1keV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

That is why semiconductor vendors such as Intersil sell devices that
can withstand some or all these radiation. Check them out.

http://www.intersil.com/military/radhardlist.asp

This is a scientific method of exposing Apollo manned missions being
an elaborate hoax. What is your scientific method of countering
this? None, so you have to resort to faith, right? shrug

It seems having motive, means and opportunity represents nothing to
these status quo or bust kind of folks. Evidence exclusion is yet
another one of their dirty tricks that goes along with their
conditional laws of physics.

Most everything except their fly-by-rocket landers and rad-hard
astronaut had been resolved, just like today we still can't safely fly-
by-rocket land anything, not even in any R&D prototype format. Having
that 30% inert GLOW is another pesky item in question, since nothing
since has ever come remotely close to that kind of mission performance
with such a great deal of inert/payload mass to deal with.
. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 12:36 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
How may people do you think were in on the conspiracy?

A few dozen were fully active or in charge of pulling off the show, a
few hundred and possibly a thousand had to know everything and
participate under our nondisclosure rules(or else), and of most
everyone else was so compartmentalized to death and otherwise
downright scared to death to even think anything that was the least
bit in question of whatever they and others were doing. Signing that
nondisclosure policy is what gave our DARPA/NASA goons the legal right
to having you and your family exterminated for breaking any part of
that nondisclosure policy, and they were extremely serious about it.

Well, we are making progress. About a thousand
conspirators, you say.

So what did they do?

Having the official means, motive and opportunity, they did whatever
they could with the best available technology and expertise of their
cloak and dagger day, in order to create the illusion of our having
landed upon and having walked for hours upon hours unscaved upon that
physically dark as coal moon of ours.

You obviously didn't bother to absorb anything as contributed by
Koobee Wublee, perhaps because it doesn't much help your side of this
argument.

The old Raytheon/TRW Space Data Report that I’d previously posed as
one of my basis for consideration, as such had their GSO annual
irradiation impact upon internal satellite components as being
shielded by a minimum of 5/16” aluminum, pegged at 2e3 Sv/yr (200,000
rads/yr as shielded by 2 g/cm2). Of course, that GSO situation is
right smack in the badlands of those Van Allen belts, so it’s likely
somewhat less irradiated once that same shielded component is taken
external or outside of that saturated zone (obviously best in LEO well
below the Van Allen belts and at all cost avoiding the SAA contour).

However, going in the buff outside of the Van Allen badlands isn’t
much better off, especially if your frail DNA is only shielded by a
spacesuit/moonsuit of 0.5 g/cm2 that’s equal to 0.8mm of aluminum
while having your moonsuit butt taking those EVAs upon our physically
dark and double IR roasting moon. Not to mention the unavoidably
reactive nature of our anticathode moon itself being so electrostatic
charged and by far the hottest gamma thing in town, and then by day
representing the worst kind of gamma plus hard-X-ray saturated place
to be, as unavoidably much worse off than being situated within the
Van Allen badlands of anything GSO worthy.

The IC “RH Level” of 300 krad/yr on behalf of those sufficiently
radhard solid state components, as having been a well established
standard of exactly what kind of rad-hard toughness these GSO rated
ICs have to be, as such a requirement is simply further proof-positive
that our original Raytheon/TRW Space Data Report of 200 krad/yr while
shielded by 2 g/cm2 (5/16” aluminum) is in fact what can be expected
in GSO, though obviously worse yet if those circuits are having to
survive any significant halo CME events. Most of our DoD satellites
as incorporating such mission critical components are likely shielded
by nearly 10 g/cm2 (38 mm of aluminum), and perhaps some of that
circuitry getting protected by as much as 51 mm or 12.75 g/cm2.
Fortunately, the modern day volume of such critical components is
getting smaller if not micro, so not all that much extra or added mass
in the way of their radiation shielding is required.
. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
How may people do you think were in on the conspiracy?

A few dozen were fully active or in charge of pulling off the show, a
few hundred and possibly a thousand had to know everything and
participate under our nondisclosure rules(or else), and of most
everyone else was so compartmentalized to death and otherwise
downright scared to death to even think anything that was the least
bit in question of whatever they and others were doing. Signing that
nondisclosure policy is what gave our DARPA/NASA goons the legal right
to having you and your family exterminated for breaking any part of
that nondisclosure policy, and they were extremely serious about it.

Well, we are making progress. About a thousand
conspirators, you say.

So what did they do?

On May 8, 1:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures.

I am waiting for you to set me straight. What really
happened in your opinion.

It is not up to me to find out what happened. shrug

The information and analyses I have done only tells if the claimed
manned missions did happen or not, and it is a definitely no. So,
apparently, you do not understand what I said. I have to repeat
myself.

There is no such thing as conspiracy theory or crackpots. You are
either wrong or right. Sometimes, it is subjective. Sometimes, it is
going against what is normally believed. For example, we have this
scenario where most people believe in the God of butterflies being
supreme. Now, someone comes along and claims the God of spiders being
the most supreme instead. This someone will be regarded as a crackpot
and a conspiracy nutcase. shrug

You have erroneously interpreted them as grunts. That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures. If your peers believe in the God of
butterflies, and you believe in the God of spiders, you are going to
feel pressure from your peers.

The subject on manned moon missions can only be decided with more
scientific investigations. Unable to face any scientific inquiries
into the matter, you have resorted to faith. You have called and
tried to dismiss the ones bringing up the questionable events as
conspiracy crackpots. You have lost your scientific methodology in
doing so. shrug

Going back to the manned moon landing claim, the Apollo manned
missions were the only ones that have gone beyond the low earth orbit
in which the environment enjoys a relatively benign radiation of 10
RADs per year. The Apollo manned missions were also the only ones
that have supposedly gone into the Van Allen Belts and beyond. The
shuttle program only calls out for missions in the low earth orbit.
With relatively and vastly more sophisticated hardware, the shuttle
program is plagued with problems after problems while the Apollo
missions have gone in perfect performance except the staged mission 13
which the problem miraculously happened on the 13th mission, the 13th
hour, the 13th minute, and the 13th second.

The Van Allen Belts represent deadly radiation zones that miraculous
shielded all harmful solar and cosmic radiation from the living
organisms of earth. Beyond these belts, the radiation is not as
severe as in it. However, it is still deadly. The earlier deep space
probes namely the Viking and the Mariner missions did not pay very
much attention to the radiation of deep space. These probes did not
last very long. However, Pioneer and Voyagers did have their
electronics hardened for the deadly radiation. To give you an
example, the geosynchronous satellites have to withstand a radiation
of 300kRADs or more per year beyond the Van Allen Belts. The
following link should cast no doubt on this radiation amount. Each
year, the sun sheds some of its mass (2-3E-14 solar mass) with each
proton having an average energy of 1keV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

That is why semiconductor vendors such as Intersil sell devices that
can withstand some or all these radiation. Check them out.

http://www.intersil.com/military/radhardlist.asp

This is a scientific method of exposing Apollo manned missions being
an elaborate hoax. What is your scientific method of countering
this? None, so you have to resort to faith, right? shrug