On May 8, 11:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 8, 10:07 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On May 8, 10:52 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 8, 9:34 pm, Tim Little wrote:
[snip]

Both of these guys are very malicious idiots. Any science you bring to
the table that doesn't support their position will be rejected.

For example - note kooby's claim about year long exposures, and read
the definition of the rem.

GSO average dosage of 2e3 Sv/yr while shielded by 2 g/cm2 or 5/16"
aluminum is not bogus.

That's only 200,000 rad/yr, as nearly 23 rads or rem if you like per
hour.
. - Brad Guth

Great guthball, 23 rad/hour. How long were they in the Van Allen
belts?

Wait...since you claim they were never there, what's your point? Or
are you going with "well maybe they went to a L point..." like you
were talking about before? I dunno.

My dear out-of-context Eric, get a fresh grip on your private parts.

That 23 rad/hr is based upon the TRW and Raytheon Space Data Report of
what the innards of a GSO satellite has to deal with. It's the
average of what a 2 g/cm2 shielded component has to deal with, not the
passive low or the halo CME peak.

At best I would expect the Apollo secret lower dosage trek being worth
at least 10% of that amount, or 2.3 rad/hr as based upon their having
greater than 2 g/cm2.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth writes:

On May 8, 9:24 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.

Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).

What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)

Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.

On May 8, 11:16 pm, Tim Little wrote:

Quoting from exactly the same page you linked as a reference in your
post:

"An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium will receive about
2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year".

Following the link that claimed that below, we find the presumed orbit
for such a satellite is highly elliptical from 200 to 20,000 miles.
The shielding of this satellite is 1.0g/cm^2. The Apollo command
module only has shielding of 0.25g/cm^2.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970228a.html

I would think these high energy particles would have damaged your
retina in just a few hours.

On May 9, 8:09 am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
BradGuth writes:
On May 8, 9:24 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.
Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.
Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

They had no such UV filters other than incorporated within the basic
lens, of which has nothing to do with filtering out those secondary/
recoil photons created by such UV energy.

Kodak film is not like a CCD and of ts photoshop like image recording
process, whereas instead it takes a sharp spectrum cutoff filter and/
or narrow bandpass optical element in order to moderate or exclude the
unavoidable bluish/purple tint of the locally skewed hue saturation.


It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

The raw sun is nothing remotely like a xenon arc lamp spectrum.

Obviously you know next to nothing about such matters, and yet you
also refuse to educate yourself. So what's the difference?


You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).
What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)
Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.

LEO rems are not quite the same thing as GSO/(Van Allen) rems.

You do realize that Dr. Van Allen was on record as 100% opposed to
human space travels as trekking through or even outside of the
protective magnetosphere, don't you?

Even extremely short term exposures have consequences to our frail
DNA, far greater than anything NASA/Apollo ever reported. So, why
don't you tell us why our DARPA (aka Semitic Third Reich) and of their
NASA puppets lied to us.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 3:08 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:36 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Well, we are making progress. About a thousand
conspirators, you say.

They did pretty much everything except land upon and EVA walk upon our
physically dark and nasty moon.


Are you saying that US astronauts orbited the moon?

Martin Hogbin

BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 3:13 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 1:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Telling our resident spook/mole "Martin Hogbin" the actual truth and
nothing but the truth
You have told me nothing, except that there were around
1000 conspirators. I eagerly await the rest of the
'truth'.

I assume you'd want specific names, places, dates and the usual hour
by hour of every tidbit of any paper trail as to where all this cloak
and dagger cold-war effort and subsequent DARPA/NASA loot went.

All I want is a description of how you believe they
faked the landings?

On the other hand, why exactly do you care either way? (are you one of
those at risk?)

You seem to the one who cares.

Martin Hogbin

BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 3:10 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 1:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:

I've posted many theories as to the NASA/Apollo moon landing hoax, all
of which based upon the regular laws of physics and best available
science,

Why many theories? We only need one good one. Give me
your best shot.

Martin HOgbin

BradGuth writes:

On May 9, 8:09 am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.
Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

They had no such UV filters other than incorporated within the basic
lens,

I never claimed they went to the nearest camera shop for a UV filter.
Certainly they were custom or semicustom cameras of some sort designed
for use on the moon, including being in an environment with solar UV.

of which has nothing to do with filtering out those secondary/
recoil photons created by such UV energy.

Kodak film is not like a CCD and of ts photoshop like image recording
process, whereas instead it takes a sharp spectrum cutoff filter and/
or narrow bandpass optical element in order to moderate or exclude the
unavoidable bluish/purple tint of the locally skewed hue saturation.

Some sort of fluorescence? If so, we'd see it from Earth, and the Moon
would appear bluish/purple in the night sky. Heck, the Earth's
atmosphere might do the same. (AHA! That's the real reason the sky is
blue!!!)

It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

The raw sun is nothing remotely like a xenon arc lamp spectrum.

How can one tell from still photos or television video from the Apollo
program?

Obviously you know next to nothing about such matters, and yet you
also refuse to educate yourself. So what's the difference?

Wrong. Why do you think I asked about the photos in the first place?
I saw an inconsistancy and asked about it.

You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).
What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)
Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.

LEO rems are not quite the same thing as GSO/(Van Allen) rems.

That 2,500 rem per year figure was for the Van Allen belt. I was trusting
that your figures for the distance and speed and thus time were reasonably
accurate.

You do realize that Dr. Van Allen was on record as 100% opposed to
human space travels as trekking through or even outside of the
protective magnetosphere, don't you?

A very cautious man.

Even extremely short term exposures have consequences to our frail
DNA, far greater than anything NASA/Apollo ever reported.

REM is REM, right? (Roentgen Equivalent for Man)
Are you claiming the 3.7 rem figure is wrong or 3.7 rem is much more
dangerous than claimed?

So, why
don't you tell us why our DARPA (aka Semitic Third Reich) and of their
NASA puppets lied to us.

If you're going to post kook crap, don't bother replying to me. I
just quit debating a couple other kooks as a waste of time, I have no
need to start with another.

On May 9, 11:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 3:13 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 1:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Telling our resident spook/mole "Martin Hogbin" the actual truth and
nothing but the truth
You have told me nothing, except that there were around
1000 conspirators. I eagerly await the rest of the
'truth'.

I assume you'd want specific names, places, dates and the usual hour
by hour of every tidbit of any paper trail as to where all this cloak
and dagger cold-war effort and subsequent DARPA/NASA loot went.

All I want is a description of how you believe they
faked the landings?

On the other hand, why exactly do you care either way? (are you one of
those at risk?)

You seem to the one who cares.

Martin Hogbin

Isolated/private terrestrial guano island, xenon arc lamps, and the
very best of film and video expertise of that era. Plus having all
the necessary logistics of support services that we taxpayers and
energy consumers could muster. Some of their work was of course
studio accomplished, and most all of their film/video editing was of
course kept as DARPA secret and as staff limited as they could make
it.

BTW, didn't you ever hear about our mutually perpetrated cold-war, and
of the dirty tricks from each side?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 9, 11:16 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 3:08 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:36 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Well, we are making progress. About a thousand
conspirators, you say.

They did pretty much everything except land upon and EVA walk upon our
physically dark and nasty moon.

Are you saying that US astronauts orbited the moon?

Martin Hogbin

I'm thinking A-13 was doable, but that's about as good as it ever
gets.

There was no real problem(s) or technical fault with mission A-13.
The other missions had simply gone to/from the moon's L1, at least as
far as any crew of astronauts ever got, other than A-13.
.. - Brad Guth