Brad Guth wrote:

[...]

Yet none of you moon-hoax ****wits are able to explain how the US would
have fooled the Soviets.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://kublai.servebeer.com/Apollo.htm
[...]
"Excluding the effect in the Van Allen's Belts, an object in
geosynchronous orbit will recieve about 300K RADs of radiation per year
without any shielding" is actually quite similar to the 2e3 Sv/year
(200K RADs) as per shielded behind 2 g/cm2 worth of aluminum, as having
been documented by their own TRW/Raytheon Space Data Report.

Your figure of 200K RADs/year with 2 g/cm^2 of shielding seems to be
very high unless you are referring to the radiation within the Van
Allen Belts. 2 g/cm^2 is a dream among aerospace engineers. It is
easily achievable with local shielding. However, as global shielding,
it is still economically not very feasible with larger satellites and
Apollo Command Module. TRW/Grunman, unlike others such as
Hughes/Boeing, builds payloads with electronic components directly
exposed to space. Localized shielding must be utilized, and 2 g/cm^2
is easily achievable through localized shielding.

BTW; you've got at least one misspelled/typo word "recieve" to deal
with.

Thanks and corrected.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

Brad Guth wrote:

[...]

Yet none of you moon-hoax f*ckwits are able to explain how the US would
have fooled the Soviets.

Your great concern is best left for political scientists to address.
In the meanwhile, shall we go back and discuss physics?

Your great concern is best left for political scientists to address.
In the meanwhile, shall we go back and discuss physics?
Say what again? Here I'd thought his political science and religious
science was actually all that mattered to the likes of "Eric Gisse",
not the actual truth and hardly that of the regular laws of physics
that seem to have proven that his Apollo landings and EVA's were
essentially impossible.

Your figure of 200K RADs/year with 2 g/cm^2 of shielding seems to be
very high unless you are referring to the radiation within the Van
Allen Belts.
koobee.wub,
That's not my figure, it's TRW/Raytheon's 2e3 Sv/yr, and it's certainly
offering a bit lower number than the raw 300K RADs of what had been
previously stipulated by yourself, and I do believe it is roughly of
the GSO related dosage as per year, however excluding those truly
massive solar events that went off-scale. But exactly why do you care?

2 g/cm2 is actually somewhat wussy shielding, especially for human DNA
that could use at least 20 g/cm2 as long as our gamma and hard-X-ray
emitting moon is somewhere on the other side of mother Earth, and even
that's only good for a few extra hours or perhaps a few days at best if
our sun remains somewhat passive and our reactive moon is still
sufficiently far away.

Which side of this argument are you on? or doesn't it matter?

What's the atmospheric attenuation factor that benefits all life upon
Earth?

What's the gamma attenuation factor, if any, imposed by the
magnetosphere and of the vast Van Allen expanse?
-
Brad Guth

That's rather Usenet odd, as no matters what I can't seem to make any
of my replies to lord/wizard "Eric Gisse" stick. Whereas somehow that
absolute ******* of a spook is remote blocking anto robo-excluding upon
whatever I'm trying to say. Therefore, this is what I'd intended to
reply as to his following comments:
Brad Guth wrote:
[...]

Eric Gisse; Yet none of you moon-hoax ****wits are able to explain
how the US would have fooled the Soviets.

First off, in such a perpetrated and well orchestrated cold-war, it
obviously takes two to tango.

Secondly, I believe that you're giving a little too much credit as to
how science and physics smart the lower 99.9% of them Russians actually
were. What independent science and physics access did they actually
have at their disposal, without fear of their being terminated by way
of friendly fire or just vanishing off the face of Earth?

Why would the upper 0.1% of those extremely powerful and filthy rich
Russians want to tip their equally dirty hand that's grabbing so deeply
into the cooky jar of life?

Why haven't the Russians ever once demonstrated one of their R&D
AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers (w/o internal payloads), as an easily
scaled prototype in order to suit the gravity of Earth?
-
Brad Guth

$$ Eric Gisse wrote: Brad Guth wrote: [...]

Yet none of you moon-hoax ****wits are able to explain
how the US would have fooled the Soviets.

$$ Yo.
$$ Yada yada.
$$ Yosemite-SAM-Tivity.

$$ Eric Gisse wrote: Brad Guth wrote: [...]

Yet none of you moon-hoax ****wits are able to explain
how the US would have fooled the Soviets.

$$ Yo.
$$ Yada yada.
$$ Yosemite-SAM-Tivity.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
I dout you would know replicated scientific proof if it hit you in the
face
Steve Ralph,
Why exactly are you having to discredit yet another honest American?

HAHAHA!! Now thats rich coming from someone who insists that *thousands* of
people are liars.

Why is the truth too much to expect or simply too much to deal with?

You should know

Everyone knows there are no wales on the Moon.
Why are you folks having to hide from the truth by way of making such
obvious fun at something that's extremely serious business?

Because people like you are buffoons who take themselves and their belief
systems
far too seriously.

So just what exactly is your proof then? If it is replicable, then
anyone should be able to do it for themselves.
That is correct, that most any village idiot that still has a pair of
eyes and at least half a dyslexic brain shouldn't have any problems
working this one out, or of taking the words of others having
accomplished this degree of hard-science on our behalf. It's really
not all that complex to even internet research to your heart's content.

Taking a lump of film into space is not exactly easy to reproduce.

Just for starters; the Kodak photon physics of how unfiltered film
responds to such raw solar and cosmic light is not hocus-pocus nor is
it without replication. Kodak's photon physics is well documented and
it can be quite easily replicated. Kodak's film dynamic range(DR) was
also sufficient to have recorded a good dozen other items besides the
0.07 albedo moon and that of mother Earth.

By the term "unfiltered" is saying their quality optics of those
cameras were essentially full spectrum bandpass, and for also having
such a slight atmosphere is yet another essential form of the raw solar
influx as having been unfiltered. There's also the rather obvious
matter of physics fact that Kodak's blue spectrum sensitive film had
not recorded any unusual skew in color nor that of any secondary/recoil
photons, that which simply can not be the case unless the given moon
like terrain were terrestrial and being xenon lamp illuminated.

Even their B&W film as having recorded upon the deep blue of our
American flag should have recorded such as a light gray to nearly being
white, especially photon saturated if there were any of the expected
near-blue secondary/recoil photons from each of their UV-a saturated
scenes containing such artificial and/or photon reactive items (of
whatever's natural or artificial).

Their 0.85 albedo moonsuits should have recorded as having a bluish
tint or color skew, especially against a typically 0.07 albedo moon
(that's nearly coal like black basalt that's carbon/soot coated).

The usual dismal dirge of the terminally deficient egocentric
conspiracy theorist.
And your "dismal dirge of the terminally deficient egocentric
conspiracy theorist" theory is based upon what hard-science and of what
regular laws of physics? or are you just going to exclude upon
whatever evidence suits your fancy?

BTW; our moon is not actually a guano island like terrain of such few
eroded rocks within the foreground

And how the f*** would you know? Been there have you?
Must have been alien technology.

Though I agree sending a cat (or better still you) on the round trip
would settle the question.

So... how are they going to fake it next time?

sr


and otherwise having such clean and
soft rolling hills in the background, of an average 0.55+ albedo as
offering such a thin clumping layer of portland cement and cornmeal,
along with those entirely empty cracks within those close-up
photographed big rocks that were looking as though their artificial
dusting process hadn't quite accomplished the intended task.

There's a few hundred other matters of moon-science, rocket-science and
physics that don't quite match up to their NASA/Apollo koran, such as
the local gamma and hard-X-ray dosage as being somewhat TBI lethal
and/or at the very least perfectly capable of having been unavoidably
recorded upon all of that Kodak film, especially since such thin
aluminum is essentially transparent to hard-X-rays and otherwise being
entirely transparent to gamma, that which in the process of gamma
passing itself clean through such aluminum, glass lens and film
represents exactly the physics of what generates all of those nasty
secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays. Of course, being surrounded by
3.14e6 m2 worth of nasty terrain that's offering such extra good
density that's subsequently emitting gamma and hard-X-rays without
having any attenuation factor via atmosphere isn't exactly benefiting
your badly IR plus secondary IR roasted film, nor being all that
healthy as for your naked DNA.
-
Brad Guth

Taking a lump of film into space is not exactly easy to reproduce.
Steve Ralph,
But there's no such requirement of taking Kodak's film into space, much
less onto our gamma and hard-X-ray gauntlet of our dark and nasty moon
unless your conditional laws of physics are so entirely different on
the moon as opposed to whatever's terrestrial.

So... how are they going to fake it next time?
What "next time"? or even first time other than via robotics?

I'll buy via earthshine for a few minutes or possibly hours, but that's
about it, unless they're not planning on surviving. I'll certainly buy
into robotics and of their remote pilot crew as station-keeping a safe
enough distance as being extra well shirlded within the LL-1 zone, as
risky business but otherwise perfectly doable.

In other words, you've got absolutely nothing that proves such xenon
lamp spectrum illuminated Kodak moments ever took place upon our moon.
Why am I not the least bit surprised.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your great concern is best left for political scientists to address.
In the meanwhile, shall we go back and discuss physics?
Say what again? Here I'd thought his political science and religious
science was actually all that mattered to the likes of "Eric Gisse",
not the actual truth and hardly that of the regular laws of physics
that seem to have proven that his Apollo landings and EVA's were
essentially impossible.

You have to understand our education system. It is designed to teach
what they want you to know.

For example, during my high school years, I read in my textbook about
how the founding fathers were so vehimently opposed to establishment of
a national bank in the United States. The textbook did not explain
why, and I asked myself what the heck is the big deal. I asked the
teacher, and he did not seem to know, either. Only when the internet
came readily online a few years ago, I finally understood why.

Your figure of 200K RADs/year with 2 g/cm^2 of shielding seems to be
very high unless you are referring to the radiation within the Van
Allen Belts.
koobee.wub,
That's not my figure, it's TRW/Raytheon's 2e3 Sv/yr, and it's certainly
offering a bit lower number than the raw 300K RADs of what had been
previously stipulated by yourself, and I do believe it is roughly of
the GSO related dosage as per year, however excluding those truly
massive solar events that went off-scale. But exactly why do you care?

I am just asking you if that is referring to the radiation beyond the
Van Allen Belts or inside the belts. If it is beyond it, that would
seem to be very high from my own experience. With 200K RADs/year on 2
g/cm^2 of shielding, the radiation dosage would be up in the ten's of
millions RADs/year with no shielding.

2 g/cm2 is actually somewhat wussy shielding, especially for human DNA
that could use at least 20 g/cm2 as long as our gamma and hard-X-ray
emitting moon is somewhere on the other side of mother Earth, and even
that's only good for a few extra hours or perhaps a few days at best if
our sun remains somewhat passive and our reactive moon is still
sufficiently far away.

You are right about this. However, due to tremendous economic
considerations, 2 g/cm^2 of global shielding remains a dream or a goal
in the far future.

Which side of this argument are you on? or doesn't it matter?

Yes, it does matter. I am always on the side of science and logic.

What's the atmospheric attenuation factor that benefits all life upon
Earth?

What's the gamma attenuation factor, if any, imposed by the
magnetosphere and of the vast Van Allen expanse?

Don't care. I would like to concentrate on radiation beyond the
protective layers of Van Allen Belts for now.