Schoenfeld wrote:
THE BELOW WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WILL LIKELY BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA

At this point there are dozens of votes to keep it, and not a single vote to
delete it, unless you count the original request for deletion. So I think
it's safe.

-- Ben

Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:
THE BELOW WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WILL LIKELY BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA

At this point there are dozens of votes to keep it, and not a single vote to
delete it, unless you count the original request for deletion. So I think
it's safe.

I was going to ask what the criteria were to remove it.

As far as I read, it sounded like a balanced history of the moon hoax
theory as a social phenomenon. I notice "Hexenmeister" didn't even
bother to start reading it before dismissing it as moon hoax kookery,
when in fact it was mainly a discounting of moon hoax kookery.

Edward Green,
The truth and nothing but the truth simply can't be told, that is not
if you want to live to see another day.

I've had replicated hard-scientific proof that folks haven't waled on
the moon. None of my proof has ever been discredited or otherwise
disqualified, only excluded because that's about all they can do.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
ups.com...
Edward Green,
The truth and nothing but the truth simply can't be told, that is not
if you want to live to see another day.

I've had replicated hard-scientific proof

I dout you would know replicated scientific proof if it hit you in the face

that folks haven't waled on the moon.

Everyone knows there are no wales on the Moon.

None of my proof has ever been discredited or otherwise disqualified,

So just what exactly is your proof then? If it is replicable, then anyone
should be
able to do it for themselves.

only excluded because that's about all they can do.

The usual dismal dirge of the terminally deficient egocentric conspiracy
theorist.

sr
-
Brad Guth

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

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?

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.

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 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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...

[...]
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.

On top of the anomaly of film exposure pointed out by Mr. Guth's, I
would like to address the radiation issue.

http://kublai.servebeer.com/Apollo.htm

Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...

[...]
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.

On top of the anomaly of film exposure pointed out by Mr. Guth's, I
would like to address the radiation issue.

http://kublai.servebeer.com/Apollo.htm

A few years ago they akes the Russian head of the space program why
they ddi not attempt a man landing to the moon. He looked at the person
asking the question with a strange smile on his face and replied: "We
would have only of we knew how to go beyond the Van Allen zone".

Incidentally, one of the space shuttle mission once tried to approcal
the 500 Km level and soon forced to go back as their radiation
instruments went in the red.

However, I agree that logically all these do not imply a hoax but hust
a possibility of hoax. Sometimes a brute force solution may be enough
to solve such problems and they may have used something they did not
want to reveal to the competition. Maybe something like a heavy metal
shield like lead or along these lines could be enough. That shield
could have been send to space with another rochet and picked up in
orbit to avoid increasing the lift-off rocket weight. Or maybe some
exotic material in the astronaut uniforms.

there are many other possibilities as you mentioned. these can be
tested independently to corroborate or falsify the hoax hypothesis.
Just send a poor animal, like a cat, to go past Van Allen. It is a
cheap test compared to cranky GR tests.

Mike

Mike; I agree that logically all these do not imply a hoax but hust
a possibility of hoax. Sometimes a brute force solution may be enough
to solve such problems and they may have used something they did not
want to reveal to the competition. Maybe something like a heavy metal
shield like lead or along these lines could be enough. That shield
could have been send to space with another rochet and picked up in
orbit to avoid increasing the lift-off rocket weight. Or maybe some
exotic material in the astronaut uniforms.
Actually the lower density of plain old water or the likes of using
UHMW that's of a similar density would be demanding of greater volume
but otherwise far superior to not having produced the degree of those
nasty secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays. A few meters worth should
do the trick.

there are many other possibilities as you mentioned. these can be
tested independently to corroborate or falsify the hoax hypothesis.
Just send a poor animal, like a cat, to go past Van Allen. It is a
cheap test compared to cranky GR tests.
I totally agree that a robotic mission, that's with or without cat, as
sent to spend a few energy efficient days of coasting within the LL-1
zone would have been easily doable way back then, and otherwise
extremely doable as of today. Even a North Korean rocket should do the
trick unless the cat is too fat.

Obviously the US/USSR ruse of their perpetrated cold-war would then
have to be fully exposed, and then some. Therefore the statement of
"We would have only of we knew how to go beyond the Van Allen zone"
makes perfect sense, especially as of 4 decades ago and without either
of us having a viable fly-by-rocket lander, as well as such hocus-pocus
landers not having incorporated those rather essential momentum
reaction wheels in order to deal with lunar mascons, and it only gets
worse yet if you'd care to talk about all the meters deep moon-dust
that has to be highly electrostatic and via the regular laws of physics
remaining as totally reactive to whatever's within the solar and cosmic
influx, not to mention their surviving whatever's of physical substance
that's gravity attracted into passing nearby and/or impacting at
whatever godforsaken velocity.

Incidentally, one of the space shuttle mission once tried to
approcal the 500 Km level and soon forced to go back as their
radiation instruments went in the red.
Our USAF uses our moon as a regular radiation instrument detection
method of calibrating upon their sensitive tracking of nuclear weapons.
I'm fairly certain the Russian air force does the very same.

Using reverse math puts the surface of our moon off-limits to humanity
(especially of the solar illuminated moon). I believe that our
surrounding atmosphere and of the Van Allen badlands is worth at least
a good 2e32:1 reduction from the full extent of moon radiation.

What's your best swag as to the gamma and hard-X-ray attenuation factor
as afforded by our atmosphere and via the Van Allen zone of death (a
depth of badlands that's better than 70,000 km as taken towards or
moon) worth these days?
-
Brad Guth

http://kublai.servebeer.com/Apollo.htm
Koobee Wublee,
That's a fairly good page of mostly sharing their own radiation
infomercial-science of damage-control that'll need the more recent
worth of updated gamma and hard-X-ray information applied, as well as
for having your best swag posted as to the surface intensity that an
actual manned mission via earthshine would have to survive, along with
a cash of having their banked bone marrow standing by once they've
managed to get their damaged DNA safely back home.

How many minutes or possibly hours are we talking about, before their
having exceeded 100 RADs?

"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.

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

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/jan98/eyejan98.html
About 10,000 "measurable DNA modification events" happen each hour in
each cell in mammals, the article asserts. Yet one rad (dose unit) of
ionizing radiation causes "about 100 (or fewer) measurable DNA
alternations per cell."

Therefore if given a 100 rad dosage will have mutated and/or having
compromised roughly the same number of DNA, doubling upon the natural
biological process, as per likely causing your immune system to attack
those mutated/damaged cells as though they are foreign to the body.
Without suppressing your immune system, taking various steroids and/or
a having a few clean batches of steam cells available, or perhaps as
your last resort of having good shot of your very own banked bone
marrow injected, chances are that within days or possibly weaks the 100
rad dosage is going to get somewhat uggly from the inside out.

"Logic alarm #2: Ionizing radiation exposure of 330 rads in a week to
the entire body kills 50% of the people so exposed. If normal life
actually did the same damage per DNA "modification" as ionizing
radiation does, it will have the same effect as ionizing radiation. 300
rads x 100 DNA modifications per cell per rad (according to the RR
article) means 30,000 DNA modifications per cell will kill half the
people who get this many "modifications". (About 600 rads or 600,000
DNA "modifications" will probably do to kill 100%.)"

This is not that any one such study/report agrees with any other. In
fact, there's somewhat less agreement upon radiation exposure limits
(obviously depending upon the given spectrums of such exposures) and
the final resulting impact upon our frail DNA, more so than upon most
any other field of human/animal biology, and there's even less
hard-science that's in agreement as to the radiation of space travel
that's within the same ballpark along with most any other resource of
such space and/or moon radiation data. In fact, it's been so freaking
all over the place that it's exactly as though we've never obtained
specific hard-science data from the lunar surface, much less having
walked essentially moonsuit butt-naked upon the radioactive and
otherwise highly reactive moon, or even having spent any amount of time
orbiting nearby that dark and nasty gamma and hard-X-ray worth of a
moon in person.
-
Brad Guth