Philosophy Now Forum

Okay the moment you've all been waiting for. BULLSHIT!

Hoaxers say:

The shadows are *FAKE*! They say that they don't appear "parallel" and diverge inwards. BULLSHIT. The shadows diverging inwards is due to the camera's field of view. The shadows are not warped, but simply go to the natural 3 dimensional vanishing point of the horizon. Also, there is no possible scenario where a light could cast shadows diverging inwards. A single point light can only cast outward shadows. It would require 2 lights, resulting in a double shadow. Therefore, the inward shadows are really just the result of the camera's natural vanishing point. So no points awarded. +0 Points.

The astronauts still appear visible during pitch black shadows! This can be accounted for by radiosity and strange camera aperture contrast settings. But it's still slightly suspicious, because there should be more of a natural gradient effect (The astronauts feet should be very dark, and fade higher to light.) Because I can't run a radiosity light simulation right now I can't test this in detail. So I'll say +1 Points.

Pics show lines and crosses on the ground!Bullshit. The crosses are just a part of the camera lens. If I could award negative points for this, I would. +0 Points.

The window scene!Bullshit. Doesn't prove anything, earth looks farther away than close orbit to me. The reflection on the window is just that, a reflection on a window. The lines on the upper right corner are wires of some sort. In fact, the window argument is so poorly explained I can't make sense of it. +0 Points.

Reluctance to obey paparazzi demandsSimply because he doesn't like being harassed to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon, doesn't prove anything. +0 Points.

The Letter C on a rockOdd. I could explain it away by saying that NASA chiseled the rock with a hand chisel because they were bored while sitting on the moon. Or I could say that NASA marked the photo, but this doesn't make sense, it seems like the rock itself is chiseled, not the photo marked post process. Or, in NASA's defense, I could say the hoaxers photoshopped it in. Suspicious, but not absolute. +2 Points awarded.

The Flag wavingWhile it has been proved that a flag waves in a vacuum (as it should), the inertia sine pattern pattern of the moon flag seems to move in a way indicating wind activity, and not in a balanced, symmetrical, pendulum way that you would see in a vacuum. Suspicious, but not absolute. +2 points awarded.

Space suitsThe temperature of the moon is said to be 123 C (253 F) by day, and -233 C (-387 F) by night. Yet, the modern spacesuit can only sustain a range between 121 C (250 F) and -150 C (-249 F). While this seems absurd let us assume that NASA material can deliver this promise. The promise says
"This space suit is capable of protecting the astronaut from temperatures ranging from 250 F to -249 F." First let us analyze this statement. The statement implies a maximum protection range of 250 F. The statement implies that 250 is not a "comfortable range" but the maximum protected range, and exceeding the range would result in damage or serious bodily injury. Let us also examine the numbers they provided. NASA is an American system. How convenient for them to use -250 to 250 F as bounds. How did they manage to get the insulation rating exactly the same range in the negative as the positive? There are a number of answers. Sheer dumb luck, alien technology, human ingenuity, or bullshit. But let us assume that this is not bullshit. Let us assume that NASA somehow made the suit deliver its promise of -250F to exactly 250 F. Let us assume that NASA never saw lunar night (I assume by night they mean the dark side of the moon? Or by night they mean when the moon is shadowed by earth?) In daytime, the astronauts would be in a steady state of 253 F, exceeding the maximum range of the suit. They would be sweating, if not dead. Surely they would have complained about this? Let us then assume they are super suits, capable of withstaining much more than 250F. Let us also assume the wikipedia link was providing false or misleading information. So I award only +1 Points.

JFKDesperate to save his country, and ambitious for great goals and greater science. It really hurts my feelings, it really does. I don't want to spoil the man's hopes and goals. And I am quite fond of NASA, they are a happy bunch, I am quite fond of them, they are cute. If they say they vanquished the bigger dipper in the sky, well by golly, he vanquished the big dipper in the sky, let him have his dreams... so he can rest in peace... To sad to mention any points for this, I am tearing up.

ill finish this up when i am done crying

Well, thanks for that, but rather than shine light on whether we went the moon or not, the text muddies and cheapens the endeavour by placing it within 'conspiracy theorist' terms. Those would be used by the enemy to weaken a position, so to use those terms yourself, would be like a form of self-harm. It's better to keep it grounded and real. Objective and banal. Maybe new language is needed. Can I explain clearly that which is unclear.

thedoc wrote:The Van Allen belt turned out to be not as much of a concern as some would have you believe, not lethal at all.

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

From the article,

"Implications for space travel[edit]
Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[25][26]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[27] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[28]

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[29]"

The text above can be seen as a religious text of faith for the faithful. It does the job of grounding the ungroundable

Pluto wrote:

thedoc wrote:The Van Allen belt turned out to be not as much of a concern as some would have you believe, not lethal at all.

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

From the article,

"Implications for space travel[edit]
Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[25][26]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[27] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[28]

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[29]"

The text above can be seen as a religious text of faith for the faithful. It does the job of grounding the ungroundable

Apollo astronauts, and astronauts in the
upcoming visits to the Moon, will have to travel through
some of these belt regions because the orbit of the M
oon lies along the fastest line-of-travel from Earth.
On the scale of the above figure, t
he distance to the Moon is 60 Re.
1. The speed of the spacecraft will be about 25,
000 km/hour. If the spacecraft travels along the
indicated path, how long, in minutes, will it spend
in the Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red regions?
Note: transit estimates may vary dependi
ng on how accurately st
udents measure figure.
Blue: 1.8 Re x (6378 km/Re)
x (1 hour/25,000 km) x (60 minutes/1 hour) = 27.6 minutes
Yellow: (1.4 x 6378) /25,000 x 60 = 6.1
minutes
Orange: (1.0 x 6378) / 25,000 x 60 = 15.3 mi
nutes
Green: (0.25 x 6378)/25,000 x 60 = 3.8 m
inutes
Red:
0 minutes
Total transit time........................... 52.8 minutes
2. Given the indicated radiation
dosages in Rads/sec for each zone,
what will be the dosages that the
astronauts receive in each zone?
Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads
3. What will be the total radiation dosage in Rads for the transit through the belts?
0.17 + 1.83 + 9.18 + 0.23 = 11.4 Rads
4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have
been instantly killed in the radiation belts. Accordi
ng to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency
(OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in on
e hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing
hoax' believers?
Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astr
onauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and re
turn
was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.
The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in
52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88
hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads /
0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below
the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cu
ts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless.

gsfc,nasa.gov/Algebra

Pluto wrote:Well, thanks for that, but rather than shine light on whether we went the moon or not, the text muddies and cheapens the endeavour by placing it within 'conspiracy theorist' terms. Those would be used by the enemy to weaken a position, so to use those terms yourself, would be like a form of self-harm. It's better to keep it grounded and real. Objective and banal. Maybe new language is needed. Can I explain clearly that which is unclear.

It aint finished yet, I didn't even get to the good stuff yet.

Nicely arranged Ginkgo

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

You are avoiding the question.

From a country that could not even keep Kennedy's drug addiction secret. How the hell has NASA managed to keep this massive hoax secret??

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

You are avoiding the question.

From a country that could not even keep Kennedy's drug addiction secret. How the hell has NASA managed to keep this massive hoax secret??

They didn't. Moonhoax is old news. Your question doesnt prove anything either way though, their ability to keep a secret does not prove it to be true.

To answer your question, it's quite obvious. Mainstream is more interested in petty drug addiction type stories than important science type stories. People love nothing more than to shame and ridicule their own heroes.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

You are avoiding the question.

From a country that could not even keep Kennedy's drug addiction secret. How the hell has NASA managed to keep this massive hoax secret??

I wasn't aware I'd been asked one.

Kennedy's enemies would love to release the fact that he's a junky. I said earlier in the post that most involved think it's real, only a handful know it isn't. Plus your question implies it's just NASA's problem to deal with, which wouldn't be so. It is the standing of a superpower at hand, and so would be a national security issue.

We have grown up with a painted picture of reality, that becomes our operating system if you like, going to the moon is built into all of us, and is therefore unthinkable and potentially dangerous to consider otherwise.

Why is it every time says answer the question someone says there wasn't one. Isn't that just a a lazy way of avoiding arguments. There are never any questions on this forum even when you use a question mark or so I have found, just prevarication in the face of not wanting to answer salient points ever.

That just means you lose you have no answers by the way, just a heads up. You really do suck, and instead of admitting it you say what question in the face of all the unceasing questions. Hope that works out for you.

That is dumb ass argumentation style though that a 5 year old grows out of at age 3.

Can't answer the topic then don't, we all know you can't regardless of the stalling you seem to think is the height of bon mot. Being unable to answer anything and then saying what question is like a a moron finally having an epiphany only to find he just actually shit himself as well.

good argument didn't tackle any of the points just ad hominem, do you study philosophy by any chance, precious little sign of it there.

I saw what you said Pluto. You know how stupid it was.

Blaggard wrote:Why is it every time says answer the question someone says there wasn't one. Isn't that just a a lazy way of avoiding arguments. There are never any questions on this forum even when you use a question mark or so I have found, just prevarication in the face of not wanting to answer salient points ever.

That just means you lose you have no answers by the way, just a heads up. You really do suck, and instead of admitting it you say what question in the face of all the unceasing questions. Hope that works out for you.

That is dumb ass argumentation style though that a 5 year old grows out of at age 3.

Can't answer the topic then don't, we all know you can't regardless of the stalling you seem to think is the height of bon mot. Being unable to answer anything and then saying what question is like a a moron finally having an epiphany only to find he just actually shit himself as well.

Have to agree, moon hoax aside, blaggard makes some good points here.

Blaggard wrote:Why is it every time says answer the question someone says there wasn't one. Isn't that just a a lazy way of avoiding arguments. There are never any questions on this forum even when you use a question mark or so I have found, just prevarication in the face of not wanting to answer salient points ever.

That just means you lose you have no answers by the way, just a heads up. You really do suck, and instead of admitting it you say what question in the face of all the unceasing questions. Hope that works out for you.

That is dumb ass argumentation style though that a 5 year old grows out of at age 3.

Can't answer the topic then don't, we all know you can't regardless of the stalling you seem to think is the height of bon mot. Being unable to answer anything and then saying what question is like a a moron finally having an epiphany only to find he just actually shit himself as well.

Your obviously upset. And wrong.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

You are avoiding the question.

From a country that could not even keep Kennedy's drug addiction secret. How the hell has NASA managed to keep this massive hoax secret??

They didn't. Moonhoax is old news. Your question doesnt prove anything either way though, their ability to keep a secret does not prove it to be true.

To answer your question, it's quite obvious. Mainstream is more interested in petty drug addiction type stories than important science type stories. People love nothing more than to shame and ridicule their own heroes.

SIx successful manned moonlandings and Apollo 13 that went spectacularly wrong involved thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
This makes it a completely convincing argument
Of all the idiotic conspiracy theories this one is by far the most fucking stupid.

Pluto wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

You are avoiding the question.

From a country that could not even keep Kennedy's drug addiction secret. How the hell has NASA managed to keep this massive hoax secret??

I wasn't aware I'd been asked one.

Kennedy's enemies would love to release the fact that he's a junky. I said earlier in the post that most involved think it's real, only a handful know it isn't. Plus your question implies it's just NASA's problem to deal with, which wouldn't be so. It is the standing of a superpower at hand, and so would be a national security issue.

We have grown up with a painted picture of reality, that becomes our operating system if you like, going to the moon is built into all of us, and is therefore unthinkable and potentially dangerous to consider otherwise.

Six successful manned moonlandings, as well as the Apollo 13 disaster involved not "a handful" of people, but thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
You must be very young and silly.