Finally...Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth

xcvzxcvxczv wrote:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Which nicely summarizes the extreme radioactive hazards in space beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. For the crews not to have been (immediately and fatally) irradiated beyond this safe area, would have required that the Sun cease generating cosmic energy. Yet this paper expected the reader to believe that this actually happened over and over, for every hour for each mission. Bear in mind that cosmic rays destroy entire atmospheres of unprotected planets, and astronauts were bathed in this energy (on the Moon) with no harm?

RadioAlpha wrote:

xcvzxcvxczv wrote:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Which nicely summarizes the extreme radioactive hazards in space beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. For the crews not to have been (immediately and fatally) irradiated beyond this safe area, would have required that the Sun cease generating cosmic energy. Yet this paper expected the reader to believe that this actually happened over and over, for every hour for each mission. Bear in mind that cosmic rays destroy entire atmospheres of unprotected planets, and astronauts were bathed in this energy (on the Moon) with no harm?

You don't test well in reading comprehension, do you.

RadioAlpha wrote:

xcvzxcvxczv wrote:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Bear in mind that cosmic rays destroy entire atmospheres of unprotected planets,

Yes, they do, but it takes hundreds of millions of years.

xcvzxcvxczv wrote:

You don't test well in reading comprehension, do you.

You don't test well in reading comprehension, do you?

SAT Prep wrote:

You don't test well in reading comprehension, do you.

*Beta LR Autocorrector Recorrection

You don't test well in reading comprehension, do you?

LR Autocorrect Apollo Document Challenge:

Spot the spelling mistake on the NASA document contents page.

There was also the addition of the recently man-made radiation belt due to the US nuke test (hoping to destroy or at least blow a hole in the Van Allen Belts). While the US Gov claims that, by then, its radiation had been reduced to 1/12th; that doesn't mean that that 1/12th was still not additional radiation exposure for the Apollo astronauts.

There was also the Solar Flare Maximum (1969-1970) - making THAT period especially dangerous (throughout the entire round-trips of Apollo.

btw, I agree that cosmic rays DO destroy entire atmospheres ... and agree with a subsequent poster that that process takes millions of years. Ergo, it is correct to both point to the powerful deadliness the cosmic rays to which the Apollo astronauts were inevitably exposed every minute of their flights AND yet not allow this issue to be confused by unnecessarily extrapolating to large-time-span events.

It is well known that the Apollo astronauts received deadly radiation during their moon trip. That's why half of them died from radiation poisoning.

http://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/

"Only a fool questions everything", you say.

PABLO: Only a fool REFUSES to question everything.

You say, "Only a fool questions everything and in turn knows nothing."

PABLO: Questioning everything TENDS to help the questioner know MORE, not less, much less "nothing". And, clearly (except perhaps in YOUR thinking) starting off by DOUBTING things is safer than starting off by simple ACCEPTING anything and everything we've been told (by a Government, the US Gov., that has been proven to lie, including telling a whole series of BIG LIES, throughout its 241 year history). Conversely, I imagine YOU would encourage the citizens of most or all OTHER COUNTRIES (past and present) to absolutely DOUBT what THEIR government tells them. Hypocrite much?

I imagine that YOU DOUBT all kinds of things American authority figures tell the masses. Right? If you're a Republican; don't you doubt all kinds of stuff claimed by the Democrats; and vice versa? So, both Parties lie thru their teeth as SOP; yet the very government they get elected to run, and do run, would NEVER lie to the people? Really?

Your IMPLICATION is that RT is a bigger (even much bigger) danger to American democracy than is the US Gov - but that couldn't be more wrong. No absolutely puny foreign news source has 1/10th of 1% the influence that either US Gov has, or the American Mass (dis-)Information Main Stream Media (MSM) has over the thinking of the American people. (95% of Americans get all their news from SIX media corporation conglomerates (every one of which is owned by multi-millionaires if not billionaires - we are to suppose that the filthy super-rich have NO AGENDA? They have NO interest in lying to us; including NO interest in hiding how they got/get/keep their obscene wealth?)

My personal experience with RT is that they TEND to tell less Big Lies than does the MSM; it'd be hard for any other source to lie less! At their best, RT is not very useful most of the time (when they do expose anything, they try their best to tone down the criticisms, and hide the worst of the implications); at their worst, they are but a fly speck of DIS-information compared to the gargantuun wall of lies and dis-information we get from the MSM.

But I'm not telling you something you don't already really KNOW, am I?

----

vis-a-vis "There is no point in wasting time discussing a made up giant ice wall ringing a flat disc Earth." - I mostly agree with you. Still, if NONE of us were to EVER try to expose that nonsense, wouldn't it TEND to spread - confusing more and more people - especially given how much it's being pushed? Given that it's most basic (but hidden) premise is an all-out attack on science itself; unfortunately, we have an OBLIGATION to respond (as distasteful as it feels).

IF RT was REALLY an enemy of the US; it'd be openly and endlessly calling for revolution against the US.

It is definitely NOT doing that. It'd point its condemning finger at the American BILLIONAIRES. It isn't.

Besides, Russia is run by Russian BILLIONAIRES; who have FAR more in common with AMERICAN billionaires than THEY do with the Russian non-super-rich millions; same with the American BILLIONAIRES.

So, in the short term, they DO have their MINOR feuds (essentially about which group of billionaires gets to run how much of the planet and steal the largest share of the spoils of world-domination. In the long term, they are on the SAME SIDE - cooperating to crush any and all resistance to their domination.

If China-Russia end up replacing the US as the #1 super-power; the world will be faced with essentially the same task: UNITE to Oppose the #1 super-power (which advanced capitalist country, or group of them, it is.

Meanwhile, Musk's SpaceX woes continue...

http://www.clickhole.com/article/space-flight-setback-spacex-has-lost-falcon-9-rock-7149#2

,

NDT wrote:

It is well known that the Apollo astronauts received deadly radiation during their moon trip. That's why half of them died from radiation poisoning.

http://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/

Interesting. I assumed they would have had increase in cancer risks. I know that Jack Swigert (Apollo 13) died of cancer fairly young, but of course a lot of people do too.

That study clearly shows link with deep space flight heart disease and explainsthat is because cosmic radiation damages tissue. Astronauts will definitely need better protection if we are going to do longer trips, like to Mars or on a moon base.

The original paper is focused on cardiovascular disease not cancers though.

I concur with this comment on the original Nature article:

After reading the paper, the more I think about this, the more I can't understand how it got past peer review. First, it's obvious that with one group having a radically higher accidental death rate (49%) and the other less than 1/3rd (14%) this will skew cause of death from CVD.

Second, the cancer stats are exactly as I would expect, [normal for non-smoker, healthy population] and no significant deviation for lunar vs LEO astronauts. I cannot fathom an oxidation/stress mechanism that would have that strong an effect on CVD, but show nothing relative to cancer. In cancer treatment patients, to see such effects long-term requires very high dosing - orders of magnitude higher. These astronauts got a maximum (per this article) of 1.14 cGy which is 0.0114 Gy over 2 weeks. How does that justify dosing mice with 87 times the dose the astronauts received?

Third, how did this study use gray (Gy) instead of Sievert (Sv)? The RBE conversion for Fe56 ions is about 5-30 times Gy although those numbers are known to be poor. If these mice really got an acute dose of 5-30 Sv you should see them dying of radiation sickness if they were left to do so, and rather rapidly.

This gross error in study design becomes more obvious when we do the math for the astronauts. If we assume an RBE of 30 for the astronaut's dose of 0.0114 Gy, then the astronaut's maximum Sv dose was 0.342, or 342 mSv. That sounds like it's within range of what one would get in space.

But the difference between 342 mSv and 30 Sv is like the difference between a 2nd degree sunburn and throwing someone in an blast furnace at a steel mill. There is no basis for comparison of that biological effect.

That means that those mouse experimental results don't show anything meaningful. This paper doesn't appear to me to be peer reviewed by anyone who understood what they were looking at.

This is the second paper in a few years containing material that claims radiation effects when the science is bizarre. The other that comes to mind is the Blue grass butterfly paper from Japan. Something is fishy at Nature.

CVD wrote:

The original paper is focused on cardiovascular disease not cancers though.

Irwin died of a heart attack while out on a run.

Three Apollo astronauts allegedly flew twice to the moon:

Jim Lovell is alive and well, aged 89

Eugene Cernan died at the beginning of 2017, aged 83

John Young is alive and well, aged 87

Ergo, two hazardous visits to the moon and these astronauts were all still alive last year??? Makes no sense - these guys should have died first if there is a single shred of truth to the whole "Apollo" saga.

CVD wrote:

Three Apollo astronauts allegedly flew twice to the moon:

The whooshing sound you just heard is your credibility rapidly vacating the premises.

NDT wrote:

CVD wrote:

Three Apollo astronauts allegedly flew twice to the moon:

The whooshing sound you just heard is your credibility rapidly vacating the premises.

Explain..

Jim Lovell - Command Module Pilot on Apollo 8 and command of Apollo 13 (twice to the moon)

Eugene Cernan – Pilot on Apollo 10 and Apollo 17 (twice to the moon)

John Young – Command Module Pilot on Apollo 10 and on Apollo 16 (twice to the moon)

Hope that is simple enough for you.