USA Basketball Player Stephen Curry (Golden State, California) doesn't think that USA Astronauts ever landed on Earth's Moon

The Apollo missions went to the Moon, not to Mars. We were talking about Van Allen belt radiation, not Deep Space radiation. Here is a link with some real exposure data -- not 2000 mrem, but around 32 mrem (0.016 rad) from the Van Allen belts, and up to 1.14 rad total for the most radiated mission Apollo 14, with the other missions being much less ranging from 0.16 to 0.58 rads. (OSHA lethal dose is 300 rads/hour -- compare to 1.14 rads / 6 days) Here are a bunch of great answers to the whole radiation question for Apollo:https://www.quora.com/If-the-astronauts-really-went-to-the-Moon-how-did-they-get-past-the-Van-Allen-belt I particularly like this:

Here is a letter from James Van Allen regarding the Astronaut exposure to Radiation:

Finally, since you like math:

Um, well... I was going to respond to this post, but probably better to just let it stand as is.

This is checkmate.

All else is science fiction.

DEVASTATED. Haha, poor hoaxer troll.

Hoaxer goes home wrote:

Ground Control wrote:

The Apollo missions went to the Moon, not to Mars.

We were talking about Van Allen belt radiation, not Deep Space radiation.

Here is a link with some real exposure data -- not 2000 mrem, but around 32 mrem (0.016 rad) from the Van Allen belts, and up to 1.14 rad total for the most radiated mission Apollo 14, with the other missions being much less ranging from 0.16 to 0.58 rads. (OSHA lethal dose is 300 rads/hour -- compare to 1.14 rads / 6 days)

Here are a bunch of great answers to the whole radiation question for Apollo:

https://www.quora.com/If-the-astronauts-really-went-to-the-Moon-how-did-they-get-past-the-Van-Allen-belt

I particularly like this:

Here is a letter from James Van Allen regarding the Astronaut exposure to Radiation:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-3885.html

Finally, since you like math:

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

DEVASTATED. Haha, poor hoaxer troll.

Nicely summed up! I think I heard mic drop. :-D

FMD what's this, another hoax leading up to the next manned mission hoax, when will it all end?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46645321

quora.com comic strips and NASA kiddie math (the latter already noted and errors pointed out)

Throw in a non-certified letter from one person (which means NOTHING in science), and you have an argument?

It's good to know what 'evidence' you accept (and will repeat even when shown erroneous)

Since the quora.com guy is at least new here, I'll just point out his first error, you can track down the rest.

“32 mrem, or 0.016 rads… This shows that the Apollo trajectories though the VARB were not only survivable, but that the radiation doses received were inconsequential."/i]

Except that 32 mrem is NOT 0.016 rads. This is hand-waving of the arch degree.

(Note also the the linked webpage is blank.)

MIT determines the conversion factor DIFFERS based on the type of radiation.

Heavy nuclei can be 20x as much in rems as rads, not a 2:1 ratio as wrongly guessdoodled.

Also your link-to-empty-webpage says "0.016 rads", contradicted by all data, INCLUDING your previously rebutted NASA Kiddie-Math page which gets 11.4 Rads (each way), only larger by a factor of 712x over the quora.com amount. The "wikipedia" style circular citation amongst your pages is also apparent....

You lost any credibility in correcting math after your CT scan calc botch.

The blank Braeunig.us webpage exists in web archives, the most obvious explanation being that they must have taken the 'xplainer down when it was shown to be sufficiently bogus. Yet another memory-holeing. Here is the guy's CV:

My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I am the creator of Rocket and Space Technology. After viewing my webpage you may come to the conclusion that I may be some sort of 'rocket scientist' or perhaps a model rocketry enthusiast. Both of these assumption would be incorrect. My education is in the field of civil engineering and I currently work for a construction company in Dayton, Ohio.

His attempt looks well-intended in thoroughness, but the logorrhea of it (found in web-archive) is apparent: "Since this involves thousands of computations, I can only report the results." Needless to say, a single error can render it all inutile. In civil engineering (his field), systems are made to be fault-tolerant and not collapse due to errors.

Science bro wrote:

How the Spin comes, when the bolds match wrote:

The real Propaganda was not NASA/media, or even CIA manipulators directly.

They derived through Hollywood, of course:

Um, well... I was going to respond to this post, but probably better to just let it stand as is.

I can only say, this is straight from your Hoax Denier Wikipedia source (Apollo 7 page):

Depiction in media

On November 6, 1968, comedian Bob Hope broadcast one of his variety television specials from NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston to honor the Apollo 7 crew. Barbara Eden, star of the popular comedy series I Dream of Jeannie, which featured two fictional astronauts among its regular characters, appeared with Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham.

Schirra parlayed the head cold he contracted during Apollo 7 into a television advertising contract as a spokesman for Actifed, an over the counter version of the medicine he took in space.[22]

I guess, in USA you can commercially exploit anything (even headaches) when the Propaganda and narrative network run your way. Likely a few greasers (like modern Harvey Weinstein) are glad to help too.

Give up troll. Game over. You lost.

This looks how USA depicted the van Allen belts, again using Hollywood for Propaganda.

[quote]Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961)

When the Earth is threatened by a burning Van Allen Radiation Belt, U.S. Navy Admiral Harriman Nelson plans to shoot a nuclear missile at the Belt, using his experimental atomic submarine, the Seaview.

Stars: Walter Pidgeon, Joan Fontaine, Barbara Eden (hmm....)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055608/

Do you even matj wrote:

You lost any credibility in correcting math after your CT scan calc botch.

An interesting theory. I can't vouch for the math done (or undone), but if NASA is allowed boo-booh upon boo-booh upon boo-booh and can correct their errors w/o losing credibility, surely hoaxers can too?

+-.-+-.-+-.-+-.-+-.-+ wrote:

The blank Braeunig.us webpage exists in web archives, the most obvious explanation being that they must have taken the 'xplainer down when it was shown to be sufficiently bogus. Yet another memory-holeing.

Yet this ghost reference is the number #1 source (NOTHING in peer-reviewed science literature for instance) that anti-hoax believers rely on for their so-called "radiation" estimates. In the first place, a web page by an non-expert "interested third party" civil engineer for construction companies. And then even this disappears!

This contempt for extant scientific protocol is demonstrative. No other subject matter would contemplate to tolerate this errant evasion of rigor. Yet they defend it, and even for 30+ pages on LRC! Almost like they have Man-on-Moon Derangement Syndrome (MoMDS) or something.

Not sure nuking it would fix that problem? wrote:

This looks how USA depicted the van Allen belts, again using Hollywood for Propaganda.

[quote]Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961)

When the Earth is threatened by a burning Van Allen Radiation Belt, U.S. Navy Admiral Harriman Nelson plans to shoot a nuclear missile at the Belt, using his experimental atomic submarine, the Seaview.

This is actually scientifically feasible, in recent years.

Chasing down their rabbit holes wrote:

Yet this ghost reference is the number #1 source (NOTHING in peer-reviewed science literature for instance) that anti-hoax believers rely on for their so-called "radiation" estimates. In the first place, a web page by an non-expert "interested third party" civil engineer for construction companies. And then even this disappears!

This contempt for extant scientific protocol is demonstrative. No other subject matter would contemplate to tolerate this errant evasion of rigor. Yet they defend it, and even for 30+ pages on LRC! Almost like they have Man-on-Moon Derangement Syndrome (MoMDS) or something.

Indeed, there's really no difference in appeal to authority, between an LRC thread and a random dude's website.

Too, they quote an uncited response (e-mail, easy to fake, at either end) purportedly from van Allen: if so, why didn't he publish his deft analysis many decades prior in an acceptable science forum (even internal NASA reports)? I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. Yet no one thought to memorialize such estimates (from van Allen himself! supposedly) by making memos on the matter?

Dr. Kate Rubins, Astronautess, Mission #49 (Stanford Med)

"We are also really pushing the boundaries in terms of where we are going forward, with exploration. I think humans are naturally driven to do this. And, this is really the beginning, I think, of human beings leaving low Earth orbit. I certainly plan on being around to see that."

Certainly such a well-educated woman must know (have been indoctrinated in) the Official History of USA Neil Armstrong (A11), so why does she not recall this when speaking extemporaneously under pressure from camera lights? Psychologists can analyse the reasons.... Maybe she "just forgot"... ?

YouTube video, at 8m:40s (no need to get the FPS correct this time)

Boldly beyond the Beltway wrote:

Indeed, there's really no difference in appeal to authority, between an LRC thread and a random dude's website.

Too, they quote an uncited response (e-mail, easy to fake, at either end) purportedly from van Allen: if so, why didn't he publish his deft analysis many decades prior in an acceptable science forum (even internal NASA reports)? I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. Yet no one thought to memorialize such estimates (from van Allen himself! supposedly) by making memos on the matter?

So in other words, this guy (random Internet dude Doug Lambert - SpitfireIX) claims to have obtained an e-mail from someone who claims to be van Allen (obtained for the purposes of "debunking" hoax researchers), who in turn claims to have told everyone his estimates in the 60s, though there's no contemporary substantiation of this, or even relevant published science research in the interim (besides Orion that colloquially found it was "worse than they thought", and the Russian tortoises that survived thanks to a 50x species factor, losing only 10% body weight instead). THAT'S their "evidence" on the radiation calculation?!

How many admissions by NASA can be overlooked? wrote:

Dr. Kate Rubins, Astronautess, Mission #49 (Stanford Med)

"We are also really pushing the boundaries in terms of where we are going forward, with exploration. I think humans are naturally driven to do this. And, this is really the beginning, I think, of human beings leaving low Earth orbit. I certainly plan on being around to see that."

Certainly such a well-educated woman must know (have been indoctrinated in) the Official History of USA Neil Armstrong (A11), so why does she not recall this when speaking extemporaneously under pressure from camera lights? Psychologists can analyse the reasons.... Maybe she "just forgot"... ?

YouTube video, at 8m:40s (no need to get the FPS correct this time)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P03vvRW5EIg#t=8m40s

The anti-hoaxers are just making excuses now. When the year 2069 comes around with no new manned mission to the moon, they will continue with their pitiful excuses. I will be proven to be right and the "Legit army" continues to grow on LR.

It's over. We never landed on the Moon.