Radiation

[Obviousman]

I also want to look at any plausible claims it was faked. It is often fun to examine what appears to be plausible claim, finding out new details and then discover why the claim does not hold.

[Luke Pemberton]

I also want to look at any plausible claims it was faked. It is often fun to examine what appears to be plausible claim, finding out new details and then discover why the claim does not hold.

I remember when I first 'involved' myself with the discussion, it was over in the wastelands of YouTube. One argument presented on numerous occasions was 'compartmentalisation' with parallels being made to the Manhattan Project.

Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination. Those making the explosive mechanisms and enriching the uranium and plutonium knew the destination of their labour. There is one difference. The Manhattan project was a strategic secret to end the most destructive war in history. The Apollo project was highly publicised goal announced by the US President involving multiple contractors and sub-contractors. The Apollo project was more than landing men on the moon, even Kennedy made reference in his speech about doing the 'things that are difficult.' It was a celebration of US ambition at the heart of the nation's psyche, intellectual prowess and industrial might (IMHO).

One of the most obvious flaws in the hoax theory are the filming of the EVAs. There are those here that are involved in theatre, film and TV production. There are those here with incredible knowledge of those areas. They present the notion of the numbers involved in the production of the EVAs as being numerous. How have those people been kept silent for all these years?  Nixon couldn't keep a lid on Watergate. Hell, even 3 Australian cricketers couldn't keep a lid on ball tampering recently 

Then there's the issue of the large rocket taking off. As Jason Thompson explained, if you tell a bunch of engineers to make a rocket and space ship that is capable of landing men on the moon, they're going to make a rocket and space ship that will land men on the moon. There are two outcomes here: They make you a large rocket and space ship that will land men on the moon, or they can't. In the first case, you land men on the moon. In the second instance, you have to keep them quiet for many years. Not just a handful of people, but a multitude of people. We have evidence on tape that there is indeed a large rocket that worked. That large rocket involved thousands of people to design, test and build. Now, there are those CT's that claim that the astronauts were launched into LEO, but the trans-lunar flight part was not possible. That still means all those people involved in the building  the large rocket that we saw on our screens are going to know the other part of their rocket did not go. Why? Because the people that were involved for the moon landing part are going to know their part did not work. What about the people that saw the large rocket launch and then had to film the EVAs, aren't they going to have a little suspicion at this point.

I'm sure Jay can tell us more about the level or project integration, and if one part of the space vehicle did not work as advertised, then people in the other part of the project were very quickly going to know.

Apollo was on a scale where compartmentalisation simply could not work.

[benparry]

I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.

I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.



Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......

The hoax proponents now thrive in Ytube land go visit, unfortunately it is still alive.

I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'

[Jason Thompson]

Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination. Those making the explosive mechanisms and enriching the uranium and plutonium knew the destination of their labour. There is one difference. The Manhattan project was a strategic secret to end the most destructive war in history.

That difference is even more pronounced. The Manhattan project had an obvious point at which everyone working on it knew the secret would be blown:the moment that weapon is deployed it's not a secret any more. Yes, some of the technical details may be kept confidential, but no-one working on the project needs to take the secret of the project's very existence to their grave any more because the whole world happened to notice when two major Japanese cities were wiped off the map with one bomb each at the end of the war. The guys flying the B-29s that dropped them don't have to lie about it now. Oppenheimer didn't have to keep his involvement quiet and give a deathbed confession (though honestly he may have preferred it if essentially everyone didn't know him as the father of the most destructive and deadly weapon in history once the war was over).

The Apollo hoax would have to be kept secret for decades, in the face of constant developments and investigations. NASA had no way to guarantee the hoax would not be discovered in ten, twenty, thirty years, or even during Apollo 11 itself, and there is no point in the future where the secret can unavoidably come out.

They present the notion of the numbers involved in the production of the EVAs as being numerous.

This is where the HB arguments always fall down. They never appreciate the number of people who have to be involved in the first place, even before trying to suggest how many have to be in on the secret.
 

Nixon couldn't keep a lid on Watergate.

I wasn't surprised to see Tim fall back on the old 'tricky Dick' argument. Again, they never understand how the project works, and how much of it was actually complete before Nixon was even running for president, never mind sworn in and in a position to start making decisions about NASA. He inherited a mature project from a political rival. Why would he, on discovering it was fake, continue along that line rather than just use it as ammo against his opponents? On the other hand, given a mature project that was about to achieve the amazing goal of the lunar landing, he gets to bask in the inherited glory that comes with being in charge at the time when all the really hard work has been done and the bit that is really going to make the US (and him) look great will happen anyway whatever he does.

Now, there are those CT's that claim that the astronauts were launched into LEO, but the trans-lunar flight part was not possible. That still means all those people involved in the building  the large rocket that we saw on our screens are going to know the other part of their rocket did not go.

And that anyone who happened to look up would notice the Apollo spacecraft in orbit. Most HBs have never actually used their eyes to examine the sky and see just what is visible there. Hell a load of them claimed that blank areas on Google Sky or on images of the Moon were evidence of a cover-up, apparently blissfully unaware that there is an actual sky they could look at, and an actual moon that telescopes will allow them to see in detail with their own eyes!

I'm sure Jay can tell us more about the level or project integration, and if one part of the space vehicle did not work as advertised, then people in the other part of the project were very quickly going to know.

Most HBs don't even understand that NASA is not some big organisation that did all the work. one HB some years ago proudly proclaimed his credentials included work at a couple of aviation companies, and had no reply when we asked him to check with his colleagues and their records archives about the work done on the parts of the rocket and spacecraft built by some of those companies and ask why they continue to lie about it if it was all faked....

[Allan F]

I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'

Please paste this link into the group:

[benparry]

I dont know if anybody on here is on facebook but it is alive and well there. 1 particularly funny one is entitled 'Manned lunar landing hoax'

Please paste this link into the group:

allan i have vacated the group many moons (no pun) ago because my head hurt. i will send that link to somebody who i know in there but i can assure you they wont listen. 1 gent tried to tell me that he couldnt believe the 18 tonne LM just floated on down to the moon. when i explained his error i got a laughing face on the comment lol another gent told me Nasa used moonbounce to simulate the signal and fool all the people tracking it. i actually asked the question here and got a simple answer as normal. the people who inhabit that group believe because they want to and use comments such as 'most people will never see the deception'

[JayUtah]

the people who inhabit that group believe because they want to and use comments such as 'most people will never see the deception'

You see it more in the holistic medicine camp, but there's definitely a segment of fringe claimants who insist they must have some greater or deeper insight that transcends the need for traditional training, knowledge, and experience.  Yes, all you ever get out of them are simplistic, often wrong statements.  But they believe the simplicity is what makes them great.  Whereas others have to resort to complicated explanations no one else understands, the fringe claimants of this particular stripe believe their "discernment" (to use Tim's term) lets them see some greater truth.

A similar phenomenon has been studied with respect to the UFO genre of fringe claims.  An east-coast neuroscientist whose name escapes me found there is a neurochemical payoff from the belief that one knows or has discovered a secret.  I think that plays into the notion that people believe they are using superior intuition to discover a secret few if any others know.

[gillianren]

Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.

It came in relatively early, before I commented for the first time certainly.  I definitely noticed the "sheeple" in that section.

[MBDK]

Yes, there were aspects of the Manhattan Project that were compartmentalised where workers in industry made components for the bomb blissfully unaware of their function and final destination.

Regarding the entire "compartmentalization" theory, those that compare it to the Manhatten Project (despite the many obvious differences) are just as clueless regarding its actual secrecy as they are the scientific analysis of the Apollo Program.  When they throw down that claim, I like to send them this link - https://io9.gizmodo.com/secrets-of-the-manhattan-project-were-leaked-a-staggeri-1626524763
The title alone gives you the meat of the article, as well as the proof of the irrelevance of their argument: "Secrets of the Manhattan Project Leaked 1500 Times During World War II".

It is just darn hard to keep a secret, even under the strictest of conditions.

[Luke Pemberton]

Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.

It came in relatively early, before I commented for the first time certainly.  I definitely noticed the "sheeple" in that section.

I didn't notice, good spot. It became more prominent with increasing frequency towards the end. The thread followed the same line as most threads of this nature.

1) Claim is made.
2) Polite discourse between all.
3) Claim is slowly picked apart, realisation that claimant lacks expertise in the field.
4) Gish gallop as more 'evidence' is thrown at the wall in the hope it sticks.
5) Personal attacks (in this case  more of a patronising tone).
6) Increasing level of anti-government stance.
7) Flounce

All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability. 

[Luke Pemberton]

It is just darn hard to keep a secret, even under the strictest of conditions.

When Stalin was told that the US has a new secret weapon at Potsdam, he was hardly surprised if accounts are to be believed. The Soviets knew, but I understand when Truman was brief upon taking office he did not understand the full extent of the bomb. Go figure that, the US Vice President was kept in the dark, but Stalin knew.

I might be corrected here by those with a better understanding of history.

[jfb]

To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?

A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.

Played around with this a little.  Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line).  Scale is logarithmic.

Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission). 

[Luke Pemberton]

Played around with this a little.  Attached graph shows the daily combined D1&2 readings (blue dots), the average D1&2 reading over the entire set (grey horizontal line), and the .22 mGy/day threshold (gold line).  Scale is logarithmic.

Will play around with the other columns, but I think this one graph pretty definitively destroy's Tim's arguments (and shows why you shouldn't apply the average readings over the entire data set against a one-week mission).

Unless I am being a bit thick here, the grey line is the average dose from 1 and 2 detectors which is above the 0.22 mGy/day threshold. Does the grey line include the SPE events in the average?

[gillianren]

All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability. 

It does tend to happen.  And you know, I freely admit that I'm not particularly versed in the science.  It's not my area of expertise.  But so many of the arguments fit within things that I do know a thing or two about, and they still don't listen to me.

[Luke Pemberton]

All so predictable. I do believe Fattydash and Awe130 ignored you too, so we could add that to the list of predictability. 

It does tend to happen.  And you know, I freely admit that I'm not particularly versed in the science.  It's not my area of expertise.  But so many of the arguments fit within things that I do know a thing or two about, and they still don't listen to me.

I made a point eluding to this after the feeding frenzy was over. Maybe we should start with the arguments that pertain to the less scientific points, such as how the hoax could be perpetrated in the first place. Jason makes a good point that you have to give someone a chance and discover whether they are misguided and ready to learn.

Jason's point reflects my own experience. When I was 17-18 ish, the UK were running a lot of conspiracy documentaries on TV. JFK was the main one. My friend told me about the moon hoax. I wasn't that interested at the time. Anyway, I watched Apollo 13 when it was released, and felt I ought to know more about the moon landings. Of course, I found material about the hoax so I thought best to look at both side of the coin. A couple of arguments made me look at it more closely, the photographic anomalies mainly. Of course, I found Clavius, BAUT and Bob's site, along with the Apollo Journals. A little effort on my part and I cast the hoax aside as folly and became more interested in Ralph Rene's alternative physics. The one thing that really nagged at me though  was the radiation issue, partly because Rene was obsessed by that issue. As a physicist I'm relatively well versed in ionising radiation and space weather, but I felt compelled to understand how the engineering overcame the problems. That's where I became more interested in Apollo as whole and became more active here. I dug even deeper into the physics of space radiation and have managed to accumulate numerous papers and books on the topic; and as a result have developed considerably in the area.

I digress. Of course, the predictability plays out as the 'science types' wade in, and the water become shark infested. Your voice of reason and alternative angle gets lost. I don't think its personal, as I've waded into these threads half way through, and I'm ignored. Usually the person that brings the claim becomes engrossed with those that they have debated heavily over the course of the thread. The other issue is the Jay obsession, and then we all get ignored.

I did see you made a comment about you 4 year old and log scales. Where has that time gone? I hope you are still enjoying motherhood.