Radiation would kill the Apollo astronauts.
Many conspiracists believe that NASA never left the Earth’s atmosphere, because of the amount of radiation in The Van Allen radiation belt would kill an astronaut. But with help from other sources (thanks clavius moon base) We can determine if this is true. The American legal radiation limit below are a helpful.
If a worker must deal with radioactive materials in the course of his job, his legal limit is higher: 5 rem (50 millisieverts, mSv) per year. If a worker is in the vicinity of radioactive materials but does not work with them, the limit is 0.1 rem (1 mSv). For persons younger than 18 and pregnant women, the occupational exposure is 0.5 (5 mSv) per year. These are measurements above the natural background radiation limits, and are measured by dosimeters and other equipment in the area where the exposure takes place. (Standards for Protection Against Radiation. 10 CFR § 20.)
People usually get about 0.24 rem (2.4 mSv) in background radiation per year. (Jawororwski, Zbigniew. “Radiation Risks in the 20th Century: Reality, Illusions, and Risks” Presented 17 Sept. 1998 at the International Curie Conference, Warsaw, Poland.)
The standard for a lethal dose is designated LD 50/30, defined as the short-term exposure (i.e. over a period of a few hours or less) which would kill 50% of the humans exposed within 30 days. It’s around 350-400 rems (3.5-4.0 Sv). (Radiation Safety Office. Radiation Safety Handbook. Columbia University, s.d.)
As shown above the legal limit is 700 times less than a harmful dose. The reason for this strictness is that there is no such thing as ‘safe’ radiation, it’s just the body heals the DNA damage etc… more efficiently if less damage is sustained.
By looking at other sources and the official NASA info, the amount of radiation that the astronauts were subjected to, was 2 rems, for each time the astronaut went into space. See The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and radiation and the van allen belts for two of many sources I used.
See our Apollo Moon Landing Forum.
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?
26 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
I’ve gotta say, at what point has a “Government” ever been honest with you? If the government says “look left”, please, look right.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
2 (+6)
These are the newest statistics given by mostly independent sources. Nothing to do with the government.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
ive never believed they landed
this evidence sure proves most of it
i still wonder about the flag
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
1 (+1)
errr yeah the flag was flying but there isw no wind in space
and if neil armstrong was first man on the moonwho filmed it lol
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
1 (0)
Many cities are currently debating whether to install cameras at traffic lights to cut down on drivers who run red lights. They don’t require an o-site operator. Similarly, security cameras have been around for almost half a century. It’s no mystery, then, that Neil Armstrong’s first step on the Moon was recorded by something similar to a security camera attached to the lunar lander.
Don’t you guys ever think things through all the way?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
2 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Terry said: “….It’s no mystery, then, that Neil Armstrong’s first step on the Moon was recorded by something similar to a security camera attached to the lunar lander.Don’t you guys ever think things through all the way?….”
Well let me see there Terry, They thought of cameras everywhere, on their suits, on the lander, hell a ‘security camera” as you say attached to the lander or even a mount a few meters from the lander to take all these crystal clear pristine shots, which by the way were by cameras with no viewfinders, no light meteres, everything perfectly allighned and pristine YET THEY HAD NO DIRECT LINK TO SHOW ANY OF THESE WONDERFUL SHOTS FROM ALL THESE CAMERAS, BUT INSTEAD FILMED A TELEVISION TO SHOW ALL OF US???. Stop smoking the crack pipe Terry, its destroying your ability to reason!!!.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
3 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Terry said, June 29, 2008at 12:32 am “first step on the Moon was recorded by something similar to a security camera attached to the lunar lander.
Don’t you guys ever think things through all the way?” So security camera’s can move up and down and actually keep an image in the frame can they? UMMM sorry I think you did not think what you said through.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
1 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Guys guys guys, forget the stupid camera, just think about apollo landing, how could it land on the moon like a feather, today after 40 years, with all new technology and computer, no astronaut lands on the earth like that, that’s right it’s the moon and the G is much less compared to earth but it’s not zero. A ship weighing a few tons would still be a few tons on moon too and could crash to pieces if hit the moon with speed more than 10 miles an hour. We dont have this technology even today, they drop the cockpit in the ocean with a parachute. Now lets say we close our eyes and say Apollo landed gracefully on the moon. Now after partying on the moon, how the hell did they take off? there is no platform, no launching site, no control center!!!! We dont have such thing even today that a space craft could take off all by itself from a middle of dessert like a bird….
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
11 
1 (+10)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
The Apollo landers didn’t crash into the moon for the same reason that airplanes don’t crash onto runways upon landing; the pilots slow them down! The airline pilots balance the engine thrust and airspeed, bringing the plane down to a gentle landing. They don’t slam into the runway at 600mph! Similarly, boat captains don’t plow into the docks in port. They use the propeller speed and the drag from the water to slow it down. The Apollo astronauts used the LEM’s engine to counter-act the moon’s gravity(1/6th Earths gravity) to settle gently to the moons surface. As for lifting off the moon, they didn’t need a launch site. Launched from Earth, a rocket has to overcome Earths’ gravity and plow through the atmosphere into space. It’s lifting itself PLUS the command and the lander! All the lander has to do is lift itself from the moon. With NO atmospheric drag. And no landing-pad base. They leave that behind, making the craft even lighter. I have a sneaking suspicion that men smarter than us worked all this ahead of time. But that’s just me.
By the way, a helicopter can take off from the middle of the desert(One ‘s’)…
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
2 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
The luner lander was in a orbit around the moon. So it must have been going along at a very high rate of speed. Then it entered into a free fall with no air or friction, to slow it’s decent,making it fall even faster. This thing had no wings,and they would have been useless anyways, without air drag friction. So this thing has no glide path (zero). The luner is in a orbit falling like a bullet shot from a gun pointing at the horizon. Then it leaves orbit into a deeper dive. Now this thing is falling like a rock. At a speed of about five times as fast as a bullet. How far above the moon are they? Figuring the speed and the distance. Within a blink of an eye it would have crashed into the moon. It’s that simple. Years before the missions. They crashed all kinds of probs onto the moon. All the so called new high res pic’s. Show me little more than the older pics. Then you have the orbiter that maped the surface of the moon. If it did that. Wouldn’t it have picked up the luner lander abnormality? Even today if I saw a pic of the lander. I wouldn’t believe it. They’ve have had how many years to crash something looking like a lander up there? OK your not convinced yet. Whats it’s weight? Plus men, space suits, fuel, cameras, equipment. It took an Apollo rocket to lift it into orbit. Earths G is about 3 x that of the moon. So one could presume. To counter the G force of the moon. You would need, a little less then 1/3 of the amount of fuel that the apollo needed to put it into orbit. There is no way, the luner lander carried that much fuel. Solid or liquid. It was a nice fairy tale. But time always tells the truth. Our Gov lied about exp on humands, lied about wars, lied about vacines, lied about drugs given to our troops. This was just another day for them. Ya they put something up there, but it sure is nowhere near the moon. The earth yes.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
1 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
You guys. ugh why can’t you just believe it. I think it really happened. Plus every minute of it was captured on film. Even from the lift off. You are way over thinking it. P.s. please don’t be mean to me. I just turned 14 today. I’m still a youngster. =-)
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
5 
5 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
hey smart guy, try to answer why we can receive signal from the mirror on the moon?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/llr/A11_LRRRfull.gif
oh! we did not land on the moon but hey!
who put the lunar laser ranging retro reflector on the moon?
well… the Apollo 11 folk…! wasn’t it?
don’t try to skip the fact, and try to proof your conspiracy hoax.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
3 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Reflectors on moon.From unmanned probes sent to calculate distance.I dont know enough to say man did not land on moon.But i know for FACT that probes where sent many times before 1969.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
1 (0)
Have you ever heard of probes?
Moon radio transmission recordings… I guess even easier to fake than the images and videos.
Recent, picture of scientific equipments left behind… have you ever heard of probes?
haha
I can’t wait for their excuse not to try the promised come back on 2020!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Was american technology advaced enough 40 years to land on Moon after repeated failure of launching merely for space? USA was not able to carry out successful launches and send rockets? to space at that time rather than landing on Moon! NASA made world countries believe that americans are just liers,frauds and scams.the whole drama was a hoax-conspiracy theory.NASA was effected and runn by American politician rather than Scientists.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
3 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
your all wackjobs
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
2 (+2)
You can reflect a laser off the moon’s surface.
No reflector required.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
2 (+2)
Pixelpete
How did the lunar module take off from the moon and find the exact orbit to re unite with the mothership? There was no computer navigation, the astronauts had no vision (no windows) . They only had manual joysticks. That would have been an impossibility in 1969.
Let’s see the disinfo crew answer that one???????
Pete
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
7 
3 (+4)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
I have often wondered how they got the lunar rover onto the moon as it must have been heavy and where did they put it?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
1 (+1)
Aha, the moon landing must be fake as in the backround you could see a flag blowing in the wind,But! as there is no air in space then the flag would not
have been blowing in the wind
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
4 (+1)
Niel Armstrong stated that they were lucky to reach the moon because they nearly run out of fuel, they only had thirty seconds of fuel left. If that is the case can Niel please tell me where they got the fuel from to return to the earth. I suppose some will say the Americans discovered an oil field up there,
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
0 (+5)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
@William Swithin i hope you know that there were to crafts. One orbited the moon and the other landed. they used the thirty seconds of fuel to get into orbit then the command module picked them up. PS to people saying they had no windows and no computers your wrong…..dead wrong
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
1 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
To address some comments posted here:
-The flag only moved when the astronauts were planting it. When they are not near the flag you never see it “wave”.
-The camera that filmed Armstrong descending to the surface was attached to one of the legs of the LM. Armstrong deployed the camera by pulling a lanyard. The camera mounted on the Lunar Rover was remote-controlled by Mission Control.
-The LM was made of two modules: the Descent Module (which contained the engine and fuel for the landing) and the Ascent Module (which contained the engine and fuel for lifting off and rendezvousing with the Command Module).
-Landing on the Moon versus returning to Earth: we have craft that can land softly on the Earth. They are called helicopters and Harriers. But perhaps you are refering to something landing that uses a rocket? Google “rocket equation” and it will be immediately apparent why they are not practical.
-When astronomers transmit lasers to the exact location of the reflectors they see a return signal a thousand times stronger than when the lasers are not pointed at the reflectors.
-Probes being sent to the Moon does not prove men didn’t land on the Moon. Stating such without proving the probes did all the work the astronauts did is fallacious logic.
-This may come as a surprise to some of you, but computers were not necessary to navigate to the Moon, land, lift-off, and return to the Earth. They just made the job easier. NASA had contingency plans to continue with the mission if the guidance system or the computers failed. Why do you assume a computer was necessary? Because you read that on some conspiracy website and accepted it without question.
-Get an old timey camera that only has manual settings. Go out in the daytime and take a picture. Do not adjust the settings. Wait until nightfall. Go out and take a picture of the stars. Get your film developed. Count how many stars you see. Report back here with your findings.
To capture the brightest star in the sky on ISO 1000 film requires a minimum exposure time of 3 seconds. A typical daytime exposure is
about 1/500 of a second.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
I just watched the “A funny thing happened on the way to the moon”, beyond all the irregularities shown on this video, there are some that are not discussed there, the first one is that radio signals should have a 2 second delay to reach earth and another 2 seconds to get back to the moon, but they have a less than 1 second delay in their conversations with Houston!!
The other fact is that they used the technology available 50 years ago to accomplish this mission that was only a scientific prototype. like they used a stone-age guidance computer that it’s computing power is now surpassed by a sub 100$ mobile phone!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer)
So if it was feasible to do so in the sixties, why isn’t it feasible now???? The capitalist Americans would have built hotels on the moon by now to recover their investment!
Please also consider the fact discussed in the movie that THERE WERE NO STARS VISIBLE FROM THE MOON!!! it’s ridiculous!!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
It is scientifically feasible today. In fact, the reason we don’t send men to the moon anymore is mainly that technology is so much better now we don’t need to send people.
There’s very little benefit in sending men. They weigh a lot, need food and oxygen and all that life support which is just wasted weight. Now we have remote robots and far more sophisticated sensors, reducing the benefit of a person vs. the best electronics. So why spend extra money and risk a life?
As far as guidance systems go, the physics involved in planetary calculations are so elementary that they could probably be worked out on the back of a napkin – very little need for a computer-based guidance system. Of course, the more sophisticated the computer, the greater number of things that can be calculated, but for basic movement, timings and geolocation, anyone as highly trained as astronauts are can easily do all the necessary calculations by hand. Even so, there were, in fact, some rudimentary computers on board the spacecraft and in use at Mission Control.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Well Well. For All The Non- believers, the countrys of India and Japan Have Photographic proof that the landings were real. Both of these countries used the latest technology and took photos clearly showing the landing sites of both apollo 11 and 15. You can find these sites on the web. The landing pads, flags footpaths are easily visible. In other words it really happened!! Japan really has some great pics from a moon orbiter that recently went and so does India. But i guess maybe someone will say america paid these countries off or maybe they rolled down their windows and chunked the stuff out and it just happened to land at those exact sites. Oh the life of non- believers. Have a nice day!!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
0 (+3)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence