Comment on Moon Landing Hoax by Dale Schroader.

First of all, from what I have seen, the radiation dose estimates hoax theory believers suggest are invalid (more to come later).
Secondly, I don’t think anyone pro or con on the hoax debate is a “sheep”, “idiot”, etc. Many do get the entirely human emotional response of being defensive when their own views are challanged. This cannot help either side to present their particular view in a logical way. That being said, the best way to scientifically attempt to validate a point is to present the best known facts from the most reliable sources. The problem with conspiracy theorists seems to be (from what I have seen in the many web-based posts, videos, articles, etc.)they generally believe only their own sources, as any other source “must” be influenced by whatever or whomever the conspiracists are arguing against. On the other hand, they do bring up some valid points (many seem laughable to those who have real expertise in some areas, but even experts are not experts at everything, so why should they expect everyone to have the same amount of knowledge in their field of expertise as they do?) which should be considered. And dismissing them or calling them “whacky” does not provide any logical rebuttal.

Sorry for the long-winded intro, but I just want to say that I have found contradictions in some of the debunkers statements, but far, far more in the statements and “evidence” presented by the hoax supporters. I am going to provide you with one clear example on which I have 29 years of associated expertise (part of my job involves measuring and documenting radiation levels involved with nucleear repair work) where the conspirators have it flat wrong.
One of their main “smoking gun” arguements is that no astronaut could survive the trip(s) thru the Van Allen radiation belts. Now I do not have all the data from those belts, but I can tell you how fields of radiation work. The conspiracists perform their math for the Van Allen belt(s)(including the South American Anomoly) using the estimated travel time thru the belt(s) multiplied my the MAXIMUM radiation dose(s) recorded. In fact, any entire radiation field, is NOT uniform. This can easily be confirmed for the Van Allen belts just by visiting the history of their discovery. They were discovered when geiger counters on rocketships noticed an “increase in the amount of “clicks” (or detectable radiological interactions). This would be where the Van Allen belts start – at rather low levels, then increasing as you get to the denser flux (or more radioactively hazardous) portions of the belts. The maximum flux tends to be towards the center or central regions of the field. There is no physically possible way for the astronauts to be exposed to the MAXIMUM radiation levels for their entire trip thru the Van Allen belts. Also, NASA would do whatever they reasonably could to prevent their spacecraft from entering those areas of MAXIMUM radiation. From the data presented from the dose assignments I have seen given to the various astronauts for their trips, their exposures seem quite reasonable to what I would expect based on my own experience. Also, to illustrate what I am saying for those who would like an analogy, I would compare going thru a Van Allen belt like jumping thru a ring of fire (this is not meant to be a “perfect” analogy, but does represent many of the actual physical characteristics of a radiation field). If you were to approach the ring of fire there would be a point where you could feel the heat of the flame – this would be the beginning of the Van Allen belt. You could stay there for quite some time without coming to harm. If you were to get much closer to the flame you could indeed be injured, and, depending on the amount of time spent close to or in the flame, even die. But if you jumped thru the hoop you would likely feel only momentary heat resulting in no injury, even if you pass thru the flame. In conclusion, I just want to re-iterate the hoax theory proponents have their radiation estimates drastically wrong.