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

If you pay attention to the material presented above, you might conclude that visiting the moon is hazardous to your health, indicated by cardiovascular disease or (more likely) due to massive tissue damage caused by cosmic radiation.

If this were true, then the three astronauts that have made two visits to the moon would be candidates for an early death due to CVD or the effects of pure radiation. Yet all three of them survived into their 80s and indeed two of them are still alive today!

Clearly, the astronauts never participated in multiple moon flights otherwise they would be dead on either count.

CVD wrote:

If you pay attention to the material presented above, you might conclude that visiting the moon is hazardous to your health, indicated by cardiovascular disease or (more likely) due to massive tissue damage caused by cosmic radiation.

If this were true, then the three astronauts that have made two visits to the moon would be candidates for an early death due to CVD or the effects of pure radiation. Yet all three of them survived into their 80s and indeed two of them are still alive today!

Clearly, the astronauts never participated in multiple moon flights otherwise they would be dead on either count.

Your premise makes as much sense as pointing to some people that smoked all their lives and died at 90 years of age from natural causes, and asserting that the link between smoking and cancer/cardiovascular disease is a myth.

Nonsense.

CVD wrote:

conspiracy nuts are quite stupid wrote:

Your premise makes as much sense as pointing to some people that smoked all their lives and died at 90 years of age from natural causes, and asserting that the link between smoking and cancer/cardiovascular disease is a myth.

Nonsense.

The smoking analogy is not nonsense.

Also, you said the study is flawed, so how can you use its findings to support your loony conspiracy theory conclusion?

Man Overboard wrote:

per Newsweek.

Enjoy & Discus

http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221

Yeah, those footprints at the US landing sites that have been photographed by the Indian and Chinese orbiters are part of the conspiracy. You hasbarats need to stop trying about tearing down the US (and Europe) and the rest of the West and paying attention to how the rest of the world is looking at you, especially the folks in E. Asia who aren't falling for you spiel.

poster of slightly off-topic threads wrote:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wife-of-apollo-15-astronaut-claims-her-husband-was-raped-on-the-moon/

WTF?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

poster of slightly off-topic threads wrote:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wife-of-apollo-15-astronaut-claims-her-husband-was-raped-on-the-moon/

WTF?

This is why the moon landings couldn't have been faked with hanky-panky going on like this. ?

Buzzy Aldrich wrote:

Man Overboard wrote:

per Newsweek.

Enjoy & Discus

http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221

Yeah, those footprints at the US landing sites that have been photographed by the Indian and Chinese orbiters are part of the conspiracy. You hasbarats need to stop trying about tearing down the US (and Europe) and the rest of the West and paying attention to how the rest of the world is looking at you, especially the folks in E. Asia who aren't falling for you spiel.

Can you please post a link to one of these Indian or Chinese orbiter pictures, to back up this claim?

Lex p wrote:

CVD wrote:

Nonsense.

The smoking analogy is not nonsense.

Also, you said the study is flawed, so how can you use its findings to support your loony conspiracy theory conclusion?

That ridiculous "loony" Nature article asserted that astronauts that purportedly went to the moon suffered from elevated cardiovascular diseases when compared with astronauts that hadn't. It was a laughable, dubious and desperate attempt to use pseudo-scientific (biomedical authority) and the article was justifiably ridiculed because the findings had no academic merit whatsoever. But if that is the scientific reference used by believers, then are slain by their own sword.

Meanwhile, the radiation hazard is considered by NASA themselves to be the actual barrier to safe moon travel. The problem is that they impute that there was no cosmic radiation danger at the time when all this moon travel and visitation took place. This is a preposterous claim. Humans couldn't leave the magnetosphere (traversal of radiation belts, notwithstanding) and enter deep space in full exposure to the Solar Wind and cosmic rays from outer space. Not in the 60s / 70s and probably not, now.

CVD wrote:

Meanwhile, the radiation hazard is considered by NASA themselves to be the actual barrier to safe moon travel. The problem is that they impute that there was no cosmic radiation danger at the time when all this moon travel and visitation took place. This is a preposterous claim. Humans couldn't leave the magnetosphere (traversal of radiation belts, notwithstanding) and enter deep space in full exposure to the Solar Wind and cosmic rays from outer space. Not in the 60s / 70s and probably not, now.

I can't keep track of the score here. You say we didn't go to the moon because humans couldn't (and still can't) leave the magnetosphere? If correct, then you side with Pablo and the flat Earth believer guy? (as the primary posters supporting the fake moon landing conspiracy).

I Want To Be A Space Cowboy wrote:

CVD wrote:

Meanwhile, the radiation hazard is considered by NASA themselves to be the actual barrier to safe moon travel. The problem is that they impute that there was no cosmic radiation danger at the time when all this moon travel and visitation took place. This is a preposterous claim. Humans couldn't leave the magnetosphere (traversal of radiation belts, notwithstanding) and enter deep space in full exposure to the Solar Wind and cosmic rays from outer space. Not in the 60s / 70s and probably not, now.

I can't keep track of the score here. You say we didn't go to the moon because humans couldn't (and still can't) leave the magnetosphere? If correct, then you side with Pablo and the flat Earth believer guy? (as the primary posters supporting the fake moon landing conspiracy).

You can't keep track of the score? Physics may be isn't your strong point - correct?

You are flat out wrong in your conclusion. You are saying that that cosmic radiation is an impassable "barrier." The scientific community says that it is a hazard. That does not mean it is impossible to travel to the moon and back and survive.

I concur that it is a hazard. In fact, I was a Physicist working on the European Space Agency's Cluster mission that investigated the effects of the Solar Wind.

CVD wrote:

You can't keep track of the score? Physics may be isn't your strong point - correct?

No...physics isn't my strong point, and I never said it was...now did I? Keeping track of the score in this case is a "figure of speech," i.e., "who" are the posters strongly supporting the faked moon landings in this ever continuing saga. I may even suspect that you're the flat Earth believer guy ("legit question" or something like that) posting under a different handle (?). ?

As far the magnetosphere aspect you brought up, I would have to defer to the mainstream scientists to agree with or dispute your analysis. It's somewhat like the MRI I recently had for a joint injury. I wouldn't have a clue as to what the dozens of images reveal, so therefore, I relied on the expertise of the orthopedic surgeon & MSK radiologist. Get the idea?

CVD wrote:

I concur that it is a hazard. In fact, I was a Physicist working on the European Space Agency's Cluster mission that investigated the effects of the Solar Wind.

Hey...wait a minute here!...you're the poster that has used different handles from time to time changing your postion on this issue. Can you reveal your identity & credentials and prove you are actually working on the ESA's cluster mission? Otherwise, anyone can say anything on an anonymous discussion forum (imagine that ?). So, if you have nothing to hide...lay it on the line.

I'm not the only Physicist posting, by all appearances. Yet to engage intellectually, with anyone who isn't a buffoon, though.

Since both parties are not able to engage in a meaningful way, let us await the up-to-date pictures of the Apollo sites on the moon. These apparently have been taken by satellites sent to the moon and would be indisputable proof.

The optics and pixel-resolution of cameras these days would provide pinpoint depiction of the moon's surface, and any man-caused debris. After all, an 80s orbitting Earth's satellite (even with all the atmospheric perturbation) could discern the brand on the packet of cigarettes (from space).

We await the photographic proof that would sway (thinking) individuals' positions on this whole stupid debate.

CVD wrote:

Since both parties are not able to engage in a meaningful way, let us await the up-to-date pictures of the Apollo sites on the moon. These apparently have been taken by satellites sent to the moon and would be indisputable proof.

The optics and pixel-resolution of cameras these days would provide pinpoint depiction of the moon's surface, and any man-caused debris. After all, an 80s orbitting Earth's satellite (even with all the atmospheric perturbation) could discern the brand on the packet of cigarettes (from space).

We await the photographic proof that would sway (thinking) individuals' positions on this whole stupid debate.

We have that proof already...

I hope you are joking...