Re: Moon landings were a hoax

Brad Guth wrote:
Do you always fart in bed? 

Irrelevant.  What was that about scientific facts again.

Or, is that brown nose of your's just a normal mainstream status quo
that suits your stinking and perverted mindset?

Actually it seems to me your entire head is brown, it's a side effect of having it stuck up your own arse.

May Osama bin Laden pay you a visit. 

Bring him on.

Obviously you're avoiding the topic at hand because I'm right and
you're not.


I'm not avoiding the topic, I asking you to present evidence instead of
wild baseless claims and you keep breaking out in more kookfroth and
pathetic attempts at insults.

Get another grip; there were no such moonsuites walking upon the moon.

According to you dickhead. Real minds disagree. So, prove your stupid claims or sit down and shut up.

That is unless they somehow survived impacting the moon and being
summarily TBI to death (could happen), 

They went. You can't prove they didn't and it
really burns your red arse doesn't it.

then having clones as having
been launched from the USSR 

The USSR couldn't come up with the technology to match Apollo, so they
tried to dismiss it as an unimportant achievement and didn't play.
Your baseless babble about clones is even stupider than your bull***
kookfroth about life on Venus.

as for their supposed return to Earth seems
doable. I believe their "chapel bell" transponders would have fooled
the Pope or anyone other.

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. You make claims, you prove it. But of course you can't can you.

No Venus, No Sirius = No Apollo (least not as upon the surface of the
moon according to Brad Guth).

Which is irrelevant to the real world. BTW what planet are you from? It clearly isn't this one kookboi.

<babblespeak deleted - you're repeating yourself kook>

Besides the apparently invisible WMD likes of Venus and the Sirius star
system as viewed without much if any atmospheric filtration to that
sensitive Kodak eye,

Whatever that means. Perhaps you should try learning to speak English properly, mind you the material is so pathetic it would sound stupid in any language.

it seems the fully solar illuminated surface of
the moon offers it's own invisible near-blue photons as well as
entirely stealth hard-X-rays that somewhat come and go with the tide.


Proof?

Obviously the tide must have been somewhere way out there during those
Apollo missions.


Or it's bull*** you are making up.  Guess what I believe.

Half of the entire surface area of the moon represents nearly 19
million square kilometers or 19e12 m2, thus I'm speculating the entire
half solar illuminated moon is capable of creating a raw surface
potential of 19e12 mr/24 hours 

Speculating would be right.  You have no knowledge of what you profess.

<babblesnip>

The local reactive terrain of lunar exposure to within just 100 meters
in radius is worth 31.42e3 m2 of what a reasonably reactive lunar
surface that's contributing at the very least a secondary/recoil worth
of a millirem/m2/day into whomever is standing upon or near that
surface.

Unwarranted assumption based on a bogus reflectivity rate, bogus as you are using the reflectivity to visible light as a reference and pretending that high energy particles and much shorter wavelengths are
reflected similarly. But you kooks never let facts get in the way of your kook agenda do you.

That's suggesting a raw 31.4 rads/24 hours as based upon a
mere 100 meters to any given horizon. Doing the math on a greater
distance to a given horizon gets downright TBI and subsequently DNA/RNA
testy.


If your numbers were anything like correct which of course they are not.

It's a we bit more complicated than all of this but;

Yes, and you are making oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions because they match your kook agenda.

if from the perspective of being one radius off the lunar surface (1738 km off the
deck or 3476 km from the lunar center) provides direct access as to
viewing and thus receiving dosage from 14e12 m2, therefore potentially
this exposure might conceivably contribute 14e12 mr/24 hours, whereas
for taking the square of the distance as headed towards Earth should
allow us a viable method of extrapolating as to what the dosage is at
other distances away from the moon.

Same problem as earlier. You are making unwarranted assumptions about the reflectivity of other than visible light. Consider the absorbtion by lunar material and that high energy xrays would penetrate rather than reflect. You are using bogus pseudoscience instead of reality.

Let myself suggest upon something that's way conservative, in that of
being 1r as situated upon the lunar deck, whereas giving this test an
area of exposure to the lunar surface that's limited to roughly 14e12
m2, as based upon our instrument receiving a mere micro rad per 24 hr
from each of those m2.


As above.

Since it remains unfortunate that we still haven't deployed squat worth
of any such interactive science instruments upon the lunar surface,

Apart from several remote probes (surveyor series) and several sets of experiments placed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17. In short, bull***.

thus all that others or myself can accomplish is to extrapolate as
based upon somewhat reasonable conjectures.


No you are extrapolating based on completely unreasonable conjectures.

Being that there's supposedly such darn little atmospheric mass associated with our moon,
as such the attenuation of whatever radiation isn't going to be all
that attenuated as one places distance between yourself and the lunar
surface. Of course, you can always incert whatever starting value
hard-X-rays per m2 plus whatever combined area of the moon you'd care
to suggest. Therefore, the potential hard-X-ray dosage/24 hours as per
what I'd suggest is derived off the surface of our moon might go
somewhat as follows.


Or not.  See above.

Per 24 hours as based upon a starting TBI dosage of 1e-6 rad/m2 of
hard-X-ray source
1r (1738 km) = 14e9 mr
2r (3476 km) = 3.5e9 mr
4r (6952 km) = 0.875e9 mr
8r (13,904 km) = 0.21875e9 mr
16r (27,808 km) = 54.6875e6 mr
32r (55,616 km) = 13.6719e6 mr
64r (111,232 km) = 3.4179e6 mr
128r (222,464 km) = 845.5e3 mr
221r (384,098 km) = 286.6e3 mr


If it weren't for the Van Allen belt expanse (our own personal nearby
zone of death) of nearly 70,000 km worth of a radiation buffer/shield,
then as to our being nicely accommodated by our vast atmospheric
density worth nearly 10 tonnes/m2 that's situated over our heads and,
if it wern't for the matter of fact that we're rotating under a moon
that's only fully solar illuminated from time to time, as such we'd be
receiving 286.6 rads/24 hours (2.866 Sv/24 hours) and, I'd have to
think we'd be quite dead as a result.


Except that the moon doesn't reflect hard radiation anything like as well as it does visible light, which you are blithely ignoring in typical kook fashion. You are lying. You know you are lying and that makes you a kook instead of merely too stupid to know better.

<remainder of similar babble using bogus science to prove something that isn't true deleted>

--
The CO
.

Loading