The Van Allen belts may have been the reason they had to fake Apollo

Debated Evidence (MLH)
1

James Van Allen discovered the radiation belts that surround thew Earth. This is an article by a guy who interviewed him.

Did NASA steal $30 Billion to Fake The Apollo Moon Landings?
Home Paper Moon Page
ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997
THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier
THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA | alixus

In the early 1950’s, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters of northern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series of rocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed “rockoons” – 12 to 15 miles into space.
They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic rays swirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.
Van Allen and his students weren’t sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.
Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.
That’s when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles. The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth’s magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.
It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance. His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts. There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.
Van Allen’s conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travellers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
“All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed” he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid. It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America’s destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy’s dream.
It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen’s scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship’s skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of Van Allen’s findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut’s bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.
All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?
The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low “permissible doses” of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.
In order to penetrate Van Allen’s belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of “risk over gain” and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk. Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.
The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.
NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted. Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight. We telephoned North American Rockewell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.
It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth’s surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA’s claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article in 1959 was merely “popular science.”
“Are you refuting your findings?” we asked.
“Absolutely not,” he answered, “I stand by them.” In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA’s point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA’s position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, “It must have been a sloppy statement.” So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labelled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a “sloppy statement” and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?
If you don’t believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate. If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen’s years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.

3

This note is littered with misinformation or misrepresentation, or faulty logic - IMO.

For example, the majority of the radiation of the inner belts is of the nature that aluminum (or even paper) does shield you from it. Most MLH folk don’t know this.

This topic is so vague, obscured, and complex science - that it’s a difficult topic to ever use as “proof of MLH”. It may very well be that Van Allen would fry us quickly, but we don’t have the evidence to prove it, nor are there any radiation scientists involved in promoting MLH - so it sort of leaves this as a dead end, IMO.

4

I frequently get asked why they had to fake it. I just see it as one of the possible reasons for their having had to fake it instead of really doing it. I don’t see it as proof of anything. Both mainstream and alternative info is second-hand info. This isn’t something we can test.

5

… not something we can test…

Which is why we (MLH) probably shouldn’t bring it up.

The masses who by default believe Apollo (including engineers and scientists) - their time is valuable. They are only going to spend ‘X’ time considering MLH.

So why waste their time on something that makes it look like “we’re reaching”… They BELIEVE APOLLO - and just because Radiation is “complex/vague” doesn’t mean we can use it as proof… And to them, just makes MLH look desperate – “the best you can do is point to something vague and unprovable?”

===
When it comes to Radiation - the best I’ve seen someone deal with it from MLH is Trevor Weaver (possibly Marcus Allen too), shown in this video:

This is a well done video, in comparison to most other MLH videos. And he covers Radiation in the first 50 minutes, from many angles. His point, is mostly in how we “treat radiation” - such as for A8, the first time ANY ANIMAL/HUMAN has EVER gone through VARB – and it’s not even mentioned in the transcript. It doesn’t match expected behavior.

Here again – NOT PROOF. So even with his good coverage of the topic, I wouldn’t recommend it. This is the kind of stuff you’d show someone who has “already converted to MLH” or softened up to it, leaning towards it – to bolster them, showing that the “circumstantial/behavioral evidence” also aligns to MLH, on many many things.

===
The issue we have is not in “bolstering those already amenable to MLH”, but rather to “break through the armor of those who are ‘apathetic and believe MLH by default, but also can’t fathom that it’s false’”

We won’t get the “die hards” – because nothing will convince them. I engage with them, so that I can know the “best Apollogy” for each argument… so that when we make our attacks against the Apollogy, we can hit the areas for which there is “no defense”.

I think those items are:

  1. No Craters
  2. 8 Flags Movements of A14
  3. A12’s Dish Flinging
  4. 3 photo Rover Jump
  5. Saturn V under powered.

===
If we can get a mass of people to SEE these - it would at least dispel the horrid deception/myth that MLH is founded on nothing but insanity and stupidity.

I have a half dozen follow-ons:

  1. Sounds in Space
  2. A13’s miraculous perfectly placed Splashdown (after +87 seconds of unexpected Blackout, meaning they went off course!)
  3. Other Flag Motions while not touched.
  4. Rover Grandprix - Mannequin - because it’s fun to watch
  5. A10’s “Wild Gyration”
  6. The “Terminator” foul ups
  7. Moon Dust! - Apollo compares it to “soft graphite powder” that is water soluble and causes no issues if it gets on your skin, eyes, or lungs (other than a single short episode by one astronaut) — but now it’s called Razor Sharp, insoluble, and toxic to human cells.
  8. Baron’s missing 500 page report, while NASA site insists it never existed.
  9. Backlighting – focus on the Aldrin in the hatch

===
So these are ALL better than Radiation – except for the point of showing how “it wasn’t a problem; now it is a problem” and “A8 didn’t even bother to ask them about their experience within VARB”…

I’m rambling.

I am to put a structure around all of this - along with videos, and well explained documents and proofs.

I was hoping for more of a group effort on it, which is why I’m looking for helpers.

6

I don’t see any radiation level data in this post; what levels are you claiming Van Allen measured? I am not impressed with claims of “deadly radiation”. I was a radiation worker for nearly 40 years in the US Navy and the PSNS shipyard. It was my job to perform radiation surveys.

How did Van Allen and the military prove that the belt(s) were “so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit”?

Can you provide a source for Van Allen’s alleged claim that lead is required to shield spacecraft? Why would anyone claim that lead is a suitable shielding for particle radiation when it results in secondary ionizations (bremsstrahlung)?

I think the person that wrote this stupid article has never been to a dentist. The lead aprons I had put around me when x-rayed, were far thinner than 2 inches. In fact they appeared to be a metal mesh covered in cloth that was less than half an inch thick and far less dense than raw lead. Just how stupid does the author expect us to be?

What is this “critical dosage”? While there was and still is a occupational dose limit of 5 REM/year dose limit for radiation workers in the USA, it does not mean that exceeding 5 REM is deadly. It takes an acute dose of about 10-25 REM gamma to observe changes in the blood, 150 REM will make you sick, and 500 REM will result in a 50% chance of death.

When I was working for the US Navy, my lifetime permissible exposure was my age times 5 REM. If I exceeded that limit, my TLD was taken away and was no longer allowed to receive any further radiation exposure until I aged further and my current exposure was less than the new limit. I actually received a little under 8 REM of occupational exposure in my 40 year career with the US Navy. This was about 0.2 REM per year

If the writer of this article has no idea what the dose rate to the astronauts was, then why are they claiming it was a bigger problem than any of the other risks associated with space travel?

If they have no idea what the dose rate is, then why do they think additional shielding is required?

What is this “aluminum without shielding nonsense” Aluminum is shielding. The US Navy uses it in their beta counters to reduce Bremsstrahlung radiation levels.

Exactly which of van Allen’s findings indicate that aluminum is not adequate shielding for the short duration flight through the VAB’s?

7

You have nothing new? This is stuff that has been repeatedly debunked

8

To Ranb

As I made clear here…

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0

…I’m not in a position to verify anything about space radiation as all I have is second-hand info; both official and alternative info is second-hand so none of it can be taken as fact.

There is some very clear proof of fakery such as this…

https://apollogy.discoursehosting.net/t/apollo-12-dish-flinging-settles-like-pendulum-w-gravity/29

…which pretty much closes the whole case and makes the issue of whether space radiation is proof of fakery moot. I only put forward the issue of space radiation as a possible reason for their having had to fake the missions. It may turn out that space radiation isn’t dangerous enough to impede going to the moon in which case the missions had to be faked for some other reason.

9

Why would you post something so stupid when you are wholly incapable of supporting it? What use is something so idiotic?

10

So the s-band dish movement was not caused by a mount malfunction, thruster use or something else. It had to be gravity?

I think you’re deciding that the mission was faked, then latching onto anything at all to “prove” it.

Why would you ever suspect that the radiation levels were too much of a problem to overcome, when you know next to nothing about radiation?

11

Some is new.. Most is represented with a more complete analysis tied to it. Often your claim of “debunked” means “we debunked the strawman version of this”.

Example:
MLH claims plumes should be visible - both the RCS and the Lunar Launch plume.

Apollogists refute with “all exhaust gases are invisible!" And call it debunked.

This is a strawman.

MLH real argument is this:

  1. 35% of the exhaust is H2O.
  2. Hyper-expansion causes near instant freezing of the H2O, which becomes solid.
  3. Billions of H2O droplets cause massive Light scattering in EVERY direction.
  4. Thus ALL plumes in a vacuum where H2O is prevalent, are VISIBLE and WHITE.
  5. EVERY SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE of a plume in a vacuum is Bright White, so long as it’s not fully in shadow. (CST-100, Space Shuttle examples, and Soyuz – all).
  6. The 50” diameter plume of the Lunar Ascent would be more than 2X as opaque in appearance as the < 4” diameter RCS nozzles.
  7. Yet all Apollo plumes are 100% invisible!
  8. Worst offender are the 3 Lunar Launches.
  9. It’s Impossible for these plumes to not have produced significant light scattering H2O droplets.

===
So - start here - debunk THIS.

The “new” part of my presentation is the more complete and accurate manner in which I will make these proofs, and to whom I’ll be targeting them.

Why do you defend Apollo so adamantly when the overwhelming actual scientific evidence indicates they faked it?

12

This is a misunderstanding on your part - thus turns into a strawman defense.

It didn’t fall because of gravity…

It appears to have been attached to a guide wire, to keep it “aimed at the direction of earth” (as would be mandatory for it to work)… note, they forgot to attempt this in A11, where dish does not track earth, but A12 they decided to make it track earth – or tried to – but the string snapped (under strain) sending the dish flinging about loosely.

Prior to the snapping, we can see contortion of the dish arm, which caused the strain on the string… that snapped it.

The signs of gravity is ONLY in how it settles out – like a pendulum. In the absence of gravity, the only force to make it change directly would be sharp/abrupt rebounds off of the hinge’s constraints… each oscillation would travel the entire distance to the constraint, and bounce off… every cycle would have the SAME AMPLITUDE, but only a decreasing speed.

Since the “constraint bounce” is where the most amount of energy is lost at once (being it’s not fully elastic) - it’s at these constraints where it’s most likely to finally stop.

But for a Pendulum, it operates just as we see in the film (which requires gravity):

  1. Is Oscillates 6 times.
  2. Each cycle has LESS AMPLITUDE… meaning it reverses direction BEFORE hitting the constraint!… there is NOTHING TO BOUNCE OFF OF… it just magically reverses direction… which is a sign of gravity.
  3. Pendulum will always hone in on the “down position” (the center for the decreasing amplitude oscillations).

The A12 dish behaves exactly like a pendulum!… gravity must be present.

Read my gdoc in detail - it’s all covered therein with full frame analysis (something OTHERS haven’t done – which is why my presentation isn’t the same as what you think has been debunked).

13

If you watch the liftoff of Apollo 17, you will see that the exhaust is very brightly visible when the LM pitches over, about ten seconds after ignition.

I am not defending Apollo, I’m just attacking your arguments. I have never felt the need to defend Apollo as the technical achievements stand on their own. Whether or not you think the Apollo program should have ever happened in the first place, I’m not gong to support that at all.

You have yet to present any rational evidence that Apollo was faked.

14

So metal and other material cannot bend under force and move around under such circumstances? I think you are interpreting this with the mind-set of a person who is determined to claim the Apollo program was fake and ignore anything that indicates it could have been real.

15

This video is trash. I only made it about 30 minutes through.

6:20. Grissom was the 2nd American to fly in space, not the third.

9:50. There is no evidence of a 500 page Barron report other than his own claim.

11:45. Webb retired on his 62nd birthday. This is not unusual at all, nor is it “sudden”.

12:10. Schirra decided to retire from NASA prior to Apollo 7. He also disappointed NASA with his performance during the flight, so it was unlikely he would ever get another flight.

20:20. GM meters are only a small part of how radiation levels are measured.

25:55. The max solar flare cycle during the Apollo mission was November 1968, not July 1969.

26:00. Van Allen’s opinions of 1958 are emphasized, not his later opinions after he learned much more. Van Allen did not think the VAB were an absolute barrier to Apollo was it was flown.

31:00. The reason why radiation is also a concern for Orion is that the Orion missions have a different profile than Apollo and will be of longer duration.

16

I agree with what’s argued in this thread.

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2022.0

The movement is consistent with that of a pendulum. It comes to a stop where it would in gravity—not zero gravity.

I explained that in my post. Go back and read it again.

17

So you think the 10-second mark where it pitches over and they show a rather dull orange glow - as “exhaust is very brightly visible”?

What you are talking about is not exhaust, but rather “light emission” – which is only more proof of the hoax, because they also modeled this wrong:

The combustion temperature and energy involved here would be about 20x brighter than reflected sunlight.. Note how this dull orange is not even as bright as the side of Apollo.

Also, note, that you never see the interior of the nozzle lit? Prior to pitch over, we might not be able to see the “throat” but we can see a portion of the nozzle interior – yet it’s FULLY BLACK.. not lit at all. This would be lit, not black.

They messed up the lighting in 3 ways:

  1. Right after take-off, and their confetti canon burns out, the platform goes entirely BLACK… no light. The 5” diameter throat of the engine shines downwards like a 2,000+ Watt incandescent flood light - VERY BRIGHT! Instead we see nothing… it’s black, despite the throat only being about 6 feet away!

  2. As it rises above us, and the interior of the opposite side of nozzle comes into our view, we should see this lit. It’s not – it’s black.

  3. When it finally pitches over allowing to allegedly see directly into the chamber - it would be BLINDINGLY BRIGHT— instead it’s dull orange… .darker than the sun reflection off the side of the LM.

=== So, thank you for bringing that up… ===

Now to talk about my main point - the EXHAUST – this is caused by the 30%+ H2O (water) composition (by volume) of the exhaust… as the plume expands into the vacuum, it quickly reaches the temp where the H2O freezes into millions of droplets that scatter sunlight in every direction. And it’s WHITE.

In outer space/vacuum, most plumes are WHITE, not orange.. very visible. Not Invisible. This is due to WATER in the exhaust – which for BOTH A-50 and Hydrazine alike, when combusting with N2O4 – produce 30%+ H2O!!… which turns white as it freezes!

Now, for exhaust nearer to the Combustion chamber - you can get orange/yellow instead, but that’s because the dominant light source is 3400 degC combustion - which is not WHITE… and it’s cooling too, so it can be Yellow/orange/red.

But when in Sunlight - it’s WHITE.

==== IMAGE ==
For reference above, here’s a close up of what you termed as a “very bright plume” – the black arrow is pointing at it… the bottom dot is what becomes visible here – DIM compared to the LM side’s diffuse reflection of sunlight.

The chamber is MUCH brighter than reflected sunlight – not dimmer.

image
image1210×853 31.7 KB

===

Looking on, I see you might be thinking about the time after pitchover where the whole thing turns into a bright white ball…. If this is your point, then I’d just remind you that the Ascent Stage engine is non-throttled – it’s always “fully on”, so wouldn’t have any reason to “get brighter” after pitchover.

I just assumed that this is supposed to represent “specular sun reflection” - more sun reflection - because they modeled the sun’s reflection as brighter than the Combustion chamber itself.

image
image213×169 23.6 KB

And regarding the “Dark Platform 6’ after launch”, the example I have is from A16, shown here… where that black line at top of platform is the top of the platform, which, the prior frame was fully lit by the confetti canon.

image
image776×449 43.4 KB

I will emphasize that I do NOT think of this evidence here as “good proof”. But once you realize it was faked, then you can see more easily, smaller mistakes like this.

The real proof of the launch was:

  1. [MAIN!] No white plume from freezing H2O droplets – unavoidable!
  2. [2ndary] Dull/late lighting of the Nozzle/Combustion chamber… this is bright!
18

So looking at my prior response - I think I just did. It’s the Apollogists who are unable to rationalize this away, except with “but, but 400,000 people couldn’t keep a lie!” or disingenuously “but exhaust gases are invisible gases” while ignoring the part how about H2O freezes, and is no longer invisible.

Come to the dark side with us…

19

While I agree the video has some integrity issues… but there again, so do you…

Your claim here is false, but this is not your fault. Apollogists have purposefully lead you astray, and this should upset you. I even wrote the NASA site admins to request they fix their false statement.

Here’s the actual testimony of Baron, before congress, which no one refutes:

https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm

=== quote summary ===
Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more thorough report which includes all the names.

…

Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.

Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received it.

Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.

====
NOTE - they shut him down, and didn’t let him read from his own copy of this report, despite his requests… Then all copies went missing, and nobody even went looking for them or mentioned them again!

Now NASA site, quotes the Lying book “Chariots for Apollo”, which claims the report never existed, as shown here:

“When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.”

denying it’s existence… they won’t correct this false claim; it’s been 6 months since I wrote to them about it.

”Chariots for Apollo” then concludes:
”Ironically, Baron and all his family died in a car-train crash only a week after this exposure to congressional questioning.”

Really? “Ironically”? This implies a level of humor as though Baron got what he deserved. He’s a hero, and Chariots of Apollo is shameful.

===
So you were offended by me saying the Astronauts lied and didn’t go.

Are you equally (or more?) offended that Chariots of Apollo and the NASA website are making fun with the “tragedy” (likely murder) of someone who is likely a true hero. Someone who gave up his job to blow-the-whistle on account of telling the truth.

Or do you think Baron was a pathological Liar, who ironically died on a train track with his family, 7 days after testimony - and wanting to “reveal more names” — names that now we’ll never get to hear, thanks to his death, followed by all 500-pages report copies gone missing.

====

You’ve been mislead – on purpose - by NASA. Is this OK with you?

20

I’m not going to wade through 20 pages of posts. You can explain it here, if you have one.

21

Yes, bright exhaust gases, exactly what you are looking for.

Show me your math to support your 20X claim?

If you look at the LM, you will see that the ascent engine is not entirely exposed at the bottom, but up inside of the LM outside of the pressurized compartment. It is not readily visible until pitch over.

Why are you expecting the vacuum of space to quickly freeze the exhaust plume and make it visible enough to see on the primitive 1970’s video? Heat transfer in a vacuum is poor and the exhaust plume is already a gas

That is the problem with your evidence. It only appears to be evidence when you start out with the conclusion that Apollo was fake.