So this implies the radiation they received wasn't as deadly as made out to be? Are you sure it was only 25%? We're talking about radiation from the sun, other stars, supernovas, etc. What about gamma rays? What about the constant meteoroids that "bombard" the moons surface? Unless what I read about them is bunk.....
No. It implies that for the (relatively short) amount of time they spent in space, they received a rather large amount of radiation - a full 25% of the dose that is allowed for an entire year for people working with radiation. You comment about the radiation they received not being "as deadly as made out to be" frankly demonstrates that you know very little about radiation and the effects it has on living organisms in general and the human body in particular.
I don't know what you read, or where you read it. If you look back at your posts in this thread, you keep saying "I read this" or "I read that" never once citing your sources for the information.
Are you sure about that? According to NASA the modules weighed 33,000 lbs on earth, which still, taking into consideration the moon's gravitational pull, makes it weigh what 1-3 tons? Not exactly something suited for a soft landing.
Yes, I am quite sure. The weight (or more accurately, the mass) of the module itself isn't relevant. To see why it isn't, consider a large object that weighs three tons. You suspend it from a balloon that has sufficient lifting capacity to keep the object afloat. Then you slightly reduce the lifting capacity of the balloon. The object, despite it's massive weight, will float down slowly, like feather. Isn't physics fun?
The combined descent and ascent stage was descending at an extremely slow speed. And as the module descended, its mass would continue to get reduced, as fuel was burned off, allowing the engine to be throttled back, as a small amount of thrust was sufficient to maintain the speed of descent within the mission parameters.
But according to some sources, people had been beaming off lights from the moon before the moon landings ever happened. How do you know all the alleged lights beamed off the moon after the landings weren't coming from the same source as beforehand?
What sources are those? Can you cite them? A number of independent observatories have verified the presence of the retroreflectors over many years. They are still functional today. Pictures from LRO clearly show the retroreflectors.
True, but the same can be said for the opposite. Just because something makes sense to you (moon landings), doens't mean it makes sense or it's true.
The difference is that I let science and reality be the arbiter.
Oh yes, supposedly plenty of recordings were recevied from space during the missions, videos, voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data, etc. but according to NASA all of that is missing. How come all those documents and reels are now missing?
Independent recordings of the transmissions exist. Independent sightings of the spacecraft are documented. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, and NASA claims all their own documents have gone missing. Don't you think that's a silly position for NASA to take? In this day and age, why wouldn't they digitally create whatever they needed and release it?
How about all the photographs taken in space that show no stars in the background at all?
The landings took place during daytime (
lunar daytime). Do you really need me to explain why stars, which are much less bright than the sun, aren't visible during the daytime? Or do you naively believe that the stars turn on during the night and off during the day?
How about pictures taken that show 2 sources of light? (when there should only be the sun's)
Do you know why the moon appears bright at night? It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not because it's got a big lightbulb inside. It's because it's reflecting the light of the sun. Similarly, the earth would reflect the light of the sun onto the moon, generating a very bright, secondary light source.
I'm genuinly asking these questions, since they seem to make sense to me, in a way that makes the moon landings to have been faked. JUst questioning the official story, still not sure about what actually happened yet.
I would suggest that rather than asking your questions on a bodybuilding forum, you actually spend some time researching this issue more deeply and looking at what has already been said to debunk the "moon landings were a hoax" theories. All these questions you pose have been asked before and they have been answered thoroughly. That you would ask them suggests that you haven't spent any time looking into the issue.