Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 9 votes

moon landing


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4059 replies to this topic

Poll: moon landing (231 member(s) have cast votes)

do you believe that people landed on the moon.

  1. yes (157 votes [67.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.97%

  2. no (74 votes [32.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.03%

Vote

#61    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:40 AM

Quote


I think it is quite possible that Aldrin was so taken by the "magnificent desolation" that it just never crossed his mind to photograph Armstrong. The man was human after all. If it was me up there I think the only thing going through my mind would be, "I'm on the moon!" The only man that really knows the answer is Buzz Aldrin himself.


Waspie, your killing me here.  I can't believe your offering up evidence for the hoaxers!  Never crossed his mind?  Now you make Aldrin out to be some sort of idiot.  Well, maybe fake or actor?  But definitely not an idiot.  

Armstrong, not giving interviews, not wanting pictures, not wanting to be too associated with a hoax, he surely knew would be uncovered one day in the near or far off future.  That is exactly why he has, to date, never given an interview about his experiences on the MOON!  PERIOD!  LOOK IT UP.  The claim of this by Sibrel is clearly backed up by evidence I provide four posts ago.  LOOK IT UP!  And if you refuse to believe me, offer up proof to the contrary.  I DARE YOU!

And while your debating common sense on picture taking, ask yourself why they didn't take way more pictures of the Earth in all her distant glory.  Can either of you tell me how many pictures were taken of Earth from the moon?  COMMON SENSE:  If I was up there seeing Earth in all her glory, I would shoot tons of pictures of her!  Why didn't they you might ask?  Too many chances for even the amatuer astronomer to notice the Earth appears four times smaller than it should!

Thanks for more support for my stance there Waspie dude!



#62    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:44 AM

Quote


Voted that we landed on the moon.  Course I think we not only landed on the moon, but have been making regular trips there ever since... then again I think the military has that anti-gravity or some advanced propulsion that make it about as easy as flying to another city and this rocket stuff is just for public consumption. imo


Thanks!  You and Rapid7 help the hoaxers stance as well!  Regular trips to the moon?  You have evidence of this.  Black ops expert eh?  Sorry!  If it's true, a revolution is long overdue!!!

Hey, if you are right, our government is still lying to us eh?  Well, NASA is a government-funded organization.  Maybe they lie as well.  Like about the Moon Shots!  LOL



#63    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:46 AM

Quote


I like it too!  original.gif

But, I'm not convinced that it's reality, mind you. However, I do like the concept that we might be able to zip here and there at will. This may someday come to pass. After all, humans are pretty clever when they put their minds to something...they can build pyramids, write symphonies, create beautiful art, and even go to the moon!


Thank you for not buying too far into that one Lilly.  But wait and think about your reply here.  Who built pyramids?  A society whose technology must have dwarfed us as we can't explain the actual way in which these structures were built.  Except maybe those with egos the size of a, well, Clavius!  LOL


#64    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:49 AM

Quote


you say we did go to the moon, but we got "punked".  What is wrong with you?


Please Rambo III?  I said BELIEVED.  That is a word expressing past tense!  English 101 for you my friend!  Laugh, it's sarcasm!  

BTW, why Rambo III?  The original leaves the sequels sadly wanting!


#65    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,904 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:51 AM

Some questions for you S3th.
  • If the radiation is so dangerous why did the Soviet Union start a manned lunar programme after the US had announced Apollo and long after they had sent unmanned spacecraft around the moon? Why did they not expose the "US fraud"?
  • The European Space Agency and Japan have both sent unmanned spacecraft to the moon, why have none of the scientist that are involved in these programmes ever expose the "US fraud?"
  • Why are the Russians, Europeans and Chinese all planning manned missions to the moon by 2020?
  • Why have no astronomers ever come forward and said that the radiation levels are too high for Apollo?

Radiation has an accumulative effect. The levels experienced outside of the van Allen belts would indeed be harmful if you were exposed to it for prolonged periods of time (this is one of the reasons that manned missions to Mars WILL require considerable amounts of shielding. The Apollo astronauts did not experience raised radiation levels for a long enough period of time for any adverse effects.

You mentioned dentists and the level of x-ray radiation. Well answer this, why is it safe for you to be x-rayed but the technician leaves the room or hides behind a lead shield? The answer is simple: because short exposure is not harmful, prolonged exposure is.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#66    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:53 AM

Quote


Now here is the next puzzle in this game.
The Apollo mission conducted from 1969 to 1972 were a period of solar maximum where an average 15 solar flare with varies magnitude are emitted. These solar flares would sometime last for few hours to a couple of days.  
Although you could predict solar flares, I find it NASA’s decision to send these men to moon during maximum highly unethical (can’t find the right word right now), risking the lives of the astronauts.
What is even more disturbing is why they would risk sending Apollo 17 after the 1972 August M class solar flare. Why were they taking such a high risk, incase of unpredictable solar that could end lives of these men.

Rohn
user posted image


Thank you Rohn!  Proof!  And for MID and Waspie, how about some from you instead of false statements due to lack of research!  

I only mentioned the one, and it was supported by CLAVIUS, if not minimized.  YOUR OWN GLORIOUS SITE FELLOWS!  

How dost thou answer the charges of your shoddy research MID?  Waspie?


#67    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 01:57 AM

Quote


boggle, is it really necessary to quote a very long post in it's entirety just so that you can add a 1 line opinion?

Some moderators may consider a post such as this spam and delete it. If you agree with the post by all means say so, but you don't have to quote it all.


Deletion eh?  How about clicking on the links and debunking NASA's own evidence that supports hoaxers claims!

You can delete the truth guys.  But you'll never be able to hide from it!


#68    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,904 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 02:03 AM

This is proof of what exactly? What that shows is the 11 year solar cycle. It shows the average number of sun spots during those periods. What it does not show is when solar flares occured and in what direction they occured.

The fact is that there were no solar flares during any of the Apollo missions. As MID has said if there had ben a major flare that had hit the moon the crew would have died. There wasn't, they didn't. Such a flare would have been observable from every solar observatory on earth, it is not something NASA could have covered up or faked.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#69    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,904 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 02:16 AM

Quote


Armstrong, not giving interviews, not wanting pictures, not wanting to be too associated with a hoax, he surely knew would be uncovered one day in the near or far off future.  That is exactly why he has, to date, never given an interview about his experiences on the MOON!  PERIOD!  LOOK IT UP.  The claim of this by Sibrel is clearly backed up by evidence I provide four posts ago.  LOOK IT UP!  And if you refuse to believe me, offer up proof to the contrary.  I DARE YOU!


Dr Stephen E Ambrose - Interview with Neil Armstrong 2001 (pdf format)

Being The First Man On The Moon
Ed Bradley Talks To Neil Armstrong About Fame, Family And Apollo 11 - CBS News 2005

Astronauts call for Mars mission - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Gene Cernan - giving a news conference at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11 BBC News - 1999.

How many do you need?

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#70    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 02:37 AM

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']

...the astronauts are just regular human beings.  They're not some superhuman masters of the universe...[/quote]

Remember this when you think about the radiation they had to have been subjected to!!!

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']Neil didn't "refuse" to appear in any photos on the moon ( blink.gif ).  He did in fact appear in one shot Aldrin took.   Neil took the majority of the pictures with the single EVA Hasselblad Apollo 11 carried.   Buzz never took but a single full-view picture of Neil (and it was a rear view of him working at the base of the LM)...I don't know why, and personally, I am very curious about that.   One would think that he would've made it a point to get some shots of the "first man", as Neil did of the "second man".  
[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']

Oh Lord thankee Jesus and pass the mash potaters!  Curious?  About time!  A true believer you may one day become.  As they say, your biggest critics become your biggest supporters once convinced.  Will your ego allow that.  NOW!  Become more curious!  HIS BACK.  Probably taken without his knowledge or permission.  I bet he punched Aldrin as soon as they left the set.  MOVIE SET!   Just as he punched Sibrel.  Never ask Buzz to swear on a Bible!  And if he won't, you really don't want to call him a liar or coward!

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']It is completely fallacious to think that Neil has not ever granted an interview since the Apollo 11 post-flight press conference.  He has done many of them.  He speaks rather frequently, has done interviews, and has recently authorized his biography.[/quote]

Notice oh so careful readers.  There are two things here MID tries to assert and yet is rather vague about, I'd imagine on purpose!

1)Neil has granted interviews.  Just ones in which he does not allow questions about the moon landing!  At least not one I have been made aware of.  And my ego isn't so big as to allow anyone of you to prove me wrong.  I'll actually go to 'your' evident bearing sites!  Evidence from now on.  Not fluky theories expressed by a self-appointed guru of all matters in the known Multiverse!

2)Biography.  Not Auto-biography?  How can someone else write about the moon landings, his emotions during them, ETC,  If not the man himself?  If I was part of a pack of lies, I wouldn't write about them either.  I'd let some other schmo do it!  Nor would I allow pictures to be taken of me as well!  READ ON!  


[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']There is no oddity in not hearing an engine stop in a vacuum.  Engines essentially make no sound in a vacuum.  This is common knowledge amont the educated in these matters.  Oddity?   No.   One felt an engine more than heard one, especially above the atmosphere.  One might also pick up some vibration and perhaps a low grade vibrational sound through the spacecraft structure and internal atmosphere, but it requires external  atmosphere to produce and  transmit the common engine sound most people think of when they envision a rocket engine, and there is no atmosphere in space. [/quote]

Making my case for me again eh MID!  If you can't hear the engine running.  A ten thousand thrust rocket.  I don't care at what point of thrust they were at.  You'd hear it over his voice.  The microphone would ensure that.  COMON.  COMMON SENSE!  SHEESH!  You sure you worked at NASA and just aren't some faker too!

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']And you are not carrying 183 pounds of mass on your shoulders.   Is it possible that you have no understanding of the relationship between mass and weight?[/quote]

Could it be you didn't refer to my earlier reference of having spent hours at CLAVIUS?  I read the primer.  Have you put on 183 pounds of mass and stepped into a pool?  Try it.  Then get back to me!

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']There are NO anomalies in Apollo lunar surface pictures.  They show typical photographic effects that can be seen on Earth photos as well.     "Anomalies" are merely things these people do not understand.[/quote]

MID, please!  WATCH 'WAS IT ONLY A PAPER MOON!'  Then answer this question.  Roof beams in photos.  Elevated pictures from level ground.  Crop mark cross hairs showing proof of photo tampering.  Same background at differing locations.  Rock with C on it. (If you watch one of those video clips from the moon, you'll see them accidently shoot a quick shot of the C rock then quickly pan away with an audible oops or some comment like that.  Search, it's the link that asks you to find it!  NO STARS.  With no atmosphere they would have shone like headlights, at least out the capsule window before reaching the moon!!!  Shadows not running parallel and occasionally perpendicular to each other. ONE LIGHT SOURCE ON THE MOON.  THE SUN!  And don't try that ole leg pulling reflections or Earth light hocus pocus either.  You know how shadows work.  Try it in the desert as I have.  Nothing but parallel baby!  Thanks for providing yet more evidence of your lack of understanding simple subjects such as shadows.  And the evidence just keeps mounting in the hoaxers favor!!!

[quote name='MID' date='Jun 19 2006, 06:09 PM' post='1238067']Want to try me on any of the typical "anomalies" noted by the HBs....Resseau marks disappearing, non-parallel shadows, etc...all normal stuff???
[/quote]

Tried and showed lacking!



#71    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,904 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 02:44 AM

Quote



1)Neil has granted interviews.  Just ones in which he does not allow questions about the moon landing!  At least not one I have been made aware of.  And my ego isn't so big as to allow anyone of you to prove me wrong.  I'll actually go to 'your' evident bearing sites!  Evidence from now on.  Not fluky theories expressed by a self-appointed guru of all matters in the known Multiverse!


From the CBS news interview, (see link above),

Quote

“Do you recall how you came up with that ‘A small step for man?’ What was the inspiration for it?” Bradley asks.

“I thought, ‘Well, when I step off, I just gonna be a little step.’ … But then I thought about all those 400,000 people that had given me the opportunity to make that step and thought ‘It's going to be a big something for all those folks and, indeed, a lot of others that even weren't even involved in the project.’ So it was a kind of simple correlation of thoughts,” Armstrong says.


You are aware of one now.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#72    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 03:16 AM

[quote name='Waspie_Dwarf' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:51 PM' post='1239541']
Some questions for you S3th.
[list]
[*]If the radiation is so dangerous why did the Soviet Union start a manned lunar programme after the US had announced Apollo and long after they had sent unmanned spacecraft around the moon? Why did they not expose the "US fraud"?

Some answers and more questions for you Waspie!  

First.  The Soviet Union did not ever land on the moon!  Why?  Do you understand the history of the COLD WAR?  Whatever they did we did on a larger scale.  They did the same as well.  Both countries fighting to stay ahead of the other.  One, to keep from being conquered.  Two, to instill confidence in an ever panicking public.  

Now, to answer the last part of your question, I have to ask you a question?  Perhaps a bit of research on your part as I am tired and require sleep before my graveyard shift.  No, not an actual graveyard.  Running a Casino!  LOL.  Please excuse my poor excuse for humor.  I grow weary.  

How much money do you believe the United States has given to the Russians since say, 1968?  There might be a way to research that.  Please if you have the time.  Of course, now they rely on us more than ever since we whooped their Vodka drinking booties with a big dose of Democracy!  As for other countries blowing the whistle.  How much money do we give them?  Would you piss off your older brother who feeds you, cloths you, and gives you cash by exposing his secrets?  NO indeedy!

Does this make any sense to you Waspie.  And please be reasonable with your reasoning!



[quote name='Waspie_Dwarf' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:51 PM' post='1239541'][*]The European Space Agency and Japan have both sent unmanned spacecraft to the moon, why have none of the scientist that are involved in these programmes ever expose the "US fraud?"[/quote]

Same question in reverse.  Why have they never proven our presence through pictures of the LEM base, Rover or Flags?

[quote name='Waspie_Dwarf' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:51 PM' post='1239541'][*]Why are the Russians, Europeans and Chinese all planning manned missions to the moon by 2020?[/quote]

Why is it going to be fifty two years later?  When the technology has been available all this time.  It hasn't!  NASA faked it!  Do you think the Space Race is still on?  That could answer that.  Shielding improvements.  Rocketing improvements.  Governments allowing commercial assistance keeping taxpayer cost at a minimum.  Realization that by the year 2020 our planet could be running out of natural resources and room for an ever growing population.  Their succinct desire to get to the moon first, perhaps!

[quote name='Waspie_Dwarf' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:51 PM' post='1239541'][*]Why have no astronomers ever come forward and said that the radiation levels are too high for Apollo?[/quote]  

Have you ever heard of a little creature called funding?  Federal funding?  The same way NASA had 'experts' claim authenticity of Moon Rocks.  30 Billion Dollars for a five million dollar movie leaves alot of palm grease left over my little brother.  Threats of cutting off funding.  Next move.  Threats of exposing astronomers as frauds, leaving them jobless, using the easily manipulated media.  Your almost there bro!  

[quote name='Waspie_Dwarf' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:51 PM' post='1239541']
Radiation has an accumulative effect. The levels experienced outside of the van Allen belts would indeed be harmful if you were exposed to it for prolonged periods of time (this is one of the reasons that manned missions to Mars WILL require considerable amounts of shielding. The Apollo astronauts did not experience raised radiation levels for a long enough period of time for any adverse effects. [/quote]

Another question for you.  Have you ever stayed in the sun for a couple of hours with no UV protection?  How's two hours for cumulative UV?  Now take away the protective layers we enjoy on Earth and go directly into Solar Radiation on the moon and in a capsule on the way there.  Days on the moon, in 180 -250 degree weather.  Heard of de-hydration?  Forget the Solar Radiation.  No way walking around out there like that.  If their suits were oxygenated and they were breathing oxygen, we would have heard the breathing associated with that of Deep Sea Divers. Sounds of the mists of the pssst air ejected through a one way valve.  Another well ignored fact by hoax debunkers.  VOILA!  Watch the videos of our Astronots I provided in my evidence laden post of the other day.  Listen to their breathing.  Watch above their heads as strange reflections appear as if from no where.  Some believe wires were used on the set to help with the moon walk effect.  Too bad Michael Jackson wasn't around to teach them a decent moon walk...LOL


[quote name='Waspie_Dwarf' date='Jun 20 2006, 06:51 PM' post='1239541']
You mentioned dentists and the level of x-ray radiation. Well answer this, why is it safe for you to be x-rayed but the technician leaves the room or hides behind a lead shield? The answer is simple: because short exposure is not harmful, prolonged exposure is.
[/quote]

Please bro?  How good are your teeth?  Have you never been x-rayed.  They put at least a one to two inch lead vest on you to protect as much of you as possible.  At least that is how they did when I last had an x-ray.  And ultimately, do you really believe your dental technician gives a hoot about your future irradiated health?  Any exposure is potentially harmful as any Nuclear Plant employee can assure you.  Didn't you watch "Silkwood?"  Watch it.  Excellent movie.  Cher and Meryl Streep really play well off each other.  Movie based on true story about irradiated Nuclear Power Plant worker.  How much more powerful do you think the sun and it's radiation is than the limited exposure at a power plant?
Thanks for asking questions without the flames my friend!


#73    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 03:31 AM

Quote


This is proof of what exactly? What that shows is the 11 year solar cycle. It shows the average number of sun spots during those periods. What it does not show is when solar flares occured and in what direction they occured.

The fact is that there were no solar flares during any of the Apollo missions. As MID has said if there had ben a major flare that had hit the moon the crew would have died. There wasn't, they didn't. Such a flare would have been observable from every solar observatory on earth, it is not something NASA could have covered up or faked.


They didn't die cause they were on Earth.  Everytime you assume they were on the moon you take away deductive reasoning to the contrary.  Don't ASSUME!  Think from a neutral base.  I've waited for NASA to return answers to my many, thought to be reasonably sound, suspect questions, and all I keep getting is dead air.  Of course they never answered Collier's questions in any reasonable way.  Too bad he's dead now.  He'd have loved the FOX program.  He would have been a great addition with his queries as well.

NOT TRUE AGAIN.  GO TO CLAVIUS.  Admittance of a Solar flare during an Apollo mission.  Go to my big post of two days ago.  

Quote




This is from the Clavius site...And in contradiction to the claim of no solar flares during any Apollo mission.[/i]

"Only one mission, Apollo 16, suffered a solar flare, and it was a mild one. Solar weather is not a big secret; most observatories around the world record solar flares."


This little bit from CLAVIUS is suspect itself.  MOST OBSERVATORIES AROUND THE WORLD RECORD SOLAR FLARES.  IT'S NO BIG SECRET.  

No kidding, the secret is how the refuse to admit the other ones that occured within the time frames of the other missions leaving a continued outpouring of dangerous radiation during all Apollo flights, in addition to the hugely dangerous rays that are always being emitted and the double trips through the Van Allen and other radiated belts.  COMON.  Common sense says cancer at the very least, death before ever reaching the moon most likely of all!  No more shielding claptrap please guys!  You know it wasn't sufficient.  You know how hot it was in the sun, on the moon.  No airconditioning in their suits.  

I used to be an AC man and you don't wan't to debate me on that one.  Believe me.  It would make this look like a picnic!




#74    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 03:38 AM

I have read portions within the clavius site in reference to the rocket fuel in question where much of what has been skeptized and asked in a formal manner so as to address the characteristics apparent during the time and specific rocket being used.  One would expect to find a readily available aswer in this regards especially if one is to assume that Clavius is a trusted site BUT upon reading their information in regards to this, I have found that Clavius does not confront the question directly.but rather reforms the question so as avoid being specifically concerned with the Saturn V during the era in question.  Speaking of change, before i began my interest in the rocket fuel in the Saturn V, I began my interest in the structural engineering of the Saturn V since i myself was a aviational structural mech in the Navy.  I know first hand of the ongoing tach welding that is applied and present especially on multi-million dollar conventional aircraft.  The very same practices and procedures used today for conventional aircraft hasnt changed (since 1978 development of the first fully filament wound aircraft fuselage) nor has the use of rivets being the primary procedure to hold fuselage in place.as well.  

Knowing this as the present practice and procedure of 2006 what can be said about the 60's and 70's?  Lets address the structural aspects of the Saturn V before the introduction of the first fully filament wound aircraft fuselage which is the basis for composite materials in aircraft.  Composite material when added with epoxies can strengthen the material enough so that its strength becomes twice as strong as steel but 5 times lighter.  There are obvious discrepencies to this:  After the epoxy is applied it must be heated to dry and then cooled but after drying the material itself becomes weaker if the epoxy itself becomes heated again.  I learned first hand of this during my time in the AIMD department (aviation intermediate maintenance department) at the composite material shop section.  As a whole the material is brittle and does have its strengths unless if you take a hammer and hit at its surface and also this material does not deflect radiation whatsoever.  If this material (composite) was in fact used for the Saturn V then there is noway possible that Saturn V could have had 6 successful missions to the moon and back while avoiding radiation using composite material:

280,000 miles (includes return trip)

1. Van Allen radiation both to and from from the moon

a) Within these belts are particles capable of penetrating about 1 g/cm2 [1] of shielding (e.g., 1 millimetre of lead).

2. solar radiation outside of the Van Allen radiation belts

3. radiation exposure while on the moon (during aproximately 70+ hours on the moon)

4. out of 23,000 satalites sent up over 17,000 have malfunctioned and fallen out of orbit due to the Van Allen radiation belts (this is after the successful apollo missions)

while i dont such use statements such as: they must have used other materials to build the Saturn V during the 60's cuz "i believe".  Neither do i character assassinate, I am speaking with first hand knowledge of the materials in question.  I know for a fact that with the structural knowledge that i have personally regarding to structural materials used in aeronautics there is no possiblity to get around the radiation unless they didnt go at all and actually manufactured the dosages entirely.  This is regarding during the time I spent in the military vs going back historically to the 60's and 70's.  Now both MID and Waspie both claim that the Saturn 5 can be slingshotted through the thinniest portions of the Van Allen belts.  In order to this, the Saturn V itself would have had to sling shot from Florida from where it is launched to more than likely the south pole; shortest distance to reach the 'thinnies' parts of the Van Allen belts, then after reach the south pole coordinates having lost the slingshot effect must make another directional change to then navigate the outer portions of the radiation belt till they can again change directions to "sling shot" towards the moon at the shortest distance possible (straight line).  At this point let me submit once again:

patterns such as the outer electron belt (van allen radiation belt) showing variations synchronized with distinctive and relatively common solar wind conditions known as high-speed solar wind streams which was not known at that time (NASA then). During such conditions, the intensity of energetic electrons can increase by many orders of magnitude. Space physicists call times of elevated intensities of energetic electrons highly relativistic electron events (HRE events).

These events were occuring during the alleged apollo missions for these patterns exist during solor flares.  I dont need to character assassinate like what MID does, im just stating facts.  To top this all off several of the astronauts who claim to have gone to the moon also claim to have done it twice and remain asymptomatic which is stretching the limits of exaggeration.

Edited by boggle, 21 June 2006 - 03:52 AM.


#75    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 03:51 AM

Quote


Dr Stephen E Ambrose - Interview with Neil Armstrong 2001 (pdf format)

Being The First Man On The Moon
Ed Bradley Talks To Neil Armstrong About Fame, Family And Apollo 11 - CBS News 2005

Astronauts call for Mars mission - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Gene Cernan - giving a news conference at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11 BBC News - 1999.

How many do you need?


Okay, now your going to make me curse!  Dammit Waspie, I read through the entire first PDF and guess what.  The only answers he had, none of which referred to his walk on the moon, was that he served on the Apollo thirteen accident board and that he would sign up for a Mars mission.  NO where did he tell of any Moon Walking experiences.  BTW, notice how he cuts the guy off before answering the offer to sign up for a Mars mission.  The first one was so easy, I'm sure he's thinking no sweat.  May not even have to leave Earth and wow, what a paycheck!  LOL

I told you I was needing rest.  I head there, to my precious bed now.  Please find any specific remarks by Armstrong about his moon walk.  I would be glad to read and respond.  OUCH!  Eye strain!   Strike one!