moon landing

[RamboIII]

This is so funny...

Okay MID, I'll bite. How do you KNOW they did? Were you there? Did you see it on TV. Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

Way older people get very miffed when told that the moon landings were orchestrated to relieve the American public of the fear that Russia was going to Nuke us from space. To put confidence back into the hysterical and fearful mass.

Well, I believed we went to the moon too...

That was all before a very interesting episode of NOVA which alleviated me immediately of the illusion that we went to the moon. It was an episode dealing with the magnetic field that surrounds our planet keeping us from frying like a bunch of fish on a frying pan.

How were our Astronots able to survive Solar radiation. They weren't flying in a lead box. Even if they were, they went out of the LEM into a Sun lit moon and are still living to tell about it, without any skin cancer.

And, if we supposedly went to the moon. Why, thirty years later, are we not going there again? WHY? Because we can't!

Get over it people, you were fooled into believing a pack of lies. Nobody likes being a fool. So, use your mind, get over it, we all got PUNKED!

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

[rohnds]

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

[MID]

Could it be due to the friction between Armstrong and Buzz as to who should land first on the moon?

Rohn

I am thinking along those lines, but it's rather hard to accept.

There really wasn't "friction" per-se between Neil and Buzz. I think the friction was actually between Buzz and everyone else, including his Father, who, by all evidence, never accepted second at anything.

I actually think there was this psychological thing present in Buzz that said being second man on the moon was a failure. It's a ludicrous notion, I agree, and a completely skewed way of thinking, but I think that was most definitely present.

I think that after some years of suffering the consequences of this paradigm in the post-Apollo 11 years, he came to an understanding that he was in fact first on the moon with Neil. In fact, he had to understand that his work on Gemini 12, and his developmental work on the rendevous techniques, were essential and contributory factors in the successful accomplishment of the Apollo program.

But in 1969, I'm not so sure that the absence of photographs of Neil wasn't motivated by something...

I'd like to hope not. I'd love to think that time was compressed, the schedule was incredibly busy, and there just wasn't time in his short photographic assignment stint to have Neil pose for him. But given all the photos of Buzz taken by Neil, I wonder....

[MID]

I am going to play devils advocate here. It is announced that NASA is going to send an unmanned probe to the moon to monitor the radiation levels so that we can better understand their effect on the astronauts before sending the men to the moon in 2012. Now, if we had already sent men to the moon, why are we no studying the effects of radiation on these astronauts? Shouldn’t this have being one of their priorities back in the 60s before sending these men to the moon. And why didn’t we set up instruments on the moon to measure it’s radiation levels during the Apollo missions to the moon.

Rohn

Rohn,

It was done back in the 1960s, with an eye toward the exposure that the short term Apollo missions would have on the lunar surface. The reason why further studies are being done is to assess the effects over the planned longer duration missions of the new program. We have no substantial data on that, and need to do studies on it to adequately prepare for missions that will be lasting weeks on the lunar surface rather than a couple of days.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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.

[MID]

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

A Solar max refers to sunspot activity. Cycle 20 started in 1964 and lasted into 1976, officially. Peak sunspot activity was during 1967 through early 1970. However, sunspot activity doesn't necessarily correlate to solar flare activity, as the copius data assembled for the period (and the other documented periods before, and since)clearly shows. Solar flares are in fact predictable to a degree. We can forecast them within a few days of their occurrance. Statistical probablilty played a role in the planning of Apollo missions to the moon. Statistically, the odds of a major event ocurring during the missions was relatively low, and deemed an acceptable risk by mission planners and crews.

...please suffer no illusions that our Apollo crews were akin to the stray dogs the Soviets gathered up and sent to their deaths in rocket rides...

Nonetheless, there is a decided difference between a detectable solar event and a major, or dangerous one. We were in fact able to detect many TSEs, but the potentially dangerous ones were rare (it's sort of like we can detect earthquakes that are not even noticable by the public at large). Many a detectable solar flare occurred during the Apollo program, but, as the records clearly show, there were no major flares which occurred during any Apollo mission. The odds were against such an occurrance, and the missions were planned to take advantage of those odds.

Another point about solar flares that alot of people don't realize is that they are essentially unidirectional. They go off from the surface of the sun in one direction. Despite being detectable, most of them don't head directly for the earth and moon system. They can, and do go in any direction in space. The odds of a solar flare that heads directly to the moon occurring during a two week space voyage to the moon are relatively low.

There was in fact an M class flare which was predicted and occurred in August 1972. If that event occurred during an Apollo mission, it may well have proved to be a hazard to an Apollo crew that happened to be in-flight. However, there would've been enough warning to abort the mission and plan an early return. Additionally, the CM provided protection from such an event for about 2 days duration.

But that was 4 months prior to the Apollo 17 mission, during the waning period of the solar cycle. Odds were very much against such an occurance happening again, and of course the Sun was monitored very carefully at all times for signs of impending flare activity.

The odds were in their favor, and you can be assured that there was no un-ethical risk of the lives of the crews of the Apollo missions. The crews, and the planners were well aware of the hazards involved in their missions, and if any forecast indicated that major solar activity was predicted, the missions would've been scrubbed.

One thing that should be understood about Apollo was that there was indeed risk involved. There always is in a set of missions like those were--each of which explored an unknown territory. But it was not like the risks were not understood by all involved, and it was not like they were all considered and planned for. They were in fact, deemed acceptible by everyone involved, especially the crews.

Quite frankly, the risks of solar and van Allen radiation were minimal compared to some of the other risks involved in exploring this particular unknown. To flight controllers, certainly most management, and absolutely to the crews, the radiation hazard was negligible, and acceptible.

Flying the delicate "daisy-chain" to the moon and back, strapping oneself into a 6 million pound missile and vaulting off into space, and attempting to land a vehicle on the surface of the moon...trusting it's one APS engine to get you back home...those were certainly more risky than any potential radiation hazard.

And even those were deemed acceptible risk, due to the integrity and character of the people involved in designing, fabricating, and testing that equipment, and the intensity of the training received by everyone involved in operations.

NASA didn't send these people into space as Guinea Pigs. No one was in the dark. They asked their crews if they were ready and confident. And they all said, "yes". These people were extremely confident, in themselves, in their compatriots, in their training, in their spacecraft, and all the people who sweat over them for years.

And I guarantee you, if anyone said, "No, wait a minute," they'd have stopped everything.

No one did....

And the results of all of this work, all this human integrity, all this effort, and indeed a wee bit of luck, are well documented.

[MID]

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.

Yes, Waspie, me too! That's what I'd have been thinking...

Buzz was, and is human. And of course, only he knows for sure. And it's probably not important anyway, since what's done is done. They landed there. We know that. And we can bask in the glow of their accomplishments, from that point onward....despite any "human factors" that may or may not have been involved.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

One thing that should be understood about Apollo was that there was indeed risk involved. There always is in a set of missions like those were--each of which explored an unknown territory. But it was not like the risks were not understood by all involved, and it was not like they were all considered and planned for. They were in fact, deemed acceptible by everyone involved, especially the crews.

"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." - Gus Grissom, born 1926, died Apollo 1 fire 1967

The astronauts did, indeed, understand the risks involved. In fact what upset the astronaut corps so much after the Challenger accident in 1986 was not so much the risks involved but that these risks were hidden from them.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[S3th]

You're sounding a little irate, and that's not going to get you too far.

I'm not irrate my friend. I admit to becoming tired of the continual references to Clavius as the end all, know it all of every single aspect of Apollo, Physics, etc. Let's admit it. It seems a bit fishy someone with all the answers. Doesn't it? Also, and I think I am being at least a little nicer than most would in the light of your recent posts, but trying to continually bait me with cheap shots isn't getting you too far in my book. I know it ain't the Bible, but my book is filled with common sense. Something of which I tried to impart in my evidence my last posting.

I asked for questions. Not twenty. One at a time. The answers will be lengthy, if you really want them, and , as I said, will require some actual investigation on your part as well. You really can't just believe us. Knowledge requires self-discovery.

Well, since it 'was' going to be my last post, I wanted you to have just a bit of what I have been exposed to. This is why the moon shots are so suspect. There is just too many things that are waaaay to hinky. You know what hinky means right? Old Air Force talk. Like another old military term. You may have heard of it. Fubar. It could be used to describe the Apollo program much the way an astronaut put a lemon out to indicate what we were being sold. Of course his continual doubt, skeptism and probably, non-cooperation with the cover-up yet to come got him and his two buddies killed. An accident NASA has still refused to allow proper investigation into. THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATION.

Yeah, I'm a VET. Could that perhaps convince you to stop your continual barrages on my character and persona. I suppose not since I don't bow down to you and Clavius. LOL

I won't just believe you. If I did that, I'd be no better than what you claim of me. Knowledge of self, requires self-discovery. Other knowledge requires discovering other things. Sorry, but that little supposed piece of literary wisdom needed a shot of common sense. I apologize if twenty questions is too tiring. I have an idea. Watch the link 'I' offered you. Go to a site besides your almighty Clavius. LOL. That's humor. Can you tell the difference between humor, sarcasm and irrate anger. If not, watch my posts carefully. I do not anger or become upset. Even in the face of the kind of flaming comments made in your last posts. I am new to this site, and in time and many interactions on these boards you'll come to find me only to be using sarcasm and humor to lighten my posts. Don't try to interpret my emotions as you read them. Unless your a self-professed psychologist. If so, I suggest another site, maybe, psycho-babble.net...Or even, amatuer_empath.com.

If you are seeking the truth, here is where you will find the path.

I have seen the light reverend MID. Thank you Jesus. I mean, thank you MID!

(Okay, here it is a clear case of sarcasm. You'll get me yet!

I asked for questions. Not twenty. One at a time. The answers will be lengthy, if you really want them, and , as I said, will require some actual investigation on your part as well. You really can't just believe us. Knowledge requires self-discovery.

Well, since it 'was' going to be my last post, I wanted you to have just a bit of what I have been exposed to. This is why the moon shots are so suspect. There is just too many things that are way to hinky. You know what hinky means right? Old Air Force talk. Yeah, I'm a VET. Could that perhaps convince you to stop your continual barrages on my character and persona.

Other than boggle and rohnd, I've yet to anything but shaky answers and careful avoidance of what is simply some of the most damaging evidence yet to be presented. Keep going though.

Note: You were not lambasted by me. I simply laid out a pattern which would result in the most economical means of answering your questions, and as a result, providing knowledge in these matters. Your links and references are all to places that have thoroughly been debunked. I understand how you could be swayed to believe these places are telling you some inside information, but we will, if you allow us, show you that these places make grave mistakes, based upon a lack of knowledge.

Do you see yourself as the almighty disseminator of all knowledge in these matters? Please, tell me you are Einstein or Tesla. Otherwise, I cannot accept your credentials. Don't try to paint me as someone who bases his opinions on one persons site. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Of course I always am suspect of people who use words like, grave mistakes and other such comments in an attempt to character assassignate another person, or their site because the stance is different from their own. SWAYED. LOL!!!

You made mention of solar radiation, and seem to think that there was no "shielding" against it.

Insufficient shielding. Go to the dentist. Get an x-ray. Ask Mr. Dentist how much radiation the x-ray emits. NOW THINK FOR YOURSELF. REASON FOR YOURSELF AND GET OFF THE CLAVIUS TEAT.

The function of the van Allen belts is still the matter of some debate. The idea that it may protect us from solar radiation is certainly a possible idea, but that doesn't explain why similar radiation belts exist around all bodies that generate a magnetic field, life or no life. Their origins are relatively well understood...as an interaction between the solar wind and the magnetic field.

Actually, our atmosphere has the lion's share of protection duties against solar radiation. This is why our planet is relatively temperate, and why we don't get sunburned to death (although, depending on the person, that could still happen in some places on Earth!).

Now wait a second MID. THEY STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FUNCTION OF THE VAN ALLEN BELTS. UNBELIEVABLE. I CAN JUST IMAGINE THEM TELLING THAT TO THE ASTRONOTS BACK IN "68. CAN YOU HEAR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM? "NOT SURE? WELL, I AIN'T RISKING MY LIFE FOR UNCERTAINTIES. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, YOU CAN FAKE IT AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TIME AND AGAIN."

Of course, on the Moon, no atmosphere exists, so we compensated for that by producing the Apollo spacecraft, and the Apollo suit, which were specifically designed to protect against the effects of nominal solar radiation.

Here you have argued for my case and that of James Collier and those before him. NO ATMOSPHERE. Now go and download, Was it only a Paper Moon I provided a link for in my last post. LISTEN/WATCH. See for yourself as the rooster tails of the Rover meet resistance and stop their perfect arc due to meeting ATMOSPHERE. I went and checked out CLAVIUS. NOW check out the first guy who did a video investigation. It's an open letter to Frank Hughes. If you don't know who he is, watch the video and see for yourself.

The Apollo suit, for instance, was a 1.5 million dollar piece of engineeering which made an astronaut almost impervious to the harsh environment of space. Over the cooling garment and pressure suit itself was a garment consisting of 14 layers of silver-mylar and kapton, covered with completely fire-proof beta cloth which was specifically designed and tested to provide protection against solar radiation and heat, and micrometeorioids as well. It was mighty heavy, and mighty uncomfortable over time (it looked alot softer than it was, owing to the appearance of the external beta-cloth covering). The helmets had double visors on them to protect against glare, and of course, the PLSS and OPS provided a complete environmental regulation system which kept the men cool, and provided something for them to breathe, as well as removed the toxins they exhaled.

This suit, and the spacecraft, provided all the protection necessary to protect them from the nominal solar radiation, and the nominal amount of van Allen radiation they would encounter. Missions were also planned outside of solar max cycles, and of course, no STE ever occurred during an Apollo mission. This of course, could be construed as luck. It was, to a degree. The missions were planned precisely to avoid any such event, but the possibility existed, of course. That was deemed acceptible by crews and planners.

NOMINAL SOLAR RADIATION?

This is from the Clavius site...And in contradiction to the claim of no solar flares during any Apollo mission. Your claims hold no water in the light of CLAVIUS claims. READ. INVESTIGATE MORE YOURSELF!

"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."

If you go to sites that monitor, record and post solar flares of the past, you'll find there were other flares during this time period. How long do you think it takes for the much more than nominal radiation to reach the moon? They were enormous solar flares!!!

Additionally, van Allen transit was planned for as well, utilizing specific transfer orbits to transit the smallest or thinnest parts of the van Allen belts on the outbound and inbound parts of the missions. The planners did a really good job at this, as the multiple source dosimeter readings indicated for all of the Apollo flights.

Don't try using their dosimeter as proof since they never left the Earth with them. Sheesh, that's like saying, look at my scar, not too bad after my fight with Zues! LOL. More Mythology. Hehe!

_________________________________________________________________________

If you are in fact a seeker of truth, then I'd suggest using integrity to do so, rather than buying into the prattlings of the less-than informed. The JFK matter has absoluetly no relation to Apollo. All you need to know regarding Apollo exists in depth. All you need to know about Kennedy's death will likely never be revealed. There is a massive difference. Just because one thing seems to point to conspiracy does not mean all things that one doesn't understand do.

___________________________________________________________________________

ARE YOU A SEEKER OF TRUTH? I say no! I say you stick to your site and don't bother looking at my links in the only post thus far that offers overwhelming evidence to the contrary of a successful moon shot. Probably the reason boggle posted it again. Of course I won't pretend to speak for boggle. And again, remember, most of my evidence is provided by NASA footage itself and simple reasoning.

You say that the LM hatch opened inward and that there wasn't enough room to get out because of that.

Again, watch or listen to 'Was it only a Paper Moon'. Then tell me there was enough room. Mr. Collier measure the LEM in the Museum and proved it wasn't, compared to the Astronots girth with their insufficient gear on.

Plenty of room to do this thing. That's the way it was planned. I know that may sound ridiculous, but that's the way the project worked. We planned for things, and designed for them to happen.

You see, spitting out alot of common HB stuff, in volume, isn't going to help you. One, because it's all been answered before, and two because it helps to limit your questions to one at a time, so a more clear understanding can be had.

Your posts sound very un-discussion like, and illustrate a profound acceptance of silliness. You do however, seem intelligent enough to ask a question, and learn.

I am intelligent enough to learn. I was intelligent enough to lear un-discussion like is not only not a word but would show a lack of intelligence on the part of anyone trying to use it. LOL. Now, go to the investigation I keep referring you to by our dearly departed James Collier, who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to NASA and people like you who belittle those who can think for themselves and use common knowledge, physics, and true investigative means to get to the truth. Please, you keep saying we, so why not just tell us what you did. You don't need to unveil your name, but what did you do that made you such a self-appointed expert!!!!

A hundred different hoax theories or pieces of "evidence" doesn't lend itself to serious consideration, especially when suffixed by statements like, "...there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory. There is TOO MUCH!"

Because in reality, and as some of your statements show, there isn't any.

With time, and more investigation on your part, you'll find this statement you've made to be completely false. RESEARCH. STEP OFF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. Use your curiosity and mind to discover what I have for myself!

I am not here to shatter your illusions. I am here to guide you to an understanding of that which you do not understand.

Open your mind, and allow something in.

One thing at a time. It's much easier that way.

This is completely inflammatory and you should think twice before using such comments. Illusions? Open my mind and allow something in? Come on MID. As you began in the beginning of the post, so do you end. Character assassignations. If you can't win a debate without them, then you don't 'ever' deserve to win one. As you can tell, I have showed considerable tongue-in-cheek humor, sarcasm, and examples of how you have addressed me to reflect on. If you wish to continue this debate, so be it. Please refrain from knocking my character, intelligence and reasoning though. As you will see, it is all GOOD!

Debate on.

Watch the next couple of posts of mine as well as I shatter opposing arguments with reasoning and their own arguments to make my own point!

[S3th]

Yes, Waspie, me too! That's what I'd have been thinking...

Buzz was, and is human. And of course, only he knows for sure. And it's probably not important anyway, since what's done is done. They landed there. We know that. And we can bask in the glow of their accomplishments, from that point onward....despite any "human factors" that may or may not have been involved.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT, THUS THIS DEBATE. ALMOST HALF OF THE POPULATION OF EARTH DOES NOT BELIEVE YOU!

Thanks for making my point here MID. BUZZ WAS A HUMAN! SHEW! THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP. Now, what happens to humans exposed to thinning radiation belts here on Earth. Now multiply that by how much? How much more deadly are the sun's rays outside of the protective layers of our different protective belts? HUNDRED? THOUSAND? Tough to say isn't it? NOW COMMON SENSE. May it prevail. They'd all be dead from radiation poisoning by now.

COMON MID! USE YOUR COMMON SENSE!!! If you want to back it up with true facts about the deadliness of Solar Radiation, I'll begin to take you seriously. When you back up your false claims of the lack of Solar Flares with proof, I'd be happy to oblige more than a cursory glance at the rest of your posts. So far I believe I have answered yours to a major degree. Debate on!

[S3th]

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!

[S3th]

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

[S3th]

I like it too!

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

[S3th]

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!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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.

[S3th]

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

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?

[S3th]

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!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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?

[S3th]

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

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

Neil didn't "refuse" to appear in any photos on the moon ( ). 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".

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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?

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!

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.

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!!!

Want to try me on any of the typical "anomalies" noted by the HBs....Resseau marks disappearing, non-parallel shadows, etc...all normal stuff???

Tried and showed lacking!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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),

“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.

[S3th]

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"?

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 p*** 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!

[*]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?"

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

[*]Why are the Russians, Europeans and Chinese all planning manned missions to the moon by 2020?

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!

[*]Why have no astronomers ever come forward and said that the radiation levels are too high for Apollo?

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!

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.

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

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.

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!

[S3th]

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.

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!

[boggle]

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 June 21, 2006 by boggle

[S3th]

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!