moon landing

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Firstly, the Soviet Union landed unmanned vehicles on the moon. They also had a manned programme that failed because their N1 booster was a failure.

Secondly how much money did America give to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? Insufficient to keep there biggest enemy quiet over something that would have totally destroyed US credibillity around the world. How many people do you think they would have to bribe? Hundreds of thousands. And how much money could one of those individuals could earn from blowing the whistle to a tabloid paper. Yet none ever did. Do you really think that America is so globally loved that not one person in the know would show that the USAs greatest achievement was a lie? That really is fantasy land.

Why are there no pictures of the LEM bases and flags?

The LEM base and the flags are far too small to be seen by even the largest telescopes. They will be imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter in 2008, but as this is a NASA mission the hoax believers will not accept the evidence it provides.

UV radiation is irrelevant. The astronauts were never exposed to it. They were either inside the spacecraft or in a space suit. Even an ordinary glass window provides a fair degree of protection against UV, which is why you don't get sun burn if you sit behind a window.

I have seen Silkwood, but I fail to see the relevance. There is a huge difference between being contaminated with a radioactive material and passing through the Van Allen belts.

Bill Wheaton is an astronomer at CalTech. He is currently working on the Spitzer infrared space telescope but has also published work on Gamma Ray sources.

On his website he answers this question:

Is it impossible to travel to the Moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

His answer is very long and involved so I will not reproduce it here. This is the link if you want to read the entire answer, however he concludes:

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

[boggle]

radiation is irrelavant? re-read my post waspie and pay close attention to the characteristics of what it does and what it can do to satalites itself. You dont have over 17,000 satalites falling out of orbit and malfuntioning only to state its irrelavant. You also dont observe patterns within the outer belt that affect satalites and state that as being irrelavant. If you are going to state irrelavant then show the basis towards your assertion that would address the obvious impact it has on satalites that have malfunctioned and fallen out of orbit due to the impact that van allen radiation belts have on them. You have the results of the dosage meters yet you cant even explain away nor ignore the satalites especially coming after the apollo missions.

Edited June 21, 2006 by boggle

[S3th]

QUOTE(S3th @ Jun 21 2006, 03:37 AM)

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.

Yes! And comon Rocket Man, I think it's gonna be a long long time till touch down brings me round to find a decent answer by Armstrong? Or question for that matter! LOOK

He doesn't say one thing about being on the moon. The question is how he came up with that little thing he said. The inspiration. It's just claptrap about how he came up with the infamous words he uttered from where? He doesn't say the moon. He's very clearly avoiding saying stepping off onto the moon. NO MENTION OF MOON!!!

LOOK AT IT WASPIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it together man. You had me thinking some real sharp stuff was coming. This is aaaaarghhhhh...obviously void of moon mentioning.

My first question to ARMSTRONG!

Did you walk on the MOON???

Period.

BTW, you know he won't even do an interview without pre-supplied questions so he can answer them without lying....RIGHT!!! Most celebrities require the same thing so they can come up with sharp answers ahead of time. The only celebrities that don't do this are ignorant. SEE WITH YOUR GUT!

[boggle]

if the radiation is irrelavant waspie and mid... then why did both of you claim that they went through the 'thinniest' portions if they are that irrelevant? i have already entertained that idea and expose the flaw in that assertion.

Edited June 21, 2006 by boggle

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You dont have over 17,000 satalites falling out of orbit and malfuntioning only to state its irrelavant.

You have been asked on two previous occasions to provide a source for this "fact". On both occasions you have totally ignored that request. Why? I hope your source is capable of spelling satellite, or knowing the return distance to the moon (280,000 miles would leave the crew a long way from home).

[S3th]

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.

HOW DID I MISS THIS! Dang boggle, nice stats and info!

Take a look here before I go off to the sack for real Waspie! I'm going to highlight text of boggle's that demands a long, hard thought!!!

Look up at bold places within boggles text and ask yourself about success ratios of unmanned satellites, and shielding questions finally answered with science fact, rather than science fiction and deliberately deceptive answers!!!

I think we can finally close the books on this one. Their gooses are freshly cooked and ready for the eating

BTW, any of you college/high school students want to take this to a debate at your school and let us know which side poses the most convincing argument!

Nice to have a fellow VET helping a brother out! Thanks boggle, you rock. Not moon rock mind you. We can't find any! LOL

Edited June 21, 2006 by S3th

[Waspie_Dwarf]

S3th, I know from you beligerent comment about it that you have seen the request not to quote long posts in their entirety. Please heed the request.

HOW DID I MISS THIS! Dang boggle, nice stats and info!

Take a look here before I go off to the sack for real Waspie!

boggle has repeated these "stats" over and over again (His tactics have resulted in two threads on this subject being closed down). He has been asked to substantiate them but never does.

boggle point number 4 for example, is totally untrue. The vast majority of satellites orbit below the van Allen belts and so receive similar protection to being on earth. No satellite "falls to earth" as a result of the van Allen belts, it is friction with the upper atmosphere that causes this. The usual cause of a satellite malfunction is that they simply come to the end of their design life. They will run out of manouvering fuel or a reaction wheel will fail.

Satellites most likely to be affected by radiation are the communications satellites in Geosynchronous orbits 22,500 miles above earth. Indeed these are sometimes damaged by radiation but usually by solar flares NOT the van Allen belts. These satellites do not fall back to earth when they malfunction. They are too high to be be slowed down by the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Even with these satellites the vast majority are taken out of services at the end of their design life, which is typically 10 - 15 years.

The figure of 17,000 satellites failing due to the van Allen belts is pure fiction.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[S3th]

You have been asked on two previous occasions to provide a source for this "fact". On both occasions you have totally ignored that request. Why? I hope your source is capable of spelling satellite, or knowing the return distance to the moon (280,000 miles would leave the crew a long way from home).

Cmon Waspie, your gettng teste now...LOL...He's just tired like me probably.

Here's some humor, with a message to lighten the mood!

[boggle]

i have posted this before:

here is what Discovery has on their website:

"There is no radiation protection system for astronauts"

now i know you can find the discovery website and look for yourself towards this matter.

Its the same place you will find:

Back in the '80's a single paintchip speck hit a window on one of the missions and

created such a hole in the outer area of the window that it cost around $73,000 to replace.

-----------------------

That is just a single speck of a paintchip. This isnt taking into consideration of going

beyond the van allen radiation belts nor even through it with micrometeorites.

now follow that up with:

Radiation (van Allen) belts

spaceweb@oulu.fi - last update: 21 December 1998, 1450 UT (RR)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trapping regions of high-energy charged particles surrounding the

Earth are called radiation (or van Allen) belts (Van Allen et al.,

1958; Van Allen and Frank, 1959). The inner one, located between about

X = 1.1 - 3.3 Re (Earth radii, geocentric) in the equatorial plane,

contains primarily protons with energies exceeding 10 MeV. Flux

maximum is at about X = 2 Re. (Distances given here are approximate, since the

location of particles is energy dependent.) This is a fairly stable

population but it is subject to occasional perturbations due to

geomagnetic storms, and it varies with 11-year solar cycle. The source

of protons in this region is the decay of cosmic ray induced albedo

from the atmosphere. As a result of the offset between the Earth's geographical and magnetic axes, the inner belt reaches a minimum altitude of about 250 km above

the Atlantic Ocean off the Brazilian Coast. This South Atlantic Anomaly

occupies a region through which low-orbiting satellite frequently pass.

Energetic particles in this region can be a source of problems for the

satellites and astronauts.

The outer belt contains mainly electrons with energies up to 10 MeV. It

is produced by injection and energization events following geomagnetic

storms, which makes it much more dynamic than the inner belt (it is

also subject to day-night variations). It has an equatorial distance of

about 3 - 9 Re, with maximum for electrons above 1 MeV occurring at about X =

4 Re. 'Horns' of the outer belt dip sharply in towards the polar caps.

Recently a new belt has been found within the inner belt. It contains

heavy nuclei (mainly oxygen, but also nitrogen and helium, and very

little carbon) with energies below 50 MeV/nuc. The source of these

particles are the so called "anomalous cosmic rays" of interstellar

origin.

The radiation belts are of importance primarily because of the harmfull

effects of high energy particle radition for man and electronics:

it degrades satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices

it induces background noise in detectors

it induces errors in digital circuits

it induces electrostatic charge-up in insulators

it is also a threat (lethal) to the astronauts

The investigation of the Earth's radiation environment was one of the

main tasks of the CRRES satellite. It has observed, for example, a

rapid (1 min) formation of a new radiation belt due to a SSC on 24 March,

1991 (Vampola and Korth, 1992).

References

Vampola, A. K. and A. Korth, Electron drift echoes in the inner

magnetosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 625-628, 1992.

Van Allen, J. A., G. H. Ludwig, E. C. Ray, and C. E. McIlwain,

Observations of high intensity radiation by satellites 1958 Alpha and

Gamma, Jet Propul., 28, 588-592, 1958.

Van Allen, J. A., and L. A. Frank, Radiation around the Earth to a

radial distance of 107,400 km, Nature, 183, 430, 1959.

http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html

After reaching back on earth every one of the astronauts are asymptomatic and

not only this but several manage to go back to the moon TWICE and still

remain asymptomatic. Is it irrelavant still waspie? i have found that information

for you how about finding the statistics yourself for a change? you definitely do

not give any links when stating "irrelavant" but looking at the evidence presented

your assertion is baseless.

Edited June 21, 2006 by boggle

[S3th]

S3th, I know from you beligerent comment about it that you have seen the request not to quote long posts in their entirety. Please heed the request.

boggle has repeated these "stats" over and over again (His tactics have resulted in two threads on this subject being closed down). He has been asked to substantiate them but never does.

boggle point number 4 for example, is totally untrue. The vast majority of satellites orbit below the van Allen belts and so receive similar protection to being on earth. No satellite "falls to earth" as a result of the van Allen belts, it is friction with the upper atmosphere that causes this. The usual cause of a satellite malfunction is that they simply come to the end of their design life. They will run out of manouvering fuel or a reaction wheel will fail.

Satellites most likely to be affected by radiation are the communications satellites in Geosynchronous orbits 22,500 miles above earth. Indeed these are sometimes damaged by radiation but usually by solar flares NOT the van Allen belts. These satellites do not fall back to earth when they malfunction. They are too high to be be slowed down by the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Even with these satellites the vast majority are taken out of services at the end of their design life, which is typically 10 - 15 years.

The figure of 17,000 satellites failing due to the van Allen belts is pure fiction.

Let me know if I am incorrect here boggle okay? I think Waspie, he is merely stating satellite effectiveness, even with all the same protection from the Sun we enjoy. Now take those type of success ratios and apply them to vehicles and people who were clearly not convincingly shielded. Add to that three teaspoons of Armstrong avoiding to speak of his 'supposed' moon walk experience, and you have the recipe for major doubt and skepticism about the entire Apollo facade!!!

By sack I meant sleep Waspie, no beligerence inherent there. And those highlighted areas needed further attention by you! Read what others say, in their entirety and you can answer them with quality comments or questions. Did you read what the man had to say about the shielding? No! You concentrated on a misread comment on my part. You seem to be very concerned with this satellite dealio. You said they are under the Van Allen belt and yet still malfunction.

You just keep solidifying our position about shielding. There are sites which will list satellite failures online. Do you require us to do all your researching. Just look at the debacle you got into with those links about the interviews. All three lacking any comments by Armstrong about actually having gone to or stepped foot on the moon. Carefully orchestrated answers designed to keep him from having to lie. LOOK CLOSELY PLEASE at the evidence you provide. Otherwise you just clutter this debate with information which weakens your own stance. MID may need to find a more level-headed partner who actually reads the evidence and research he posts. Seriously. I like you and need you to stay in this debate. Your our MVP! LOL!!!!!!

Edited June 21, 2006 by S3th

[boggle]

The reason why composite material works so well within the earth's atmosphere is because THERE IS an atmosphere. As the jets are being thrusted forward the air acts as a cool mechanism to the fuselage itself unlike beyond the Van Allen radiation belts where there is neither air to cool the fuselage nor protection against the dramaitc increased amounts of solar radiation while having to traverse 280,000 miles (this includes the round trip). Its called critical thinking waspie!!

Edited June 21, 2006 by boggle

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The radiation belts are of importance primarily because of the harmfull

effects of high energy particle radition for man and electronics:

it degrades satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices

it induces background noise in detectors

it induces errors in digital circuits

it induces electrostatic charge-up in insulators

it is also a threat (lethal) to the astronauts

The investigation of the Earth's radiation environment was one of the

main tasks of the CRRES satellite. It has observed, for example, a

rapid (1 min) formation of a new radiation belt due to a SSC on 24 March,

1991 (Vampola and Korth, 1992).

I see you have included the word lethal in brackets again. You are fully aware that this is a dishonest addition and is NOT in the original article. This lie has been pointed out before yet you are still willing to repeat it.

[boggle]

I see you have included the word lethal in brackets again. You are fully aware that this is a dishonest addition and is NOT in the original article. This lie has been pointed out before yet you are still willing to repeat it.

You're not thinking again waspie for solar radiation is compounded in space and the van allen radiation is much worse than the solar radiation beyond that point. The reason why they state only threaten is because the written record dont show anyone dying from it--- being asymptomatic and being that satalites which have malfunctioned and fallen out of orbit were unmanned. To top this off there is radiation levels while on the moon but you dont want to take this into consideration since you would rather sleep with manufactured results rather than scientific facts. You have not even considered what the nervous system in the body would be like under the conditions i stated above therefore your assertions are once again baseless to argue threaten vs. lethal. You dont want to take into account that even the discovery source states that there is no radiation protection for astronauts yet you want to hold on to "threaten" LOL. Why do you think the unshady parts on the moon's surface reaches temperatures of 250+ (70+ hours on the moon)? think waspie.

a) Within these belts are particles capable of penetrating about 1 g/cm2 [1] of shielding (e.g., 1 millimetre of lead). + 0 radiation protection + 70 hours on the moon surface which cannot escape solar radiation reaching temperatures 250+ degrees F = threat ... to what? rofl.

Edited June 21, 2006 by boggle

[rohnds]

As the jets are being thrusted forward the air acts as a cool mechanism to the fuselage itself unlike beyond the Van Allen radiation belts where there is neither air to cool the fuselage nor protection against the dramaitc increased amounts of solar radiation while having to traverse 280,000 miles (this includes the round trip).

You lost me here. Are you stating that the fuselage of a jet actually cools down within our atmosphere due to fact that air hitting it actually reduce the temperature.

If I am right the opposite is true. Due air in the atmosphere the outer hull of a space ship actually increase in temperature faster it travels since air hitting it creates friction. Thus the need for heat shields in these vehicles. You don’t want it burning up in our atmosphere during re-entry, do you?

Now, if I am wrong, please correct me. I was just trying to figure out the logic in what you wrote, nothing more.

Rohn

Edited June 21, 2006 by rohnds

[rohnds]

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

Proof of what? I am simply here to debate the topic. I personally believe that we actually went to the moon. What I have shown here is that during this period the solar flares were at a maximum. Fortunately for us we are able to predict when solar flares are about to erupt. They are not only directional; they take at least a couple of hours to reach the moon.

My concern is that NASA decided to send these men during this particular period. If their objective is to fulfill JFK promise, all NASA had to do was complete the Apollo 11 mission and postpone the rest the missions to later date. Although we are able to predict these solar flare many agree that we still don’t full understand them. So when NASA sent these men, they were hoping that these observations, calculations and predictions into suns spots and solar flare were 100% accurate. If not, a possibility of deadly unpredictable solar flare is very real.

Rohn

[AROCES]

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

NASA did not think it is such a risk, mission accomplished and they were correct.

That is pretty simple

[MID]

S3...

I believe you have proved yourself here.

I had a feeling you'd bite, and paint a picture of yourself that is rather clear. You succeeded.

I will address a few of your points, however. I am hoping you will recover from your emotional tirade and get with the program, as-it-were.

Clavius is a site painstakingly researched and written by a space scientist who happens to know alot about the subject matter. It is accurrate, and explains things rather clearly. Lots of people refer to it as a source for Apollo information, because it is so well written and concise. You may be sick of it, but that's because you wish to hold on to your dearest illusions in the face of the facts, which just happen to be the opposite of the truth of the matter.

I did not in any way cheap shot you, nor did I assail your character or persona. That is an emotional and immature reaction on your part. I merely pointed out the facts of the matter, and what I am willing to accept in the form of discussion. What you decided to do was ignore that and go off on a bold type tirade. That doesn't inspire much in the way of discussion. I alse asked you, as I've asked others, to take it one step at a time, so as to promote discussion and learning. You seem to ignore that, and instead prefer to inflate yourself with statements like:

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.

To answer, no, I do not. That has never been implied. However, if you bother to read what's actually here, you will see that I have just a little background in the subject matter, and do in fact know more about it than you do, despite your "common sense".

___________________________________________________________________________

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.

(...I know exactly what you have been exposed to. But that information doesn't make the moon shots suspect. It makes the authors of that material suspect. That is what this thread is supposed to be about...giving you the complete and actual picture...)

You are a VET.

Great. That fact gets you respect in my book.

However, being a VET does not automatically embue one with knowledge in the subject matter which we are attempting to discuss. It also does not entitle you to flame out without recourse. Your service to this country is appreciated (or, at least it should be) by all, but you are not automatically entitled to be accepted as an authority on Apollo in the face of facts to the contrary of your position. Nore does it entitle you to immunity from anyone who wishes to point out that you're being obstinate in the face of those facts. That Apollo is "hinky", or FUBAR, as you indicate, means only one thing...

You buy what you've been exposed to (I've read just about every hoax page on the Web, including the links you refer to) and as I've said many times before, that is what these sources are designed to exploit, a large scale ignorance of the facts, sciences, and mechanics which produced the successful Apollo Program.

The point here is to show you the whole picture, so that you can research the actual facts, and learn something.

Now, you are exhibiting the emotions of someone who is hell-bent on believing rather than someone who is hell-bent on learning. You do not read carefully, and you mis-interpret thus:

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."

The reference was to the purpose of the belts (what they do, what their purpose is...that should've been clear, if your emotions weren't clouding the issue). They understood all about what they were, and the hazards present in them. To be honest, the astronauts couldn't have cared less. They were confident that adequate provisions had been made, and of course they were. Read in context to your own question and you'll see clearly (at least I hope so) that you've made an error in judgement here.

...also, your use of the term "astronots", robbed from one of the notoriously silly HB sites, doesn't do you much credit...

You are painting yourself into a corner when you make statements such as the one's that follow:

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

Well, that says a bunch, eh? They never left the Earth with them. Don't try using the data derived from the five separate dosimeters used on all Apollo lunar flights?

It's almost becoming a moot point at this juncture with you now, I'd think.

And you ask about my credentials?

It doesn't really matter does it? If I told you I was Neil Armstrong, that wouldn't make a difference to you. You think he was part of the fake! It's really a rather lunatic point.

You mention that Jay over at Clavius said there was a detectable solar flare recorded during Apollo 16. I'd be willing to bet that Jay is correct. The solar flare issue was thorougly explained to you, however, and you didn't bother to read the part about the directionality of solar flares, and that detectable does not mean major. The flare recorded during Apollo 16 was not major...

And I guarantee you, back in April 1972 that people like myself, and Charlie Duke, John Young, Ken Mattingly, all the guys in the MOCR, and certainly most all of the guys in the back rooms, had no idea about that flare, and could've cared less. If it was major, action would've been taken in advance of it (I told you these events were forecastable as to intensity and timing), and an abort could've been ordered if it posed any safety hazard. I told you that the crews had protection in the CM for a couple days against a major solar flare event, providing them a cusion... you missed that, and its implications if a major event was forecast during an Apollo mission.

I also told you it was a risk, but an acceptable risk (that's not just a nebulous declaration. It is a scientifically calculated probability), since the odds were against it (and of course, the odds were in our favor, and the fact that there was no major flare activity recorded during Apollo tends to prove those odds. You wish to make a major issue about a word or two of my usage. That is a tell tale sign of someone who does not want to do any substantive research into the matter.

I explained to you, in as simple terms as I could, all about the solar radiation protection designed into the Apollo lunar garments, and what do you do with that? Do you check into it? No. You come back with:

NOMINAL SOLAR RADIATION?

...and a dissertation about the Apollo 16 solar flare, and all the other flares that occurred during the time period. The August 1972 flare was an M class flare. No one was flying then, and it was forecast. I explained that. There were plenty of other ones. They happened frequently. None of them was "major" save that one, and none of them had any effects on Apollo as the records clearly show.

Yes, nominal. In the language of engineeering, "nominal" means normal (it means, "minimal" in regular colloquial usage). There was nothing abnormal anout the solar radiation experienced on any Apollo mission. You can easily find this out for yourself.

Radiation, solar and van Allen, has been discussed ad-nauseam in these threads. It was never an operational problem in Apollo. The record is absolutely clear on this.

___________________________________________________________________________

QUOTE(MID @ Jun 19 2006, 04:58 PM)

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 think that was a character assasination, you are twisted. That's not character assasination, it's a simple observation, and a rather nice request in the interest of discussion, and hopefully, learning.

If you cannot see that your answer was inflammatory, and completely missed the point, then you may be beyond reach.

This thread, and all the others, are about discussions. They all have the potential to be beneficial.

You believe that "common sense", and of course, your exposure to the crafty productions produced by those with just a little knowledge, and an agenda ($$)... makes you think they have something. Paper Moon, Barty Sibrel, Bill Kaysing? All of that presents the facts out of context, illustrates a profound lack of basic knowledge in the subject matter, and is deliberately designed to paint a picture that neglects the truth in favor of a wacky conspiracy.

Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge is the product of experience. I asked for a question, not a tirade of already thoroughly debunked ideas.

I don't want you to sit here and argue twenty points that have been thoroughly debunked already. I am looking for a question.

You're admittedly willing to learn. But if you're thinking that "Paper Moon" is providing you with factual learning, you're mistaken. It's providing you with exactly what it wants to...a position based upon lack of knowledge and a desire to sell a book or a "documentary" film to a generation or so of people who may be gullible enough to believe them, because they weren't around when Apollo happened. I was, and I know better.

That's not an ego-enhancement. It's simply a fact.

Knowledge, and science, is about the pursuit of knowledge through experience. I have mentioned Johannes Kepler before, a man who spent years attempting to prove his dearest beliefs about the cosmos, and who had the courage to abandon them in the face of the facts, when he finally discovered them. His laws of motion were the result of his relentless pursuit of the truth. His grandest illusions were shattered, but he accepted the truth.

(...and we all thank him for his courage, since his laws of motion, and an understanding of them, allowed us to do Apollo...)

Now, this "discussion"(if we have one...and that's up to you) certainly doesn't rise to the level of Kepler's struggle, since Apollo is the most thourougly documented scientific and technical accomplishment in human history, but the principal is the same.

Relax, stop flaming away about your cherished beliefs, and ask a question.

And, I repeat: one at a time please. The answer may be lengthy, will probably be referenced to the scientific documentation, and will require effort on your part.

No one expects you to believe anyone (I don't know why, since you believe upstarts and people with virtually no knowledge of the subject matter, and wish to present that as "evidence" and "research", and make blanket statements of falsehoods as if they were facts). If you've read other posts I've made, I expect you to investigate for yourself what is said, and learn about it on your own.

But if you decide not to accept the invitation, and decide to flame in bold type and make all sorts of accusations that have no merit, you will likely be ignored here.

[MID]

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!

Read Armstrong's biography, "First Man", published recently.

All you have to do is search on the Web and you'll find plenty of interviews with Neil. He discussed his experiences on the Moon in detail with Dora Jane Hamblin and Gene Farmer in 1970's, "First on The Moon".

I dare you?

No...I dare you to read a liitle.

And I see your scientific knowledge is profound, claiming that the earth in the photos is 4 times smaller than it should be. (what???)

I would shoot tons of pictures of her too, as did all of the Apollo crews. That is indeed "COMMON SENSE".

For instance, Apollo 11 took 214 photographs during the mission which featured the Earth.

2 1 4. That's alot. Especially given the fact that their photographic priority was the lunar surface. They took 339 exposures on the moon. Their percentage of shots of mother Earth might make one think they were smitten with that little blue globe.

Duh...Why didn't they take MORE? How many did you expect them to take?

C'mon. You had no idea that they took that many photos of the Earth. And that was just one of the six lunar landing flights.

[MID]

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

You are doing a very good job of doing just that...

[boggle]

I believe you have proved yourself here.

yes actually i believe he's proved numerous points

I had a feeling you'd bite, and paint a picture of yourself that is rather clear. You succeeded.

he didnt paint a picture he acurrately describes what you do which is the basic tactic of phil plait.

I will address a few of your points, however. I am hoping you will recover from your emotional tirade and get with the program, as-it-were.

get with agreeing with your program?

Clavius is a site painstakingly researched and written by a space scientist who happens to know alot about the subject matter. It is accurrate, and explains things rather clearly. Lots of people refer to it as a source for Apollo information, because it is so well written and concise. You may be sick of it, but that's because you wish to hold on to your dearest illusions in the face of the facts, which just happen to be the opposite of the truth of the matter.

painstakenly researched? why then does even waspie claim its opinions?

I

did not in any way cheap shot you, nor did I assail your character or persona

sometimes it takes someone actually describing what you do to get to the truth.

That is an emotional and immature reaction on your part.

i could state the same for you

I merely pointed out the facts of the matter, and what I am willing to accept in the form of discussion.

facts of the matter? you state opinions based on what you wont accept to believe and that is how you present your posts.

What you decided to do was ignore that and go off on a bold type tirade.

when did he do that?

That doesn't inspire much in the way of discussion.

the same could said about you

I alse asked you, as I've asked others, to take it one step at a time,

he has stated this and conveyed in the same manner before you, are you now just catching on?

so as to promote discussion and learning. You seem to ignore that, and instead prefer to inflate yourself with statements like:

once again your reversal isnt working here, you are the one who ignores what he posts

To answer, no, I do not.

that pretty much sums it up

That has never been implied. However, if you bother to read what's actually here, you will see that I have just a little background in the subject matter, and do in fact know more about it than you do, despite your "common sense".

if this is what you are trying to convey then you are wasting alot of time beating around the bush while trying to give a resume.

Knowledge, and science, is about the pursuit of knowledge through experience

exactly and what he is showing covers those areas.

I have mentioned Johannes Kepler.

you identify with him then you must know what is actually in store for you then?

Relax, stop flaming away about your cherished beliefs, and ask a question.

here is another reversal, he has asked already for you to ask him a question but you ignore it once again.

since Apollo is the most thourougly documented scientific and technical accomplishment in human history, but the principal is the same

Well if you feel so adamant about it then what is the problem with you then asking him questions like he has already done?

No one expects you to believe anyone (I don't know why, since you believe upstarts and people with virtually no knowledge of the subject matter, and wish to present that as "evidence" and "research

well lets see if your questions can actually reverse his beliefs then shall we?

Edited June 22, 2006 by boggle

[boggle]

regarding the 'shielding' that was once considered useful:

the typical missions was primarily 5 g/cm2 aluminum shielding. (not lead)

In a discussion towards a manned flight towards mars it then becomes a concern regarding radiation since "when different particles hit the shields, they of course produce secondary radiation that will penetrate into the spacecraft, and which must also be taken into account when estimating radiation doses to the astronauts. The shielding material of the spacecraft is also a somewhat open question. Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material in the early 90s, it is now considered a very poor material for these types of missions." (going beyond the Van Allen radiation belts)

wanna see something funny? MIT ion propulsion proposals balked in the year 2000

by the Van Allen radiation belts: Trajectory

Concerns Regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belts

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/finalpresent...onconcerns.html

here is an example of the "fiction" that waspie regards as being:

Adeos-1 - On September 20, 1997, the $474 million Adeos research

satellite launched by Japan a year earlier into an 803-km orbit, began to malfunction. According to a report in Space News, "...Cosmic rays were found to have damaged the main onboard computer, which caused it to shut down all nonessential systems, including the sensors, forcing scientists to reprogram its software"

Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's

global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I,

launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument

malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity

appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully,

and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with

intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented

periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation

of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed

to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief:

'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that

"Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only

about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."

the following source shows the solar minium and solar maximum given from

1870-1995. These characteristics determine the intensity of solar flares.

http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/text/c-sec1.htm

The late Professor Sydney Chapman, President of the IGY Special Committee,

who was one of the world's foremost physicists, wrote in 1959:

"[The Van Allen inner belt] is a hazard to space travelers in this region. Its

dangers are analogous to those suffered by unshielded workers on x-rays

or radium, or to those caused by nuclear fallout from atomic and hydrogen bombs".

Edited June 22, 2006 by boggle

[S3th]

Well, it seems MID will continue to try and bait me with his comments meant to try discredit me as some sort of emotional individual unable to deciminate information in a rational way. Well, I'm done trying to impress upon MID that sarcasm and humor are a part of deflecting potshots such as he continues to use. Please MID, desist with the psychobabble. PLEASE! Just answer the questions. As a show of good faith and a desire to have you enlighten me, I will keep future posts direct and focused on one point at a time. MID, please answer them with some form of proof to the contrary or scientific fact.

Thank you in advance. And a big shout out to boggle for seeing MID's post for what it was.

MID, and anyone who wants to explain this next one for me...

Cliok here and explain please!

In this video of Neil Armstrong stepping onto the 'moon' for the first time. You will see two different camera angles. NASA has already explained about some sort of arm mechanism that swung out to capture this historic moment. One camera. As you will see in the footage you will watch when you click on the above link, there are two cameras at work here. One of which appears to be ground level and some distance away from the LEM. You will see it as it shoots and on a monitor that a man is watching from Houston.

Watch this carefully MID and explain it away please.

I anxiously await your discourse!

S3

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I fail to see a problem here. The angle from above is clearly taken from inside the LEM, I would assume by Buzz Aldrin. The ground level footage is from a remotely operated camera attached to the outside of the LEM.

How does 2 cameras angle prove the moon landing fake? It just proves there was more than one camera.

This clip of film has clearly been edited after the return of Apollo 11 to earth, as is obvious from the inclusion of the still photo of the first footprint so it is obviously not the live footage transmitted at the time. From the quality of the images it is clear that the shots from above are from a film camera whilst the ground level is from a TV camera.

[S3th]

Sorry, but the 'television camera' still appears entirely too far away from the LEM to be attached to it. Not only that, it is so low, it could only have been attached to the legs of the lander. This is impossible as you should well understand. Can you show me some schematics from of the LEM that show's how this 'magical arm' which was suppose to swing away and down from the LEM and get this infamous shot.

Before you try to find the schematics/developmental paperwork, let me tell you what Frank Hughes told James Collier when asked for aforementioned schematics/paperwork explaining how the LEM was able to fly sideways above the surface of the moon with three tiny thrusters keeping a ten thousand pound thrust rocket from tipping the entire contraption over. Frank Hughes told James Collier that all the paperwork was destroyed.

That's right, the people from Grumman Aircraft Engineering told James Collier, all the paperwork about the development of the LEM was destroyed. Incredulous isn't it. Well, I don't know about you, but if I was the creator of a device as wonderful as the LEM was suppose to be, I'd secure that kind of paperwork. Wouldn't you? It should have been on display at a NASA musuem. Hell, any musuem for that matter. Not only that, but the scientific community should be outraged the creator of the LEM wasn't awarded a Nobel Prize for the amazing creation of such a magnificient vehicle. And yet this is not the case. Destroyed. Well, I think rational people can understand why they were destroyed. It never flew on Earth. Would you test the reliability of a craft such as the LEM without the benefit of having had a successful flight on Earth? I think not.

Watch 'Was it only a Paper Moon. I have left the link. It is a very convincing investigation proving the moon landings were a complete hoax! And yet you and MID have yet to inform me of your having watched it. Not one bit of contradictory proof to what Mr. Collier provides in his investigation.

I myself have gone to Wikipedia and found some schematic examples of the LEM. Not one of them show where the 'TV camera' was suppose to be, or the arm that was 'suppose' to extend out to take that historic footage. STRANGE.

Can you, or MID, or anyone find one single schematic which shows not only where the arm/camera was located on/in the LEM, but also how it was extended out by the astronots from inside the LEM in preparation for Armstrongs exit. Perhaps NASA has had enough time to come up with that particular dealio eh?

Okay, so there were arguments for why the LEM's footpads had not one spec of dust on them after blowing up all the dust. Right. Well, it was explained thusly...

Picture taken from this LINK

Well think for a moment; how could the dust be above the lander feet to settle on it? Any blast from the lander's rocket would throw the dust down and to the side,very little would land on the feet. There is no air disturbance for the dust to billow around in. Throw the dust to the side and it will go that way, it won't come back to land on the feet.

Quoted from This site

Now, in their desire to explain away the lack of moon dust/sand from the movie set, they forget this from this LINK

Sorry, but I had to crop the above image as it stretched the page beyond it's original size.

Dirt, and lots of it underneath the LEM. There was much concern that the LEM might fall into the blast crater created by the blast of the 10,000 pound thrust rocket. The lack of a blast crater is explained away as a result of the limited thrust used on descent. Okay, but how about a dent in the dirt underneat the center of the LEM. There is none. Not even a dent. Sheeesh, talk about miracles.

Picture from following LINK

Again, no crater in the picture I found at this LINK

Okay. So I found pictures where there are no blast craters, however minimul they might have been. And of course the picture with the dirt all around and under the LEM, although it was suppose to have been blown away by the thrust of the rocket. You can't have it both ways people. Was it blown away, or did it stay around and have tea with the astronots? And if it stayed, why didn't it land on the perfectly clean landing pads?

In the future you will see NASA's own photographs as evidence to make my points. When you try to DEBUNK them, please remember, I am no one's fool, and either is anyone else at this site. So be thorough in your debunking. I'd prefer a little proof and links as I have supplied here.

EDIT: Thanks to Aroces I will edit references to craters to include before it, blast. BLAST CRATERS!

Edited June 22, 2006 by S3th

[Waspie_Dwarf]

This is impossible as you should well understand.

You demand that everything be substantiated yet counter with unsubstantiated comments like the one above. Double standards my friend.

So I turn it around to you. Provide evidence that a camera could not have been fitted to the leg. Show me schematics that prove your point.

If you are going to apply double standards then it is impossible to have arational debate with you. Already I suspect from your behaviour that this is the case. You claim that Armstrong refuses to be interviewed. I provide you with three examples that show you are wrong. So you claim that he won't talk about the moon landings. I give you an example that proves you are wrong. So you move the goal posts again, "he doesn't use the actual word moon".

No, I doubt that a true debate is possible with you.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf