the fact of the matter is the blackbird blows sderenzis claim out of the water.
Apollo 11 press confrence*** I smell a hoax***!
- Thread starter Ganymede
- Start date
- Status
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
I looksd at your link. It doesn't offer the evidence I'm looking for. You lost.. game over I won't respond until you can provide evidence that shows the radiation levels of the moon. I've tried, and I can't locate it anywhere. But you have? Strange.
and you haven't answered ANY of my questions.
but it does say the moon isn't as deadly as you claim.
If we didn't land on the moon, why were the russians so convinced? Surely the KGB was looking into the matter at least as hard as any critic if not harder to ensure that, yes, we did in fact make it to the moon.
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
i'm sure calling everyone who disagrees with you a 'moron' automatically makes you right.
anyways, do you have to pick the most simplistic site you could find to use as your rebuttal? even the picuture on that site clearly shows that the earth's magnetosphere reaches out past the moon. look up the facts before you call someone a moron, please. it makes you look even more wrong that you already are.
as for the radiation bit. back in the 60's they specifically used tin foil as the outer shell of the lunar lander because of the threat of radiation poisoning. aluminum has the property of reflecting radiation. the only real damaging radiation that might mortally hurt you would be something like a sunflare, which is rare.
the reason they need to test radiation levels on the moon before setting up a more long-term mission there is because it is long term, not a day or two. in the 70's the missions lasted no more than a week or two, not enough time for the little radiation they got to do any harm. people have spent months in space with no radiation poisoning since then.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
In this case you're a moron. Because you responded based on your emotional connection to this subject, you didn't respond with a shred of scientific fact. So your credibility regarding this subject is nill.
The moon has zero atmosphere, can't believe you're the only one of this planet who believes that.
"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm
Aluminum foil can't deflect deadly space radiation. Ever wonder why whenever you took an X-ray you were provided thick lead garment? Not Reynolds wrap!! But nice try.
Because they never left the Earths Magnetosphere. Even under the Magnetospheres protection they're in grave danger.
http://www.local6.com/technology/10523819/detail.html
Last edited:
Ganymede,
This keeps reappearing in pseudoscience, the same points and the same views are put forwards however no matter how much 'evidence' people collect, there is more for NASA's moon mission than against.
You can look to popular media to understand there will always be some sensationalists pushing some story to try and grab the lime light or amass a small wealth from press coverage and 'exclusive' stories. Such events like the Kennedy Assassination, Princess Diana's untimely death and of course 9/11. All have their conspiracy buffs punting bizarre depictions of events and all lacking the full story, mainly because in each case there is a large amount of sensitivity in regards to the victims etc.
Afterall if you walked into the street tomorrow and got hit by a bus, do you want all your lifes history being played out on televisions globally including all those things that you might of done wrong. Those things might place unnecessary stress upon your family, or cause some irrational action (Like in JFK's case the counter assassination of Oswald) which in turn robs a true thorough investigation.
Do you think crime scenes should be open to everyone to walk around and pollute the evidence due to their own investigations fueled by their own conspiracies? If so do you think the eventual evidence collected would generate an accurate portrayal of events or merely sculpture a media merchandisable fantasy?
This keeps reappearing in pseudoscience, the same points and the same views are put forwards however no matter how much 'evidence' people collect, there is more for NASA's moon mission than against.
You can look to popular media to understand there will always be some sensationalists pushing some story to try and grab the lime light or amass a small wealth from press coverage and 'exclusive' stories. Such events like the Kennedy Assassination, Princess Diana's untimely death and of course 9/11. All have their conspiracy buffs punting bizarre depictions of events and all lacking the full story, mainly because in each case there is a large amount of sensitivity in regards to the victims etc.
Afterall if you walked into the street tomorrow and got hit by a bus, do you want all your lifes history being played out on televisions globally including all those things that you might of done wrong. Those things might place unnecessary stress upon your family, or cause some irrational action (Like in JFK's case the counter assassination of Oswald) which in turn robs a true thorough investigation.
Do you think crime scenes should be open to everyone to walk around and pollute the evidence due to their own investigations fueled by their own conspiracies? If so do you think the eventual evidence collected would generate an accurate portrayal of events or merely sculpture a media merchandisable fantasy?
Are you saying NASA didn't line the spacesuits of astronauts with protective stuff to keep radiation out?
utterly and completely false.
and if you want proof look up human space duration records.
the above quote by you proves YOU are the moron.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
And now we get to the crux of the matter concerning why it is you're not currently employed in any capacity which requires you to push important looking buttons - proof, indeed, that people have actually met you, I'll wager...
1) The lunar astronauts were indeed exposed to high levels of radiation.
2) If a solar flare of any significance had occurred during their trip, they would have been killed. This is a risk they all acknowleged.
3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:
a) Weight, obviously.
b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.
4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.
5) Ganymede, are you a physicist? Or an astrodynamisist? An engineer or scientist of any knid?
6) The scientists and engineers who are animated in front of audiences are in the vanishingly small minority. These guys especially, were stoics by nature. They were trained to keep their emotions in check in order that they didn't get themselves killed in combat or an emergengy situation of any kind.
7) Are you, by the way, a human behavioral scientist?
8) Retroreflectors on the moon, left by the apollo missions, are still used today to make precise measurements of lunar motion.
9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.
2) If a solar flare of any significance had occurred during their trip, they would have been killed. This is a risk they all acknowleged.
3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:
a) Weight, obviously.
b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.
4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.
5) Ganymede, are you a physicist? Or an astrodynamisist? An engineer or scientist of any knid?
6) The scientists and engineers who are animated in front of audiences are in the vanishingly small minority. These guys especially, were stoics by nature. They were trained to keep their emotions in check in order that they didn't get themselves killed in combat or an emergengy situation of any kind.
7) Are you, by the way, a human behavioral scientist?
8) Retroreflectors on the moon, left by the apollo missions, are still used today to make precise measurements of lunar motion.
9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
I know Stryder, but that doesn't mean the masses are allways right. At one point in time, the masses thought the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, even today, most Americans thought Iraq was connected to 911 etc.
All of those were conspracies, and I tend to favor the conspiratorial point of view. If you haven't seen this before, take a look at this. This will definately challenge your postion on conspiracies, I'll gaurantee it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137330196032136210&q=capitalist+conspiracy
And with the recent revelations that Princess Dianas Limo Driver was a French intelligence asset, and the NSA was monitoring her on the night of murder is disturbing. You didn't think the Aristocrats would allow the future king of England to have a Muslim stepfather would you? Ofcourse not.
I would have to say no I wouldn't!
You're right, the Moon is a crime scene. And the powers that be are protecting it as such. Now what I find Ironic is how easy it was for me to find out the Radiation levels on Mars, but no where can I get data on the Radiation levels on the moon. Even Nasa themselves say they don't know, but know the radiation levels on Mars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Experiment
Why are you so suprised that of the thousands of possible experiments that didn't go on these missions, a "lunar surface radiation" experiment wasn't amog them? It's state-of-the-art technology even now, to be able to measure the background ionizing radiation in-situ in a hellish environment like the lunar surface. Besides, that's certainly not why they went. Origins was the foremost objective. Besides the political ones, that is...
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Speaking in support of that particular point - cine-cam footage shot by the astronauts themselves during both the out bound and return part of the mission (hours of footage showing them clearly in weightless conditions I hasten to add) clearly showed the effects of solar radiation passing through the command module as tiny flashes of light - a situation which indeed prompted them to radio NASA for confirmation concerning what the nature of the visibly highly present phenomena going on around them actually was.
By the way - has anyone actually mentioned at all that the mission was tracked via radar the entire time spanning a network of tracking stations across America, Europe and Australia perfectly independently of each other - not to mention similar tracking surveillance conducted by both Russia and China - presumably everyone else on the planet must have been in on the hoax as well...
(By the by - why are we actually entertaining yet another one of these shit heads, if I may be so bold as to enquire?)
All excellent points Mr. A.Speaking in support of that particular point - cine-cam footage shot by the astronauts themselves during both the out bound and return part of the mission (hours of footage showing them clearly in weightless conditions I hasten to add) clearly showed the effects of solar radiation passing through the command module as tiny flashes of light - a situation which indeed prompted them to radio NASA for confirmation concerning what the nature of the visibly highly present phenomena going on around them actually was.
By the way - has anyone actually mentioned at all that the mission was tracked via radar the entire time spanning a network of tracking stations across America, Europe and Australia perfectly independently of each other - not to mention similar tracking surveillance conducted by both Russia and China - presumably everyone else on the planet must have been in on the hoax as well...
(By the by - why are we actually entertaining yet another one of these shit heads, if I may be so bold as to enquire?)
As for the shit head, I suppose it's boredom and a feeling of obligation to at least counter the idiocy to some small degree...
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
..... You're terribly kind Mr Superluminal, but I believe you've delivered the best answer of all to date.I remain, as per usual, very much of the obliged....
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Ofcourse they were, the Sun is an infinite source of deadly radiation.
"During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies."
http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm
"...(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum)."
"So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!
Edward P. Ney estimates the radiation risks in an article titled The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year: "We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours". The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.
This level of radiation dose is confirmed by Space Biomedical Research Institute in Humans in Space:
"SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.
Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal"
http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:
a) Weight, obviously.
b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.
Can you please link the source of this information. I'm definately interested in learning more about it.
4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.
No we didn't, the NEVA program wasn't propsed until 1954, and was still in the concept phase as of 1957. So "several variations" were not conducted.
Negative.
I repsectfully disagree, your opinion is subjective.
Are you a clarivoyant?
You don't need a manned mission to the moon to place reflectors on the lunar surface. Did the mars rover require a manned mission.. nope
9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.[/QUOTE]
More conjecture, please explain why there was no visible blast crater left by the lunar module? An Astronaut can leave a foot print, but a rocket engine with 10,000 pounds of thrust can't? Righto
- Status