Just because someone responds a certain way, doesn't mean you have to mirror their behavior in order to "teach them a lesson". Obviously by doing that, you not only destroy a potential interesting debate, but you instigate an arguement (which you consciously did, and seem to enjoy). Just because I start out my statements passionately, doesn't mean I should be harrassed and humiliated which you did. I am only left to believe that you enjoy diliberate confrontation, which leaves me no choice but to halt the discussion from my end as you are not being fair or civil.
I'm not saying I'm a believer in conspiracies. All I'm saying is there is questionable information that no one has been able to convince me of otherwise. But much like you so elequantly like to point out, it is not nice or fair for that person to be humiliated or picked on, simply because of their own personal views. Which obviously you like to do, simply because I don't believe in the idea that you believe that man has walked on the moon, AND because I "pushed your buttons" with my comments.
So, with that, would you please do ME a favor and not comment on my points, as I (even though I may be sometimes passionate about my statements) am NOT deliberately looking to start an argument with anyone, as you seem to like to do. I am honestly looking for someone to answer my questions. However, it seems that people in this forum like to label other people as conspiracy theorists simply because they don't believe what you guys tend to believe. Which I believe is unfair.
Thank you.
45thronin
Full Version: Did We Really Land On The Moon?
HM, probably best to cite the article in Wikipedia.
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.
While history has shown that crimes carried out by a group of people (a "conspiracy") are not uncommon, the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naïve methodological flaws.[1]
The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors. Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial. Richard Hofstadter said that his use of the terminology is “pejorative”.[2]
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.
While history has shown that crimes carried out by a group of people (a "conspiracy") are not uncommon, the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naïve methodological flaws.[1]
The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors. Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial. Richard Hofstadter said that his use of the terminology is “pejorative”.[2]
HM, Here is a guide that I came across today.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
45thronin. I thoroughly read your last post, and agree that we should just try to put it behind us. You seem to be very different than your tone had indicated in your first post. I've said my peace, and completely drove it into the ground with annoying repetition. So, starting now, i will try to remain civil, as long as another one of your posts doesn't contain many of the mocking statements of believers you mentioned in post 76. I'm not saying it's your fault i acted how i did, but i certainly wasn't about to stand around and just read. I hope we have reached an understanding, and i shall try to be less jerkified from now on, lol. I shall STILL point out any glaring contradictions of hypocritical statements relating to the CT side of the issue if it will contribute to the support of the landing. I will try to keep them impersonal, also. HOWEVER, i will keep a single quote from one of your later posts in the end of my contributions....
To buddy, i'm not quite sure what direction our discussion is heading in. I agree that there are conspiracy theorists in the world, those that are destined to criticize anything and everything they hear about, but to assume that anyone who simply DOUBTS an event happened can be classified as a CT isn't logical. Also, many people who doubt a popular CT may profess doubt for a reason not in-line with the common CT'ists (that was sort of confusing...). In other words, in order to avoid improper classification, it should be noted that common CT'ists should meet the MAJORITY of the points listed in that guide. For instance, i'm an atheist, but i do not consider myself someone who supports a conspiracy theory in relation to the existance of a deity or deities. So, should i be classified as such?
Again, i'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or simply giving me information regarding common CT'ists. I'm just trying to say that i half agree with the Wiki entry, but there are still technicalities and specific examples that keep me from completely nodding.
-----------------------------
To buddy, i'm not quite sure what direction our discussion is heading in. I agree that there are conspiracy theorists in the world, those that are destined to criticize anything and everything they hear about, but to assume that anyone who simply DOUBTS an event happened can be classified as a CT isn't logical. Also, many people who doubt a popular CT may profess doubt for a reason not in-line with the common CT'ists (that was sort of confusing...). In other words, in order to avoid improper classification, it should be noted that common CT'ists should meet the MAJORITY of the points listed in that guide. For instance, i'm an atheist, but i do not consider myself someone who supports a conspiracy theory in relation to the existance of a deity or deities. So, should i be classified as such?
Again, i'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or simply giving me information regarding common CT'ists. I'm just trying to say that i half agree with the Wiki entry, but there are still technicalities and specific examples that keep me from completely nodding.
-----------------------------
QUOTE(45hronin)
Convince me the astronauts could have survived out of our atmosphere, got through the Van Allen Radiation Belt without not only experiencing severe radiation to themselves but to their equipment, and I'll agree it happened without hesitation.
Monkey,
Thank you so much for your words of understanding, very much appreciated. Although I must say I'm slightly hesitant to continue discussing this issue regarding the Moonwalk, as I am not a scientist (and apologize if I came off as someone who has that background, which I don't), and I have no experience in the field of Space Exploration. So from now on, I'll just make sure I pose my questions and observations in that vain, instead of as someone who has such a scientific background. Although your kind words and willingness to make the effort to move forward, is noted and respected.
Which brings me to buddy. I guess I'm fascinated with your point regarding people that simply have questions or doubts about something, automatically classifies them as CT's. It makes me wonder what happened to the generations before us, that literally changed the world, simply because they chose to question information they were given, or fed. It worries me when we as thinking, intellectualizing human beings DON'T excersize that basic curiousity. THAT worries me and makes me wonder.
Again, do I feel everything is a conspiracy? No. But I am a realist and do go by the information I'm given. If I look at a picture (like the rover on the moon), and notice no tire tracks in the front or back of the vehicle (or any place else for that matter in the shot), I'm sorry but I have to ask, why? That doesn't make me a communist, it doesn't make me a paranoid person, and it doesn't make me wrong. It simple poses the question, of why. Because it only stands to reason for me, that if a human being can make an impression in the dirt, then a several hundred pound vehicle shouldn't have any problem making impressions in the sand as well.
This is how my reasoning works. It's not strange, or weird, or out of the norm. It just is what it is, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's how I was brought up. You make up your own mind with the facts you are given. If you have doubt, ask a question. Don't feel as though you have to go along with the group, just because many others agree. For some odd reason, we've forgotten that quality. A quality that our ancestors, our past leaders, and inventors, and people that have literally changed our world and perspective as a human culture, used as a staple to guide our nation and our people in new directions. Directions that have bettered our culture and our people. Thank the heavens they simply didn't just go along with the way people saw things and viewed things. They questioned it. Martin Luther King questioned it, Einstein questioned it, Vincent van Gogh questioned it as any artist's perspective does. And it is with that perception, that our culture as a human race is formed.
If we don't excercise that right to question, analyze, and see things with our OWN eyes and hearts and minds, ... what good are we? What good are we to ourselves, our children, our friends and families, our State, our Government, our people? Many bad things can happen when we don't question the things we are told and shown. Many bad things can happen when we start to critize others that don't go along with what WE think is right or wrong.
Take Monkey, just because he doesn't believe in God, who are we to judge him? Who are we to say he is wrong? I happen to be convinced there is a higher power. But I know this because of events that have happened in my life have convinced me of such a force. If I didn't have any examples to support my faith, maybe I might think differently. But so what if I did? What does that make me? A bad person? Someone who is secular in my thinking and judgement? Does it mean I should be cast out with the vermin of society just because I don't believe in Christ? Budha? Ala? Abdul' baha'? I mean, where does it end? Are we THAT purist that we can't except different perspectives? Who made us, you, me, judge and jury of free speech and thought and perception?
So, again my passions consume me and I begin to rant. Pardon me. To clarify, I simply am supporting the right of all people, to question, observe, and create dialoge, with information that just doesn't make sense. If they come off as a support of the CT's of the world, then so be it. I simply look at them as questions. Much like I'd question why we drive on the right side of the road, and England the left.
Thanks again Monkey.
45thronin
Thank you so much for your words of understanding, very much appreciated. Although I must say I'm slightly hesitant to continue discussing this issue regarding the Moonwalk, as I am not a scientist (and apologize if I came off as someone who has that background, which I don't), and I have no experience in the field of Space Exploration. So from now on, I'll just make sure I pose my questions and observations in that vain, instead of as someone who has such a scientific background. Although your kind words and willingness to make the effort to move forward, is noted and respected.
Which brings me to buddy. I guess I'm fascinated with your point regarding people that simply have questions or doubts about something, automatically classifies them as CT's. It makes me wonder what happened to the generations before us, that literally changed the world, simply because they chose to question information they were given, or fed. It worries me when we as thinking, intellectualizing human beings DON'T excersize that basic curiousity. THAT worries me and makes me wonder.
Again, do I feel everything is a conspiracy? No. But I am a realist and do go by the information I'm given. If I look at a picture (like the rover on the moon), and notice no tire tracks in the front or back of the vehicle (or any place else for that matter in the shot), I'm sorry but I have to ask, why? That doesn't make me a communist, it doesn't make me a paranoid person, and it doesn't make me wrong. It simple poses the question, of why. Because it only stands to reason for me, that if a human being can make an impression in the dirt, then a several hundred pound vehicle shouldn't have any problem making impressions in the sand as well.
This is how my reasoning works. It's not strange, or weird, or out of the norm. It just is what it is, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's how I was brought up. You make up your own mind with the facts you are given. If you have doubt, ask a question. Don't feel as though you have to go along with the group, just because many others agree. For some odd reason, we've forgotten that quality. A quality that our ancestors, our past leaders, and inventors, and people that have literally changed our world and perspective as a human culture, used as a staple to guide our nation and our people in new directions. Directions that have bettered our culture and our people. Thank the heavens they simply didn't just go along with the way people saw things and viewed things. They questioned it. Martin Luther King questioned it, Einstein questioned it, Vincent van Gogh questioned it as any artist's perspective does. And it is with that perception, that our culture as a human race is formed.
If we don't excercise that right to question, analyze, and see things with our OWN eyes and hearts and minds, ... what good are we? What good are we to ourselves, our children, our friends and families, our State, our Government, our people? Many bad things can happen when we don't question the things we are told and shown. Many bad things can happen when we start to critize others that don't go along with what WE think is right or wrong.
Take Monkey, just because he doesn't believe in God, who are we to judge him? Who are we to say he is wrong? I happen to be convinced there is a higher power. But I know this because of events that have happened in my life have convinced me of such a force. If I didn't have any examples to support my faith, maybe I might think differently. But so what if I did? What does that make me? A bad person? Someone who is secular in my thinking and judgement? Does it mean I should be cast out with the vermin of society just because I don't believe in Christ? Budha? Ala? Abdul' baha'? I mean, where does it end? Are we THAT purist that we can't except different perspectives? Who made us, you, me, judge and jury of free speech and thought and perception?
So, again my passions consume me and I begin to rant. Pardon me. To clarify, I simply am supporting the right of all people, to question, observe, and create dialoge, with information that just doesn't make sense. If they come off as a support of the CT's of the world, then so be it. I simply look at them as questions. Much like I'd question why we drive on the right side of the road, and England the left.
Thanks again Monkey.
45thronin
I really love this Topic. 
I didn't know that "the man who knows everything" lives in Bahamas with the name of 45thronim. If you read all my posts since the #23, you would see that my research about this topic it's a long one.
Excuse my question 45thronin, what government? The government of your Prime minister Mr. Perry Christie? I think you were an intelligent person!!!
One thing I agree with you:
WE ... DID ... NOT ... GO ... TO ... MOON! But that's all.
I beg your pardon for my bad english, but I am Portuguese.
Respectfully,
Darthy
QUOTE
45thronin Jul 31 2006, 04:06 AM
I wrote this simply because I just couldn't sit here and continue to read how people were explaining away these pictures as if this actually happened. If you really want to look into this, don't look at these pictures just yet. First REALLY investigate our atmosphere, Outer Space, the sun, meteors, gravitational pull, and a host of other scientific actual FACTS. Do some research. Don't be like the typical observer, who simply looks at a drawing and says it's so. Don't do that. Do your research, and THEN look at the pictures. Do THAT! Actually take the time to do that, and you'll see the hoax. It'll be so obvious, you'll just start to laugh at how obvious it really is.
I wrote this simply because I just couldn't sit here and continue to read how people were explaining away these pictures as if this actually happened. If you really want to look into this, don't look at these pictures just yet. First REALLY investigate our atmosphere, Outer Space, the sun, meteors, gravitational pull, and a host of other scientific actual FACTS. Do some research. Don't be like the typical observer, who simply looks at a drawing and says it's so. Don't do that. Do your research, and THEN look at the pictures. Do THAT! Actually take the time to do that, and you'll see the hoax. It'll be so obvious, you'll just start to laugh at how obvious it really is.
I didn't know that "the man who knows everything" lives in Bahamas with the name of 45thronim. If you read all my posts since the #23, you would see that my research about this topic it's a long one.
QUOTE
And no, I am not simply being paranoid. No, I don't believe everything is a conspiracy. No, our government isn't plotting against us. Actually, I believe in just the opposite. I believe that our government actually is on our side, and is doing what it can to protect our freedoms and protect our way of life. And I love this country! But I also believe, in the gullibility of mankind. Again, everything is perspective. How you look at something is what magician's make there living at. Size doesn't matter necessarily in the trick. A trick, is a trick, is a trick.
Excuse my question 45thronin, what government? The government of your Prime minister Mr. Perry Christie? I think you were an intelligent person!!!
One thing I agree with you:
WE ... DID ... NOT ... GO ... TO ... MOON! But that's all.
I beg your pardon for my bad english, but I am Portuguese.
Respectfully,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ May 16 2006, 01:27 PM) 
QUOTE
The Earth's Van Allen Belts consists of highly energetic ionized paticles trapped in the Earth's geomagnetic fields. On the sunward side of the Earth, the geomagnetic fields are compressed by the Solar Wind while on the opposite side of the Earth, the geomagnetic fields extend to three Earth Radii. As a result, the geomagnetic field form an elongated cavity, known as the Chapman-Ferraro Cavity, around the Earth. Within this cavity, reside the Van Allen Radiation Belts. These radiation belts are composed of electrons with thousand eV energies, and protons with million eV energies.
QUOTE(Darthy @ May 16 2006, 01:27 PM)
http://lasp.colorado.edu/strv/vanallen_strv.html
How can the astronauts survive twice to a radiotion of this magnitude?
Once when they gone to the Moon and twice at their return to Earth!!!
Regards,
Darthy
How can the astronauts survive twice to a radiotion of this magnitude?
Once when they gone to the Moon and twice at their return to Earth!!!
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE
James A. Van Allen Dies; Detected Radiation Belts
Excerpt:
Also in 1958, the year that Sputnik undermined the American ego, Dr. Van Allen was chairman of a group of the country’s leading space scientists who recommended a manned landing on the Moon by 1968. The group included von Braun, technical director of the Army’s Ballistic Missile Agency, and directors of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Excerpt:
Also in 1958, the year that Sputnik undermined the American ego, Dr. Van Allen was chairman of a group of the country’s leading space scientists who recommended a manned landing on the Moon by 1968. The group included von Braun, technical director of the Army’s Ballistic Missile Agency, and directors of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
"I'm one of the most durable and fervent advocates of space exploration, but my take is that we could do it robotically at far less cost and far greater quantity and quality of results." ~ James Van Allen
Did we land on the moon?
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20l...0the%20Moon.htm
ENVIRONMENT
radiation and the van allen belts
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." ~ Dr. James Van Allen
QUOTE
"I'm one of the most durable advocates for space exploration around," says James Van Allen, one of the deans of US space science and a professor emeritus at the University of Iowa. But beyond Apollo's moon landings and missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope, he adds, human spaceflight hasn't contributed as much to humanity's understanding of the cosmos as increasingly sophisticated unmanned probes.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0707/p14s02-stss.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0707/p14s02-stss.html
How is it possible for manned space flights to survive the effects of the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astr...rs/970630a.html
Thanks for the links Scarlett, very cool!
Sorry Darthy, I keep forgetting how global these forums are. I meant the United States Government. That's o.k. if you feel I'm not intelligent.
Thanks for the comments.
Cheers.
45thronin
www.e-nest.com
Sorry Darthy, I keep forgetting how global these forums are. I meant the United States Government. That's o.k. if you feel I'm not intelligent.
Thanks for the comments.Cheers.
45thronin
www.e-nest.com
Interesting links Scarlett, but not conclusive. Sometimes they are contradictory in their explanations.
Thanks for your clarification 45thronin. Now, I don't understand what you want to say with the words "our government".
Respectfully,
Darthy
Thanks for your clarification 45thronin. Now, I don't understand what you want to say with the words "our government".
Respectfully,
Darthy
The vehicle that landed on the moon landed on a balloon kind of thing and it bounced when it landed. That would explain the lack of tire tracks. Balloon type things don't leave tire tracks.
Source: My daddy who lived at that time. He's 84 soon to be 85 .
Orange Blossom
Source: My daddy who lived at that time. He's 84 soon to be 85
.Orange Blossom
QUOTE
The vehicle that landed on the moon landed on a balloon kind of thing and it bounced when it landed. That would explain the lack of tire tracks. Balloon type things don't leave tire tracks.
Which vehicle Orange Blossom?
Regards,
Darthy
Here's a thought: Supposedly, what was the reason for the "space race" in the 50's and 60's? Wasn't the US competing with the Soviet Union, each vying for technological and scientific superiority?
My point is this: remember Apollo 13? In trying to show the world it's technical prowess, why would the US fake a failed mission to the moon?
My point is this: remember Apollo 13? In trying to show the world it's technical prowess, why would the US fake a failed mission to the moon?
QUOTE
My point is this: remember Apollo 13? In trying to show the world it's technical prowess, why would the US fake a failed mission to the moon?
May be by the time of the Apollo 13 mission in April 1970, public interest in space travel was beginning to diminish.
Respectfully,
Darthy
QUOTE(yano @ May 25 2006, 09:59 PM)
QUOTE
simple solution. Get or go to a telescope that is powerful enough to see the lower half of the lunar modual that was left behind. The location is known. That should be proof enough.
QUOTE
They already exist. check at an observatory near you. the someitmes will do moon watches.
QUOTE
A telescope so powerful like you said still not exists. Not on Earth neither in space.
Wow, has anyone ever heard of the Hubble Space Telescope?
The Hubble Space Telescope can see light years into space! However, sinec it is too powerful it can't zoom in on the moon. (It would be like using a pair of binoculars to read a newspaper 3 inches in front of you)
In addition, nothing on Earth has the strenth to zoom in on the moon close enough to actually see the flag, let alone footprints.
Just for the record, I doubt an Earth-based telescope of any size would be able to have the resolution to detect something as small as the left-overs of the landers. Size isn't the issue; interference from the atmosphere is. The Hubble Telescope is not particularly large...it's primary mirror is only 2.4 meters. There are many Earth-based scopes that are much larger. The Keck observatory in Hawaii, for example, is 10 meters. Even adaptive optics can't compete with the vacuum of space.
Anyway, short of moon-orbiting probes, I'd guess that the Hubble would be the best option for detecting the remains of the moon landers. But, the chances of ever using it for such a goal are slim to none. After all, even if the handful of anti-Apollo believers could actually scrape up the money to use the telescope, I don't believe that they would receive approval to use precious telescope time for anything short of valid scientific exploration.
Edit: Darthy, I just realized the utter irony of my latest sig...
Something that's even MORE interesting:
Hedgehogs can, in fact, have meaningful relationships with humans, AND dump them in a colorful field of grass and flower pedals. If you don't believe it, look at the picture
Darthy, your video could be made by almost anyone at any time. The only thing you've really "proven" or even supported was that there are at LEAST a "handful" (as locally pwned stated) of apollo ct's.
Don't you think it's quite odd that a multi-billion dollar organization, that has EVERYTHING to lose, would really let a video like that go to the public? Even if nasa DID fake everything, why would they be idiotic enough to NOT destroy or bury something like that?
Hedgehogs can, in fact, have meaningful relationships with humans, AND dump them in a colorful field of grass and flower pedals. If you don't believe it, look at the picture
Darthy, your video could be made by almost anyone at any time. The only thing you've really "proven" or even supported was that there are at LEAST a "handful" (as locally pwned stated) of apollo ct's.
Don't you think it's quite odd that a multi-billion dollar organization, that has EVERYTHING to lose, would really let a video like that go to the public? Even if nasa DID fake everything, why would they be idiotic enough to NOT destroy or bury something like that?
One more comment. There were 12 men to the moon in all the trips. That's a lot of people to keep quiet, the crews all other fake film makers and actors without this fame. But more so Why? Why bother.
but some info on your Video there Darthy. Listen at the end as reclimbs the ladder.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20040622140927/...th.com/full.htm
Personnally I think the Mr Gorsky -Mr. Hubble part is the funniest
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.htm
but some info on your Video there Darthy. Listen at the end as reclimbs the ladder.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20040622140927/...th.com/full.htm
Personnally I think the Mr Gorsky -Mr. Hubble part is the funniest
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.htm
QUOTE
Edit: Darthy, I just realized the utter irony of my latest sig... 
My english is not enough to understant what you mean with this. Can you explain to me, please?
QUOTE
Darthy, your video could be made by almost anyone at any time. The only thing you've really "proven" or even supported was that there are at LEAST a "handful" (as locally pwned stated) of apollo ct's.
The same thing to you HM. I don't understand what is a ct.
The english is only my 2nd language, and to answer your posts I need to know what is the meaning of those 2 phrases.
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ Oct 14 2006, 02:22 PM)
QUOTE
Edit: Darthy, I just realized the utter irony of my latest sig...
My english is not enough to understant what you mean with this. Can you explain to me, please?
Darthy
Oh, it had suddenly occurred me that my signature, the moonscape below, would also be a fake if you are correct on this issue!
As Homer Simpson would say, "DOH!"By the way, I'd say your english is pretty good! It's certainly better than my second language...which uh, doesn't exist...
EDIT: I am not sure what HM meant by 'ct' either. But it was apparently something I was talking about! Apparently I don't speak "Heretical Monkey" either...
Sorry, but the link "Video" on my post #135 doesn't work anymore and I don't how to fix it.
By "ct" I meant "conspiracy theorist". Sorry if i wasn't clear. I think some people used that abbreviation a while back, and i was just trying to save some typing time
"Ct's..." ...and here I thought you had just been playing too much Counter-Strike...
Wow. what a topic. I cant beleive all of you that beleive we actually landed on the moon. I have proof We didn,t. it was filmed in the Arizona desert, Cant remember who filmed it OR where My proof is. Ok I,m just making light of the posts. But I do find ALL points very interesting & I want to thank those that posted the links to all of the very interesting links, That In MY Opinion, perty much explain any doudts about whether we went or not. And should have also to anyone else that had any doubts before. It has been a very interesting & somewhat heated debate, But really I do beleive all answers have been covered thanks to the links provided by Scarlett, & HM , I just wanted to say thanks for the effort to clear things up For Me anyway. & also Thanks again for such a great site. Cowboy
Well your welcome cowboy357. And thanks for joining our community.
And thanks for joining our community.
I'm only posting this one post. So, call me what you will, I won't be reading.
( I found this while looking for 'Hasselblad' images )
3 quotes previously made (by various members);
1...."""""Credibility - 1. There are millions, maybe BILLIONS of stars out there bigger than our sun. Nice try though."""""
-----I believe our 'Sun' is closer and their for brighter.-------
2....."""""I refuse to believe any different."""""""
-----That's sounds like proof couldn't change your mind!?!-----
3....."""""We did not go to the moon, I know this""""""
-------I don't think you really "know" that. I think that is your belief------
But really, all I wanted to say is that, people trust their Government/Media too much. I believe '45' already said that but it worth saying again.
I don't have clue if humans have ever walked or landed on the moon. But, I do know that they lie a lot. So please, think before you agree ( with anyone).
Have an awesome day, Keith
( I found this while looking for 'Hasselblad' images )
3 quotes previously made (by various members);
1...."""""Credibility - 1. There are millions, maybe BILLIONS of stars out there bigger than our sun. Nice try though."""""
-----I believe our 'Sun' is closer and their for brighter.-------
2....."""""I refuse to believe any different."""""""
-----That's sounds like proof couldn't change your mind!?!-----
3....."""""We did not go to the moon, I know this""""""
-------I don't think you really "know" that. I think that is your belief------
But really, all I wanted to say is that, people trust their Government/Media too much. I believe '45' already said that but it worth saying again.
I don't have clue if humans have ever walked or landed on the moon. But, I do know that they lie a lot. So please, think before you agree ( with anyone).
Have an awesome day, Keith
Here we are again LP.
Let's talk about the Moon landing hoax right here.
Regards,
Darthy
Let's talk about the Moon landing hoax right here.
Regards,
Darthy
I have a suggestion: should we narrow the subject a bit? Instead of trying to prove or disprove the landings happened as history has recorded, let's first focus on whether they could have happened with the technology at the time.
For example: one of the links you supplied suggested that the design of the space suits used by the Apollo astronauts would not have functioned correctly. Seals freezing, ect. But this is a quantifiable point; it's testable, albeit an expensive test.
I will start, with a specific point: What do you think of the assertion that the Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the most dense regions of the Van Allen belts? Is this a possible solution, or not?
I was reading about the diagrams often used to describe the flight paths of the Apollo vessels. The article I read mentioned that many of these diagrams were simplified for the general public, and don't show the full x, y, z plane...and therefore do not accurately depict the flight path. If an 'anti-lunar-landing' individual looked at one of these diagrams and compared it to a map of the Van Allen belts, he/she might falsely conclude that the Apollo vessels went right through the belt and the astronauts should have been cooked 'medium well.'
For example: one of the links you supplied suggested that the design of the space suits used by the Apollo astronauts would not have functioned correctly. Seals freezing, ect. But this is a quantifiable point; it's testable, albeit an expensive test.
I will start, with a specific point: What do you think of the assertion that the Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the most dense regions of the Van Allen belts? Is this a possible solution, or not?
I was reading about the diagrams often used to describe the flight paths of the Apollo vessels. The article I read mentioned that many of these diagrams were simplified for the general public, and don't show the full x, y, z plane...and therefore do not accurately depict the flight path. If an 'anti-lunar-landing' individual looked at one of these diagrams and compared it to a map of the Van Allen belts, he/she might falsely conclude that the Apollo vessels went right through the belt and the astronauts should have been cooked 'medium well.'
Locally pwned,
Your posts are always intelligent and considered. Once again you show some lateral thinking.
When considering whether something might have been possible, let's not forget to consider the technology available at the time, particularly when considering if it was possible that we steered a course through or around the Van Allen belt.
I happen to share some of Darthy's doubts about whether we actually landed men on the moon. I think probably we did but there is a small chance that it is a big hoax; a hoax that seems to be nearing its "use by" date. Soon there will be ways to confirm the moon landings.
Someone mentioned previously that even if the lunar landers were on the surface, it does not prove that men cam with them. But because the moon has no atmosphere, the footprints will be preserved.
Personally, I can hardly wait to find out if we did or we didn't. If it turns out we didn't, what a boost to conspiracy theorists such as myself. All of a sudden, the rest of you will look pretty silly:)
Oh the joy! Oh the self righteousness!. Oh the vindication of that moment! How sweet it will be:)...lol
Your posts are always intelligent and considered. Once again you show some lateral thinking.
When considering whether something might have been possible, let's not forget to consider the technology available at the time, particularly when considering if it was possible that we steered a course through or around the Van Allen belt.
I happen to share some of Darthy's doubts about whether we actually landed men on the moon. I think probably we did but there is a small chance that it is a big hoax; a hoax that seems to be nearing its "use by" date. Soon there will be ways to confirm the moon landings.
Someone mentioned previously that even if the lunar landers were on the surface, it does not prove that men cam with them. But because the moon has no atmosphere, the footprints will be preserved.
Personally, I can hardly wait to find out if we did or we didn't. If it turns out we didn't, what a boost to conspiracy theorists such as myself. All of a sudden, the rest of you will look pretty silly:)
Oh the joy! Oh the self righteousness!. Oh the vindication of that moment! How sweet it will be:)...lol
QUOTE(locally pwned @ Feb 14 2007, 12:17 PM)
I have a suggestion: should we narrow the subject a bit? Instead of trying to prove or disprove the landings happened as history has recorded, let's first focus on whether they could have happened with the technology at the time.
For example: one of the links you supplied suggested that the design of the space suits used by the Apollo astronauts would not have functioned correctly. Seals freezing, ect. But this is a quantifiable point; it's testable, albeit an expensive test.
I will start, with a specific point: What do you think of the assertion that the Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the most dense regions of the Van Allen belts? Is this a possible solution, or not?
I was reading about the diagrams often used to describe the flight paths of the Apollo vessels. The article I read mentioned that many of these diagrams were simplified for the general public, and don't show the full x, y, z plane...and therefore do not accurately depict the flight path. If an 'anti-lunar-landing' individual looked at one of these diagrams and compared it to a map of the Van Allen belts, he/she might falsely conclude that the Apollo vessels went right through the belt and the astronauts should have been cooked 'medium well.'
For example: one of the links you supplied suggested that the design of the space suits used by the Apollo astronauts would not have functioned correctly. Seals freezing, ect. But this is a quantifiable point; it's testable, albeit an expensive test.
I will start, with a specific point: What do you think of the assertion that the Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the most dense regions of the Van Allen belts? Is this a possible solution, or not?
I was reading about the diagrams often used to describe the flight paths of the Apollo vessels. The article I read mentioned that many of these diagrams were simplified for the general public, and don't show the full x, y, z plane...and therefore do not accurately depict the flight path. If an 'anti-lunar-landing' individual looked at one of these diagrams and compared it to a map of the Van Allen belts, he/she might falsely conclude that the Apollo vessels went right through the belt and the astronauts should have been cooked 'medium well.'
That's okay LP.
QUOTE(Constantine @ Feb 14 2007, 09:51 PM)
Locally pwned,
Your posts are always intelligent and considered. Once again you show some lateral thinking.
When considering whether something might have been possible, let's not forget to consider the technology available at the time, particularly when considering if it was possible that we steered a course through or around the Van Allen belt...
Your posts are always intelligent and considered. Once again you show some lateral thinking.
When considering whether something might have been possible, let's not forget to consider the technology available at the time, particularly when considering if it was possible that we steered a course through or around the Van Allen belt...
I think Constantine is right when he says "Your posts are always intelligent and considered".
That is why I’m going to do my best to explain you everything I know about this issue.
You have to give me the benefit of the doubt, but, let’s think that Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the densest regions of the Van Allen belts.
At the time, Apollo XI was launched at July 16, 1969 from Cape Kennedy at the latitude of 28º and 28’ N.
Before translunar injection maneuver Apollo XI had to park in a low Earth orbit for 2 h and 33 min to check the instruments and everything they need to check, see here. As you can see here the geocentric latitude and geodetic latitude of this orbit was around the 32.5º N, almost the same of Cape Kennedy. This fact means that it was an almost tropical orbit.
That orbit passed over Dallas in Texas.
But as time gone by, the latitude of this trajectory had tendency to diminish and when the translunar injection maneuver took place, the latitude of the orbit was already 9.9º N which means that was a perfect equatorial orbit, as you can see here, and over the Equator there are the densest regions of the Van Allen belts, as you know.
They have to take advantage of the rotational movement of the Earth to help the vessel’s engine to boost Apollo XI out of its orbit across a spiral trajectory along the Equator and go towards the Moon.
Why along the equator? Because is in this region of space that centrifugal force of the rotational movement of the Earth is stronger. Not at the Poles, as you know.
Conclusions:
1- Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the densest regions of the Van Allen belts, but they didn’t.
2- The densest regions of the Van Allen belts are over the equator and the less dense regions are over the Poles.
3- Apollo XI crossed the densest regions of the Van Allen belts.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy)
I think Constantine is right when he says "Your posts are always intelligent and considered".
Thank you, you are both very kind!
QUOTE
1- Apollo vessels were able to follow a path that avoided the densest regions of the Van Allen belts, but they didn’t.
What we need for this portion of the debate is detailed flight plans and detailed maps of the Van Allen belts to determine the extent of Apollo's excursion into the belt, and the time it took; we can therefore figure out the amount of exposure and by that determine if the astronauts would have survived.
Trouble is, I have yet to dig up detailed flight plans. I have looked "casually," when I have more time I will pick up the search.
And equatorial lunar transfer orbit might have been made at an angle to the equator that, though it would not have maximized gravitational assist (ie, right on the equator), could still have given some added force while avoiding a good portion of the inner VA belt.
QUOTE
In practice, Apollo astronauts who traveled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and would have received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA said that they deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimize the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon would probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes.
The million-dollar question is, how long does it take to receive a harmful dose?
Oh, and what did you think of the fact that almost all of the Apollo astronauts ended up with cataracts that could have been caused by radiation (ie, high-energy particles)? Perhaps the perpetrators of the hoax required that the "astro-actors" be deliberately exposed to radiation...to cause medical illnesses that would function as an alibi!
Although I share Darthy's scepticism to a degree, locallypwned does make some good rebuttals. I do not have the knowledge needed to engage actively in this debate, so I await Darthy's responses.
Keep it up. First time I have seen this debate done using verifiable facts instead of propaganda.
Keep it up and may the best facts win.
Keep it up. First time I have seen this debate done using verifiable facts instead of propaganda.
Keep it up and may the best facts win.
QUOTE
What we need for this portion of the debate is detailed flight plans and detailed maps of the Van Allen belts to determine the extent of Apollo's excursion into the belt, and the time it took; we can therefore figure out the amount of exposure and by that determine if the astronauts would have survived.
There is no need of such a thing LP. If you read my links carefully, see here, you would see the followed:
QUOTE
9:44 a.m.- With the three Saturn stages fired one after another and the first two jettisoned, Apollo 11 enters a 103 nautical mile-high Earth orbit, during which the vehicle is carefully checked by the astronauts and by the ground control crew.
12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.
12:49 p.m.- While the spacecraft moves farther and farther from Earth, the lunar landing craft, code-named Eagle is unpacked from its compartment atop the launch rockets. The astronauts first fire some explosive bolts. These cause the main spaceship, given the name Columbia, to separate from the adapter and blow apart the four panels that make up its sides, exposing the lunar module (LM) tucked inside. They stop the spacecraft about 100 feet away -34 feet farther than they were supposed to-turn the ship around, facing the landing craft, and dock head-to-head with it. The docking complete, the LM's connections with the adapter are blown loose and the mated command/service and lunar modules separate from the rocket and continue alone toward the Moon.
2:38 p.m.- By dumping its leftover fuel the third rocket stage is fired into a long solar orbit to remove it from Apollo 11's path.
2:43 p.m.- With the flight on schedule and proceeding satisfactorily, the first scheduled midcourse correction is considered unnecessary.
2:54 p.m.- The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.
12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.
12:49 p.m.- While the spacecraft moves farther and farther from Earth, the lunar landing craft, code-named Eagle is unpacked from its compartment atop the launch rockets. The astronauts first fire some explosive bolts. These cause the main spaceship, given the name Columbia, to separate from the adapter and blow apart the four panels that make up its sides, exposing the lunar module (LM) tucked inside. They stop the spacecraft about 100 feet away -34 feet farther than they were supposed to-turn the ship around, facing the landing craft, and dock head-to-head with it. The docking complete, the LM's connections with the adapter are blown loose and the mated command/service and lunar modules separate from the rocket and continue alone toward the Moon.
2:38 p.m.- By dumping its leftover fuel the third rocket stage is fired into a long solar orbit to remove it from Apollo 11's path.
2:43 p.m.- With the flight on schedule and proceeding satisfactorily, the first scheduled midcourse correction is considered unnecessary.
2:54 p.m.- The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.
This means that at 12:22 pm the firing of the third-stage engine began to boost Apollo 11 out of the Earth orbit and at 02:54 pm the spacecraft arrived at a distance of 22,000 nautical miles (25,317.138 miles or 40,744 Km) from the Earth, almost the superior limit of the 2nd Van Allen belt.
They take more than 02 h and 32 m to cross the Van Allen belts, like I said.
These are facts from NASA, not talk like you have given to me until now. See:
QUOTE
Oh, and what did you think of the fact that almost all of the Apollo astronauts ended up with cataracts that could have been caused by radiation (ie, high-energy particles)? Perhaps the perpetrators of the hoax required that the "astro-actors" be deliberately exposed to radiation...to cause medical illnesses that would function as an alibi!
You consider this a fact? What can I say to you about this? Only this:
Maybe they ended up with cataracts because all of them suffer of diabetes, why not?
I have to say to you one more thing LP:
What I want are facts, if possible scientific ones, that strike my opinions, not talk, do you understand?
Excuse me my crudeness, but I have to say this to you.
About your question
QUOTE
The million-dollar question is, how long does it take to receive a harmful dose?
I'm going to investigate, with facts, and I would tell you later.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ Feb 16 2007, 04:59 PM)
These are facts from NASA, not talk like you have given to me until now. See:
You consider this a fact? What can I say to you about this? Only this:
Maybe they ended up with cataracts because all of them suffer of diabetes, why not?
I have to say to you one more thing LP:
What I want are facts, if possible scientific ones, that strike my opinions, not talk, do you understand?
Excuse me my crudeness, but I have to say this to you.
QUOTE
Oh, and what did you think of the fact that almost all of the Apollo astronauts ended up with cataracts that could have been caused by radiation (ie, high-energy particles)? Perhaps the perpetrators of the hoax required that the "astro-actors" be deliberately exposed to radiation...to cause medical illnesses that would function as an alibi!
You consider this a fact? What can I say to you about this? Only this:
Maybe they ended up with cataracts because all of them suffer of diabetes, why not?
I have to say to you one more thing LP:
What I want are facts, if possible scientific ones, that strike my opinions, not talk, do you understand?
Excuse me my crudeness, but I have to say this to you.
Sorry Darthy, I meant that as a joke! You know, the extraordinary lengths many conspiracy theorists will go to to maintain their theories...
That is not to say that you make arguments of such kind. Anyway, I will avoid jokes in the future, at least on this thread, for clarity.
Thanks LP.
Once more I beg your pardon for my crudeness.
I'm tired to give my best and at same time feel that some people don't respect my work just because they believe (by a matter of faith) that Apollo missions had to go to the Moon just, also, because NASA said they are gone.
You can continue to put some jokes here, but you must, at the same time, put some facts that strike my arguments. That's what I like. Once more, forgive me.
I don't want to convince nobody, only what I want is to post my arguments and, if possible, unmask these kind of lies, because, for me, are dangerous lies.
Regards,
Darthy
Once more I beg your pardon for my crudeness.
I'm tired to give my best and at same time feel that some people don't respect my work just because they believe (by a matter of faith) that Apollo missions had to go to the Moon just, also, because NASA said they are gone.
You can continue to put some jokes here, but you must, at the same time, put some facts that strike my arguments. That's what I like. Once more, forgive me.
I don't want to convince nobody, only what I want is to post my arguments and, if possible, unmask these kind of lies, because, for me, are dangerous lies.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE
The million-dollar question is, how long does it take to receive a harmful dose?
Really, this is the question that has the most difficult answer.
Here you have the radiation limits that the general public may receive:
QUOTE
Radiation Limits
Government regulations limit the amount of man-made radiation that the public may receive. Most people in the United States receive radiation doses of about 25,000 mrem over their entire lifetimes. Most scientists believe that radiation absorbed in small doses over several years is not harmful. However, U.S. Government regulations assume that the effects of all radiation exposures are cumulative and should be limited as much as reasonably possible.
The Environmental Protection Agency limits the amount of radiation the general public may receive from the nuclear fuel cycle. This amount is limited to an annual exposure of 25 mrem in addition to the natural background and medical radiation normally received. For people working in an occupation that involves radiation, regulations forbid exposures above 5,000 mrem in any one year.
Government regulations limit the amount of man-made radiation that the public may receive. Most people in the United States receive radiation doses of about 25,000 mrem over their entire lifetimes. Most scientists believe that radiation absorbed in small doses over several years is not harmful. However, U.S. Government regulations assume that the effects of all radiation exposures are cumulative and should be limited as much as reasonably possible.
The Environmental Protection Agency limits the amount of radiation the general public may receive from the nuclear fuel cycle. This amount is limited to an annual exposure of 25 mrem in addition to the natural background and medical radiation normally received. For people working in an occupation that involves radiation, regulations forbid exposures above 5,000 mrem in any one year.
As you know 5,000 mrem = 5 rem. The limit is 5 rem per year, don't forget.
"Rad" is "radiation absorbed dose" and "rem" is "roentgen equivalent: man". These are the 2 units to measure the radiation.
Here you have the way to convert "rads" to "rems":
QUOTE
Absorbed Dose (rad) * QF = Dose Equivalent (rem)
Here you have what NASA says about the radiation dose the crewmen would have received:
QUOTE
In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads[*] to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event. To monitor particle activity, a nuclear-particle-detection system (figure 3) was designed to have a relatively narrow acceptance angle. It measured the isotropic proton and alpha particles derived from solar-particle events.
If we believe in NASA, that they have received "35 rads to their blood-forming organs" of alpha particles, which is 700 rem (see the equation to convert rad to rem), they have to arrived dead at the Earth, don't you agree LP?
One more thing, let's see what NASA say now about radiation from the Sun here:
QUOTE
June 24, 2005: Opposite charges attract. Like charges repel. It's the first lesson of electromagnetism and, someday, it could save the lives of astronauts.
NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation.
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important.
NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation.
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important.
NASA contradictions are amazing. Let's see an humorous comment, here, to that link:
QUOTE
Now, a person with questionable cognitive skills, such as myself, might assume that finding a good radiation shield would have been important back in the Apollo days as well. I mean, surely we must have solved this little technical problem back in the sixties, because we obviously couldn't have sent our boys to the moon without a suitable radiation shield. Right?
This is all a little confusing to me. On the one hand, we have a bold claim that new photographic evidence exists proving that man has indeed walked on the moon. But on the other hand, we have an acknowledgement straight from the horse’s mouth that even now, nearly forty years after the fact, and with technology having advanced by light-years during that forty years, we still haven't figured out how to make manned space travel possible.
The only reasonable explanation that I can come up with is that space radiation must have only become a problem in recent years. In the ‘60s and early ‘70s, space was apparently relatively free of radiation, allowing unshielded Apollo rockets to cruise about without a care in the world, while crew members primarily busied themselves with trying to figure out how to capture all the stems and seeds that were floating around the capsule as a result of cleaning their stash of low-grade ‘60s marijuana. It was just a different solar system back in those days. As aging hippies like to say, if you remember the solar system of the sixties, you weren’t really flying around in it.
If it proves not to be the case that this space radiation “showstopper” is a new development, then I guess what probably happened is that we did indeed have the technology back in the '60s to send men to the moon, but at some point during the intervening decades, that technology was simply lost. Maybe the information was stored on a single PC that suffered a major hard-drive crash, destroying all the precious data.
Oh wait … that can't be right, come to think of it, because we didn't even have PCs back in the day. But we had lots of other cool stuff, like rotary telephones, and transistor radios, and Brownie cameras, and ‘electric football’ games, and black-and-white televisions that received up to 13 channels without the use of a remote control device. So it’s easy to see how, with cutting-edge technology like that, we might have been a little more advanced in the ‘60s in the field of space travel than we are today.
What probably happened was that an overzealous night custodian simply threw the data away. The conversation around the NASA water cooler the next day probably went something like this: "Holy bleep! Has anyone seen the file that I left on my desk last night?! That was the only copy of the secret formula that I devised for building a space radiation shield! Do you realize that it could be forty years or more before someone else can duplicate it? My ass is so fired if I can’t find that file!”
I’m sure the boys at NASA, with all their fancy book learnin’ and all, can explain why it is that we now need a space radiation shield when we did just fine without one in the ‘60s. I’ll be waiting patiently for that explanation.
This is all a little confusing to me. On the one hand, we have a bold claim that new photographic evidence exists proving that man has indeed walked on the moon. But on the other hand, we have an acknowledgement straight from the horse’s mouth that even now, nearly forty years after the fact, and with technology having advanced by light-years during that forty years, we still haven't figured out how to make manned space travel possible.
The only reasonable explanation that I can come up with is that space radiation must have only become a problem in recent years. In the ‘60s and early ‘70s, space was apparently relatively free of radiation, allowing unshielded Apollo rockets to cruise about without a care in the world, while crew members primarily busied themselves with trying to figure out how to capture all the stems and seeds that were floating around the capsule as a result of cleaning their stash of low-grade ‘60s marijuana. It was just a different solar system back in those days. As aging hippies like to say, if you remember the solar system of the sixties, you weren’t really flying around in it.
If it proves not to be the case that this space radiation “showstopper” is a new development, then I guess what probably happened is that we did indeed have the technology back in the '60s to send men to the moon, but at some point during the intervening decades, that technology was simply lost. Maybe the information was stored on a single PC that suffered a major hard-drive crash, destroying all the precious data.
Oh wait … that can't be right, come to think of it, because we didn't even have PCs back in the day. But we had lots of other cool stuff, like rotary telephones, and transistor radios, and Brownie cameras, and ‘electric football’ games, and black-and-white televisions that received up to 13 channels without the use of a remote control device. So it’s easy to see how, with cutting-edge technology like that, we might have been a little more advanced in the ‘60s in the field of space travel than we are today.
What probably happened was that an overzealous night custodian simply threw the data away. The conversation around the NASA water cooler the next day probably went something like this: "Holy bleep! Has anyone seen the file that I left on my desk last night?! That was the only copy of the secret formula that I devised for building a space radiation shield! Do you realize that it could be forty years or more before someone else can duplicate it? My ass is so fired if I can’t find that file!”
I’m sure the boys at NASA, with all their fancy book learnin’ and all, can explain why it is that we now need a space radiation shield when we did just fine without one in the ‘60s. I’ll be waiting patiently for that explanation.
I have great reasons to suspect that We....Did....Not....Go....To....Moon.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(locally pwned @ Feb 6 2007, 01:44 PM)
Darthy, we might just find out...JAXA, the Japanese space agency, is planning to send a probe to the Moon, which may be able to take images of high enough resolution to detect the lunar lander remains.
But then, you still have yet to explain why the US would have chosen to "shown off" it's technical prowess by faking a failed moon landing!
But then, you still have yet to explain why the US would have chosen to "shown off" it's technical prowess by faking a failed moon landing!
Do you remember the Smart-1 probe that was launched on 27 September 2003 at 23:14 UTC from the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou, French Guiana?
In here, you can see what was its mission:
QUOTE
As a result of its unique form of propulsion, SMART-1 took a long period of time and completed many orbits as it spiraled its way further and further from Earth until it was captured by the gravitational attraction of the Moon. The probe made its first close pass of the Moon in early 2005, but continues a series of lunar orbits as it spirals closer and closer to the surface. SMART-1 is imaging the Apollo landing sites and other notable locations during these tighter and tighter orbits, but it will likely take several months before the photos are resolved enough to show sufficient detail. Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.
Suddenly and without any explanation, Smart-1 was deliberately crashed into the Moon's surface, ending its mission.
Smart-1
Why? Who is afraid of what LP?
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon
this chick is hot...
but back on topic, shes wrong. the director is wrong. disputing the fact we landed on the moon is wrong...
of course we put men there...
on a side note, Darthy, you speak Portugese. are you from Portugal or were you just raised in a Portugese speaking home, here in the states? if you are from Portugal then i would have to say you are 100% right. We (as in the Portugese Government) never put a man on the moon. the Americans on the other hand...
my one question (not counting the one above) why do the moon-hoaxers want to disbelieve the landings?
david
Of course ltdave.
You are one of the guys that believe (by a matter of faith) that Apollo missions gone to the Moon just because NASA said they are gone, isn't it?
You are one of the guys that believe (by a matter of faith) that Apollo missions gone to the Moon just because NASA said they are gone, isn't it?
why shouldnt i?
faith is the belief in things unseen...
besides, i am an American. i am a Citizen of the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. there isnt another nation that could have done it, or would do it...
david
faith is the belief in things unseen...
besides, i am an American. i am a Citizen of the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. there isnt another nation that could have done it, or would do it...
david
QUOTE(Darthy @ May 18 2006, 03:06 PM)
Hi again
I said "WE", because I'm a member of the Human Kind.
Regards,
Darthy
I said "WE", because I'm a member of the Human Kind.
Regards,
Darthy
Before you enter a topic, I think you must read almost all the posts.
QUOTE
...We (as in the Portugese Government) never put a man on the moon. the Americans on the other hand...
...In dreams, put a man on the Moon.
QUOTE(Darthy)
I'm tired to give my best and at same time feel that some people don't respect my work just because they believe (by a matter of faith) that Apollo missions had to go to the Moon just, also, because NASA said they are gone.
Just for the record, I never lacked respect for your work. Again, my joke wasn't aimed specifically at you. You've obviously thought about this a lot.
QUOTE(NASA)
It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads[*] to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen).
QUOTE(Darthy)
If we believe in NASA, that they have received "35 rads to their blood-forming organs" of alpha particles, which is 700 rem (see the equation to convert rad to rem),
The trouble here is that NASA doesn't break down the types of radiation that hit the skin, and the types that entered the body. Alpha particles can't do much harm unless you ingest a substance that is emitting them, because even thought they have high velocity, they lose energy quickly when they impact objects.
So it is doubtful that many alpha particles entered the bones or spleen...having to first pass through the skin of the ship, then the astronauts' clothes and skin.
Beta particles are less massive but more penetrating. The force of impact would be much smaller even at a much higher velocity.
The question is, how much more intense is the damage caused by the particles being accelerated in the magnetic field vs these particles under "normal" circumstances?
Here's an interesting site I found. It's short, won't take long to read. The author estimates that alpha particles would require 10 MeV and beta particles 1 MeV just to penetrate the hull of the craft or even the skin of the astronauts...let alone to cause damage. Since the radiation in the field would be a variety of particles and energies, you'd expect that at least a percentage of them would not have these minimum respective energies, and therefore would not be a problem in the first place.
Also, if an alpha particle passed through the ship, then the clothes, then the skin...each impact would reduce its velocity and therefore it's energy...and thus its capacity for damage.
Also, the author calculates the time required for the ship to pass through the heavy part of the belt in 1.5 hours, rather than the 2.5 you mentioned. Take a look at how he came up with it.
Let me know what you think.
ltdave, patriotism won't help this argument. If the landings in fact took place, empirical means should be sufficient.
QUOTE(LP)
Just for the record, I never lacked respect for your work. Again, my joke wasn't aimed specifically at you. You've obviously thought about this a lot.
I know LP, I beg you to forget what happened, please. My post #134 was not directed to you, it was only a relief of my stress. You have to understand that I'm "fighting" with my opinion, I think with some dignity, a giant of great prestige (NASA). For the average people, I think, what NASA says it's almost a scripture, so, this "fight" it's not a fair one and creates a lot of stress.
Before I engage actively in this debate, a long time ago, I begin for asking questions directly to NASA, but when I entered in scientific fields with difficult questions, they lasted much more time to answer me saying, "we have to pass your question to the appropriate department", and when I insisted because answers, they gave me, are not satisfactory, they had left to answer me. You can trie and you will see.
For instance, see what NASA answered to a question of one girl here:
QUOTE(NASA)
Radiation Belts and Manned Space Flight
Dear Sir:
Would you please explain how the Van Allen Belt affected the first manned space flights. How were they protected?
Reply
Dear Belinda
All manned flights (except those of Apollo) have stayed below the radiation belt: the Space Shuttle, for instance, orbits at about 215 miles. The atmosphere is very rarefied there, and radiation belt particles descending to that level may well come back without encountering anything. However, such particles have thousands of Earthward excursions each day, so the only ones which are likely to survive long are those that are always confined to higher levels.
A more subtle effect is also at work. The equations governing the motion of trapped particle indicate that each has a characteristic value of magnetic intensity, below which is cannot penetrate. Suppose a particle is reflected by the intensity existing at 215 miles. As it happens, the Earth's magnetic field--its region of magnetic forces--has some irregularities, so in some regions that intensity is only reached at 100 miles. Now and then the particle's orbit will happen to descend in that region, where it penetrates to much deeper (and denser) layers of the atmosphere, and may be quickly lost, even if elsewhere it stays at safe heights. One such notorious region exists above the southern Atlantic Ocean.
So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.
You will find more on my web sites, e.g. http://www.phy6.org/Education/wexp13.html
Dear Sir:
Would you please explain how the Van Allen Belt affected the first manned space flights. How were they protected?
Reply
Dear Belinda
All manned flights (except those of Apollo) have stayed below the radiation belt: the Space Shuttle, for instance, orbits at about 215 miles. The atmosphere is very rarefied there, and radiation belt particles descending to that level may well come back without encountering anything. However, such particles have thousands of Earthward excursions each day, so the only ones which are likely to survive long are those that are always confined to higher levels.
A more subtle effect is also at work. The equations governing the motion of trapped particle indicate that each has a characteristic value of magnetic intensity, below which is cannot penetrate. Suppose a particle is reflected by the intensity existing at 215 miles. As it happens, the Earth's magnetic field--its region of magnetic forces--has some irregularities, so in some regions that intensity is only reached at 100 miles. Now and then the particle's orbit will happen to descend in that region, where it penetrates to much deeper (and denser) layers of the atmosphere, and may be quickly lost, even if elsewhere it stays at safe heights. One such notorious region exists above the southern Atlantic Ocean.
So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.
You will find more on my web sites, e.g. http://www.phy6.org/Education/wexp13.html
What kind of an answer is that? They talk about everything and does not answer to the question!!! Have they something to hide? These kind of things do not dignify NASA, don't you think?
Now, let's see what mr. William A. Wheaton, Staff Scientist, IPAC, Infrared Processing Center says:
QUOTE(William A. Wheaton)
The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.
His calculations are based on many supositions, and, as you can see, he forgot one basic element:
As you know, 7.2 Km/s = 25,920 Km/h and at this speed the vessel crossed 38,880 Km in 1.5 hour.
The basic element he forgot was:
The direction of the trajectory after Apollo 11 left the Earth orbit. He assumes, with these calculations, that its trajectory was linear, but the real trajectory of Apollo 11 was a spiral around the Earth, not linear. Scientists must be very cautious when they present their calculations.
Now, if you see my calculations, they are based on the scheduled time of NASA, not on supositions, and, I think, they are much more accurate.
I'll answer to the first part of your last post later.
Regards,
Darthy
Oh, by the way, can you comment about Smart-1 probe?
What you think about why and what happen?
Regards,
Darthy
What you think about why and what happen?
Regards,
Darthy
As for Smart-1, from your link:
Good enough for me; there have been other probes used in this exact way. Besides, why would the ESA try to help perpetuate a NASA cover-up?
As for your flight data, did each mission follow that exact flight plan?
Also, what did you think about my assertion that the particles would be slowed down by several impacts they'd encounter before they could enter the innards of the astronauts?
QUOTE
SMART-1 impacted the Moon's surface as planned, on September 3, 2006 at 05:42:22 UTC, ending its mission. Moving at approximately 2,000 m/s (4,500 mph), SMART-1 created an impact visible with ground telescopes from Earth. It is hoped that not only will this provide some data simulating a meteor impact, but also that it might expose materials in the ground, like water ice, to spectroscopic analysis.
Good enough for me; there have been other probes used in this exact way. Besides, why would the ESA try to help perpetuate a NASA cover-up?
As for your flight data, did each mission follow that exact flight plan?
Also, what did you think about my assertion that the particles would be slowed down by several impacts they'd encounter before they could enter the innards of the astronauts?
QUOTE(aerospaceweb.org - Smart-1)
Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.
Where are those photos? If they existed don't you think that NASA have used them to shut the mouth of all CTs?
QUOTE(LP)
Good enough for me; there have been other probes used in this exact way. Besides, why would the ESA try to help perpetuate a NASA cover-up?
That's a good question with a million answers, don't you think LP? I think there is a strong possibility.
QUOTE(LP)
As for your flight data, did each mission follow that exact flight plan?
This exact flight plan belongs only to Apollo 11, as you can see here, once more.
QUOTE(LP)
Also, what did you think about my assertion that the particles would be slowed down by several impacts they'd encounter before they could enter the innards of the astronauts?
What you say here, is true, but let me quote NASA again, see:
QUOTE(NASA)
In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads[*] to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event. To monitor particle activity, a nuclear-particle-detection system (figure 3) was designed to have a relatively narrow acceptance angle. It measured the isotropic proton and alpha particles derived from solar-particle events.
What is in red, are NASA words. Imagine that those 35 rads are only Beta rays, X-rays and Beta rays and electrons, even thus, those 35 rads in "their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen)" only in 8 days is a lethal dose of radiation. With this kind of radiation, 35 rad = 35 rem approximately, don't forget the equation.
Try to ask NASA these kind of questions, and you will see what kind of answers you will receive.
Did you know that L.B. Johnson made certain Apollo files CLASSIFIED, with a declassification date of 2026?
Why? I hope we are still alive in that year and I wish we can talk, here at BC, once more, about this topic.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy)
What is in red, are NASA words. Imagine that those 35 rads are only Beta rays, X-rays and Beta rays and electrons, even thus, those 35 rads in "their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen)" only in 8 days is a lethal dose of radiation. With this kind of radiation, 35 rad = 35 rem approximately, don't forget the equation.
8 days? It was only a few hours! Considering the distinct possibility that much of the alpha radiation was blocked, 35 rems of beta would require 8 days to kill? That pretty much puts this particular portion of the argument to bed.
The exposure the astronauts received would not have been enough to kill them, but could have caused long-term damage...and did in most of them...as an earlier link I posted explains.
QUOTE
QUOTE(aerospaceweb.org - Smart-1)
Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.
Where are those photos? If they existed don't you think that NASA have used them to shut the mouth of all CTs?
QUOTE(LP)
Good enough for me; there have been other probes used in this exact way. Besides, why would the ESA try to help perpetuate a NASA cover-up?
That's a good question with a million answers, don't you think LP? I think there is a strong possibility.
Photos of these sites may start being released later this year and may end the infamous conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were a hoax once and for all.
Where are those photos? If they existed don't you think that NASA have used them to shut the mouth of all CTs?
QUOTE(LP)
Good enough for me; there have been other probes used in this exact way. Besides, why would the ESA try to help perpetuate a NASA cover-up?
That's a good question with a million answers, don't you think LP? I think there is a strong possibility.
All of this is conjecture, Darthy. It's just guessing, and guessing weakens your overall argument. If you want to use Smart-1 as supporting evidence for your theory on the Moon landings, first you'd have to focus on that, do research, and show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was crashed on purpose to prevent images of the surface of the Moon from going public. Then it might work as evidence to support your initial theory.
But that sounds harder to prove/disprove than the landings themselves!
QUOTE(LP)
8 days? It was only a few hours! Considering the distinct possibility that much of the alpha radiation was blocked, 35 rems of beta would require 8 days to kill? That pretty much puts this particular portion of the argument to bed.
The exposure the astronauts received would not have been enough to kill them, but could have caused long-term damage...and did in most of them...as an earlier link I posted explains.
The exposure the astronauts received would not have been enough to kill them, but could have caused long-term damage...and did in most of them...as an earlier link I posted explains.
QUOTE(Darthy)
As you know 5,000 mrem = 5 rem. The limit is 5 rem per year, don't forget.
I think you didn't understand what I said. What I meant is:
1 - The limit of radiation per year for any human being is 5 rem, as you can see in the links of my previous posts.
2 - 35 rem in 5 hours is much more worst than 35 rem in 8 days, as you can easily understand, but both are lethal doses of radiation for any human being, because the limit is 5 rem/year.
3 - When NASA refered 35 rem of radiation, this radiation is the total radiation (Van Allen belts plus Solar bursts and Solar flares), that's why I said 8 days, because Apollo XI mission had a duration of 08d 03h 18m 35s. You have to read my links more carefully.
QUOTE(LP)
All of this is conjecture, Darthy. It's just guessing, and guessing weakens your overall argument. If you want to use Smart-1 as supporting evidence for your theory on the Moon landings, first you'd have to focus on that, do research, and show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was crashed on purpose to prevent images of the surface of the Moon from going public. Then it might work as evidence to support your initial theory.
But that sounds harder to prove/disprove than the landings themselves!
But that sounds harder to prove/disprove than the landings themselves!
About Smart-1:
QUOTE
"We are observing some of the landing sites for calibration and ground truth purposes," said Bernard Foing, chief scientist of the ESA science program.
Foing told SPACE.com that the SMART-1 orbiter circling the moon has already covered the Apollo 11, 16 and 17 landing sites, as well as spots where the former Soviet Union’s Luna 16 and Luna 20 automated vehicles plopped down. The images have not yet been released. (Updated: 4:36 p.m. ET March 4, 2005)
Foing told SPACE.com that the SMART-1 orbiter circling the moon has already covered the Apollo 11, 16 and 17 landing sites, as well as spots where the former Soviet Union’s Luna 16 and Luna 20 automated vehicles plopped down. The images have not yet been released. (Updated: 4:36 p.m. ET March 4, 2005)
See the date of the words of Mr. Bernard Foing chief scientist of the ESA science program.
Well, I think none of us is naive.
As I said, where are those photos? If they existed don't you think that NASA have used them to shut the mouth of all CTs? They had been taken, at least, in March 4, 2005 and we are at Feb 22, 2007, where are they? Perhaps they are still coming in their way from Moon to Earth!!!
I think it's time for you to present your facts that NASA sent Apollo missions to Moon.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy)
They had been taken, at least, in March 4, 2005 and we are at Feb 22, 2007, where are they? Perhaps they are still coming in their way from Moon to Earth!!! blink.gif
Well that's what they get for sending them via the U.S. Postal Service!
QUOTE(Darthy)
I think it's time for you to present your facts that NASA sent Apollo missions to Moon.
In fact, I am afraid it's time for me to respectfully step out of the debate.
I realize that this is not a very good ending to a conversation that has been interesting thus far. However, at the point of having to dig around various government documents looking for evidence of a widely-accepted historical event...well, I just don't have the time or the drive to go to such lengths.
It's not that you haven't made a good case for your theory; perhaps there are those out there that will "fight harder" than I have. With all due respect, Darthy, I just feel that there are more important issues, problems, and concerns to focus on. However, I do understand that nagging feeling...wanting something to be explained but never finding an explanation that is complete enough to satisfy your curiosity. So I can see how you are driven to search out the truth on this issue.
But then in my opinion, the fact is that ultimately it doesn't really make much difference if we did or didn't land on the Moon in the early '70s.
Gasp! It doesn't matter? Here's why: the landings (if they actually took place
) were mainly motivated by politics, not science or discovery. When I think of the most important advances in science (specifically space science), the landings don't stack up very high compared to the Hubble Telescope, probes exploring the outer solar system, ect. The fact that I like the idea that we landed on the Moon shouldn't be support for the assertion that we actually did. But it will do for now, unless devastating evidence comes to surface publicly debunking the landings for good.
Sure, it's great to think that we landed on another planetary body, and I will continue to accept that the landings took place until I see conclusive evidence to show otherwise. I just hope my "belief" in the landings doesn't completely remove my objectivity!
But then, I hope your belief in your theory doesn't do the same, if one day you come across data that conclusively supports the landings.
Anyway Darthy, I look foreword to further debates and wish you luck on your quest to find the truth about the Moon landings.
Well LP, I'm sad with your decision but I have to accept it.
Thank you for your patience. I'm sure that we will find again, here at BC, in another topics.
Regards,
Darthy
Thank you for your patience. I'm sure that we will find again, here at BC, in another topics.
Regards,
Darthy
why would they fake it hear everyone say!!!!!1
one word for yall MONEY
one word for yall MONEY
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.