BleepingComputer.com: Did We Really Land On The Moon?

Hi guys
Let's go again at fight
[quote]ryan_w_quick Posted Yesterday, 11:14 PM
There are many forms of electromagnetic radiation. In order from strongest to weakest: gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwaves, and then there are several types of radio waves. You are also exposed to radiation when you eat a banana or open a bottle of French salad dressing (you know, the orange kind). The point is, people are exposed to radiation all the time. You can't escape it. So, being in a band of radiation for over 4 hours may not kill you, or even harm you.[/quote]
I know there are many forms of electromagnetic radiation. Let's go to read this:
[quote]The Earth actually has two radiation belts of different origins. The inner belt, the one discovered by Van Allen's Geiger counter, occupies a compact region above the equator (see drawing, which also includes the trajectories of two space probes) and is a by-product of cosmic radiation. It is populated by protons of energies in the [u]10-100 Mev range[/u], which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts. Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region.[/quote] Who says this? Don't you Know? Look well:
[url="http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html"]http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html[/url]. It's [u]NASA???[/u] What did you have to say now???
Did you Know what is a Mev? It's a Mega Electron Volt and the particles inside the 1st Van Allen belt are protons with the energy of 100000000 ev range what is a great, great amout of energy for each particle. Inside of the 1st Van Allen belt there are zillions of protons, each one with that amout of energy. Only a fool would stay in this region for more than 15 minutes!!! And when he got out of there would be better that he went immediately to a decontamination center.
Let' go and see what more NASA has to give us:
[quote]1.4 Mev
The energy of electrons from radioactive potassium, a major source of the Earth's internal heat.

4.2 Mev
The energy of alpha particles from radioactive uranium 238, another source of the Earth's heat (and of its helium as well--see positive ions, history).

10-100 Mev
Typical proton energies in the inner radiation belt.

10-15,000 Mev
Range of energies in solar outbursts (see Sun).[/quote]
I think there is no need of more quotations from NASA
[quote]no one Posted Yesterday, 09:03 PM
Hay there Darthy
allow me 3/4 inch or so of "frozen smoke" (and something to hold my hand up )
and I don't see a problem [/quote]
If you don't see any problem, the problem is yours. Until next and regards.

Darthy

I will not argue any more on this topic as I am not knowledgable enough to do so.

[quote](no one Posted Yesterday, 09:03 PM)
Hay there Darthy
allow me 3/4 inch or so of "frozen smoke" (and something to hold my hand up )
and I don't see a problem

Take Care[/quote]
I don't understand the meaning of the "Take Care"! Can you explain to me?

Regards,

Darthy

[quote name='Darthy' post='287835' date='May 17 2006, 10:24 PM'][quote] (no one Posted Yesterday, 09:03 PM)
Hay there Darthy
allow me 3/4 inch or so of "frozen smoke" (and something to hold my hand up )
and I don't see a problem

Take Care[/quote]
I don't understand the meaning of the "Take Care"! Can you explain to me?

Regards,

Darthy
[/quote]

hummm... a type of farewell, a wish for well being

Hi no one and thanks for your explanation.

I wish exactly the same for you

Regards,

Darthy

Hi again everybody

I think there are no doubts about this subject.

So the conclusion is: We never really land on the Moon.

Regards,

Darthy

Hi again

I said "WE", because I'm a member of the Human Kind.

Regards,

Darthy

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make'em drink...

ain't that a fact

My personal stance. Although everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion.


[quote name='Scarlett' post='237291' date='Feb 14 2006, 12:47 PM']Yes, I do believe we did land on the moon.
And ddeerrff thank you for your intelligent and clear explanation.

Conspiracy Theories do just as they are intended to do.
Convince those reading/hearing them that they are the one and only truth.
It is so easy to fall into their trap.
One must remain rational, or otherwise one will be believing everything one hears.
And there are many crazy theories floating around out there.
Before you know it you will have trouble separating fact from fiction. [/quote]

Hi guys
Let's go again to talk about this topic.
[quote]Scarlett Posted May 18 2006, 07:30 PM
Yes, I do believe we did land on the moon.
And ddeerrff thank you for your intelligent and clear explanation.

Conspiracy Theories do just as they are intended to do.
Convince those reading/hearing them that they are the one and only truth.
It is so easy to fall into their trap.
One must remain rational, or otherwise one will be believing everything one hears.
And there are many crazy theories floating around out there.
Before you know it you will have trouble separating fact from fiction.[/quote]
Like, perhaps ddeerrff, I saw the direct tranmission of the event in 1969 and I stay astonished with it.
Let's go and see what are their arguments:
[quote]can't believe any intellegent person has any doubts about this.

Definitive answer: If we didn't , how did the laser reflector get there?

QUOTE
Why did the flag wave on the moon, if there is no wind and atmosphere there?

What these people show as 'waving' is caused by a mechanical perturbance.

QUOTE
If it is real, why weren't there any stars in the background of the movie?

It's something called limited dynamic range of the film. Why can't you see stars on a sunny day - do you dispute they are there?

QUOTE
Why wasn't there a blast creator on the moon from when it landed?

There was dust moved around. The amount of thrust + the altitude at which the engine cut off was such that it did not make a big hole.[/quote]
1-I think I'm an intelligent person and, now, I don't think like him. At that time I was 22 years old and was ending my graduation. When I finished it, I went to take a specialization in electronics and physics and it was there when I began to study radiation that I knew that it would be impossible to any human being to cross the Van Allen belts, like NASA says in its site quoted at May 17 2006, 08:01 PM.
2-The particles in the 1st Van Allen belt are protons and their mass are 1500 times bigger than the mass of an electron. As you can see in my post of May 17 2006, 08:01 PM [u]their energy are 50 times greater than the energy of alpha particles from radioactive uranium 238,[/u] like NASA also says in its site. Of course, NASA doesn’t know that we are using it's site for the discussion of this subject at this moment. How can NASA says[quote]It is populated by protons of energies in the 10-100 Mev range, which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts. Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region.[/quote] and at the same time say that the astronauts went to the Moon crossing these regions for twice??? isn't it strange??? [url="http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html"]http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html[/url]
3-ddeerrff as definitive answer says: [u]If we didn't, how did the laser reflector get there?[/u] I didn’t answer ASAP because I was waiting a reply to a question I posted to a specialist in astrophysics that is a friend of mine and is American. Now I can answer to ddeerrff that on the Moon are not one but two laser reflectors both putted there with two unmanned probes. One was putted by NASA and the other was putted by the ex-USSR but with, as I said, with unmanned probes, not by any Apollo mission.
4-The flag was a normal flag without any mechanical parts and everybody saw it was waving!!! How can ddeerrff explain this? With a mechanical perturbation??? How if there weren’t any mechanical parts??? About the stars, there is a photo with Earth in background that we don’t see any star!!! Without atmosphere, we must see at least the brightest stars of the sky, like Vega, Sirius, Betelgeuse, Rigel, Canopus and many others!!! How the dynamic limited range of the film explain this anomaly??? It’s the same thing that when we take a photo to the moon, at night, we didn’t see any stars at all, even with the atmosphere of the Earth!!! I have dozens of them, which I can’t show here because I can’t attach anything to this mail, or I don’t know how to do it.
5-At last, the blast creator that must was there and it wasn’t. If the engine cut off before the arrival to the soil, the LEM would fall from the altitude were it was and it would crashed against the lunar soil, even with the low gravity of the Moon!!! About the amount of thrust, is one more reason for the crater created shall be a big one!!! Why the photos doesn't show it??? Until the next.

Regards,

Darthy

Hay there Darthy
I think you will want to join this society
they say they have proof of which they speak as well.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm

Why people expand such great amounts of energy trying to disprove the obvious I will never understand. There are plenty of other worthwhile things to do with your time.

In the first place the manned Apollo program placed three laser retroreflectors on the moon and the Soviet unmanned space program placed two (although contact with one of these was lost on landing). Unless math has changed greatly since I went to school this adds up to five (or four if you discount the lost Soviet probe), not two.

In the second place I am not going to expand great amounts of my time responding to this stuff, I do have plenty of other things I could and will soon be doing with my time.

While I seldom use wikipedia as a source, in this case it rebuts all the conspiracies on one page and in rather simple English that most people can understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_l...oax_accusations

For more in-depth details please feel free to visit this site:

http://www.clavius.org/

Hey you no one
[quote]no one Posted Yesterday, 08:50 PM
Hay there Darthy
I think you will want to join this society
they say they have proof of which they speak as well.
[url="http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm"]http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm[/url][/quote]
Look no one, what I want are scientific facts not talk and trash like the site you sent to me.
[quote]Ronbo Posted Today, 12:25 AM
Why people expand such great amounts of energy trying to disprove the obvious I will never understand. There are plenty of other worthwhile things to do with your time.[/quote]
Hi there Ronbo
I have to say to you that I've enough age to know what to do with my time. Thank's for your preocupation.
[quote]Ronbo Posted Today, 12:25 AM
In the first place the manned Apollo program placed three laser retroreflectors on the moon and the Soviet unmanned space program placed two (although contact with one of these was lost on landing). Unless math has changed greatly since I went to school this adds up to five (or four if you discount the lost Soviet probe), not two.[/quote]
Like the manned Apollo program never sent a man to the Moon, like I intend to prove, they continue to exist only two laser reflectors on the Moon. Like I said to no one, what I want are scientific facts that strike what I've been saying into my previous mails.
Let me say one more thing:
If Iraq was on the Moon, the Bush Administration, Mr. Tony Blair and my former Prime Minister Mr. Durao Barroso will contine to say that there were weapons of mass destruction on it!!! Only Iraq is on the Earth and many people can go there.

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.

Seafox14