Re: Moon Landings Faked?
I don't understand the CFI numbers so clue me in if you wish. But wouldn't the direction of the flare also have an impact ? Were all these "major" flares aimed at us ? As for the seahorse flare killing the astronauts ...who says this ?
From http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... larflares/
Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.
It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.
"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.
Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.
Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.
Quantum11":37y8amva said:
I don't understand the CFI numbers so clue me in if you wish. But wouldn't the direction of the flare also have an impact ? Were all these "major" flares aimed at us ? As for the seahorse flare killing the astronauts ...who says this ?
From http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... larflares/
Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.
It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.
"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.
Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.
Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.
Thanks for that explanation of solar flares/radiation Mac. I think its safe to say that issue has been put to rest along with the many other "arguments" that moon hoaxers have posed over the decades.
When I get to NASA I'll be sure to ask them if it was fake though :lol:
When I get to NASA I'll be sure to ask them if it was fake though :lol:
Yuri_Armstrong":1tnjb2cw said:
I'm delighted to hear you can see how nicely that fits in to the thoery. The theory of how it was done, is just that, a theory. The fact that it was a hoax has been well-established in the minds of those who understand the true nature of space for quite some time now.
How the hell would they have been able to dock, or fake docking together in space, withouthout COOPERATION. Please do tell?
Yuri_Armstrong":3cwepqev said:
Stagnate on Earth? Your freakn' kidding me right? Is that what you think about life on Earth. . How much do you think the masses should be willing to sacrifice to send a priveleged few to plant a flag, pick up some rocks, photograph a bunch of rocks, play some golf, and drive around on a 10 milion dollar Rover!
Instead of planting a photographic telescope, set off a huge ass flare so everyone on Earth could have looked up and seen it. Very simple things that most would expect, but yet none did see!
Quantum11":1rejj70b said:
The joint US/USSR docking of the Apollo/Soyuz spacecraft happened in July 1975, nearly three years after Apollo 17 which was the last actual moon landing in the Apollo programme. This joint docking was the first such co-operation in a space mission between the two superpowers.
Round and round
It always one more "but what about <insert the latest argument here>........"
No amount of proof or debunking is enough for the those that believe it was faked - what shame.
It always one more "but what about <insert the latest argument here>........"
No amount of proof or debunking is enough for the those that believe it was faked - what shame.
Quantum11":3t4uiaa3 said:
Don't you mean crash a missile into the Moon and set off a flash to fool everyone ? That's what I would expect !!
:lol:
Just to point out to be fair - you got that quote wrong there re who said it Mee_n_Mac about the 'huge ass flare.' (Easily overlooked with quotes within quotes in phpBB - I've done it myself quite a few times.)
It was Quantam11 who said that, not Yuri_Armstrong.
It was Quantam11 who said that, not Yuri_Armstrong.
Smersh":3q66ybzp said:Just to point out to be fair - you got that quote wrong there re who said it Mee_n_Mac about the 'huge ass flare.' (Easily overlooked with quotes within quotes in phpBB - I've done it myself quite a few times.)
It was Quantam11 who said that, not Yuri_Armstrong.
Thanks. I've now fixed it. Goofed while trying to excise the unnecessary parts.
Mee_n_Mac":1t9obukh said:
Okay...and they didn't put a photographic telescope, so we could peer further, free of the disturbance caused by looking through our atmosphere...because? They could have continued taking wonderful photos or videos from the moon from that point onward, pointing to the photos as proof they put the photographic telescope on the moon. But they didn't do that did they? No, it was more important to pick up and photograph rocks that they had taken back from the first mission? Talk about repetitive and moronic.
Mee_n_Mac":205ar79l said:
No, I think they did enough fooling with the 'moon' rocks Von Braun and gang picked up the antarctic in "67. Of course the Dutch are well aware of fake moon rocks....Ask them to see their piece of petrified wood passed off as moon rock!
They could have set off a series of flares...Red white and blue to move the masses to a patriotic fever, and absolute knowing that men really were on the moon. But I guess that's too much to expect from guys who had a bunch of rocks to pick up. LOL...Not even enough time to look up, and mention how lovely the stars looked.
Yuri_Armstrong":2x1n3tzr said:
The issue raised to a fevered pitch when the major solar flares were pointed out. Although the apollogists just ignore the lies of Windley, and the Apollo report....
Still waiting for a response from those solar physicists out there capable of going to the NGDC and explain away the solar flares constantly refered to as being capable of killing astronauts.
Still waiting..........
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Another reason not to trust NASA and their minimilizations:
Ready?
http://www.bbcfocusmagazine.com/blog/how-apollo-astronauts-avoided-deadly-solar-flare
"His second was that Apollo 17 did not launch until December. In the August, after the safe return of Apollo 16, a large sunspot appeared on the solar surface and let fly a rash of solar flares that pumped deadly radiation into space. Had Schmitt, or any other astronauts, been in space at the time, they would have perished from a fatal dose of solar radiation."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1668525.ece
"Beyond this magnetic field, however, astronauts would be exposed to constant low levels of radiation that would raise their risk of cancers. Solar flares — eruptions of charged gas or plasma from the Sun — pose an even greater danger, as they would kill anyone unshielded in their path.
Neil Armstrong and the other Apollo astronauts spent only ten days in space on their trips to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s and were lucky in that no solar flare came their way while they were in space."
Notice how the above article doesn't even mention MAJOR....Just solar flare....There were hundred of solar flares on top of the MAJOR solar flares I have pointed out for you guys at the NGDC. Ones listed as much more intense according to the CFI listing by IMPORTANCE.
http://www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk/
"Cosmic rays and radiation from the Sun itself can cause acute radiation sickness in astronauts and even death. Between 1968 and 1973, the Apollo astronauts going to the moon were only in space for about 10 days at a time and were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major eruption on the sun that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation."
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/News and Events/5512.aspx
"The Apollo astronauts of the 1960’s and 70’s who walked upon the Moon are the only humans to have travelled beyond the Earth’s natural ‘force field’ – the Earth’s magnetosphere. With typical journeys to the Moon lasting about 8 days, the Apollo astronauts were simply lucky not to have encountered a major eruption on the Sun that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation."
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYYHUHJCF_index_0.html
"During the Apollo missions of the 1960s–70s, the astronauts were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major solar eruption that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation. Essentially, they took risks and got away with it."
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/solar-radiation-danger-may-delay-manned/
"One of the largest such events ever recorded arrived at Earth in August 1972 right between NASA's Apollo 16 and 17 manned missions.
Simulations of the radiation levels an astronaut inside a spacecraft would have experienced during this event found that the astronaut would have absorbed lethal doses of radiation within just 10 hours. It was simply good luck that this happened between the mssions."
You see, for every article that NASA has one of their 'experts' minimilize the danger of solar flares, I can find you several that explain the radiation from the 72 flare would have been deadly. And then I have already provided the data from the NGDC on earlier posts showing major solar flares during Apollo missions that were more intense then the event in "72.
So, you want to dance some more meenmac?
Mee_n_Mac":319yh2oa said:
Another reason not to trust NASA and their minimilizations:
Ready?
http://www.bbcfocusmagazine.com/blog/how-apollo-astronauts-avoided-deadly-solar-flare
"His second was that Apollo 17 did not launch until December. In the August, after the safe return of Apollo 16, a large sunspot appeared on the solar surface and let fly a rash of solar flares that pumped deadly radiation into space. Had Schmitt, or any other astronauts, been in space at the time, they would have perished from a fatal dose of solar radiation."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1668525.ece
"Beyond this magnetic field, however, astronauts would be exposed to constant low levels of radiation that would raise their risk of cancers. Solar flares — eruptions of charged gas or plasma from the Sun — pose an even greater danger, as they would kill anyone unshielded in their path.
Neil Armstrong and the other Apollo astronauts spent only ten days in space on their trips to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s and were lucky in that no solar flare came their way while they were in space."
Notice how the above article doesn't even mention MAJOR....Just solar flare....There were hundred of solar flares on top of the MAJOR solar flares I have pointed out for you guys at the NGDC. Ones listed as much more intense according to the CFI listing by IMPORTANCE.
http://www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk/
"Cosmic rays and radiation from the Sun itself can cause acute radiation sickness in astronauts and even death. Between 1968 and 1973, the Apollo astronauts going to the moon were only in space for about 10 days at a time and were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major eruption on the sun that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation."
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/News and Events/5512.aspx
"The Apollo astronauts of the 1960’s and 70’s who walked upon the Moon are the only humans to have travelled beyond the Earth’s natural ‘force field’ – the Earth’s magnetosphere. With typical journeys to the Moon lasting about 8 days, the Apollo astronauts were simply lucky not to have encountered a major eruption on the Sun that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation."
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYYHUHJCF_index_0.html
"During the Apollo missions of the 1960s–70s, the astronauts were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major solar eruption that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation. Essentially, they took risks and got away with it."
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/solar-radiation-danger-may-delay-manned/
"One of the largest such events ever recorded arrived at Earth in August 1972 right between NASA's Apollo 16 and 17 manned missions.
Simulations of the radiation levels an astronaut inside a spacecraft would have experienced during this event found that the astronaut would have absorbed lethal doses of radiation within just 10 hours. It was simply good luck that this happened between the mssions."
You see, for every article that NASA has one of their 'experts' minimilize the danger of solar flares, I can find you several that explain the radiation from the 72 flare would have been deadly. And then I have already provided the data from the NGDC on earlier posts showing major solar flares during Apollo missions that were more intense then the event in "72.
So, you want to dance some more meenmac?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ8il0QbxRE[/youtube]
Radiation and astronauts usually don't mix...
Radiation and astronauts usually don't mix...
Quantum11":31gegc0g said:
If NASA had foreseen the repetitive and moronic hoax theories that would begin to emerge years after the Apollo missions were over, perhaps they might have used up some of their precious cargo space to carry flares to the moon, then use valuable time on the lunar surface that could be spent on collecting important scientific data such as moon rocks, to set off some flares that would be bright enough to be visible from Earth. However, it never occured to NASA at the time that such ridiculous and totally unfounded theories would eventually emerge.
In any case, as Mee_n_Mac pointed out, they would almost certainly have been wasting their time doing that because the hoax believers would just say the flares were a missile crashing into the surface or something. :roll:
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
My wife says I'm a pretty poor dancer but hey if you want your toes stepped on ...
1) You've yet to prove anything re: the deadliess of your "major" (why does the CFI use quotes ?) flares. First the CFI is a compilation of 5 terms, 2 of which indicate the "strength" of radio wave emissions which are non-ionizing and not deadly to the astronauts (short of heating them). One deals with the distribution of the EM spectrum and one deals with the "importance" (means what exactly ?) of the red light emitted. So far as I can see only 1 part of the CFI measures in any way deadly ionizing radiation. So what's the SID portion of the CFI for all those flares ? What was their classification ?
2) You've also ignored my question re: the aiming of the flares. What flares were positioned so as to deliver radiation, in the form of EM waves or energetic particles, towards Earth ?
3) Lastly if you want to refute that the astronauts could have survived space radiation using pop science articles, you might want to have them consistent with your argument. Either there was or wasn't deadly solar radiation during the missions. The articles all say it's the latter. Make your case for the former first and then come up with a flux density and energy levels that would be deadly and then we can debate the effectiveness of the CSM sheilding against those levels. But until you do better support 1 & 2 above I'm not wasting my time.
And to further address your rather silly argument about a Moon telescope ... you tell me what size 'scope they could have brought that would have been any better than what they had then on the ground. Why would we have wasted that weight for such a usage ? If you hoaxsters aren't going to believe the TV transmissions and pics sent back then why would a 'scope sending back images be any different ? The claim would be that their all faked anyway ... something the mission planners of the time really weren't concerned about.
While fakery is on the plate ... what about that fake Dutch moon rock ? The Rijksmuseum got that piece from the former PM. Who says it wasn't either stolen or replaced while in his care or after his death ? I note an article says ...
There is no doubt in my mind that many moon rocks are lost or stolen and now sitting in private collections," said Joseph Gutheinz, a University of Phoenix instructor and former U.S. government investigator who has made a project of tracking down the lunar treasures.
The Rijksmuseum, more noted as a repository for 17th century Dutch paintings, announced last month it had had its plum-sized "moon" rock tested, only to discover it was a piece of petrified wood, possibly from Arizona. The museum said it inherited the rock from the estate of a former prime minister.
The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.
Genuine moon rocks, while worthless in mineral terms, can fetch six-figure sums from black-market collectors.
and ...
Gutheinz, the former U.S. investigator, says ignorance about the rocks is an invitation to thieves, and he should know.
In 1998, he was working for the NASA Office of the Inspector General in a sting operation to uncover fake rocks when he was offered the real Apollo 17 rock — the one given to Honduras — for $5 million.
The rock was recovered and eventually returned to Honduras, but not before a fight in Florida District Court that went down in legal annals as "United States vs. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch By Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque."
The case is not unique.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/sp ... rock_N.htm
So what do you say about the real moon rocks mentioned above ? Think they weren't looked at after the discovery ?
Quantum11":3qln1s0z said:
My wife says I'm a pretty poor dancer but hey if you want your toes stepped on ...
1) You've yet to prove anything re: the deadliess of your "major" (why does the CFI use quotes ?) flares. First the CFI is a compilation of 5 terms, 2 of which indicate the "strength" of radio wave emissions which are non-ionizing and not deadly to the astronauts (short of heating them). One deals with the distribution of the EM spectrum and one deals with the "importance" (means what exactly ?) of the red light emitted. So far as I can see only 1 part of the CFI measures in any way deadly ionizing radiation. So what's the SID portion of the CFI for all those flares ? What was their classification ?
2) You've also ignored my question re: the aiming of the flares. What flares were positioned so as to deliver radiation, in the form of EM waves or energetic particles, towards Earth ?
3) Lastly if you want to refute that the astronauts could have survived space radiation using pop science articles, you might want to have them consistent with your argument. Either there was or wasn't deadly solar radiation during the missions. The articles all say it's the latter. Make your case for the former first and then come up with a flux density and energy levels that would be deadly and then we can debate the effectiveness of the CSM sheilding against those levels. But until you do better support 1 & 2 above I'm not wasting my time.
And to further address your rather silly argument about a Moon telescope ... you tell me what size 'scope they could have brought that would have been any better than what they had then on the ground. Why would we have wasted that weight for such a usage ? If you hoaxsters aren't going to believe the TV transmissions and pics sent back then why would a 'scope sending back images be any different ? The claim would be that their all faked anyway ... something the mission planners of the time really weren't concerned about.
While fakery is on the plate ... what about that fake Dutch moon rock ? The Rijksmuseum got that piece from the former PM. Who says it wasn't either stolen or replaced while in his care or after his death ? I note an article says ...
There is no doubt in my mind that many moon rocks are lost or stolen and now sitting in private collections," said Joseph Gutheinz, a University of Phoenix instructor and former U.S. government investigator who has made a project of tracking down the lunar treasures.
The Rijksmuseum, more noted as a repository for 17th century Dutch paintings, announced last month it had had its plum-sized "moon" rock tested, only to discover it was a piece of petrified wood, possibly from Arizona. The museum said it inherited the rock from the estate of a former prime minister.
The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.
Genuine moon rocks, while worthless in mineral terms, can fetch six-figure sums from black-market collectors.
and ...
Gutheinz, the former U.S. investigator, says ignorance about the rocks is an invitation to thieves, and he should know.
In 1998, he was working for the NASA Office of the Inspector General in a sting operation to uncover fake rocks when he was offered the real Apollo 17 rock — the one given to Honduras — for $5 million.
The rock was recovered and eventually returned to Honduras, but not before a fight in Florida District Court that went down in legal annals as "United States vs. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch By Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque."
The case is not unique.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/sp ... rock_N.htm
So what do you say about the real moon rocks mentioned above ? Think they weren't looked at after the discovery ?
I swear these hoaxers really need to crawl out of their parent's basement and face reality now and then...
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
[youtube][/youtube]
Firstly Von Braun collected more than enough 'moon' rocks during his trip to the antarctic in '"67. So the rest of the silliness about the rocks is obvious. I would personally have put a stamp on a rock as officially from the moon, if someone paid me a **** load of cash. For anyone to think that a bunch of scientists cannot be bought off to sign off on something lke that, makes them very naive. Are you naive?
I'm saving the information about the Major Solar flares that will undoubtedly lead to you, and other blind-faith believers in the Apollo God, in either ignoring, or making most outlandish claims about. I'm saving it until one of you finally admit that NOAA recorded major solar flares that both Jay Windley and NASA in their own Apollo reports, deny. Major solar flares during Apollo missionsl.
I've given you people the source, the links to the source, made you nice little illustrations to point out the facts, and still not one of you goes, "hey, this is kind of odd? Why would NASA lie about the lack of major solar flares, when NOAA has them clearly recorded in their CFI's index at the NGDC? Not one of you? What are you afraid of? You think NASA will get mad at you and come a calling asking for you to resign as unofficial Apollo defender? Or perhaps it's something a little more closer to your pocketbook? Afraid that your official Apollo coins will lose their value at the outing of the entire program?
As for this directional excuse. Where do you apollo fanboys hang out to come up with just the same excuses to try and divert the truth? It's sad really....
Now, let me ask you a question...
What planets would NOAA measure the space weather for? Mars? Pluto? Venus? Gotta make sure those Venutians don't get hit with any major solar flares. Send the Venutians a warning....A CME just let loose!
Are you getting it or do I have to esplain it for you. Your answer is answered in the question...
Here is the problem with the whole moon landing hoax discussion.
First, everyone who enters this discussion, reallizes that to believe Apollo as factual, is to agree with History (written by the VICTORS), Science (the new religion), NASA (Seeded and headed by ardent NAZI scientists) US GOVERNMENT (Still can't find those well-hidden WMDs.) , and a majority of the human populace (gotta make a living, feed the kids, go to church).
So when you enter the arena, you know you have to first appeal to the sense of reason with the explanation for your side of the argument. I've tried reason here, and everyone seems to ignore it.
It's reasonable to ask questions of things that don't make sense. To question contradictions in both testimony and technology. It's unreasonable to adhere to distortions that explain nothing and atttempt to invoke a variety emotionally fueled responses.
So, can we have a reasonable discussion on some very odd statements, and facts about Apollo with some credible, and logical admissions?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaKcjibbgY[/youtube]
Why would Alan Bean not know he travelled far enough out to encounter the radiation belts? Why should we believe the LEM could withstand the shock of a landing on the moon, when Bean said the LEM couldn't hold up it's own weight on Earth? I mean WTF is that all about?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7EzTPxK2c[/youtube]
If you don't laugh so hard you nearly piss yourself listening to poor bean trying to esplain this stuff, then you've lost your sense of humor. LOL
And what's with ole second place Aldrin trying to claim he discovered them first, when Bean says they hadn't been discovered by the time of his mission?
We currently use the need for radiation shielding developments to travel into and beyond our magnetosphere. And yet the space and radiation communties are well aware that aluminum is not only ineffective, but prove even more deadly due to secondary radiation fragmenting inside the space craft. And still they won't out Apollo?
I could go on and on about the contradictions minimilizations, deceptions, missing proofs, faked evidence, and outright lies...But let's see if you'll just start by admitting that NOAA proves NASA lied in their Apollo report, and Windley furthered that lie himself. And that there are many more other odd testimonies that reasonable individuals should not be afraid to discuss reasonably?
[youtube][/youtube]
Mee_n_Mac":3u9cmyjj said:
Firstly Von Braun collected more than enough 'moon' rocks during his trip to the antarctic in '"67. So the rest of the silliness about the rocks is obvious. I would personally have put a stamp on a rock as officially from the moon, if someone paid me a **** load of cash. For anyone to think that a bunch of scientists cannot be bought off to sign off on something lke that, makes them very naive. Are you naive?
I'm saving the information about the Major Solar flares that will undoubtedly lead to you, and other blind-faith believers in the Apollo God, in either ignoring, or making most outlandish claims about. I'm saving it until one of you finally admit that NOAA recorded major solar flares that both Jay Windley and NASA in their own Apollo reports, deny. Major solar flares during Apollo missionsl.
I've given you people the source, the links to the source, made you nice little illustrations to point out the facts, and still not one of you goes, "hey, this is kind of odd? Why would NASA lie about the lack of major solar flares, when NOAA has them clearly recorded in their CFI's index at the NGDC? Not one of you? What are you afraid of? You think NASA will get mad at you and come a calling asking for you to resign as unofficial Apollo defender? Or perhaps it's something a little more closer to your pocketbook? Afraid that your official Apollo coins will lose their value at the outing of the entire program?
As for this directional excuse. Where do you apollo fanboys hang out to come up with just the same excuses to try and divert the truth? It's sad really....
Now, let me ask you a question...
What planets would NOAA measure the space weather for? Mars? Pluto? Venus? Gotta make sure those Venutians don't get hit with any major solar flares. Send the Venutians a warning....A CME just let loose!
Are you getting it or do I have to esplain it for you. Your answer is answered in the question...
Here is the problem with the whole moon landing hoax discussion.
First, everyone who enters this discussion, reallizes that to believe Apollo as factual, is to agree with History (written by the VICTORS), Science (the new religion), NASA (Seeded and headed by ardent NAZI scientists) US GOVERNMENT (Still can't find those well-hidden WMDs.) , and a majority of the human populace (gotta make a living, feed the kids, go to church).
So when you enter the arena, you know you have to first appeal to the sense of reason with the explanation for your side of the argument. I've tried reason here, and everyone seems to ignore it.
It's reasonable to ask questions of things that don't make sense. To question contradictions in both testimony and technology. It's unreasonable to adhere to distortions that explain nothing and atttempt to invoke a variety emotionally fueled responses.
So, can we have a reasonable discussion on some very odd statements, and facts about Apollo with some credible, and logical admissions?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaKcjibbgY[/youtube]
Why would Alan Bean not know he travelled far enough out to encounter the radiation belts? Why should we believe the LEM could withstand the shock of a landing on the moon, when Bean said the LEM couldn't hold up it's own weight on Earth? I mean WTF is that all about?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7EzTPxK2c[/youtube]
If you don't laugh so hard you nearly piss yourself listening to poor bean trying to esplain this stuff, then you've lost your sense of humor. LOL
And what's with ole second place Aldrin trying to claim he discovered them first, when Bean says they hadn't been discovered by the time of his mission?
We currently use the need for radiation shielding developments to travel into and beyond our magnetosphere. And yet the space and radiation communties are well aware that aluminum is not only ineffective, but prove even more deadly due to secondary radiation fragmenting inside the space craft. And still they won't out Apollo?
I could go on and on about the contradictions minimilizations, deceptions, missing proofs, faked evidence, and outright lies...But let's see if you'll just start by admitting that NOAA proves NASA lied in their Apollo report, and Windley furthered that lie himself. And that there are many more other odd testimonies that reasonable individuals should not be afraid to discuss reasonably?
It's funny how all the sci-fi portrayals of the surface of the Moon were renditions of a hard, rocky surface until around 1968. (The Lunar probes confirmed the dusty surface before men actually landed, if I'm not mistaken.)
BurgerB75":3dirkyhc said:
You see, this is the type of comments that helped me to look closer at Apollo. I noticed that nearly all apollo fanboys who cannot give reasonable explanations to reasonable questions, without making themselves look ignorant, usually just stick to gathering all inquiring minds into one group, and then throwing inane insults towards them.
The boxes you create in your attempt to deny the possiblity of you having been duped all your life is an insult to your own intellect. Step away from pride, or the need to fit in with the general consensus, long enough to look at the evidence from a neutral point. Only then will you see clearly.
ZenGalacticore":1pj548gs said:
Ya, it's funny how many of them also included stars, and exhaust plumes, and exhaust craters, and believable portrayals of the sun and moon...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK0Uk6lyeQs[/youtube]
Quantum11":146vtf4g said:
Oh, and before you go and start trying to tell me how hard it is to see, or film stars in space......
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es-HEsI6N0I[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aisdh5sdrgk[/youtube]
So basically what you're saying is that NOAA is a reliable source but NASA isn't because people called you out on this crackpot conspiracy theory, and you're using NOAA because it matches up with your beliefs that we didn't land on the moon.
So quantum, tell us, which government sources can we now rely on as accurate? Should we trust the CIA over the NSA?
So quantum, tell us, which government sources can we now rely on as accurate? Should we trust the CIA over the NSA?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram