I haven't had the chance to look them over in detail yet, but I do see the web pages.
Welcome to BAUT, Mark.
Order of Kilopi
I haven't had the chance to look them over in detail yet, but I do see the web pages.
Welcome to BAUT, Mark.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Newbie
Would you like to pay for it?Originally Posted by novaderrik
thanks for the welcome Van Rijn any comments would be great.
mark_smith
Established Member
the first sentence actually made sense(im wading through it slowly up to page 25.....-(waves hi to dk)
R.I.P. Bad Astronomy
Member
As Moon Man was banned...and for good reason, I am thinking this should be summarized for his benefit, should he still be wandering about, taking all of this in...
Moon Man:
You could not possibly have been here to prove that NASA did not land men on the moon. That, as you may well have seen, is not possible to do. There is no evidence of a great lunar lie, never has been, and never will be.
Everything you could possibly present has been presented before, and has been thoroughly trashed.
Personally, I appreciate people's doubts, and their questions, which logically should result from their doubts. I also welcome them, as it provides an opportunity to educate, and hopefully to prompt people to take responsibility and research the abundantly documented facts themselves.
Anyone who comes here (especially) and arrogantly attempts to prove that what actually happened in the most documented scientific and engineering effort in history did not happen--utilizing arrogant, and rather silly assertions of "fact" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and who fails to abide by the rules of discussion--rather than asking question and making intelligent responses or arguements, tends to get themselves tossed out of the airlock without a pressure suit
And, so, you've found yourself floating out in the vacuum with Frank Poole.
Established Member
If you want to post somewhere where he is more likely to read it and might actually reply heading over the ApolloHoax.net forums as he is occasionally active there.
Established Member
Some of us are wishing he'd return. The hoax-believers posting right now are rather worse.
Established Member
sadly..he's been banned...or are you referrring to apollohaox?
There, even stargazer seems to have given up!
Pete
Edit: nevermind, nomuse, I see you're logged on at appolohaox right now!
Established Member
Not for very long, Pete. Not if the mods get wind of my reply to Stargazer. ^_^;;
Established Member
Mark, welcome to the board.
I took a quick look - nice page on the Apollo landings. I have a few comments, but for right now let me just toss out the following:
1. The LRV (Lunar Roving Vehicle) did indeed fold up, as you mentioned, but you might want to add that it was stored on the outside of the LM.
2. You might want to add the identifiers of the images, or link to high-resolution versions at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
3. You might also want to add that Dr. James Van Allen himself has specifically repudiated the idea that the Van Allen belts were impassible to the astronauts. He worked with NASA to design the trajectories which minimized exposure for the Apollo crews.
Keep up the good work!
Newbie
Thanks sts60 for the warm welcome and thanks for the added details for the Questions and Answers. Any more would be great.
mark_smith
Bad Post-Doc
Can we get mod grammar correction on the thread title, please? (Also, mark_smith, you've got the wrong "it's" in your sig line.)
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
Why was moon man banned? is it as he claimed it was a great lie?
Bad Post-Doc
Moon Man was banned for failing to abide by the forum rules. He didn't answer questions. He was remarkably rude. He can believe what he wants--there is no forum rule insisting that one conform to any belief, hence the size of both this forum and the ATM one--but there are rules about how you present your argument, and he failed to abide by them. (He also failed to understand even an elementary-school level of physics, but that's obviously not a banning offense, either.)
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
ahh....... rude eh? Still to tell the truth I'm not 100% satisfied with the evidence NASA provides for how it was all real. Im sitting on the fence on this one. Im surprised the Astros were not toasted by Flares. Though addmitedly a CME would be a flippin unlucky and hopefull rare thing to come across on mans first or any voyage to the moon.
Order of Kilopi
Oh Yeah, If there Was a Major Flare, they Would've Had The Look And Consistency of Cooked Hamburg ...
In Fact, Before they Left, The Astronauts Were Given a 95% Chance of Reaching The Moon, And ONLY a 90% Chance of Coming Back Alive ...
So, Why Did they Go Anyway, they Were Test Pilots, Brave Test Pilots!
Established Member
That's always been the number one problem I have with HBs; they are basically calling some of the bravest and most dedicated men of the 20th century liars.Oh Yeah, If there Was a Major Flare, they Would've Had The Look And Consistency of Cooked Hamburg ...
In Fact, Before they Left, The Astronauts Were Given a 95% Chance of Reaching The Moon, And ONLY a 90% Chance of Coming Back Alive ...
So, Why Did they Go Anyway, they Were Test Pilots, Brave Test Pilots!
Established Member
What is keeping you on the fence?
There is an abundance of evidence that Apollo happened.
Order of Kilopi
Yeah, me Too ...
If I EVER Actually Met, Men Like Neil Armstrong and "Buzz" Aldrin, I'd Be Too In Awe, to Say Anything ...
However, If I Did Get a Chance to Speak to One Of them, And I Had The Sheer Audacity, to Call him a Liar, I'd Deserve, to Be Punched In The Face!
Established Member
Why are some hoaxbelievers saying that passing the van allen belts is really impossible? And what are the apollo astronauts like Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin saying about the moonhoax story?
Established Member
Because radiation is something you can only discuss and understand if you're really smart. It's basically the argument that can win most people, especially since there's a lot of stuff unclear about the subject.
Neil doesn't want to have anything to do with (current HB 'spokesman') Bart Sibrel. Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face when Sibrel harassed him.
Established Member
Van Allen belts As to why, they are either ignorant of the facts about radiation (see Stargazer over at apollohoax.net), or they are using the bugbear of radiation (Oooo! Scarey!) to bolster their case.
Well, Buzz punched Sibrel in the face after Sibrel ambushed him. I expect that most of them consider it to be beneath their notice.And what are the apollo astronauts like Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin saying about the moonhoax story?
Fred
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684
Established Member
Because they've got radiation - boo! boo! And therefore they must be deadly, right?
Really it's because people don't know much about radiation and are scared by it, therefore it's an effective way for HBs too cast FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) on the Apollo program. Never mind that the particle radiation hazard in the VABs can be mitigated with light shielding and short exposure times; never mind that James Van Allen himself worked with NASA to design the trajectories through the belts for Apollo, and has personally repudiated the HB claims that the belts are somehow impassable. (Also never mind that astronauts, cosmonauts, and taikonauts in Earth orbit routinely transit a low-hanging bit of the belts but somehow don't get fried to a crisp.)
As for the astronauts' reactions - pretty much the same as any normal person when confronted by hostile crackpots.
Established Member
I guess the problem with the radiation argument is that people view all radiation as the same thing ...
George Mason died of radiation sickness in season 2 of 24 within 12 hours of ingesting plutonium dust (or something), so how come the Apollo astronauts didn't die from their two week exposure?
Simple logic and common sense really.
Established Member
None of the Apollo missions coincided with a flare, if one had the radiation dose for the crew could have been as high as 50 to 100 rad, non-fatal but definitely long-term-health-threatening. Try this reference for more details.
Established Member
That's simple to debunk --- George died in a plane crash. (or the subsequent nuclear expolosion)
Established Member
Good old Hollywood. I guess that the writer didn't know that quite apart from its radioactivity, plutonium is more poisonous than arsenic.
Order of Kilopi
As for the astronauts' reactions - pretty much the same as any normal person when confronted by hostile crackpots.
That's exactly the issue. The viewers of Bart Sibrel's videos have no way of knowing that the astronauts know exactly who he is and what he hopes to accomplish. The viewer believes that Sibrel is just a simple, honest reporter asking tough questions of evasive people. And so they're quite willing to believe just as Sibrel wishes them to and attribute the astronauts' reaction to discomfort at the subject matter.
Journalists know it's foul play to do what Sibrel does. People respond badly to being ambushed, regardless of whether they think they're in the right. Sibrel's viewers have a right to know that his victims recognize Sibrel and have a legitimate reason not to want anything to do with him.
When Sibrel spoke to the L.A. prosecutor about possibly pressing charges against Buzz Aldrin for the assault, Sibrel revealed that he intended to pay Aldrin an honorarium for participating in the interview, then to accuse him of taking money to talk about something he never did. This, to me, suggests that Sibrel planned all along to submit the astronauts to a Catch-22 scenario. That differs markedly from the 60 Minutes scenario that is hard-hitting and confrontational, but at least provides a way for the subject to "win". Here the astronauts never had a chance, and probably realized they never had a chance. That's why this is shady reporting.
Order of Kilopi
Still to tell the truth I'm not 100% satisfied with the evidence NASA provides for how it was all real.
That's a bit of a straw man. There is evidence that the missions were real, but that's not to say this evidence was purposefully collected to prove authenticity. Any true event will leave behind evidence as a matter of course. Often that's the only evidence you have of its authenticity and you have to be satisfied with it. That is, you can't say the event was false because there "should" be stronger evidence and it's not forthcoming.
In other cases we know ahead of time that authenticity will be a question, and so we can arrange to collect additional evidence. For example, if someone proposes to set a non-stop flight record, we can arrange for the cockpit door to be sealed at Point A and then inspected at Point B to falsify the claim that the pilot landed and stretched his legs somewhere.
The problem is that conspiracists seem to believe Apollo was, or should have been, one of the latter cases. It wasn't. I don't see any evidence that NASA was overly concerned about whether believe would believe them or not. And so the evidence they now point to isn't evidence they specifically arranged to collect in order to satisfy these questions. But conspiracists evaluate it as if NASA knew, or should have known, that some people would set such a high standard of proof, and thus the evidence "falls short". The conspiracists first have to show that the burden of proof they propose to place on NASA is reasonable in the context NASA operated in.
Im surprised the Astros were not toasted by Flares. Though addmitedly a CME would be a flippin unlucky and hopefull rare thing...
Conspiracy theorists vastly misunderstand the effects of solar weather. Yes, a large-scale ejection of material would have been quite a concern. But because conspiracists have only a rudimentary understanding of the solar environment, they make elementary mistakes.
Some people believe that space outside the Van Allen belts is constantly filled with much higher radiation levels than inside. They believe that the Van Allen belts shield us from all space radiation. Thus they drawn wrong conclusions about the difference between standing on the Earth's surface, orbiting in low Earth orbit, orbiting inside the Van Allen belts, and traveling to and walking on the moon.
The atmosphere is just as responsible for attenuating space radiation as the Van Allen belts. Thus some forms of radiation are just as hazardous in LEO as on the lunar surface. And the cislunar ambient is only slightly more hazardous than the space within the Van Allen belts. You have a solar wind, which will accumulate exposure but not at a very fast rate.
As far as solar bursts or flares or ejections or whatever you want to call them, there are three or four orders of magnitude difference between the smallest detectable flares and the largest ones that cause so much difficulty with space operations. The smallest occur several times a day. The largest occur only once or twice every several years. There are graphs that show solar activity over time, revealing the 11-year cycle of flares. However, these graph the number of flares, not the overall exposure at any given second. That is misleading; it does not document any sort of constant level of bombardment.
The difference is even more pronounced than that between a gentle spring shower and a category 5 hurricane. You would be foolish to go out in a boat during the latter, which occur very infrequently. But a bit of rain won't hurt you. And that occurs much more often.
Established Member
It should be noted that NASA was quite concerned about the possiblility of a large solar flare occurring during the period that the Apollo astronauts were outside of the LM. If a large flare had occurred, it is certainly possible that the astronauts could have recieved a fatal dose of radiation. As noted by JayUtah, however, the chances of such an occurence were quite small, and it was not felt that the shielding necessary to protect the astronauts could be justified considering the expence.
While inside the CM, there was virtually no chance that a flare could have delivered a fatal dose of radiation.
As I recall, someone wrote about a fictional Apollo 18 mission (Asminov? Clarke? someone know?) where just such an event occurred. The astronauts death was not immediate, and the fictional CM returned home with the pilot (physically) unharmed.
Established Member
James Michener's "Space", made into a miniseries in 1985.
Posting Permissions
