9/11 | Conspiracy? (2 Viewers)

[Jiga]

Quote:
Oh, the flag waved because of some 1 in a million year event'


That's not how it's explained at all...

Yeah, they say its because the astronauts had to spwivel it to put it into the ground, pity images of the flag by itself (presumably alittle while after) show it still waving

 

[Jiga]

The person who discovered the radiation belt concluded that it would not affect them... was he lying too?

Interesting, my source which is recommended on NASA's site doesnt agree with your statement. They come up with another explanation. So which one is it going to be?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are more example of their 'evidence', most of which cannot conveniently be disproven because their excuses use the moons envirnment as the reason behind them. Im sure its true in some cases, but they use it for most.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yeah, they say its because the astronauts had to spwivel it to put it into the ground, pity images of the flag by itself (presumably alittle while after) show it still waving

They made it appear to be rippled because they like the look of the flag that way... It resembled the way you would see the flag on earth. If there is all this wind, why can't you see dust flying around everywhere?

Interesting, my source which is recommended on NASA's site doesnt agree with your statement. They come up with another explanation. So which one is it going to be?

Um it doesn't disagree with my statement either? I just said that Van allen said the astronauts would have no trouble.... this just bolsters that by pointing out other evidence that it would be no trouble... I don't see where I am wrong?

There are more example of their 'evidence', most of which cannot conveniently be disproven because their excuses use the moons envirnment as the reason behind them. Im sure its true in some cases, but they use it for most.

So you disagree with their description of the moons environment? What FOX has done is they have used 'common sense' arguments (in this sense I will claim that common sense is deductive reasoning of what we 'expect' to happen, based on what we have seen in the past) to trick you. It is a completely different environment and I don't think any of the environmental factors they claim are challenged by anyone (at least not in any sort of peer reviewed scientific paper) so why should we not accept them?

If you want to disprove their arguments, it's simple - show us where in their descriptions of the moons environment they are wrong. You can do this without going to the moon, show us where they are wrong using some sort of theory backed up by evidence that we can then independently test for ourselves and you will have shown that they are wrong.

Untill then, I do not believe you at all and I believe their description of the environment is fine. If you have a problem with it, go out and do some science yourself to prove them wrong.

 

[Jiga]

They made it appear to be rippled because they like the look of the flag that way... It resembled the way you would see the flag on earth.

There are 'movies' where it is moving I believe, with no astronaut presence in its immediate vicinity.

Um it does disagree with my statement either? I just said that Van allen said the astronauts would have no trouble.

It doesnt direclt disagree, but it is interesting how your excuse doesnt match that of a NASA source because they didnt mention such irrefutable evidence. BTW, I have been to that site, and like I said previously, their are alot of convenient excuses in their.

So you disagree with their description of the moons environment?

No, but that site tries to say that minimal dust was disaplced by the LM because of the moons atmosphere.... and thats why that foot print could still be made so well

Heres alittle snipper of a large artilcle which is quite interesting.

Radiation

Around our planet are huge radiation bands, it is up for debate how thick they are, but estimations show that the Apollo astronauts would spend approximately four hours in the radiation. This is possibly the strongest proof we have against the moon landings ever taking place. There are two natural bands of radiation called the Van Allen belt, the first being just under 300 miles from Earth. No other space projects have ever gone into these deadly areas apart from the Apollo missions. In 1962, the US government implemented Operation Starfish Prime, they tried to use a megaton nuclear bomb to blast a hole in the radiation, in their infinite wisdom they made the radiation worse, by 2002 this third band will still have 25 times the amount of radiation than the natural bands.

There is no way for astronauts to get through this radiation without having at least: hair loss, severe sickness, vomiting and diarrhoea, impaired vision, and death within a two month period, however no Apollo astronauts ever suffered illness from travelling through the radiation.

Sunspot activity follows an 11 year cycle, every 11 years there is a the greatest amount of radiation, one of these peaks was between 1969 and 1970, there is no way men stood that radiation and made it to the moon. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 mission, one of the worst solar flares on record occurred, this would have given enough radiation to instantly kill and astronaut, however the astronauts were fine, they were safely away in AREA51.




There are also numerous eg's of pictures taken where the rocks etc are in the exact same arrangement... yet NASA claims they are different locations!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It doesnt direclt disagree, but it is interesting how your excuse doesnt match that of a NASA source because they didnt mention such irrefutable evidence. BTW, I have been to that site, and like I said previously, their are alot of convenient excuses in their.

Ok, first of all... that was not a Nasa source, they simple linked to it but made a point to distance themselves from it. My excuse does match that of the source, just he doesn't mention what james allen said... I did - the source actually provides more evidence and an experiment which anyone can do if they wish, to show exactly how it works... that is REAL science.

their are alot of convenient excuses in their.

They are not convenient, they are scientifically accurate... unless you wish to show how their excuses are wrong?

There is no way for astronauts to get through this radiation without having at least: hair loss, severe sickness, vomiting and diarrhoea, impaired vision, and death within a two month period, however no Apollo astronauts ever suffered illness from travelling through the radiation.

Perhaps if they actually provided some proof for this, instead of just stating it... it would be much more credible. NASA has proof that they were able to, other scientists can replicate this proof using what knowledge they have of the van allen belt.... They have nothing but a claim.

Sunspot activity follows an 11 year cycle, every 11 years there is a the greatest amount of radiation, one of these peaks was between 1969 and 1970, there is no way men stood that radiation and made it to the moon. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 mission, one of the worst solar flares on record occurred, this would have given enough radiation to instantly kill and astronaut, however the astronauts were fine, they were safely away in AREA51.

It says between apollo 16 and 17, according to wikipedia the affect solar bursts have on the van allen belt usually dissipate within a day or so.

Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

 

[Jiga]

Ok, first of all... that was not a Nasa source, they simple linked to it but made a point to distance themselves from it. My excuse does match that of the source, just he doesn't mention what james allen said... I did - the source actually provides more evidence and an experiment which anyone can do if they wish, to show exactly how it works... that is REAL science.

I find it quite convenient that Russian astronauts were worried about the radiation but the US ones werent because NASA ran some 'Tests'. And to no suprise, those trying to debunk the 'myths' refer to the NASA site for their data.... hmmm if your trying to cover it up, are you going to put online data that will prove you wrong . Of course not, relying on their data IF it was a cover up is completely useless.

They are not convenient, they are scientifically accurate... unless you wish to show how their excuses are wrong?

Show me how they are right? What background does the author have that makes him so knowledgable? (Did he work for NASA because if he didnt, then I doubt his credibility very much so) And why doesnt NASA do what he did and debunk the myths? (More than likely not because they fear being proven wrong and losing credibility)

Perhaps if they actually provided some proof for this, instead of just stating it... it would be much more credible. NASA has proof that they were able to, other scientists can replicate this proof using what knowledge they have of the van allen belt.... They have nothing but a claim.

What is the proof, bogus documents put together by NASA in an attempt to make it look like the radiation belt wont harm them AT ALL? Yes, really trust the data from the organisation trying to cover it up .

I think the mere fact that the US government used Operation Startfish Prime to attempt to blow a hole in the radiation shows that they knew it was a problem, or why else would they try to do that considering the risk of increasing the levels of radiation!!??? Simply, it doesnt make sense. Maybe after they realised it couldnt be done, they resorted to faking the moon landing.. sounds bout right to me!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I find it quite convenient that Russian astronauts were worried about the radiation but the US ones werent because NASA ran some 'Tests'. And to no suprise, those trying to debunk the 'myths' refer to the NASA site for their data.... hmmm if your trying to cover it up, are you going to put online data that will prove you wrong . Of course not, relying on their data IF it was a cover up is completely useless.

They were both worried, that's why NASA came up with a way to solve the problem. If russian scientists don't believe them... the prove it! Show how it is physically impossible to go through the van allen belt.

Show me how they are right? What background does the author have that makes him so knowledgable? (Did he work for NASA because if he didnt, then I doubt his credibility very much so) And why doesnt NASA do what he did and debunk the myths? (More than likely not because they fear being proven wrong and losing credibility)

I can show you, the information pertaining to how correct they are about the environment on the moon is freely out there in millions of scientific journals and websites. Your information, is not... it's not out there.. There is no data, No theory which has not been debunked using actual scientific data.

This information is from hundreds of different fields and scientists from all around the world, thousands of independent lines of inquiry, yet you're still not willing to accept it? I suspect your response to this will be 'well post them!' the fact is I cannot post every single article, but be aware that an article in a scientific journal that challenges that environment would be very big news... so yours should be much easier to find.

What is the proof, bogus documents put together by NASA in an attempt to make it look like the radiation belt wont harm them AT ALL? Yes, really trust the data from the organisation trying to cover it up

No, there are no (very few... i'm sure you can find some bogus guy) scientists who have a problem with the claims by nasa reguarding the van allen belt...

I think the mere fact that the US government used Operation Startfish Prime to attempt to blow a hole in the radiation shows that they knew it was a problem, or why else would they try to do that considering the risk of increasing the levels of radiation!!??? Simply, it doesnt make sense.

ugh......

I give up on you. You won't listen to any proof, you make up bullshit excuses that are easily countered then continue with this illogical tripe. When you say something wrong, then it is an accident... When you have been corrected on that accident and continue to say it, you are either an idiot, or selectively ignoring things.

 

[davin]

Going to the moon was one element of the Cold War. If there was any significant proof that the moon landing was a fraud, the USSR would have made a very big deal of it considering it was a race between them and the US to reach the moon.

 

[mr_brightside]

Matt Daaaaamon.

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAATT DAAAAAAAAAAAMON

 

[Sonic]

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAATT DAAAAAAAAAAAMON

another useless post......