Moon Landings

[Mezurashi]

why is it that the only people who truly 'Believe' the Moon Landings were faked have no scientific grounding at all? Why are the naysayers relying on an almost relgious form of 'Belief' and using fallacious arguments which only hold up in an atmosphere of ignorance? who invented Liquid Soap, and why?

before we question too much, let's learn to find out the kinds of questions we should be asking.

and remember, the Gov't WANTS us to waste time on distractions like the Moon Landing Hoax, CFC's causing Ozone holes and the Iraq War. This was they can pull off some of the most incredible crap right under your nose, and you didn't notice cause you were too busy chasing the chimera to prove how right you are...

[dutchie]

why is it that the dots where you filled in "moon landing" could just as easily have been filled in with "The Bible"?!? Or "George Bush"? Or "the justified war in Iraq"? Or "nationalism"? Or.... I could go on and on...

It's not the PROOF of the matter that is important, it is the WILL to believe. People WANT to be screwed over like that, it gives them a sense of BELONGING... (all of this is of course my personal opinion, before anyone accuses me of concocting my own set of "facts"...).

It's truly AMAZING that 38% of the voters don't believe the USA landed on the moon...

[Mezurashi]

Originally Posted by dutchie

why is it that the dots where you filled in "moon landing" could just as easily have been filled in with "The Bible"?!? Or "George Bush"? Or "the justified war in Iraq"? Or "nationalism"? Or.... I could go on and on...

It's not the PROOF of the matter that is important, it is the WILL to believe. People WANT to be screwed over like that, it gives them a sense of BELONGING... (all of this is of course my personal opinion, before anyone accuses me of concocting my own set of "facts"...).

It's truly AMAZING that 38% of the voters don't believe the USA landed on the moon...

yeah, I know, but sometimes it feels good to get it off my skinny chest. it's like asking the ceiling why your boss is so stupid, or why people forgave Oral Roberts, or why people take American Idol seriously, etc., etc.

[The Dude]

what about the Van Allen belt?? its a radiaton belt between the moon and the earth.. no way astronauts could have go past that belt with not even radiaton sickness, hair loss, etc.. and there was a peak radiaton in those years..
I dont really care if the photos were faked..but i dont think US landed on the moon.. look..if we had the technologgy back then to pass the radiation..then why havent we go back to the moon, or have a tripulation go past this van allen belt?? 35 after we landed on the moon.. we should be doing a moon base atm

my first post

[dutchie]

Dude, Welcome to these forums. I will answer your question with a link:

"Ask a high-energy astronomer"
The Question
(Submitted June 30, 1997)

How is it possible for manned space flights to survive the effects of the Van Allen Radiation Belt?


The Answer
As you know, the Van Allen radiation belts are doughnut-shaped regions encircling Earth and containing high-energy electrons and ions trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. Explorer I, launched by NASA in 1958, discovered these two regions of intense radiation surrounding the Earth. They are referred to as the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts, after James Van Allen who designed Explorer I. The inner region is centered at about 3000 km above Earth and has a thickness of about 5000 km. The outer region is centered at about 15,000 -- 20,000 km above the surface of the Earth and has a thickness of 6,000 -- 10,000 km.
Typically, manned space flight (such as the Shuttle) stays well below the altitude of the van Allen radiation belts. Safe flight can occur below altitudes of 400 km or so.

SO ...what do we do when we have to fly through the radiation belts -- like when we went to the Moon or send probes to other planets?

In the 1960s, NASA asked Oak Ridge National Laboratory to predict how astronauts and other materials would be affected by exposure to both the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts and the Sun's radiation. Oak Ridge biologists sent bacteria and blood samples into space and exposed small animals to radiation. They concluded that proper shielding would be key to successful flight not only for living organisms, but for electronic instrumentation as well. To develop shielding for the Apollo crews, Oak Ridge researchers recycled the Lab's Tower Shielding Facility, which had hoisted shielding experiments aloft for the 1950's nuclear-plane project.

Regards,
Laura Whitlock
for Ask a High-Energy Astronomer


And - for an even more in-depth article:
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

[Mezurashi]

Originally Posted by The Dude

what about the Van Allen belt?? its a radiaton belt between the moon and the earth.. no way astronauts could have go past that belt with not even radiaton sickness, hair loss, etc.. and there was a peak radiaton in those years..
I dont really care if the photos were faked..but i dont think US landed on the moon.. look..if we had the technologgy back then to pass the radiation..then why havent we go back to the moon, or have a tripulation go past this van allen belt?? 35 after we landed on the moon.. we should be doing a moon base atm

my first post

please see my earlier post #101 - I don't want to type all that again, lol.

[stewey]

Also check the links I provided about the Van Allen belt. It's pretty sad people still are in denial that we landed on the moon.

[terminator420]

i just saw that movie about wether or not we really did, it seemed really convincing, so what do you guys think?

[Red Shift]

Thought i'd merge these two threads as your new thread was pretty much a duplicate.

Anywho im am unsure as to whether american astronaughts landed on the moon, though i am more inclined to believe they did, although evidence seems to prove the other way?

Anyone have any new evidence on this subject?

[bbbv3.5]

Yea I do. This is the longest thread bbb ever posted to.

[stewey]

If you have questions based on the conspiracy websites which ask the infamous questions, check the links I provided. They answer them and are answered by an astrophysicist.

If you cannot find your question on the link, post it here and I will find it for you. He answers every imaginable question about the moon landings.

Overall comments and links, debunks several website's claims:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

The Fox special debunking:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/FOX.html

Debunking James Collier's claims (from the video mentioned above I assume):
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...ed/collier.htm

Answering the "infamous nine questions" as asked by American Patriot Friends Network:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/moon.htm

[AcE]

Originally Posted by Rage_Garden

I heard somewhere that the reason theres no stars in the pictures is because they were airbrushed out to make everything look better? On top of that some say they airbrushed out evidence of ancient structers on the moon under the cover of taking out the stars.

I saw on TV (i think it was Patrick Moore who said it) that there are no stars because they are too far away & the television cameras couldn't see them because of the light conditions.

[bbbv3.5]

Yes that is absolutley right. Everything the conspiracy theorists said all were responded to.

Plus we have lasers that point to where the Americans landed on the moon. Yet conspiracy theorists have nothing to say to that.

[stewey]

The reason there are no stars in the moon landing photos:

Ever been in a brightly lit stadium, on a clear night? Like a baseball game.

You cannot see the stars because of the light from the stadium. The moon is very bright, and that is why you cannot see the stars.

[bbbv3.5]

Yeah, you have to see the Conspiracy: Moon Landings show on the national geographic channel. They actually bash everything that the conspiracy people say. It is actually quite funny see them calling the astronauts clowns, and then being shut up when they get a reply.