I am a Moonie

Guest

youngdan wrote:: The regular readers here know that for almost a year now I have differed on every subject almost with 905 and Ibis. I consider neither of these two posters as anything less than well informed posters who happen to have drawn different conclusions than I.

We agree on some things don't we? Oh wait, I'm thinking of Kevin Myers.

Guest

I am going to start reading this Myers guy now that you recommend him. All I know of him is now from Wiki. I don't think much of his opinion of it being a favourable thing Irishpeople serving in the British Army. Any lad that got himself killed in WW1 did the world a favour by ending his line because he was an eejit. With the way the world is going though I feel Myers will have more agreeing with him every day.

Guest

Youngdan, how do you think they got those great photos of the Moon? Do you think they actually flew there but didn't touch down on the surface? Maybe you should talk to Michael Collins (the one who's still alive)?

This song is about him. It's from Jethro Tull's marvellous 1969 album Benefit.

Guest

I don't think anybody was foolish enough to try to go through the Van Allen radiaion belt. When I have a microsecond of radiation at the dentist the attendent puts a lead garment on me. All the astronauts are alive but they are not very chatty, especially Aldrin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEg4bKxEmlk

I am not sure what photos you speak of but they have nice photos of Mars as well.

I watched live, have a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

Guest

soubresauts wrote:: Youngdan, how do you think they got those great photos of the Moon? Do you think they actually flew there but didn't touch down on the surface? Maybe you should talk to Michael Collins (the one who's still alive)?

This song is about him. It's from Jethro Tull's marvellous 1969 album Benefit.

You're a Tull fan?

Guest

http://www.littleabout.com/videos/video/Y5EoAf41iFQ/chandrayaan1-moon-video.html

This is video released by the Indians of the surface. Pretty clear and from 100 km the Apollo Lander should be sitting right where it was left. They are 9 meters accross and over 10000 kg so they are pretty big

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

I will be waiting but not holding my breath

Guest

youngdan wrote:: I don't think anybody was foolish enough to try to go through the Van Allen radiaion belt.

So you believe that no astronauts have ever left Earth's orbit.

Quote :: All the astronauts are alive but they are not very chatty, especially Aldrin

When I said "the one who's still alive", I was thinking of the astronaut Michael Collins as opposed to the dead Michael Collins.

Quote :: I am not sure what photos you speak of but they have nice photos of Mars as well.

I was thinking of all those photos (and film) taken by the astronauts in lunar orbit. You presumably believe they were taken automatically from a remotely controlled lunar module.

You must be impressed by all the astronauts and NASA people, keeping up the pretence for so long. Great consistency and solidarity, eh?

Guest

ibis wrote:: You're a Tull fan?

Well, I was, though I think they became a bit inconsistent after Benefit. Quite a few good songs to be found in their later albums, but I gave up looking for them after a while.

There was something in their sound that disappeared when Glenn Cornick left in 1970, and I missed that.

Certainly a great band. They were once touring as support to Led Zeppelin, and then later they were touring with Roxy Music as support. Those were the days, though I never saw any of them live.

The first serious gig I attended was Tull's stablemates Fairport Convention not long after this concert.

Following those bands, the next musical milestones for me were probably Patti Smith's Horses, and then Marquee Moon (to bring this back on topic, sort of).

Guest

I doubt very much any astronaut went through the van allen radiation and all the space stations were/are in low Earth orbit. Back in 1999 they were studying the radiation that the ISS would be subject to.
http://www.nsbri.org/Radiation/ISS-EXP.html
The radiation here is nothing compared to what is outside the shielding of the Earth's magnetic field. The obvious fact that life could not exist on Earth without this magnetic field protection is

never thought about by the likes of Ibis.

Putting an unmanned craft in lunar orbit is easy and the Indians have nice pictures. The Indian probe hit the moon surface at 2300 mph. I do not know how anyone would think that 2 men could hover down in a rocket powered craft of 23000 kg mass and gentlely land in zero atmosphere. Then they spend a few hours bouncing arround in a temperture that is 135 centigrade while not have a worry in the world that there might be a problem with takeoff.

Talk about Cool Hand Luke.

I am waiting to see an astronaut do another flyby and not even a landing. It has been 39 years and counting so I can wait another few months.

Guest

While the idea that the Moon landings were faked has a certain attraction and the things said by youngdan in particular do cast doubt on the contention that humanity landed on the Moon, I do have reservations about accepting that position.

Firstly, if the Moon landings were a fake, surely the Soviet Union with their numerous spies and moles in the US government would have picked that up? If the US government did fake the landings, the Soviet Union would have been able to score a massive international public relations coup by pointing that out to the international community. The fact that they didn't makes me think that they actually happened.

Secondly, even when we're watching the most advanced CGI in a film or television programme today, we can see quite clearly that it is not quite right. Even after all this advance in cinematography and imaging technology, we still can pick the real from the unreal with little effort. In an age before all of this technical wizardry, do you seriously believe that the US government would have been able to portray a convincing sequence of events reflecting the moon landings with 1960s filming equipment?

Thirdly, the argument is raised that, if we did land on the Moon in the 60s and 70s, why are we not still doing it? Well the reason is that there is very little up there to merit further missions! Once the realisation that the satellite was composed of largely useless rock and cosmic dust and the Space Race/novelty factor waned then the viability of Moon missions no longer existed.

Fourthly, as ibis already pointed out, we do have fragments of Moon rocks in our geology museums and university faculties and they are studied to this very day. How else could we have these fragments but as a result of successful Moon missions?

Finally, on the issue of the Van Allen belts I defer to the expert in this field, David Stern, a researcher at Goddard,

""I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished."

2500 rems per year works out at 6.8 rems per day. At that rate, and assuming astronauts have the same protection as a typical satellite(unlikely considering these are human beings rather than mere bits of metal) they would have to stay within the Van Allen belts for 15 days to approach the radiation levels required for anything approaching a fatal dose. Well, Apollo 11 launched on July 16th 1969 and landed on July 24th. They spent 8 days and 3 hours on the mission. Even on the ridiculous assumption that actual people would be granted only the same protection as an inanimate satellite, they came back to Earth fully a week before they received a sufficient radiation dose to begin to think of fatality.

On that basis, I feel the only reasonable conclusion one can make is yes, humanity certainly did walk on the Moon.

Guest

I would have reservations about the idea that the landings were faked on the grounds that it's a wacko conspiracy theory that would need to have hundreds upon hundreds of accomplices to maintain the watertight conspiracy. It's on a par with the WTC explosive charge theory, plenty people with plenty 'facts', all a pile of manure...

Guest

AT that was a good post. The Van Allen belt - is radiation stronger near or in it or outside it do ye know ? I imagine it's strongest outside it as it in itself is a bit of sunscreen for the body. An eighth of an inch of aluminium protects astronauts from the radiation ? I don't doubt that there are astronauts space-walking today and I'm sure there were protective coatings the astronauts wore if they walked on the moon too. I think the radiation thing is the least of the doubtful parts.

toxic avenger wrote:: I would have reservations about the idea that the landings were faked on the grounds that it's a wacko conspiracy theory that would need to have hundreds upon hundreds of accomplices to maintain the watertight conspiracy. It's on a par with the WTC explosive charge theory, plenty people with plenty 'facts', all a pile of manure...

The hardest to swallow is that 100s of people would have to be in the conspiracy ! That would be hard to pull off although perhaps you only have to look at political parties here to see the wool that gets pulled over the eyes of masses of the people - it could be easy to convince people that they are being patriotic or something - that's easy to understand though considering it was the Cold War and Russia could have had a lead in space technology in the eyes of the public or the NASA workers.

Interesting point AT about the Russian spies ..

Toxic have you seen the 911 internet video "Loose Change" ? It's the most downloaded Twin Towers demolition conspiracy video of all time ...

Guest

toxic avenger wrote:: I would have reservations about the idea that the landings were faked on the grounds that it's a wacko conspiracy theory that would need to have hundreds upon hundreds of accomplices to maintain the watertight conspiracy. It's on a par with the WTC explosive charge theory, plenty people with plenty 'facts', all a pile of manure...

Indeed. Government activity resembles so much a sieve. It is constantly leaking details about itself to other parties, the media, academia and into the ether. The idea that the US government could get stumm on a fabrication like this for almost 40 years is very hard to credit, especially since, with Official Secrets Acts and the like, many of the government papers of that time are now declassified and open to scrutiny. The government couldn't get a conspiracy and fabrication that perfect that it wouldn't stand the test of time in terms of disclosure.

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:: AT that was a good post. The Van Allen belt - is radiation stronger near or in it or outside it do ye know ? I imagine it's strongest outside it as it in itself is a bit of sunscreen for the body. An eighth of an inch of aluminium protects astronauts from the radiation ? I don't doubt that there are astronauts space-walking today and I'm sure there were protective coatings the astronauts wore if they walked on the moon too. I think the radiation thing is the least of the doubtful parts.

When they were passing through the belts, they had a Van Allen dosimeter sensor, which, according to this paper, allowed the astronauts the ability to see where the concentrations of radiation were. Presumably astronauts made the rational decision to chart a route away from the majority of the radiation thereby reducing their effective dosage.

Guest

Do you really think lads were going to take a half lethal dose of radiation even if those figures are accurate. Not only has man not gone to the moon since but they are still restricted to low earth orbit.

This craic with the moon rocks must be the silliest thing of all. Ibis is told they are from the moon so he being Ibis will believe anything. Did he see a made on the moon stamped on the back or something. The theory is that the moon was a chunk of the Earth thrown into space by a collision. A child could realise that the material of both bodies are the same if the theory is true. All theories have both the moon and the Earth forming from the same material.

At the time China came out an stated that the moon landing was a hoax. The Soviets said nothing. They were supposed to be our enemies. Yet hundreds of tons og grain and huge amounts of money were sent to them each year.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060207_lro_technology.html

All will be revealed next April when the American craft gets there. It will be orbiting at just 50 km high and will be able to see everything. The Indian one is at 100 km.

So we have 4 months to wait.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Do you really think lads were going to take a half lethal dose of radiation even if those figures are accurate. Not only has man not gone to the moon since but they are still restricted to low earth orbit.

I refer you to the conclusion of the paper...

"Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar-particle releases are random events, and it is possible that flares, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles, might hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere of the Earth."

Quote :: This craic with the moon rocks must be the silliest thing of all. Ibis is told they are from the moon so he being Ibis will believe anything. Did he see a made on the moon stamped on the back or something. The theory is that the moon was a chunk of the Earth thrown into space by a collision. A child could realise that the material of both bodies are the same if the theory is true. All theories have both the moon and the Earth forming from the same material.

At the time China came out an stated that the moon landing was a hoax. The Soviets said nothing. They were supposed to be our enemies. Yet hundreds of tons og grain and huge amounts of money were sent to them each year.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060207_lro_technology.html

All will be revealed next April when the American craft gets there. It will be orbiting at just 50 km high and will be able to see everything. The Indian one is at 100 km.

So we have 4 months to wait.

So you are simultaneously telling us not to believe geologists in their field of expertise and to believe the pronouncements of the propaganda wing of the Chinese Communist Party?

Guest

What's so special about moonrocks anyway ? When brought close to lunatics they make them lose all their powers or what ?

Guest

The idea that hundreds of people could not keep their yaps shut is the even more foolish assumption than the lunar rocks. Today I can be served a legal paper that prevents me from even telling my wife or lawyer or I go straight to jail. Part of the Patriot Act.

A better example though is the Manhattan Project.
100000 people worked on that for 2 years and do you know how many talked. Nobody. Not even General McArthur knew about it till shortly before the big blast

Guest

youngdan wrote:: This craic with the moon rocks must be the silliest thing of all. Ibis is told they are from the moon so he being Ibis will believe anything. Did he see a made on the moon stamped on the back or something. The theory is that the moon was a chunk of the Earth thrown into space by a collision. A child could realise that the material of both bodies are the same if the theory is true. All theories have both the moon and the Earth forming from the same material.

Yes, Earth and the Moon are made of the same materials but you forget one key point. Virtually all of the ancient, heavy rocks and metals which compose the Earth have since sunk to the interior to form the core and that is why it is virtually impossible to find rock samples on Earth from the time of its inception. The difference with the moon is that those rocks which have now since sunk to the centre of Earth are far closer to the surface their. The Moon is like a biopsy sample of the Earth in this regard. Geologists have found the rocks brought back from Moon missions to be significantly older than any previously found on Earth thereby proving that they could not possibly have terrestrial origins, they must have come from the Moon.

Guest

Do you disagree that the moon was part of the Earth at one stage. You tell me how they are different. That is like splitting a rock and saying the two halves are different. The Chinese said it was a hoax and believe them or not if you like

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Do you disagree that the moon was part of the Earth at one stage. You tell me how they are different. That is like splitting a rock and saying the two halves are different. The Chinese said it was a hoax and believe them or not if you like

I don't disagree. Scientific evidence points to the Earth and the Moon coming from a common planetoid. What I'm saying is that the Moon has far older elements of that common planetoid in abundance at its surface than any which we can find on Earth. Moon rocks are up to 4 billion years old, a billion years senior to their equivalents on Earth. The rocks returned by Apollo 17 could not have come from Earth as it is physically impossible. Volcanic and tectonic activity through the ages have seen to that.

I also find it odd that you can believe the pronouncements of a highly-compromised repressive regime over objective scientific investigation.

Guest

Ard. That easilly rivalls the more bizarre economic forecasts of yours from last year. All the rocks and everything else is 4.5 billion years old. So Ibis saw Made on the Moon on them and you saw Year of manufacture on them.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Ard. That easilly rivalls the more bizarre economic forecasts of yours from last year.All the rocks and everything else is 4.5 billion years old. So Ibis saw Made on the Moon on them and you saw Year of manufacture on them.

No they aren't. Many of them have come from meteorite impacts from much, much later in Earth's history. Many older rocks have been destroyed or are simply unavailable to us as they are at a huge depth in Earth's core.

Guest

Are you sober. If meteorite rocks are plentifull what is to stop someone saying that he brought it back from the moon, look Ibis it is different.

No matter where the rocks are, on the surface or 100 miles down they are 4.5 billion years old.

Roll on April

Guest

Finally - filmed proof that the trip to the moon was faked in a Parisian studio:
this in exchange for the Ariane technology later passed to the French by NASA.

A TRIP TO THE MOON - 1902 - Click here for the most popular videos