View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 07:21

Misha wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:The point is that NASA knew that they didn't know what might happen to anyone who went through the belts and left the magnetosphere to be exposed to the full strength of solar radiation. For that reason, and for the sheer impossibility of pulling off up to 10 announced missions successfully or without the death of some astronauts, they elected not to go ahead. They had probably already concluded it was a technical impossibility to achieve missions successfully regardless of radiation risks to health of the astronauts.

What medical studies were conducted on the supposed Apollo astronauts on their return? The joke was that people met them wearing face masks in case they came back with 'strange bacteria' from the moon that would kill you dead on inhalation, or some such nonsense -- total 1950s B-grade Hollywood sci-fi schlock. As one commentator points out, once NASA and the govt had confirmed that enough people had bought the story while the astronauts remained on ice, they dropped the pretence of intensive 'medical' treatment after return after the first mission.


As a kid I remember the astronauts getting off the helicopter and put into one of those trailer containment pods. I distinctly remembering that they did not look to happy too. I found that puzzling at my age. I thought there would be a big whoopie look on their faces. Yes, purely subjective but it has stuck with me all these years. Boy, I would love to have been a fly on the wall for their debriefing.

haha, what debriefing? they didn't go anywhere.

no, my mistake, they would have had to pull out the video cameras of them in weightless low earth orbit and the shots of the earth transparency on the window of the module in safe-ish low earth orbit etc to make sure everything seemed OK. Even then a lot of errors seem to have gotten through.

Interesting theory I just read that maybe ALL the footage was shot for ALL the missions by the same two actors in suits lol, with astronaut voice-overs they'd been practising. Just speculation though.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 03 Jan 2013, 07:29

really? wrote:Arouet you've done fair analysis. Perhaps the reason there's not been rebuttal is because the discrepancy's you raise of White's analysis are not easily addressed.

Looking at his site's FAQ I find this incredible piece of journalistic slop. To ignore the fact that the Soviets had radar tracking ability like we did makes what's written below down right dubious in the least. And the Soviets had the ability to triangulate US communications. This makes it doubly dubious. To assume the Soviets would have sat on their collective haunches and said nothing about us not going strains credulity beyond the pale.
In the former case, the Apollo 10 astronauts were launched with the Saturn V and simply orbited the earth for the duration of their mission. In the event that any independent party made an attempt to listen in, Apollo telecommunications were relayed to an unmanned cislunar craft, which then repeated or reflected the signals towards the earth. To account for the time that the CSM went behind the earth, three geostationary relay satellites would be required to maintain a continuous connection with the unmanned moon craft. http://www.moonfaker.com/home.html


I agree with Really's first statement that the discrepancy's are not easily addressed. It's a minefield in so many respects. Though, I appreciate Arouet's tenacity. Keep going through White's videos, Arouet.

It is my understanding that the Soviets had every reason to keep their mouths shut. We provided them with the means to build their railroads, mine their manganese, build big truck factories, give them grain, and continue to engage in the multi-corporate world. Also, we had the goods on their space program too. Wisnewski gets into some of this. White touches on this also. Moreover, there is more to this with what the Soviets knew. The Jodrell facility in England helps define the cooperation between the space programs.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 07:50

Misha wrote:It is my understanding that the Soviets had every reason to keep their mouths shut. We provided them with the means to build their railroads, mine their manganese, build big truck factories, give them grain, and continue to engage in the multi-corporate world. Also, we had the goods on their space program too.

Thought the Soviets were pretty self-sufficient by design? In engineering particularly... Not sure about engaging with corporates when everything was nationalised in a command capitalist state!
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 03 Jan 2013, 08:01

SydneyPSIder wrote:The point is that NASA knew that they didn't know what might happen to anyone who went through the belts and left the magnetosphere to be exposed to the full strength of solar radiation.


Sure they didn't know exactly. Nor will we ever, frankly. (or not until space flight becomes common and we have a huge sample size over years.) All NASA or anyone can do is make decisions based on the best information known at the time.

For that reason, and for the sheer impossibility of pulling off up to 10 announced missions successfully or without the death of some astronauts, they elected not to go ahead.


Do you have any reliable evidence of this? Also, I'm not sure what you make of 10 announced missions resulted in no deaths. Would your opinion be different had the Apollo 13 astronauts died? Do the deaths of the Challenger astronauts provide credibility to the space program? Why would you assume there must be deaths?

They had probably already concluded it was a technical impossibility to achieve missions successfully regardless of radiation risks to health of the astronauts.


Based on what? (well, you should start another thread on that, but sure - put forward your evidence that it was technically impossible and we can examine it)

What medical studies were conducted on the supposed Apollo astronauts on their return?


I don't know off hand. Do you? Are you under the assumption that they didn't receive medical exams?

The joke was that people met them wearing face masks in case they came back with 'strange bacteria' from the moon that would kill you dead on inhalation, or some such nonsense -- total 1950s B-grade Hollywood sci-fi schlock. As one commentator points out, once NASA and the govt had confirmed that enough people had bought the story while the astronauts remained on ice, they dropped the pretence of intensive 'medical' treatment after return after the first mission.


why would it be nonsense that there might be bacteria on the moon? Or that it could be harmful to us? Why wouldn't they take such precautions?

In any event - should I take it that you agree with my critiques of White?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 08:17

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:The point is that NASA knew that they didn't know what might happen to anyone who went through the belts and left the magnetosphere to be exposed to the full strength of solar radiation.


Sure they didn't know exactly. Nor will we ever, frankly. (or not until space flight becomes common and we have a huge sample size over years.) All NASA or anyone can do is make decisions based on the best information known at the time.

For that reason, and for the sheer impossibility of pulling off up to 10 announced missions successfully or without the death of some astronauts, they elected not to go ahead.


Do you have any reliable evidence of this? Also, I'm not sure what you make of 10 announced missions resulted in no deaths. Would your opinion be different had the Apollo 13 astronauts died? Do the deaths of the Challenger astronauts provide credibility to the space program? Why would you assume there must be deaths?

They had probably already concluded it was a technical impossibility to achieve missions successfully regardless of radiation risks to health of the astronauts.


Based on what? (well, you should start another thread on that, but sure - put forward your evidence that it was technically impossible and we can examine it)

What medical studies were conducted on the supposed Apollo astronauts on their return?


I don't know off hand. Do you? Are you under the assumption that they didn't receive medical exams?

The joke was that people met them wearing face masks in case they came back with 'strange bacteria' from the moon that would kill you dead on inhalation, or some such nonsense -- total 1950s B-grade Hollywood sci-fi schlock. As one commentator points out, once NASA and the govt had confirmed that enough people had bought the story while the astronauts remained on ice, they dropped the pretence of intensive 'medical' treatment after return after the first mission.


why would it be nonsense that there might be bacteria on the moon? Or that it could be harmful to us? Why wouldn't they take such precautions?

In any event - should I take it that you agree with my critiques of White?

The points you make are just too laughable to address in detail -- I'm tired of re-presenting the same evidence, facts and improbabilities that you never address. I've got better things to be doing, frankly.

Re your 'critique' of White's more detailed assertions, you will need to take it up with him -- you should be debating him directly. I will send him a link to these pages and he may want to join the site and take up cudgels, or address it some other way perhaps.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 10:00

Oh, and don't forget one of the greatest acts of stupidity in American military history, if not THE stupidest, although there's been a few -- Operation Starfish Prime, conducted in 1962, apparently the idea came straight from a Marvel comic books story and into a general's head, let's let off nukes in the van Allen belt range and just see what happens, it might be exciting. The very pinnacle of environmental and humanistic responsibility. What happened is that the belts became supercharged with radioactive particles and more dangerous than ever -- in fact, van Allen's 1950s research predated this supercharging of the belts, so it was actually far MORE dangerous in the 60s to travel through that region of inner space than when van Allen took his measurements. So forget van Allen later saying everything would be hunky-dory. I BELIEVE the idea was that they thought they could 'clear away' existing radiation for space travel by blasting a high energy hole through it with more radiation, only to find that the magnetosphere captured the extra radiation as well, increasing the overall levels for many years to come.

I can't believe it when ProfWag claims these morons were all geniuses and the 'best and brightest' America has to offer. Sickening stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl

Aftereffects

While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low earth orbit. Seven satellites failed over the months following the test as radiation damaged their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite, Telstar.[12][13][14] Detectors on Telstar, TRAAC, Injun, and Ariel 1 were used to measure distribution of the radiation produced by the tests.[15]

In 1963, Brown et al. reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research that Starfish Prime had created a belt of MeV electrons,[16] and Wilmot Hess reported in 1968 that some Starfish electrons remained for five years.[17]

Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]


Apparently it at least 10 years for the radiation to calm down to earlier levels, that would be by 1972. I haven't researched to see if that's been played down as well.

It DOES effectively demonstrate the level of irrational panic and fear that existed in some circles in the US about the USSR during the Cold War however. The elites thought they might be about to lose some money if socialism or communism ever took over.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 03 Jan 2013, 10:10, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 03 Jan 2013, 10:08

Sydney: did you catch this part of the wiki you quoted:

In 1963, Brown et al. reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research that Starfish Prime had created a belt of MeV electrons,[16] and Wilmot Hess reported in 1968 that some Starfish electrons remained for five years.[17]


Your suggestion that the effects would have been significant at the time of the apollo missions seems misguided.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 10:12

Arouet wrote:Sydney: did you catch this part of the wiki you quoted:

In 1963, Brown et al. reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research that Starfish Prime had created a belt of MeV electrons,[16] and Wilmot Hess reported in 1968 that some Starfish electrons remained for five years.[17]


Your suggestion that the effects would have been significant at the time of the apollo missions seems misguided.

Other accounts suggest at least 10 years before levels subsided -- 1972, or the END of the Apollo missions. Why not scamper off and look into that one next...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 10:58

Counter-claims:

What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

Mary Bennett's sources?

Radiation would have greatly affected film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?


http://picturepenzance.co.uk/forum/show ... b1713dfebf
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 03 Jan 2013, 11:23

Misha wrote:As a kid I remember the astronauts getting off the helicopter and put into one of those trailer containment pods. I distinctly remembering that they did not look to happy too. I found that puzzling at my age. I thought there would be a big whoopie look on their faces. Yes, purely subjective but it has stuck with me all these years. Boy, I would love to have been a fly on the wall for their debriefing.

Imagine being stuck in what was essentially a cramped tin can for three days while traveling back to Earth, then have to spend more time in more cramped quarantine quarters. And they were probably tired too boot. How would you feel ? How do you feel after a very long car ride or plane trip ? There's nothing sinister here.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 03 Jan 2013, 11:44

SydneyPSIder wrote:Oh, and don't forget one of the greatest acts of stupidity in American military history, if not THE stupidest, although there's been a few -- Operation Starfish Prime, conducted in 1962, apparently the idea came straight from a Marvel comic books story and into a general's head, let's let off nukes in the van Allen belt range and just see what happens, it might be exciting. The very pinnacle of environmental and humanistic responsibility. What happened is that the belts became supercharged with radioactive particles and more dangerous than ever -- in fact, van Allen's 1950s research predated this supercharging of the belts, so it was actually far MORE dangerous in the 60s to travel through that region of inner space than when van Allen took his measurements. So forget van Allen later saying everything would be hunky-dory. I BELIEVE the idea was that they thought they could 'clear away' existing radiation for space travel by blasting a high energy hole through it with more radiation, only to find that the magnetosphere captured the extra radiation as well, increasing the overall levels for many years to come.

I can't believe it when ProfWag claims these morons were all geniuses and the 'best and brightest' America has to offer. Sickening stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl

Aftereffects

While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low earth orbit. Seven satellites failed over the months following the test as radiation damaged their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite, Telstar.[12][13][14] Detectors on Telstar, TRAAC, Injun, and Ariel 1 were used to measure distribution of the radiation produced by the tests.[15]

In 1963, Brown et al. reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research that Starfish Prime had created a belt of MeV electrons,[16] and Wilmot Hess reported in 1968 that some Starfish electrons remained for five years.[17]

Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]


Apparently it at least 10 years for the radiation to calm down to earlier levels, that would be by 1972. I haven't researched to see if that's been played down as well.

It DOES effectively demonstrate the level of irrational panic and fear that existed in some circles in the US about the USSR during the Cold War however. The elites thought they might be about to lose some money if socialism or communism ever took over.


You are being obtuse again. How does this disprove men never when to the Moon ? Also I think you've misunderstood an important fact. All of the tests took place within one year starting July 9th 1962 and concluding Nov. 4th 1962
In 1963, Brown et al. reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research that Starfish Prime had created a belt of MeV electrons,[16] and Wilmot Hess reported in 1968 that some Starfish electrons remained for five years
By my addition that makes the last of the electrons still up there at 1967 not 1972 as you state after which they were gone, this is two years before the first manned mission to the moon.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 03 Jan 2013, 12:08

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Misha wrote:It is my understanding that the Soviets had every reason to keep their mouths shut. We provided them with the means to build their railroads, mine their manganese, build big truck factories, give them grain, and continue to engage in the multi-corporate world. Also, we had the goods on their space program too.

Thought the Soviets were pretty self-sufficient by design? In engineering particularly... Not sure about engaging with corporates when everything was nationalised in a command capitalist state!


Syd, follow the money!
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 03 Jan 2013, 12:14

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:As a kid I remember the astronauts getting off the helicopter and put into one of those trailer containment pods. I distinctly remembering that they did not look to happy too. I found that puzzling at my age. I thought there would be a big whoopie look on their faces. Yes, purely subjective but it has stuck with me all these years. Boy, I would love to have been a fly on the wall for their debriefing.

Imagine being stuck in what was essentially a cramped tin can for three days while traveling back to Earth, then have to spend more time in more cramped quarantine quarters. And they were probably tired too boot. How would you feel ? How do you feel after a very long car ride or plane trip ? There's nothing sinister here.


I don't by this one iota, Really. Syd, I was being facetious with the debriefing, by the way. Three days in a tin can is small price not at the expense of jubilation. The press conference with the three Apollo astronauts was about as morose as it gets. I would thought is was a funeral. Why?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 03 Jan 2013, 12:26

SydneyPSIder wrote:What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.


I'm not surprised that you didn't cite your source for this quote: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html. Perhaps Misha can provide the actual quote from Mary Bennett and how she came to that conclusion. I couldn't find another source to back that up and its drastically different from other estimates.




Radiation would have greatly affected film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?


Yes, I discussed this above a bit. I agreed that this issue is interesting and I'd like to learn more about it. The blogger you quoted though is mixed up. Groves performed his test at 25 rem. That was not the lowest radiation level that the astronauts would have been subject to. Grove estimated (though didn't test this for some reason) that at 5 rem there would be some fog.

I tried to find groves actual paper. It seems that its just printed in the back of the dark moon book. It doesn't seem like it was subjected to peer review though I'm not sure about that.

Is Dr. Groves suggesting that no pictures should ever come out clear in space? That every picture taken must be faked? Whether on the moon, the ISS, hubble, the shuttles, etc?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 03 Jan 2013, 12:39

Misha, I pulled up the press conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI). It's an hour and a half so I didn't watch the whole thing, just jumped around a bit. I don't see them as morose, serious yes, but there were a few jokes certainly and some self deprecating humour as well by the guy about his driving and doing three things at once. I might go through the whole thing over the weekend, but if those guys are actors, they are pretty good ones!


Another question on the video and photo analysis: there's been a lot of talk about light sources and shadows and calculations, etc. Is there reason to believe that light behaves exactly the same on the moon as it does on earth? With different atmospheres would there perhaps be different calculations necessary? I don't know the answer. Anyone know if this question has been addressed?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest