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 ProfWag » 29 Dec 2012, 22:04

Misha wrote:Though I find White's information very credible and thorough it is not the only source on this issue I draw from. I believe I had stated that I have read Percy & Bennett's book - "Dark Moon, Apollo And The Whistle-Blowers and Gerhard Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step." I have read both of these books cover to cover. Have you guys read these books? Keep in mind that I have referred to White because you guys can watch all his videos to at least understand the opposing thesis. However, it is my opinion that videos are fine, but books are better.Again, guys. Let me know if you read the aforementioned books.

I researched Wisnewski's book a couple years ago. If I remember right, he insinuated that Prescott Bush was a Nazi supporter and that much of NASA's ideas of the moon landing came from Walt Disney.
Wisnewski is German who also wrote a book of 9/11's conspiracy so it appears to me that he is looking for money rather than serious research. His work is hardly academically credible.
Have you read "Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon" or anything from a credible source other than profit seeking conspiracy theorists?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 30 Dec 2012, 01:34

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:Though I find White's information very credible and thorough it is not the only source on this issue I draw from. I believe I had stated that I have read Percy & Bennett's book - "Dark Moon, Apollo And The Whistle-Blowers and Gerhard Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step." I have read both of these books cover to cover. Have you guys read these books? Keep in mind that I have referred to White because you guys can watch all his videos to at least understand the opposing thesis. However, it is my opinion that videos are fine, but books are better.Again, guys. Let me know if you read the aforementioned books.

I researched Wisnewski's book a couple years ago. If I remember right, he insinuated that Prescott Bush was a Nazi supporter and that much of NASA's ideas of the moon landing came from Walt Disney.
Wisnewski is German who also wrote a book of 9/11's conspiracy so it appears to me that he is looking for money rather than serious research. His work is hardly academically credible.
Have you read "Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon" or anything from a credible source other than profit seeking conspiracy theorists?


ProfWag, when you say you researched Wisnewski's book does that mean you have read it cover to cover? As for Prescott Bush we only have to look at the "Trading with the Enemy Act." His company the "Union Banking Corporation was investigated and shut down because of business ties with the Nazis before and during the war. Will you admit to this? If you do admit this is a fact that means Wisnewski's information cannot be bathwatered as non-credible whether he wrote a book on 9/11 or not. Yes, in fact Wisnewski did write a book on 9/11.

Furthermore, most if not all academics or researchers need money or grants for research. If an academic dares step outside the prevailing dogma on an established subject and questions the historical record usually the monies
are abruptly cutoff. Let me see if I can find a hard copy of Lunar Sourcebook on line. Keep in mind what you find credible depends on intellectual honesty and that both parties address each other's thesis en toto. Let's see if we can keep "Milgram" out of the equation too.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 30 Dec 2012, 01:41

Guys - let's try and keep this thread on topic. Money and Nazi's can be discussed in the main thread.

Hmmm- experiment failing so far! :(
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 30 Dec 2012, 02:37

Arouet wrote:Guys - let's try and keep this thread on topic. Money and Nazi's can be discussed in the main thread.

Hmmm- experiment failing so far! :(


Agreed. My apologies, Arouet.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 Dec 2012, 19:26

Arouet wrote:Unless you can direct us to the relevant part on radiation, the movie should be in the main thread.

I think it already is. Nothing on radiation. My bad. :oops:















:D
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 31 Dec 2012, 03:22

Ok, here's a question that concerns me with the radiation problems with Apollo. If radiation is a factor besides the Van Allen belts, especially beta and gamma radiation. How could NASA know or rather risk the lives of the Apollo astronauts when it comes to SPEs (Solar Particle Events) while going to the moon? In other words, solar flares. Do you think this is equivalent to playing Russian roulette with going to the moon regarding unpredictable solar activity? Would it not have been disastrous for the Apollo program if we lost astronauts to SPEs? What did NASA do to safe guard the astronauts from being killed by something we cannot even predict today?

I do not want to get into cut and pasting solar activity information during the Apollo flights. You guys can probably find the data if you so wish. I think this is a logical question to ask and look forward to your replies.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 31 Dec 2012, 10:32

They are good questions, Misha, and good for us to try and answer. Let's frame the main question a little more: you ask is it like russian roulette? Well, the odds in russian roulette of disaster are pretty high, 1 in 5 or 6 generally. Was the risk of a major solar flare anywhere close to that? I think all astronauts accept a certain degree of risk when they embark on such a mission. They know there is a non-zero chance they will never come back. Of course, there is a non-zero chance we will never come back every time we leave the house.

The question then becomes: how much risk is acceptable? Of all the solar flares that could occur during a mission, how many could be expected to be dangerous? If a dangerous solar flare occurred during the mission, how likely would it be to pass over the ship? Is there any prior warning to the emission of a dangerous solar flare? What were the odds of a dangerous solar flare passing over the ship?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 31 Dec 2012, 11:20

Arouet wrote:They are good questions, Misha, and good for us to try and answer. Let's frame the main question a little more: you ask is it like russian roulette? Well, the odds in russian roulette of disaster are pretty high, 1 in 5 or 6 generally. Was the risk of a major solar flare anywhere close to that? I think all astronauts accept a certain degree of risk when they embark on such a mission. They know there is a non-zero chance they will never come back. Of course, there is a non-zero chance we will never come back every time we leave the house.

The question then becomes: how much risk is acceptable? Of all the solar flares that could occur during a mission, how many could be expected to be dangerous? If a dangerous solar flare occurred during the mission, how likely would it be to pass over the ship? Is there any prior warning to the emission of a dangerous solar flare? What were the odds of a dangerous solar flare passing over the ship?


Fair enough. I think it is better that you guys research this on your own. I think the big question if you were in NASA's shoes is would you or I leave the astronauts to chance? All contingencies should be explored if we are to look at this objectively.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 31 Dec 2012, 11:24

Ok, but we need to figure out first what level of risk we're prepared to accept? Do we compare it to the level of risk of a police officer? A fire fighter? A pilot? A soldier? A miner? A stuntman? A racecar driver?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 31 Dec 2012, 12:15

Arouet wrote:Ok, but we need to figure out first what level of risk we're prepared to accept? Do we compare it to the level of risk of a police officer? A fire fighter? A pilot? A soldier? A miner? A stuntman? A racecar driver?


OK, the aforementioned all understand the risks. Yet, we know these programs will survive because of the public acceptance of its nature, correct? Has NASA ever publicly come forward before the Apollo missions and state the risks with SPEs? Has NASA ever said before the Apollo missions that the astronauts could be overcome by solar particle events? Or for that fact, radiation with the Van Allen belts and cosmic radiation in general. I am very interested if you guys have any information on this.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 31 Dec 2012, 13:06

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO

SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

by J. Vernon Bailey

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 31 Dec 2012, 21:30

really? wrote:BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO

SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

by J. Vernon Bailey

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm


Thanks, Really. However, what I am looking for is any PUBLIC reference by NASA during the Apollo missions concerning radiation exposure of the astronauts. For example, do we have any news footage of say a Walter Cronkite talking about radiation dangers to the Apollo astronauts?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 31 Dec 2012, 21:47

Misha wrote:Thanks, Really. However, what I am looking for is any PUBLIC reference by NASA during the Apollo missions concerning radiation exposure of the astronauts. For example, do we have any news footage of say a Walter Cronkite talking about radiation dangers to the Apollo astronauts?


I have no idea (and don't know of any easy way to search for that). Remember, there wasn't any 24 hour news channels back then and topics weren't delved into in as much detail. But what turns on this? The issue is whether the astronauts themselves knew - given that they had doohickeys on them which measured the radiation they were exposed to it would seem that they did.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 31 Dec 2012, 22:14

Misha wrote:
Arouet wrote:They are good questions, Misha, and good for us to try and answer. Let's frame the main question a little more: you ask is it like russian roulette? Well, the odds in russian roulette of disaster are pretty high, 1 in 5 or 6 generally. Was the risk of a major solar flare anywhere close to that? I think all astronauts accept a certain degree of risk when they embark on such a mission. They know there is a non-zero chance they will never come back. Of course, there is a non-zero chance we will never come back every time we leave the house.

The question then becomes: how much risk is acceptable? Of all the solar flares that could occur during a mission, how many could be expected to be dangerous? If a dangerous solar flare occurred during the mission, how likely would it be to pass over the ship? Is there any prior warning to the emission of a dangerous solar flare? What were the odds of a dangerous solar flare passing over the ship?


Fair enough. I think it is better that you guys research this on your own. I think the big question if you were in NASA's shoes is would you or I leave the astronauts to chance? All contingencies should be explored if we are to look at this objectively.


The level of risk is comparable to the risk taken by those that crossed the Atlantic by sailing ship or those pioneers that traveled westward in covered wagons or those people that became known as the 49'ers. Risk to the point of loss of life is part and parcel of manned exploration. Nasa assessed the risk finding it acceptable. It doesn't matter what you or I think they should have done in hindsight.

Solar flares are unpredictable.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 31 Dec 2012, 22:43

Arouet and Really. Are you guys satisfied with NASA's explanation and risk analysis of the Apollo radiation question? Really, you posted that "solar flares are unpredictable" and yet we have had eight missions (off the top of my head) to the moon without one astronaut having at least one complication do to radiation that I know of. Keep in mind that the Apollo missions took place in and around the solar maximum which occurs every eleven years. You guys can find the Apollo/Solar maximum information for clarity.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 7 guests