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 Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 09:27

As you guys know I am reading Lifton's and Mitchell's book - "Hiroshima In America." This is an instructive read to assess how the radiation issue was controlled and suppressed by the United States government during and long after the atomic drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I point this out so we may have a better context in understanding how the radiation debate with Apollo, perhaps, might be following the same modus operandi in which a complete picture on the aftermath of bomb drops were withheld for National Security reasons. Perhaps, this might give us insight in how information is disseminated and controlled with Apollo. This begs the question. Have we been told everything on Apollo's radiation?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 12:52

Misha wrote:As you guys know I am reading Lifton's and Mitchell's book - "Hiroshima In America." This is an instructive read to assess how the radiation issue was controlled and suppressed by the United States government during and long after the atomic drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I point this out so we may have a better context in understanding how the radiation debate with Apollo, perhaps, might be following the same modus operandi in which a complete picture on the aftermath of bomb drops were withheld for National Security reasons. Perhaps, this might give us insight in how information is disseminated and controlled with Apollo. This begs the question. Have we been told everything on Apollo's radiation?

This is a total digression, but still about radiation -- US and UK forces have been lying about the effects of depleted uranium (DU) used in tank-busting weapons, etc, a whole pile of which was used in Basra and Fallujah. Once the DU is powdered after impact, it becomes teratogenic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, etc. Iraqi kids now play on those ruined tanks, the DU dust is blowing all around the towns they were used in, and the birth defect rate in Iraq is now through the roof. Genocide by other means.

The stuff is blowing into Europe and round and about also -- desert sands settle every year as far away as the UK.

Not too good for vets either.

http://rense.com/general64/du.htm

Iraq records huge rise in birth defects
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 10444.html
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 13:25

SydneyPSIder wrote:I'm talking about your digressions while 'analysing' parts 2, 3 and 4 of white's videos -- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in those digressions? Just attempting to discredit the guy generally, from the pseudoscep playbook? Was attempting to clarify whether the point is that radiation levels in the SAA will throw off Hubble and any other satellite that passes through it? Otherwise, you've lost me way back there somewhere...


I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about. What do you consider pseudoskeptical about my analysis of the videos so far? What general comments did I make to try and discredit the guy. I've been discussing his arguments. not himself as a person. The only thing you've commented on is a part that has nothing to do with the radiation issue. Do you have any comments about my actual analysis of White's arguments?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 13:34

Misha: I'm not sure what you point is. I thought you're argument was that the main reason you don't think man went to the moon is because it would have been too dangerous - that is: if they had gone they would have suffered from radiation poisoning which doesn't seem to have happened.

You now seem to be focussing on how much did they publicly disclose about the risks. We seem to agree that they did disclose something about the risks - at least what was in the press kit. The press kit also cites some papers that seem to be more detail about the solar flare risks which enterprising journalists could have looked up had they thought it would be interesting to their readers.

But I fail to see how this was relevant to NASA's understanding of the risks involved and whether it was possible for them to go to the moon at that time without suffering radiation damage. Can you help me see the link more directly? Let's accept for the sake of the argument that they didn't do anything more than what was released in the press kit. What should we conclude from that?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 14:26

Misha, Syd: serious question, and not meaning to be rude. But when you watched the White series, or even read Dark Moon or One Small Step? did you make efforts to verify the information contained therein? Did you approach them as I've been approaching the White videos?

I ask because neither of you seem to be approving of the way I'm going through them point by point, looking for external sources for every major issue. I'm curious as to why. Do I seem to be unfair in my analysis? Do you disagree with any of my specific critiques?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 14:28

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:I'm talking about your digressions while 'analysing' parts 2, 3 and 4 of white's videos -- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in those digressions? Just attempting to discredit the guy generally, from the pseudoscep playbook? Was attempting to clarify whether the point is that radiation levels in the SAA will throw off Hubble and any other satellite that passes through it? Otherwise, you've lost me way back there somewhere...


I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about. What do you consider pseudoskeptical about my analysis of the videos so far? What general comments did I make to try and discredit the guy. I've been discussing his arguments. not himself as a person. The only thing you've commented on is a part that has nothing to do with the radiation issue. Do you have any comments about my actual analysis of White's arguments?

Well, no, I've said you should ask Jarrah about any technical errors or issues you find, or think you find. I'm just intrigued that you digress all over the place in lengthy analyses, and when I post a short note querying the remarks, I get accused of digressing!
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 15:08

SydneyPSIder wrote:Well, no, I've said you should ask Jarrah about any technical errors or issues you find, or think you find. I'm just intrigued that you digress all over the place in lengthy analyses, and when I post a short note querying the remarks, I get accused of digressing!


Sydney, we're not talking to Jarrah. We're trying to figure this out for ourselves. What do you think scepticism means? Did you just accept White at face value without attempting to verify any of it? And you call me a pseudoskeptic?

I'm not sure where you think I've digressed. My "lengthy analysis" was an analysis of White's arguments with regard to the radiation issue - which not coincidentally happens to be the topic of this thread.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 15:17

Arouet wrote:Misha, Syd: serious question, and not meaning to be rude. But when you watched the White series, or even read Dark Moon or One Small Step? did you make efforts to verify the information contained therein? Did you approach them as I've been approaching the White videos?

I ask because neither of you seem to be approving of the way I'm going through them point by point, looking for external sources for every major issue. I'm curious as to why. Do I seem to be unfair in my analysis? Do you disagree with any of my specific critiques?

I've already pointed out that there is a web of evidence which is incriminating, of which radiation considerations are only a small part. An analysis of moon rock samples, lunar soil, etc in comparison with ESA spectrographic analysis and Soviet samples indicate fakery, pics and videos indicate fakery, the very psychology of the astronauts on return and in the present indicates fakery. Plus the other circumstantial stuff about how difficult the missions would have been to achieve flawlessly with 1960s technology and so on.

The really interesting thing to me is IF NASA ever admitted faking it, individuals would probably be able to sue the astronauts for fraud and get their money back on every Apollo book ever sold, plus the $500 Aldrin signatures which would be worthless, plus the $100,000 memorabilia he likes to sell from time to time. I don't see them admitting fraud any time soon, even in 2026 -- unless they're all dead by then, which is presumably the reason LBJ locked files until then.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 15:23

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Well, no, I've said you should ask Jarrah about any technical errors or issues you find, or think you find. I'm just intrigued that you digress all over the place in lengthy analyses, and when I post a short note querying the remarks, I get accused of digressing!


Sydney, we're not talking to Jarrah. We're trying to figure this out for ourselves. What do you think scepticism means? Did you just accept White at face value without attempting to verify any of it? And you call me a pseudoskeptic?

I'm not sure where you think I've digressed. My "lengthy analysis" was an analysis of White's arguments with regard to the radiation issue - which not coincidentally happens to be the topic of this thread.

I dunno. He's my facebook friend now, I can ask him to address your concerns if you like -- he may recant! Or rebut.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 15:39

SydneyPSIder wrote:I've already pointed out that there is a web of evidence which is incriminating, of which radiation considerations are only a small part. An analysis of moon rock samples, lunar soil, etc in comparison with ESA spectrographic analysis and Soviet samples indicate fakery, pics and videos indicate fakery, the very psychology of the astronauts on return and in the present indicates fakery. Plus the other circumstantial stuff about how difficult the missions would have been to achieve flawlessly with 1960s technology and so on.


How would you know? You just accept what White and others say without any attempt to verify if they are correct or not!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 16:16

any of you guys have a subscription to time magazine? There's an article I'd like to read, but its only available for subscribers:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 42,00.html
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 17:48

Arouet wrote:
Misha wrote:Arouet, I have watched Whites videos (all of them) two times. I am watching them again on and off for the moment. What bothers me is you appear to be making up your mind so early. And yes, I went to college too. But, let's be fair-minded with this approach. Lincoln never went to college.


I'm not making my mind up. I'm looking at specific claims and arguments that White makes. I'm trying to be explicit about the issues I have with them which seem to include incorrect facts and conclusions not supported by the evidence he presents.

I'm trying to approach this as objectively as possible. If you think any of my critiques are misplaced, let me know! I'll stand to be corrected. If I think he makes a strong point I will point that out as well.


Understood, Arouet. I can't say I don't blame you for the onus on taking notes. It is why I am reticent to get heavily involved in the subject. There is so much to cover. I appreciate your tenacity along with Syd and Scepcop.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 18:01

Arouet wrote:Misha: I'm not sure what you point is. I thought you're argument was that the main reason you don't think man went to the moon is because it would have been too dangerous - that is: if they had gone they would have suffered from radiation poisoning which doesn't seem to have happened.

You now seem to be focussing on how much did they publicly disclose about the risks. We seem to agree that they did disclose something about the risks - at least what was in the press kit. The press kit also cites some papers that seem to be more detail about the solar flare risks which enterprising journalists could have looked up had they thought it would be interesting to their readers.

But I fail to see how this was relevant to NASA's understanding of the risks involved and whether it was possible for them to go to the moon at that time without suffering radiation damage. Can you help me see the link more directly? Let's accept for the sake of the argument that they didn't do anything more than what was released in the press kit. What should we conclude from that?


I have not backed off the radiation issue. It is my opinion that NASA has not been forthcoming or has obfuscated the radiation issue concerning Apollo. The books and White have reasonably asserted why.

Yes, I also focus on the control of the information per my reading of Lifton's and Mitchell's book as an example. So far this book has done a good job showing how information is censored. Yes, this may be tangential, but offers some insight with how radiation in general is handled. The Apollo Press kit in my opinion is the same as W.L. Laurence being conscripted under the National Security State to write for the Pentagon months before the bombs were dropped. Truman read this in his first address to the nation. Could the Press Kit be the same modus operandi to control journalists. I think this is a possibility which needs to be explored. Again, this is about control and Apollo's radiation issue in all likelihood was following the same format.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 20:12

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:I've already pointed out that there is a web of evidence which is incriminating, of which radiation considerations are only a small part. An analysis of moon rock samples, lunar soil, etc in comparison with ESA spectrographic analysis and Soviet samples indicate fakery, pics and videos indicate fakery, the very psychology of the astronauts on return and in the present indicates fakery. Plus the other circumstantial stuff about how difficult the missions would have been to achieve flawlessly with 1960s technology and so on.


How would you know? You just accept what White and others say without any attempt to verify if they are correct or not!

You're just accepting what a wikipedia entry says, without knowing the agendas of the authors. The wikipedia entry concerning the stereoscopic analysis of the fake pics keeps having the entry changed by an unknown moderator every time a reference is made to the study.

I don't 'just accept what White and others say without any attempt to verify if they are correct or not', it is all open to some debate, at least on some of the finer detail. Having examined the full body of CLEAR EVIDENCE, however, I am 99.9% certain the Apollo missions were fake, and that it's highly unlikely no-one has ever left low earth orbit.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 20:46

SydneyPSIder wrote:You're just accepting what a wikipedia entry says, without knowing the agendas of the authors. The wikipedia entry concerning the stereoscopic analysis of the fake pics keeps having the entry changed by an unknown moderator every time a reference is made to the study.


ummm, no. I haven't just been accepting the wiki entry! I have used wiki a bit to find some sources (which is actually one of wiki's most useful characteristics). Are you even reading what I'm writing?

I don't 'just accept what White and others say without any attempt to verify if they are correct or not', it is all open to some debate, at least on some of the finer detail. Having examined the full body of CLEAR EVIDENCE, however, I am 99.9% certain the Apollo missions were fake, and that it's highly unlikely no-one has ever left low earth orbit.


But with all due respect, if you simply look at the mountain of data, without attempting to parse it, you have no idea what is reliable or not. You've got to break it down. I mean, again with all due respect, you don't even seem to realise that some of the sources you've posted take the position that people did go to the moon, just not the people NASA told us went to the moon!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

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

cron