Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

[Misha]

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?

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

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?

[Arouet]

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?

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

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

[Misha]

[Misha]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]