Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by FatFreddy, Nov 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Why would "space radiation" prevent the Apollo missions? That... doesn't make any goddamned sense at all... unless of course you believe the capsules were made of, I dunno, tissue paper?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    because the nature of the van allen belts was known in 1958, years before apollo was even dreamed of.
    the only real concern was a solar flare at near solar maximum.
    like i said, i have radiation hazard research on my HDD.
    looks like i'm gonna have to read some of it
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    my question is:
    why fake something like this, especially when we developed both the technique and the machines to do it.
    america had the motive, will, and the means to do it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    freddy,
    i'm not going to slog through all those PDF's to find YOUR evidence.
    america had the choice of a one or two launches for the moonshot.
    she also developed space docking technology.
    two launches would have propelled a heavier, better hardened CM and LEM.
    your radiation hazard hypothesis fails in this regard.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    most of the stuff that went into apollo (and mercury/ gemini) was manufactured for the purpose.
    there wasn't "a piece of steel", it was a number keyed to the ingredients used, and all of it was made especially for the job.

    i fail to believe that NASA would deliberately jeopardize the lives of its astronauts.

    another thing, the astronauts themselves was intimately involved with the design.
    they were college educated, and knew what they were dealing with.

    the following is from "apollo analysis of radiation".
    published april 17, 964 by bellcomm.
    Mission success probability for a 24 hour lunar stay is found to be about 0.98.
    Crew safety from radiation hazard alone is estimated to lie between 0.ggG and 0,9950 Both of these probabilities are for a range of allowable dose values of 50 t o 150 rads at the
    blood formation level in the body and 500 t o 1500 rads to the
    s k i n , The confidence limit is 90%.

    edit:
    the "radiation hazard" from a russian perspective can be found in NASA publication TT F-356.
    "radiation safety during spaceflights"
    by V. G. bobkov.
    published 1964
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2014
  9. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Exactly my point leopold - NASA, I'm sure, ran more tests on this than you could shake a stick at
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i've found a detailed analysis of "space radiation" for lunar flight.
    "space flight handbooks" volume 2, lunar flight part 1.
    page ii-15 table 5.

    i've tried to copy the page here in the post but it doesn't format correctly.
     
  11. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    Check out this article.

    http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------
    Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
    "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine,March, 1959.

    Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine,December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    lead is effective at shielding most, if not all radiation that i'm aware of.
    america was going to go to the moon freddy.
    even if it took 3 launches to get us there.

    america drew up plans to land various pieces of the spent rocket on the moon.
    an unmanned craft could have easily softlanded tons of stores on the surface.
    your radiation hypothesis is not valid freddy.
    america and russia both flew crews for weeks on end with no ill effects save decalcification
    the russian pub i gave earlier was concerned most with interplanetary flight.
    they were not worried about doses for the moonshot, they found them negligible.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    while doing radiation research i stumbled across the following:

    kozyrev, N. A., "observations of a volcanic process on the moon", sky and telescope, vol. 18, 1959, pp 184 to 188.
     
  14. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    so, i gave you links that verify the capabilities of the saturn 5, and to the radiation hazard from a russian perspective, and you want to rely on easily alterable things such as photos and film??

    granted, it isn't direct eyewitness evidence, but it's pretty damned convincing.
     
  16. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    The above doesn't make the anomalies go away.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

    If the missions had been real, there wouldn't be any anomalies in the footage and pictures.
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    freddy,
    what do you think about the "waving flag" anomaly freddy?
    do you think it was because the scene was shot on a stage somewhere?
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,550
    Of course there would be. There has never been a perfect mission and there never will be. There are always anomalies; the trick is making sure they are not fatal ones (as several almost were.)
     
  19. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    FatFreddy - the arguments made on that other forum are... well, honestly, I would need a lot more whiskey before they were anything close to what I would call "rational"

    We've been to the moon... end of story. Good grief, you can get yourself a telescope and a laser rangefinder and prove it to yourself, had you the knowledge to do so.

    Class dismissed... this horse is quite dead, so quit beating it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page