Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
FatFreddy said:
So how do you know what you read is true?
Click to expand...
because the nature of the van allen belts was known in 1958, years before apollo was even dreamed of.
two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldogleb...oooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's some alternative info on space radiation here.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Kittamaru said:
... unless of course you believe the capsules were made of, I dunno, tissue paper?
Click to expand...
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:
Exactly my point leopold - NASA, I'm sure, ran more tests on this than you could shake a stick at
 
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.
 
because the nature of the van allen belts was known in 1958, years before apollo was even dreamed of.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
FatFreddy said:
Sorry but the anomalies in the footage and pictures prove it was all done in a studio.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FatFreddy said:
If the missions had been real, there wouldn't be any anomalies in the footage and pictures.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top