Geezer

"Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts. "


Geezer


[Edited by Geezer - 1/19/2004 3:09:21 PM]

TelBoy

Dan, that's the official retort, granted. But for ALL the astronauts to have taken the doses of radiation they did with ZERO long-term side effects? Well, it could be the case of course, but as i say, it's not a watertight argument to the sceptics.

Nimbus

Why do people believe in Conspiracy Theories?? It makes them think they have "one over" on everyone else...

Reported by who? Where's your source?


Nothing I've read makes me believe there is anything "strange" about shows seen on the moon.


mmmmm. difficult one... could it be that the camera was pointing in the same direction???


Reflections of what? The lander? The other astronaught?


Where did you get this info from? Have you asked NASA?





[Edited by Nimbus - 1/19/2004 3:13:56 PM]

Dan B

Tel: Sure, but most skeptics I come across are very closed minded and generally have opinions formed from a non-technical background I mean just look at the "Does God exist" thread

[Edited by Dan B - 1/19/2004 3:15:37 PM]

TelBoy

LOL, why, do you think that thread should be moved to General Technical?

On the Moon landings, i do remain ever so slightly sceptical, not for any esoteric reason, but because the justifications for them *not* going do seem to make a lot of sense. If it had happened at any other time other than in the middle of a fierce Cold War, i don't think i'd have given the sceptic's point of view more than a cursory brush-off.

Dan B

One for the Skeptics: here Ain't physics a b1tch?

mattstant

.

They have died and they have all been replaced by higly developed japanese robots and its true because steve down the pub told me.

NeilT

Nimbus -

"Why do people believe in Conspiracy Theories?? It makes them think they have "one over" on everyone else..."

mmm thats a bit rough - I think the moon landings are one of the only theories I subscribe too, and certainly not to "get one over on everyone else" - I'm far more down to earth than that

Maybe they did happen, but to my mind there seems to be lot of evidence available to suggest otherwise.

There was a good documentary on BBC2 (I think) middle of last year regarding the Moon Landings, giving evidence for and against the various theories.

Part of the documentary showed videod testing of the lunar lander and people involved at the time reported that it was almost impossible to control. It also showed various pictures of the landings, supposedly taken from many different locations but which had identical landscapes in the background (identical being identical).

I'm sure it will pop up again on Discovery on something similar.


Neil

super_si

Like previously states the US currently doesnt have the rocket power to get to the moon. It will be a rocket id expect not the like the shuttle. They need to redesign all the gear etc

Si

Dan B

wot? like when they are viewed in the far distance they can't look the same from different local positions jeez, comeon!

Geezer

It has been explained by many people. No one can explain how NASA shields against huge amounts of radiation because they don't have to. The only real risks were from solar flares, and there were no major ones during the Apollo missions. They can be predicted in advance, and are directional (they do not spread out in a concentric circle) so eveb if there is one it may not come our way anyway

Geezer

Nimbus

Neil,

Sorry mate. It was a bit harsh. Should have been "many" not "all"

To my mind, I have not seen any "evidence" that this was anything other than the real thing. That people still question this after all of the theories have been debunked gets to me a bit. Still, they (and you) have the right to question this and anything else you want, of course. Some people though, will continue to argue a point even when it's been lost. They just don't want to let go of the feeling that they are the only ones who know the Truth..

I'm not sure if I saw the program you mentioned. But the answer I can give is that if this was during testing, then maybe it was still a proto-type and they (obviuosly) needed to make improvments.

Crapaud62

We had this subject in a debating contest last year and I successfully won the contest with the motion that the landings were fake.

However, I believe that only a fool could seriously believe this to be faked when there are clear scientific explanations for all the conspiracy theories.

Now on the other hand, I have yet to read any adequate answers to all the inconsistencies about hte death of Diana. Now that looks like a more likely conspiracy to me.

BOB.T

Who moved the camera when the thingy left the moon? And, if I struggle to track a rally car at <100 mph, how do you track a thingy going like **** And, all the stills are perfectly framed and in focus even though the cameras are held at waist height and the blokes got a chuff off helmet on...and big gloves, how did he press the shutter button?

Conclusive proof, as if it were needed that it's all a hoax

I don't think it's real, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it Besides which, I don't actually care

Geezer

Because the Lunar module rose at a known velocity, the camera just tracked at that speed

Geezr

BOB.T

OK so given that the camera starts off close to the thingy...the thingy gets faster...the perspective changes, nah sorry, I don't buy it...can't explain what I mean either!

How did it know when to set off because that's perfectly shot / timed aswell.

Geezer

Becaue the rate of acceleration was also known, easy peesy. The camera was started remotely from the Lunar module I believe.

Geezer

StickyMicky

ive seen the shadow pics, saw them a while back, very strange imo, i belive that NASA seriosly bends and alters things that it reports, ive seen pics pics released from nasa that show mars has a red sky, when its now reported that it has in fact got a blue sky, why would you do that?

johnfelstead

All the proof you need its fake

StickyMicky

dunno im not downloading it, i saw a video once where a camera or light, or sound boom or simmiler fell on one of the "naughts" lol

Geezer

That is funny

Geezer

ProperCharlie

couldn't it be that they really did send a couple of septics to the moon, and when they got back the pictures were sh*te, so NASA decided to mock up the scenes in a studio to give them some better press material?

sorry if this has been aired already - only read the last page of the thread

NeilT

Nimbus - cheers & no worries

As I have already said, I think there is enough evidence to doubt that the Apollo moon mission ever suceeded (look out for that documentary - its all in there in non-glorified form)

However, on the flip side of the coin......2 points, that nobody has mentioned yet, that would provide a good argument for the moon landings taking place, namely Jodrell Bank's telescope - the largest of its kind in the world (AFAIK) at the time, tracked the rocket - so wouldnt it have also have tracked the complete mission and hence provide some solid proof?

Also, keeping a cover up of this nature quiet, would require the silencing of all of the mission crew - inc mission ctrl, remote tracking sites, engineering resouces etc - I imagine the staff count on this must run into hundreds, yet few of them have ever spoken up about it...?

Neil

Now on to the Rendlesham UFO hoax....

Geezer

The photos that are usually seen are the best of the crop. NASA did release all of the photos, and there are loads of under or over exposed ones, or badly framed/blurred.

NASA weren't going to showcase bad photos for their shining acheivment

Geezer

dsmith

if people actually follow one of the links earlier - it debunks the whole "photo conspiracy" thing.

Its possible to recreate and explain every single "unexplainable anomaly" with a few models and a desk lamp. There is nothing unexplainable in the slightest

Deano

Geezer

Neil, I think it would be fairer to say that there was doubt raised about whether the landings took place, but those claims have been proven to be innacurate or over exaggerated. There does not appear to be any real "evidence" that the landings were faked. Depends on your point of view I suppose

Geezer