The Moon Landings: fact vs fiction.

[torridon]

WRONG!  They tried to re-write science because the scientist proved the clothing and the spaceship could not protect them from the things they would encounter in space. Especially radiation... then they decided to make things up which Physicists
knew was wrong.

You still haven't disclosed which scientist this is.  Nor why you would believe this one chap rather than the thousands involved in the space program.

[Sebastian Toe]

WRONG!  They tried to re-write science because the scientist proved the clothing and the spaceship could not protect them from the things they would encounter in space. Especially radiation... then they decided to make things up which Physicists
knew was wrong.

The main evidence has not been disputed/proved wrong that the rocket and clothing could not protect them at that time.

The first US satellite into space was called Explorer 1. It had a simple geiger counter on board to detect radiation in space. As it was the very first of its kind, nobody knew how many counts of radiation hits would be recorded and so didn't know how to calibrate the equipment. The leading scientist of the time expected around 10-100 counts a minute. The geiger counter was set for that. After achieving orbit, the hits were higher and went off scale. It could mean 101 hits per minute or 1,000,001. The next satellite to study it (Explorer 4) would be calibrated better. But in the meantime the press were asking tough questions and wanted answers. The higher figure was constantly quoted for the headlines and let to an impression that space was full of deadly radiation that would kill a human in a few hours. This radiation zone became known as the Van Allen Radiation Belt after the scientist who interpreted the results. Later satellites proved this not to be the case. Part of the belts did have higher counts but as any spacecraft would only be in it for short periods, it didn't matter too much.
Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and just received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the risk. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it. None have developed cancer or anything else related to radiation.

An x-ray given by a dentist or in hospital is a much higher dose than in space as the source is up close and not millions of miles away.
http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/6.html

[Sebastian Toe]

Well that does depend doesn't it., was he susceptible to hypnotherapy?

Had you done your research that is any research you would have known  it has been suggested some were killed because they were not susceptible to being hypnosis.
So these men could easily have been hypnotised to believe they did go to the moon.

I guess when you are losing then you will say or do anything to protect your beliefs.
The above post proves it.


Its a keeper nevertheless and it will come back to bite you.

[Sebastian Toe]

Why repeat your own untrue thing...
Show me where I said anything must 100 PERCENT to incontrovertibly accurate...
If you can't say anything true then it is best you say NOTHING AT ALL.

I never said that you had said that.
Try reading for comprehension. For once!

What I have commented on is that you have never ever admitted to being wrong, about anything that you have claimed on this board. Ever.
ergo.....

Prove me wrong.

[Aruntraveller]

I guess when you are losing then you will say or do anything to protect your beliefs.
The above post proves it.

My post proves nothing of the sort. You have not rebutted any of the proof offered.

You consistently refuse to answer the question about the religiosity of many astronauts who went to the moon - suggesting that they underwent hypnotherapy or some such without any evidence.

You are becoming the boards equivalent of a fairground sideshow. Entertaining in a squalid and slightly de-humanising fashion.

[jeremyp]

I guess when you are losing then you will say or do anything to protect your beliefs.
The above post proves it.

Which post? There are several of your posts above this one. Or do you mean all of them?

[Maeght]

WRONG! 

Shouting wrong isn't making an argument you know.

They tried to re-write science because the scientist proved the clothing and the spaceship could not protect them from the things they would encounter in space. Especially radiation...

Which scientists said that please?

....then they decided to make things up which Physicists
knew was wrong.

Evidence please.

The main evidence has not been disputed/proved wrong that the rocket and clothing could not protect them at that time.

It has I'm afrtaid.

No credibility had been lost ...

It has if you can't name your scientists when asked.

... only mans own inability to prove that he cannot have his cake and halfpenny as well.

?

[Sassy]

You still haven't disclosed which scientist this is.  Nor why you would believe this one chap rather than the thousands involved in the space program.

That is not an answer just a red herring excuse because you cannot find anything which you can argue with. There are many scientist who will argue with anyone here that none are really qualified to understand the experts in their field. However, common sense tells us that they have never backed theories.

It isn't one chap. However are you arguing that one such a Einstein are wrong?
Wrong as in what they achieved is not proof that one man can be right and many wrong?
What about Marie Curie do you think giving her life for her work was worth the price for it to save many in future?

What is it you really want?  You cannot face the fact what you believe about Space or anything else done by scientist could be a big con. Are you afraid to face that all is for nothing and what if, what if it is all a con?  When all that is false is taken away what if God is the ONLY real thing?

Surely, you want to know the truth?

[torridon]

That is not an answer just a red herring excuse because you cannot find anything which you can argue with. There are many scientist who will argue with anyone here that none are really qualified to understand the experts in their field. However, common sense tells us that they have never backed theories.

It isn't one chap. However are you arguing that one such a Einstein are wrong?
Wrong as in what they achieved is not proof that one man can be right and many wrong?
What about Marie Curie do you think giving her life for her work was worth the price for it to save many in future?

What is it you really want?  You cannot face the fact what you believe about Space or anything else done by scientist could be a big con. Are you afraid to face that all is for nothing and what if, what if it is all a con?  When all that is false is taken away what if God is the ONLY real thing?

Surely, you want to know the truth?

What a big rambling exercise in avoidance. An honest person will give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.  So I guess you have no answer.  And even if there were a real scientist behind this conspiracy nonsense it makes no sense to value that one opinion over and above the opinions of the thousands of engineeers, scientists, astronauts and support staff that actually worked on the Nasa space program not to mention the teams that continue to work to this day with the equipment that the astronauts set up on the Moon. You claim to be interested in truth ? Well in that case you have to be sensitive to the notion of the balance of evidence.  We will never get anywhere near truth by adopting an approach that values armchair oddballs, crackpots and mavericks over and above the people actually working in the field.

[floo]

That is not an answer just a red herring excuse because you cannot find anything which you can argue with. There are many scientist who will argue with anyone here that none are really qualified to understand the experts in their field. However, common sense tells us that they have never backed theories.

It isn't one chap. However are you arguing that one such a Einstein are wrong?
Wrong as in what they achieved is not proof that one man can be right and many wrong?
What about Marie Curie do you think giving her life for her work was worth the price for it to save many in future?

What is it you really want?  You cannot face the fact what you believe about Space or anything else done by scientist could be a big con. Are you afraid to face that all is for nothing and what if, what if it is all a con?  When all that is false is taken away what if God is the ONLY real thing?

(((((Surely, you want to know the truth?)))))

Something which you don't appear to have!

[Sassy]

What a big rambling exercise in avoidance. An honest person will give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.  So I guess you have no answer.  And even if there were a real scientist behind this conspiracy nonsense it makes no sense to value that one opinion over and above the opinions of the thousands of engineeers, scientists, astronauts and support staff that actually worked on the Nasa space program not to mention the teams that continue to work to this day with the equipment that the astronauts set up on the Moon. You claim to be interested in truth ? Well in that case you have to be sensitive to the notion of the balance of evidence.  We will never get anywhere near truth by adopting an approach that values armchair oddballs, crackpots and mavericks over and above the people actually working in the field.

You never give a straightforward answer and so it has nothing to do with being dishonest or honest. Can you not see how you twist and turn things to say something you think supports your position on these matters.
It was men working on the mission who first raised the concerns.
All the rubbish about balance of evidence is futile given you cannot fathom the meaning or define the evidence in an understandable way to yourself. Nor explain it to others who are not scientist and never took part in the missions. It doesn't matter what you consider or even think to be crackpots, mavericks when the people working in the field themselves said it would not work and were killed for the privilege of voicing their opinion.

You want to believe and that is fine. But you cannot prove it happened.

[Maeght]

Which people said that?

[Sassy]

Which people said that?

As, I said, earlier.... read up on the matter.  You should have followed the posts and read up on the matters at hand. Then you would not be answering posts about matters you have no knowledge about.

You are lazy...lol 

[torridon]

You never give a straightforward answer and so it has nothing to do with being dishonest or honest. Can you not see how you twist and turn things to say something you think supports your position on these matters.
It was men working on the mission who first raised the concerns.
All the rubbish about balance of evidence is futile given you cannot fathom the meaning or define the evidence in an understandable way to yourself. Nor explain it to others who are not scientist and never took part in the missions. It doesn't matter what you consider or even think to be crackpots, mavericks when the people working in the field themselves said it would not work and were killed for the privilege of voicing their opinion.

You want to believe and that is fine. But you cannot prove it happened.

No simply its boils down to being true to evidence. The scientists on the program are not claiming it was a hoax as far as I know.  Here is Nasa's home page for the Apollo program, I haven't been able to find it where you claim they hoaxed it all

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html

[Anchorman]

Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo , I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.

[Aruntraveller]

Isn't there a forum rule somewhere that specifies that conspiracy theorists are not allowed to post more than once a week on a topic like this. Furthermore we need an additional rule that ensures they cannot claim laziness on the part of other posters when it is clear that they are too lazy to take their own head out of their own arses.

[floo]

Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo , I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.

So do I.

[Maeght]

As, I said, earlier.... read up on the matter.  You should have followed the posts and read up on the matters at hand. Then you would not be answering posts about matters you have no knowledge about.

You are lazy...lol 

Nope - wrong again. As I have said several times now I have read claims on both 'sides' and looked at the evidence and that for it being a hoax is not convincing. You have made reference to claims which you feel supports the hoax theory and I am asking you to be specific about which of the numerous claims, 'facts' and ideas you are referring. If it helps, I am aware of comments by people such as Gus Grissom to which you may be referring - but if you could be specific about the information to which you are referring that would help.

Putting smilies on your posts don't make them anymore valid by the way.

[Sebastian Toe]

Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo , I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.

Sorry Jim but you obviously didn't know that they had been hypnotised and the entire episodes were just memory implants!
It's true coz Sassy says so don't you know?

[Anchorman]

Cheers, Seb. Who'd have thunk it?

[Owlswing]

Cheers, Seb. Who'd have thunk it?

On this forum? No-one except Sassy!

[Sassy]

Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo , I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.

I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?

Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?
You see there is a difference between Man and God the heavens above and heaven.

You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?

[floo]

I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?

Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?
You see there is a difference between Man and God the heavens above and heaven.

You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?

Sass what planet are you on?

[Ricky Spanish]

I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?

Are we talking Aeroplane or astral plane?

Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?
You see there is a difference between Man and God the heavens above and heaven.

No there ain't.
Your heaven is contained within the stratosphere. A truth is beyond that.

You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?

This is just your usual wibble?

You are our Satan, why should we believe anything you say?

[Sassy]

So you're back then from your imposed sabbatical...

Are we talking Aeroplane or astral plane?

Please yourself, you usually do. But if you really want to know I was referring to the flying kind, with pilot and engine and all.

No there ain't.
Your heaven is contained within the stratosphere. A truth is beyond that.
This is just your usual wibble?

Man= human.
God=deity.

The heavens above the sky and beyond.

Heaven... Gods throne and a place which definitely exists outside our own heavens above.

You are our Satan, why should we believe anything you say?

You mean as a man you promote me higher than your good self and your master?
Is that a rebellion I sense? I am afraid I am just the servant of the most high and true master above you and I, and of course your master. As truth is not something you are really into why would you want to believe what I say... Trip good, I take it?