Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

i an aware of the research and just how easy it would have been to do.
My question was simplified for obvious reasons.
Why was the "path of least resistance" ignored.
The simple "elevator" would have enabled many more trips to the moon during the forty year gap.
Perhaps i have just answered my own question.

I guess I should relax my expectation of "intelligent" conversation too, then?

Elevator to the moon indeed. What a silly notion.

[mandelbrot]

Truegroup,

Ah, the Apollogists are in full panic mode. I already discussed the regolith problem:

Moon dust is an extremely abrasive substance. Moon dust is an extremely abrasive glassy substance formed by micrometeorites and unrounded due to the lack of weathering. It sticks to everything, can damage equipment, and it may be toxic.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/in...on_of_the_Moon

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

I've been busy the past few days, and I tried picking up where I left off, but, again, I didn't see any responses dealing with what I had placed in my original post. For example, I made a cursory glance at a reponse that simply reiterated that the micrometeorites are insignificant threats/risks, while ignoring what i posted that constant bombardment of the lunar surface by these small projectiles create an erosion of the regolith that makes it glassy and sticky.

In other words, you don't want to bring lunar dirt into the LM, because it tends to get all over the place and be a hazard to equipment. This is also combined with solar flares in cislunar space and the secondary particle dangers on the lunar surface.

Instead of receivng an answer or response for my question and observation regarding the claim that the protection in the glass window of a microwave oven is not anything near the levels of protection one would need traveling through cislunar space, I get more questions that show little if no research as to what actually might have taken place on the supposed Apollo missions:

For example, Apollo 16 did encounter a solar flare, but how is that tabulated by NASA for comparing radiation dose for the astronauts for that mission as compared to the other Apollo missions?

What you got was a not a claim that the issue of micro-meteorites is insignificant, but a re-iteration of the statement from a report you quoted that said the risk was insignificant. You seemed to think that report supported your point of view. You were wrong. The author of the report also thinks you were wrong.

You made some sort of incoherent claim about dust, you got a link explaining the problems of lunar dust, and how it was a well known problem acknowledged by every astronaut who went to the moon. One of the authors of that paper I linked to worked in the receiving lab for lunar samples. One of the other authors collected the lunar samples in person. You didn't seem to want to comment on that.

Still trying to get mileage out of the microwave? Tedious trolling and a misinterpretation of what I put. You still haven't provided any substantiation of the claim that the windows of the Apollo craft were inadequate protection against radiation. Start answering questions yourself before you sling around accusations around that no-one answers yours.

It is always good to see evidence from Apollo being used as evidence Apollo didn't happen. You don't have to look hard for the data from that experiment.



http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplor.../Part1/CRD.htm

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16psr.pdf

During the translunar part of the mission, a medium-sized solar flare occurred that contained c.10^8 protons/cm2 pf energies greater than 5MeV. Preliminary data, for the flux in various energy intervals, from several satellites are shown in figure 15-7...No extra particles were observed beynd the general steady backgrounds of energies greater than 60MeV. Most of the flare particles arrived before lunar landing; only a few percent greater than 5 MeV arrived after landing.

There you are, lots of data freely available. If you actually worked in a university library with physics texts, you could get them easily.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Truegroup,

Ah, the Apollogists are in full panic mode. I already discussed the regolith problem:

Panic? At your posts

Again we draw on conclusions for longer stays. Whilst treading around in the LM for a few days would hardly cause 'equipment fails', over months of this it could be a problem. Hence the external suit proposal.

NOW, get yourself out of 'avoid every damn thing mode' and answer the question.

HOW DID THEY KNOW? Why are they planning for it?

Come on, the uzi is loaded, your foot is where it has always been, complete the shot.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Elevator to the moon indeed. What a silly notion.

Excuse me, but are you questioning this proposal?

To the Moon in a Space Elevator?

An elevator could be attached to this ribbon to ferry materials such as satellites and replacement parts for space stations -- or even people -- up into space. The project could become a reality as soon as 15 years from now, experts say.

Originally Posted by moving finger

It is always good to see evidence from Apollo being used as evidence Apollo didn't happen. You don't have to look hard for the data from that experiment.

Not sure what your picture is supposed to show, except that they appeared to sweep away the moon dust of that sticky and glass like regolith from the LM - you know - the stuff that the BAUT claim is like cocoa powder. It doesn't prove Apollo went to the moon with manned missions. It demonstrates that there was a solar flare, which your side of the camp's argument was that there were no solar flares that happened exactly during Apollo missions, or, if there were, they were not directional to the capsule. Now, you change your argument. What happened to - "luck."

The question is now, with the current understanding of the dangers of solar flares in cislunar space, why did they go ahead with these missions if solar flares were observed during the Apollo 16 flight, one day after it launched, and then followed by a huge storm in August 1972 prior to the Apollo 17 launch that followed several months later. It appears to have been a fairly active period for solar flares, and ties in with what Rene had stated.

BTW, when are you going to give me the logic behind your microwave radiation protection for traveling through cislunar space?

[bertl]

Haha, that's not an elevator to the Moon, mandelbrot. Have you even read the article?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by bertl

Haha, that's not an elevator to the Moon, mandelbrot. Have you even read the article?

Yeah, he defends anything from team hoax no matter what. Not to mention that they hope to be able to do it in 15 years time.

""Carbon nanotubes are rapidly developing," Cassanova said. "They are not long enough to stretch from Earth's surface to 62,000 miles, but there are a number of organizations working on that now." "

That would be a quarter of the way there

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

BTW, when are you going to give me the logic behind your microwave radiation protection for traveling through cislunar space?

When are you going to give us yours? Oh, you can't can you

[apollo_gnomon]

I'm very familiar with the notion of the "space elevator" thankyouverymuch. The idea originated with

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(the Russian mathematician who first performed many of the calculations leading to modern space flight) who proposed a tower.

But the moon is not in geosynchronous orbit. Nor were the materials capable of performing the task in existence during the Apollo program. In fact, they don't exist now. But we now have a set of

Materials science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Materials science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Materials science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

answers that may lead to the development of fibers capable of supporting themselves under the loads required.

But in 15 years? I'm still waiting for my flying car.

{eta}
You might take note of the date of the Wired article and then follow the links therein, such as the one below:

NIAC has given more than $500,000 to Seattle-based HighLift Systems to develop the concept under the leadership of the company's chief technology officer, Bradley Edwards.

In other words:

[jamesc]

Again i feel this needs posting here as before i cannot understand or except that ALL the staff at the Honeysuckle Tracking Station where fooled by a hoax;Was this tracking station not responsible for receiving dirce footage from the moon via Houston,surely these experienced people would have smelt a rat whoever small that rat my have been, after all nothing fake or hoaxed is entirely water proof;
************************************************** *************


Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station: 1967–1981 :: Apollo 16;





Video from Apollo 16

If your browser doesn’t support html5 video, you can download the video (14MB mp4 file) here.

Clip by Colin Mackellar from JSC-supplied video. (The blue and green channels inadvertently had been swapped when the transfer was made from the color-sequential TV. I have corrected this.)




As recorded at Houston:

Here’s Orion’s lunar liftoff – as shown live, courtesy of the Rover TV camera.


http://honeysucklecreek.net/video/A1...ar_liftoff.mp4


Apollo 16 audio recorded at Honeysuckle;
http://honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_mis...o16_audio.html

Apollo 16 video;
http://honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_mis...o16_video.html








link for video and source link; http://honeysucklecreek.net/

[jamesc]

Originally Posted by mc oneill

I personally don't think it happened because the missions were not properly shielded against Van Allen radiation.

My question is, are the space stations within the beltspace or beyond it?

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough.


Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.


Very, very Bad: Kaysing says that the Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was no accident. Grissom was ready to talk to the press about the Moon hoax, so NASA killed him. Kaysing says NASA also killed other people who were about to blow the whistle as well.

This is so disgusting I have a hard time writing a coherent reply. Kaysing has no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, but he accuses NASA of killing people to shut them up. That is a particularly loathsome accusation.


The utter bilge pumped out in this program goes on and on, and indeed, if you go to the HBs websites you can read more than any brain can handle. I have read literally dozens of things that ``prove'' the landings were faked, and each one is rather easily shown to be wrong by anyone with experience in such things. I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories, and this one is a whopper. Also, the evidence is presented in such a way that, if you are unfamiliar with the odd nature of the vacuum of space and of space travel, it sounds reasonable.

But it isn't reasonable. Their evidence is actually as tenuous as the vacuum of space itself. I find it amazing that they are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them. Fox television and the producers of this program should be ashamed of themselves. Even worse, the Fox Family Channel broadcast a show just last year that was skeptical and even handed about the Moon Hoax! Amazingly, Mitch Pileggi hosted that program as well.

I'll end this on one more bit the HBs don't talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing's claims, Lovell called him a kook. Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.

There's still hope.


Link; http://www.badastronomy.com/index.html

There are many websites about the Moon Hoax where you can read both the theories by the HBs themselves or what reality is like as told by people debunking the theory. I have a list of them on my Bad Misconceptions page.

[headlikearock]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Excuse me, but are you questioning this proposal?

To the Moon in a Space Elevator?

The title is a misnomer. Read the article, the ribbon would extend 62,000 miles into space. the moon is about 240,000 miles away. It may, of course, be possible to use the elevator to get a rocket into space, which could then fly to the moon.

It demonstrates that there was a solar flare, which your side of the camp's argument was that there were no solar flares that happened exactly during Apollo missions, or, if there were, they were not directional to the capsule. Now, you change your argument. What happened to - "luck."

If you want to be pedantic, the more accurate claim is that that there were no solar flares of sufficient magnitude to cause deterministic radiation effects. Which is a bit of a mouthful, so some might simplify that down, and just say they were no solar flares. Strictly speaking that's incorrect, but now that you have the correct claim, it should be a breeze for you to find some scientific data that proves the claim wrong, if such data exists. If such data doesn't exist, then what exactly is your claim, and what is your evidence to support it?

Oh, luck did still play a part. But they did know the odds were heavily stacked in their favour, since a flare with the characteristics that would have been a problem are statistically rare.

The question is now, with the current understanding of the dangers of solar flares in cislunar space, why did they go ahead with these missions if solar flares were observed during the Apollo 16 flight, one day after it launched, and then followed by a huge storm in August 1972 prior to the Apollo 17 launch that followed several months later. It appears to have been a fairly active period for solar flares, and ties in with what Rene had stated.

With the current understanding of the dangers of solar flares in cislunar space? Well, in 1972, they didn't have the current understanding, they had the 1972 understanding. Neither did they have the current radiation exposure limits for astronauts. It may come as a shock, but when Neil Armstrong first put his left boot on the Sea of Tranquility, there was no radiation limit in place for Apollo astronauts.

So why would they cancel Apollo 16 when they were a day into the mission, simply because there had been a flare, when they were capable of monitoring the actual dose received by each astronaut using their personal radiation dosimeter?

Why would they cancel Apollo 17 because a dangerous flare occurred four months prior to the mission? They already know that there is a small but not insignificant chance of a dangerous flare occurring during an actual mission, the August flare does absolutely nothing to change that. Given that spaceflight is inherently dangerous, you either accept those dangers and do what you can reasonably do to mitigate the risks, or you stay in bed. In 1969, they got out of bed. Forty years later, the bed is looking a bit too comfy.

[headlikearock]

Originally Posted by jamesc

Again i feel this needs posting here as before i cannot understand or except that ALL the staff at the Honeysuckle Tracking Station where fooled by a hoax;Was this tracking station not responsible for receiving dirce footage from the moon via Houston,surely these experienced people would have smelt a rat whoever small that rat my have been, after all nothing fake or hoaxed is entirely water proof;

All good stuff! PS I think the 2 words I've highlighted in red are redundant

[fiveonit]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Excuse me, but are you questioning this proposal?

To the Moon in a Space Elevator?

The "To the Moon" part of the title was not to be taken literally. If you had read the article, you would have seen the distance it stated for the space elevator as 62,000 miles and not the distance to the moon. I do hope that you remember that the moon orbits around the Earth. It would be rather difficult for the surface platform of this elevator not to be ripped out the ground and taken for a nice ride if it were also attached to moon as one particular oooooooooo-idiot suggested! Perhaps he had a different design for his rope and pulley system?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by fiveonit

The "To the Moon" part of the title was not to be taken literally. If you had read the article, you would have seen the distance it stated for the space elevator as 62,000 miles and not the distance to the moon. I do hope that you remember that the moon orbits around the Earth. It would be rather difficult for the surface platform of this elevator not to be ripped out the ground and taken for a nice ride if it were also attached to moon as one particular oooooooooo-idoit suggested! Perhaps he had a different design for his rope and pulley system?

Not to mention the weight of the rope, even at 2lb per yard that is 374,000 tons!

[oooooooooo]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

I was willing to give you benefit of doubt, but if you insist, sure.



Can you provide references or citations for this? I would love to see them.



Bullshit. What I owe you is the same thing you owe me -- a well-reasoned, honest and intelligent conversation. I've relaxed about the "honest" part here at Icke forum given the absurd number of obvious sox I've encountered since I joined, so let's just move on from that, shall we?

Have you reviewed the links I provided of the Baysinger recordings? Would you care to comment on them please?

That link again: http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/

And the ARRL page discussing the event: http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

i had booked a few days off but you can have this one on me.

You wish to see "citations" and "references" for governmental interest in behavioural psychology ?
I could post a couple of links but that simply would not do the subject justice, also i am not sure that you would comprehend what it is you were looking at.
I could lead you by the hand from the darkness and into the light, but i suspect you would resist.
Google is your educational friend.

Regarding "Baysinger" is that the chicken wire guy ?
Mneh, radio signals have been bounced off the moon and recieved on earth since the 40s, but does not really hold my interest.
(i think i remember agreeing with stelios earlier in the thread that chicken wire sounded bizarre, you could re quote if you like)

of course we can move on buddy, just as soon as i get my thousand clams, its poor form to lose a bet and not honour it.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Excuse me, but are you questioning this proposal?

To the Moon in a Space Elevator?






Not sure what your picture is supposed to show, except that they appeared to sweep away the moon dust of that sticky and glass like regolith from the LM - you know - the stuff that the BAUT claim is like cocoa powder. It doesn't prove Apollo went to the moon with manned missions. It demonstrates that there was a solar flare, which your side of the camp's argument was that there were no solar flares that happened exactly during Apollo missions, or, if there were, they were not directional to the capsule. Now, you change your argument. What happened to - "luck."

The question is now, with the current understanding of the dangers of solar flares in cislunar space, why did they go ahead with these missions if solar flares were observed during the Apollo 16 flight, one day after it launched, and then followed by a huge storm in August 1972 prior to the Apollo 17 launch that followed several months later. It appears to have been a fairly active period for solar flares, and ties in with what Rene had stated.

BTW, when are you going to give me the logic behind your microwave radiation protection for traveling through cislunar space?

The picture shows the experiment you quoted.

There was indeed a solar flare. The results of the study (which you demanded but don't seem so interested now that they've actually been given to you) showed that it was a medium sized flare, and was never a threat to the astronauts. The Cosmic Ray Detector picked up some of the leftovers of the flare, which meant it was difficult to establish a background value, which was one of the points of the experiment. The 'luck' argument and 'there were no major flares' argument are not mutually exclusive. Rene is an idiot.

You can not discuss Apollo in the context of what is known today and what today's health and safety standards are, you can only look at what was known then and what the attitude to risk was. The attitude was "we are going to the moon".

I've already put my microwave comment in context, that's all you're getting. Deal with it.

Still no comment on the lunar dust article you were given? The one written by people directly involved in the missions?

As for space elevators, do you see one out there?

[jamesc]

Time dilation was not only proven, but proven repeatedly during the Apollo program with two atomic clocks, one aboard the space capsule, and one back on Earth. As the craft proceeded to go from Earth to the Moon and back at 20,000mph+ (depending on what part of the mission they were at) the time dilation between the two clocks was then thoroughly recognized and documented when they came back home and the two clocks could be compared, which irrefutably demonstrated that although it was a very small difference given how far from the speed of light they were, the acceleration closer to the speed of light relative to Earth did indeed reduce the rate at which time passed for the traveling clock relative to the one on Earth.

link; http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...8/m/2661912679

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

i had booked a few days off but you can have this one on me.

You wish to see "citations" and "references" for governmental interest in behavioural psychology ?
I could post a couple of links but that simply would not do the subject justice, also i am not sure that you would comprehend what it is you were looking at.
I could lead you by the hand from the darkness and into the light, but i suspect you would resist.
Google is your educational friend.

Regarding "Baysinger" is that the chicken wire guy ?
Mneh, radio signals have been bounced off the moon and recieved on earth since the 40s, but does not really hold my interest.
(i think i remember agreeing with stelios earlier in the thread that chicken wire sounded bizarre, you could re quote if you like)

of course we can move on buddy, just as soon as i get my thousand clams, its poor form to lose a bet and not honour it.

I never made you a bet. You offered and I ignored it. I'm still pretty sure I know who you are, regardless of how you bounce your links around but that's not very important. As I said, I'll take you at face value rather than judging you by past performance. So how about if we talk about whatever killer evidence you haven't bothered to present?

I take it you reject the existence of 3rd party recordings of the lunar voice transmissions? Because the use of hexagonal-cell woven metal mesh for a reflector "sounded bizzare?"

As for your links to what you call "behavioral psychology" and how that entitles you to pretend to understand the facial expressions of people you've never met, go ahead and post anything you have. Yes, that's me calling your bluff. I'm quite capable of reading whatever you present and I'm sure I'll understand it better than you do.

[offramp]

The surface of the moon is fine and powdery.

[oooooooooo]

Test