I like how you skip the part of Van Allen's article explaining how a human exposed to the Van Allen Belts for two days would only have an even chance of survival.
I guess a fast transit of a few hours would be okay then; depending of course on the type of hull and then what kind of particles get through it.
The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!
The Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.
Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung
Jarrah, jamesbooty misses the entire exercise and fakery of the so called "cold war".... Little does he know or realize that the entire thing was a sham....
There is proof that Wall Street originally financed the so called Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the Soviets were financed by these same criminals since that time.. Their government was totally in cahoots with the American government from the start. The entire Space Race was nothing more than Propaganda... Propagandists are fools!
If the hoax is true, nobody directly involved has talked, meaning anyone NOT directly involved has no direct knowledge of it. Therefore, every aspect of the hoax theory originated in someone's imagination, which is why it is all supported by questionable interpretations of circumstantial evidence. Genuine conspiracies are never exposed by someone dreaming up a scenario and then finding a few pictures that can support it; they are exposed by someone getting inside and producing concrete proof.
This argument is severely lacking logic. If the Van Allen belts were impassible, both NASA and the USSR would know that neither side could put men on the moon, and at that point any motivation for either side to fake moon landings disappears. If we both know it can't be done, then there is no reason for either of us to pretend that we did it. NASA would only fake moon landings if they feared the USSR would beat us to the moon, but that would mean the Van Allen belts WERE in fact passable!
'If the Van Allen belts were impassible, both NASA and the USSR would know that neither side could put men on the moon, and at that point any motivation for either side to fake moon landings disappears.'
If you want to know what the Soviet Union thought of the radiation, see these videos.
@WhiteJarrah Dude, use your head. If NASA knew that moving through the Van Allen belts was impossible, why would they say that they did it? Do you think NASA believed it could hide that fact for all eternity? Or you think they just weren't thinking about the future?
In 1959, James Van Allen stated that radiation would be a problem "unless some practical way can be found to shield travelers." In the 10 years following that statement a practical method of dealing with the radiation was found, and Van Allen himself agreed that radiation would not pose a significant problem to the Apollo crews.
'In the 10 years following that statement a practical method of dealing with the radiation was found'
The only practical way to shield space travelers is to put 2meters of water around the capsule. Only then would the radiation be reduced to 0.041rem/hr.
Aluminum shielded would just worsen the radiation because of all the fragmentation. The aluminum shield on the ISS increased the daily LEO doses from 0.025/day to 0.1rem/day.
Other means of shielding against high energy protons and electrons, like trajectories providing minimum exposure times combined with light-weight shielding, would be effective enough to reduce exposure to an acceptable level. Besides, if NASA knew the Van Allen belts were actually impossible to pass, the USSR would have known it too. Therefore, they would have known we were faking the moon landings and would have immediately exposed the deception rather than concede defeat in the space race.
Van Allen explicitly stated that even a rapid trajectory would be lethal to astronauts and that effective shielding was beyond engineering feasibility in the near future.
So.... you think the USSR was willing to accept the position of inferiority to the USA - FOR THE REST OF TIME - for a discount on wheat. Sorry, but this is a laughably implausible motive for the USSR to be complacent in a NASA space race coverup. Further, such an international conspiracy would either be impossible to maintain, or if it were maintained for 40 years, it would be impossible to expose. If that's the case, you might as well surrender to the matrix and enjoy your life.
Basically the wheat deals were the price for secrecy. The US and Russians are now undeniably collaborators in space exploration.
Not to mention the fact that Alexei Leonov claimed that Moscow tracked Apollo 11 directly from the moon, despite the fact that Moscow was not in line of sight with the moon during the given time.
'That's a pretty low price for generations of national disgrace.'
It's no different to what the US currently does with China. How many human rights have the Chinese violated, yet the US doesn't put them on the list of World's Greatest Human Rights Violators because of all the free trade deals they have underway.
That's not the problem with this theory. The problem is that without the potential of the USSR beating us to the moon, there is no need to NASA to fake getting there. This is especially true if the radiation made it impossible for either side to do it for real. If both sides knew that it couldn't be done at all, there would be no reason for us to pretend to do it.
You're missing the whole point. The USSR knew neither of us could land, that's true. The purpose was to fool the public so they could spend billions on the cold war. The motivation wasn't for Russia it was to fool us to justify military spending.
That is an illogical argument. The USSR would have no reason to accept the national humiliation of losing the space race just to give their capitalist adversary an excuse to spend its own money. Besides, most of the money was already spent BEFORE the first moon landing took place. If NASA faked the landings, the USSR would have immediately blown the whistle.
@alexeemo "The purpose was to fool the public so they could spend billions on the cold war. The motivation wasn't for Russia it was to fool us to justify military spending."
I hope you're joking. How would the USA landing on the moon justify military spending? Why would we even need to justify military spending? Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Everyone in the USA already assumed that Russia was trying to annihilate us.
Van Allen explicitly stated that even a rapid trajectory would be lethal to astronauts and that effective shielding was beyond engineering feasibility in the near future.
And I wouldn't be so quick to trust the Soviets.
watch?v=nZN3PI7HRvU
watch?v=ma4-pqng8ZM
And if you want to see what they thought of radiation,
Dr Van Allen: "With Explorer 1, the highest rate we could observe was 2,000 counts per second. We were able to calibrate that apparatus after the fact. We did a laboratory calibration on a spare instrument using that calibration curve of 100,000 counts per second. The intense radiation saturated the counter." NASA Moon maps show higher gamma radiation than the surface of the Sun. HA! PirateNews *org /hollywood *html
Thati s because the surface of the sun is not hot enough to emit in the gamma spectrum. The radiation emitted by the moon is from secondary particles, by interaction with the 'solar wind', stream of charged particles from the sun. These are partially, but only partially deflected by the earths magnetic field. If they were a serious concern, the cosmonauts who spent over a year in space would be poached. Luckey for them, but unlucky for your theory, they weren't.
"why in the world would you send manned vehicle while the sun is raging on his peak years ?"
You either accept the risks and do what you can to mitigate them, or you don't go. There was a space race to be won. The 'nauts were almost all test pilots. They had the Right Stuff: you and I don't (although offered the chance to go to the moon I'd leap at it).
The mission dose (due to flares) would depend on the amount and energy of protons ejected, and whether they were aimed at the Earth. Not all "major" flares fit that criteria. Not all flares have an associated Coronal Mass Ejection either.
That's the problem with that list, it's being used as proof that the A12 astronauts would have been fried without an understanding of how the index equates to REM inside the CSM, inside the LM or inside a suit. That's a big leap. How about contacting some space scientists and asking them for their opinion instead of jumping to conclusions that may be ill-informed?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that flare died down long before Apollo 17 launched?
Ask yourself the question, why are no credible, peer reviewed scientists claiming that the A14 astronauts should have been adversely affected by those flares? I've seen the index, but I don't know how to convert those figures into a REM figure for astronauts protected by the CSM. Do you? Were they X-class flares?
If an X-class flare had occurred during a mission, I'd want to know more about it. I've not been able to uncover any evidence that this happened. There were flares, which could be described as "major" depending on how you classify them (for example, flares exhibiting a large amount of radiowaves could be classified "major", but radiowaves aren't really an issue).
Since the flare occured some months before A17, there was no reaosn to think they were at any greater or lesser danger than before.
They knew the risks, and decided the chance of a potentially fatal event happening during a mission was low enough to make it worth making the attempt. IMO they got lucky, as the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 astronauts will testify.
Space travel is inherently risky. Attitudes to risk were completely different 40 years ago compared to now.
Travelling during a solar minimum may make sense for future missions, unless they develop improved shielding & predictive abilities.
There are big clues in the titles of 2 publications you reference in your clip.
"Prospects for INTERSTELLAR Travel" (Mauldin)
"Shielding Space Travelers - The perils of cosmic rays pose severe, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to human spaceflight to MARS AND BEYOND"
Cosmic rays increase cancer risk in LONG TERM missions, e.g. 2 years round trip to Mars, or decades to other star systems. No mention at all of cosmic rays being a showstopper for a 2 week round-trip to the moon.
"No mention at all of cosmic rays being a showstopper for a 2 week round-trip to the moon."
As usual, you overlook the fact that Mauldin specifically proposes meters of shielding over a FEW HOURS at EARTH DISTANCE FROM THE SUN, and even compares his proposed shield with EARTH's ATMOSPHERE.
And in Parker's case, you have overlooked the fact that Parker's shield is proposed for 2GeV cosmic radiation: the cosmic radiation in cislunar space being five times greater.
The quote on page 226? He is clearly referring to the potential dose from solar flares in the first paragraph, NOT cosmic particle radiation.
He is also very clearly talking about cosmic particle radiation, NOT solar flares in the second paragraph. The 2 are fundamentally different. Either you've mis-comprehended what he's saying, or you've muddled the solar flare and cosmic radiation issues together for some reason.
"He is also very clearly talking about cosmic particle radiation, NOT solar flares in the second paragraph."
Perhaps you missed the third paragraph, he's clearly talking about solar AND cosmic radiation: both have the ability to penetrate meters of material will equally do a person severe damage.
"Perhaps you missed the third paragraph, he's clearly talking about solar AND cosmic radiation: both have the ability to penetrate meters of material will equally do a person severe damage."
Wrong - here's the actual quote.
"Solar flares can deliver Gev protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles BUT AT MUCH HIGHER INTENSITIES".
"Solar flares can deliver Gev protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles BUT AT MUCH HIGHER INTENSITIES"."
I've read that quote a million times, the fact is that Mauldin proposes two-meters of shielding against solar and cosmic radiation within the GeV level, and the cislunar space radiation is as high as 10 GeV. It's hard to imagine Apollo doing what they said it did without Mauldin's proposed shield.
"Mauldin proposes two-meters of shielding against solar and cosmic radiation within the GeV level, and the cislunar space radiation is as high as 10 GeV. It's hard to imagine Apollo doing what they said it did without Mauldin's proposed shield."
Because Mauldin is talking about INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, i.e. LONG TERM MISSIONS, when cosmic particles would be a BIG issue. Solar flares are only an POTENTIAL issue if a dangerous one is aimed at you while you're in cislunar space, or on the surface.
"Because Mauldin is talking about INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, i.e. LONG TERM MISSIONS, when cosmic particles would be a BIG issue."
Then why does he compare his shield with the shield EARTH's ATMOSPHERE provides and specify right at the beginning that his shield would be needed OVER A FEW HOURS? And need I remind you that I've already demonstrated that the radiation in cislunar space is in the same energy range as the radiation Mauldin proposes his shield for.
"Another effect of cosmic particles is permanent damage to retina and neural cells which don't replace themselves. At the rate astronaust saw flashes in their in unshielded spacecraft, they could lose most vision and brain function IN A FEW YEARS."
Cosmic rays are a danger on LONG TERM missions, producing long term effects e.g. cancer, cell damage. Solar flares can POTENTIALLY deliver large doses in a short amount of time.
"Another effect of cosmic particles is permanent damage to retina and neural cells which don't replace themselves. At the rate astronaust saw flashes in their in unshielded spacecraft, they could lose most vision and brain function IN A FEW YEARS.""
I've read that quote and I plan on commenting on it in an upcoming project: I wonder if Buzz has lost his eyesight yet.
Since he was in space for about 2 weeks, rather than several years, I find it unlikely.
You do grasp the notion that Mauldin is talking about how he would design a STARSHIP, for INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL? And how astronauts would have to cope with the effects of being in space for many years? He isn't referring to what you'd need to go to the moon for 2 weeks.
"You do grasp the notion that Mauldin is talking about how he would design a STARSHIP, for INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL? And how astronauts would have to cope with the effects of being in space for many years? He isn't referring to what you'd need to go to the moon for 2 weeks."
How many times do I have to say this? Mauldin, and Parker for that matter, are both talking about shielding astronauts from GeV radiation, which exists in cislunar space.
Mauldin is talking specifically about LONG TERM MISSIONS in a STARSHIP (his words). The book is called Prospects for INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL (interstellar = from star to star, not from Earth to Moon). He talks about the dangers to astronauts caused by exposure to GCRs over SEVERAL YEARS.
Same with Parker. The subtitle to the article is "The perils of cosmic rays pose severe, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to human spaceflight to MARS AND BEYOND". Mars means 18-24 months, NOT 2 weeks.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the radiation of cislunar space is in the same energy range as the radiation Parker and Mauldin propose their shields for?
"Same with Parker. The subtitle to the article is "The perils of cosmic rays pose severe, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to human spaceflight to MARS AND BEYOND"."
Are you aware that Parker states the idea of electrostatic shielding was proposed for a lunar mission?
"Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the radiation of cislunar space is in the same energy range as the radiation Parker and Mauldin propose their shields for?"
I'm not ignoring it, it's not relevant to the argument! They are talking about LONG TERM MISSIONS, which are different to SHORT TEM MISSIONS. Astronauts on long term missions will receive a greater dose of radiation than Apollo astronauts. They are looking at ways of reducing this LONG TERM EXPOSURE.
"I'm not ignoring it, it's not relevant to the argument! They are talking about LONG TERM MISSIONS, which are different to SHORT TEM MISSIONS."
I've already demonstrated that Van Allen believed a short one-hour passage through the belts would be lethal to astronauts, and the radiation in cislunar space is much, much greater than what's encountered in the belts.
"I've already demonstrated that Van Allen believed a short one-hour passage through the belts would be lethal to astronauts"
With respect, you misinterpreted what he said. For example, when he said astronauts could best take off over the poles, did he say that was the ONLY solution? BEST solution (from a radiation exposure POV), yes. ONLY solution, no.
Don't forget he was part of the committee that in 1958/9 advised that a lunar mission was technically feasible.
"when he said astronauts could best take off over the poles, did he say that was the ONLY solution? BEST solution (from a radiation exposure POV), yes. ONLY solution, no."
Elsewhere in the same article, he specifically said that a rapid transit through the radiation would not be sufficient to protect astronauts.
"Elsewhere in the same article, he specifically said that a rapid transit through the radiation would not be sufficient to protect astronauts."
I don't have access to the full article so can't put this into context. Was he referring to travelling through the most intense equatorial region? Was he referring to un-shielded craft? Why didn't he mention this in 1958 when he agreed a moon landing was technically feasible?
"and the radiation in cislunar space is much, much greater than what's encountered in the belts."
I'd dispute this statement entirely. In fact it's the first time I've heard it claimed by anyone. The energy of GCRs may be higher than the average energy of VAB particles, but the flux density of GCRs if much lower, so the radiation levels are also lower.
"Why was the electrostatic shield proposed for a moon mission if it wasn't required for a moon flight, as you state. "
Just because something is proposed doesn't mean it's an absolute requirement. It means it's a proposal that will undergo further research, refinement and testing.
"Another effect of cosmic particles is permanent damage to retina and neural cells which don't replace themselves. At the rate astronaust saw flashes in their in unshielded spacecraft, they could lose most vision and brain function IN A FEW YEARS."
Obviously the flashes aren't a major concern seeing as NASA don't bother telling the STS Astronauts about them
Just look at the first ten seconds of this video Dave; then tell us how Ralph R. is able to see star-intensity light in daylight through his ingenious experimental tube.
Do you say he is a liar again? Or do you say you have never bothered to duplicate his experiment to see whether he is correct in his findings?
Do you deny the human eye has a much far and away greater light range sensitivity than any camera invented to-date with a nominal shutter exposure?
"tell us how Ralph R. is able to see star-intensity light in daylight through his ingenious experimental tube."
Unless some of the torchlight was reflected off the inside of the scope and into the smaller scope at 90 degrees, how would it affect his pupil diameter or night adaptation? I don't have a problem with what he's saying about that, I have a problem with his general conclusion about how it relates to Apollo.
" Unless some of the torchlight was reflected off the inside of the scope and into the smaller scope at 90 degrees, how would it affect his pupil diameter or night adaptation? "
If his eyes are daylight-on-earth adapted, Dave, he looks through the star tube and he can still SEE starlight intensity.
That tells us all we need to know.
Armstrong and ALL the Apollo dusty dozenTM were.... LYING... about their capacity to see the stars on the "lunar surface".
I think you need to listen properly to EXACTLY what he said. He said he could shine " a flashlight down it AT NIGHT, and still look across and see the stars. During the DAY, with the sun streaming down the barrel, I can see a BLACK ROOF ten miles away".
Using a scope looking through a blackened tube at 90 degrees, , Rene can see stars at night, and a roof 10 miles away during the day. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
No mention of being able to see stars during the daytime.
The irony is, all Rene has done is confirmed what Armstrong/Collins said during the A11 conference, that they could see only see stars on the daylight side only BY LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTICS. (Sound familiar?)
Of course, but there again both Armstrong and Aldrin on many occasions have stated they could NOT see the stars from the lunar surface - of course taking into account daylight iris-contraction due to sunlit lunar surface.
Ralph R. appears to be saying that is all bye the bye.
Stars could still be registered by the human eye in daylight retinal contraction conditions.
If you have a problem with that, cite your specific references Dave.
There's no case to answer. Ralph can believe what he likes, but all he's proved is that his telescope works both in the day and at night. Did he see stars during the day? No. He saw stars looking through his scope at night. Wowser.
The radiation readings from the Explorers were caused by the Van Allen Belts, NOT by cosmic rays!!!
The details of the shielding being discussed by Mauldin and Parker were specifically to mitigate the effect of long-term exposure and cancer risk caused by COSMIC RAYS.
Why is it that whenever the subject of radation crops up, some people try to obfuscate the issue by confusing cosmic rays, VA belts, flares, CMEs et al?
"Last question, why would Jodrell Bank tell every reporter that they tracked Apollo 11 to the moon ..... yet for some reason tell David Percy a different story?"
That's a good question, that I will need some more time to answer.. I will post some of the interview from 'Dark Moon', where Percy was told in person that JB never tracked any of the Apollo missions.
Why JB is telling different stories to different people now, might have something to do with the UK being allies with America.
'That article doesn't actually say they didn't, they just didn't include it. It's like reading about Germany's history and they didn't write about BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen and you use that to "prove" Germany never made any cars.'
"That article doesn't actually say they didn't, they just didn't include it...."
zak's comparison of Germany's history not including any mention of car manufacturing, is the typical type of illogical non-comparison so often used by those attempting to make excuses for the lack of any real Apollo evidence.. In this case, the total lack of any real evidence that Jodrell Bank tracked Apollo 11 to the Moon with their 50 ft dish.
"I'm not prepared to debate this matter with zakabog again because I've already pointed out David Percys investigation into Jodrell Bank."
Yes, and I've done my best to read the relevant sections of the book, either I'm not reading the right sections, or his book doesn't have one single quote from Jodrell Bank that they couldn't track Apollo. It's all "According to sources..." or "It's been said" but never is it "Joe Bob from Jodrell Bank says 'We couldn't track Apollo'"
Hey stray I should have realised that zakabogs stubborn insistence on not accepting anything that disagrees with Moon Base Pick and Choose is because he is an Apollohoaxer dot conmerchant.
"Hey stray I should have realised that zakabogs stubborn insistence on not accepting anything that disagrees with Moon Base Pick and Choose..."
Or it could be that I did everything you asked of me and all the evidence points to Jodrell Bank tracking Apollo? I e-mailed Jodrell Bank, I found an old article saying they tracked Apollo, I found other stories of other people tracking Apollo, yet somehow I'm supposed to believe David Percy who doesn't quote a single person from Jodrell Bank?
"Or it could be that I did everything you asked of me and all the evidence points to Jodrell Bank tracking Apollo? I e-mailed Jodrell Bank .."
The worthless e-mail you received from Ian Morrison of Jodrell Bank was a direct quote that he lifted from an article that was written by someone who couldn't even get their facts straight about who allegedly piloted the A11 LM. In other words, your e-mail reply is nothing but erroneous, useless NASA disinformation. Just like the article you found.
I'm still waiting on my comment where I said aluminum would protect against radiation, I posted the original comment in it's context where I was clearly talking about a moon base, the comment that followed was talking about radiation shielding on one of these moon bases, not the shielding on any Apollo craft. You obviously assumed I meant the Apollo craft, and jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about aluminum, which is clearly wrong.
"moon base??? A moon base??? Talk about deflective, and distorted comments!"
Deflective and distorted comments? Okay, here's the comment I posted a day or two ago -
"Yes, that's why they're not currently setting up a permanent base on the moon. The chance of getting hit with potentially deadly radiation would be much higher if you're on the moon for months at a time."
Do you notice the part where I said "PERMANENT BASE ON THE MOON" I was obviously talking about shielding on a potential base.
Again, our resident Propagandist zakabog has put his foot in his mouth.... Lets see him squirm out of this one..
I have watched demonstrations of rifle shots against blocks of material such as steel, and aluminum... Steel will depress, and if thin enough the projectile will go through.. Aluminum unless extremely thick will allow the rifle catridge projectile to go right through!
"Again, our resident Propagandist zakabog has put his foot in his mouth.... Lets see him squirm out of this one.."
I don't have to "squirm" out of this one, if these micrometeorites are so deadly why is the ISS just fine in space with about as much shielding as anything from Apollo. How is it that Satellites are still in space working after all these years?
Your comment made 22 hours ago, and for everyone to read and note:
"The micrometeorites aren't very hard to protect against, especially if you have sufficient protection to stop the radiation."
Sufficient protection by using what?? The craft were thin aluminum shells! There was no other shielding, therefore THE aluminum was the shielding! Your comment cannot possibly mean anything else!
Also, thin aluminum stopping projectiles at high speed?
"Sufficient protection by using what?? The craft were thin aluminum shells! There was no other shielding, therefore THE aluminum was the shielding! Your comment cannot possibly mean anything else!"
You said in regards to a moon base, the least of their problems would be radiation. The necessary protection from the radiation would be thick lead and possibly concrete, these barriers would easily stop the micrometeorites and no where did my comment say the shielding would be aluminum.
Actually, micrometeorites have been known to pound the Space Shuttle while it has been orbiting the earth in LEO.... Beyond the magnetosphere, the interstellar speeds of objects is much the same, if not greater... It is amazing that NASA would not have shielded the craft better to avoid the risk of having a rock hit the modules and cause the death of astronauts... The hull was purposely thin because of the weight restrictions of the Saturn 5 just to get it off the ground!
"I was aware that there were people who believed that we never walked on the moon, but I never read their books or consulted with them. And frankly, I think they are being totally ludicrous."
So I'm supposed to believe Bill Kaysing when he speaks about a movie someone else created, when that someone else says people like Bill Kaysing are totally ludicrous?
I looked up the ISBN number and all the dates I've found were 1981, I've yet to find one that says 1974, although if you can find one I would stand corrected. I didn't have to reach for that one since I looked up the date before I made my post.
You'd still need to prove that 20 years after Capricorn One came out Jim Lovell knew for a fact that it was based on Bill Kaysing's book (is that even a fact?)
Micrometeorites aren't very hard to protect against? Is this guy kidding? With no atmosphere, and with speeds upwards of 10km/sec, a pebble becomes mightier than a bullet out of a shotgun! One small rock traveling at that speed will go right through a thin skinned aluminum craft, and keep on going!
Aluminum protects against radiation? This is too much! Aluminum of 30cm thick will only reduce cosmic gamma radiation about 30%! Apollo used only a max thickness of approx. 10cm for its modules!
I'll give you my 2008 Mustang GT if you can point out where I said "Aluminum protects against radiation." Seriously, you can print this out, have it notarized, I'll sign anything saying I'll give you the car fully outright no questions asked, won't ask for a penny if you can just find where I said aluminum protects against radiation.
"a pebble becomes mightier than a bullet out of a shotgun!"
Yes but we're not talking about pebble sized objects, most micrometeorites are smaller than that (like cosmic dust), and their effects on a ship are sort of like sandblasting, there's actually a whole wikipedia article on them you can look at. It's very unlikely that they would encounter any objects large enough to cause severe damage during the trip to the moon. When was the last time a micrometeorite made a hole through the ISS?
Protection from GCRs? That is minor compared to another issue.
I have been to the Smithsonian and have observed the Apollo service/command modules, and the LEM close up. They are flimsy in design, with no real shielding(thin aluminum?).
Micrometeorites are the real issue here, because of no moon atmosphere! A pebble traveling at interstellar speeds would have punched a hole in the LEM on the surface, or the Service Module in orbit! NASA did NOT shield these craft against this possibility.
Jarrah do you really not know why the suit was thrown out of court?
"Legal experts who were contacted agree that calling someone "wacky" does not a successful libel suit make. If anything, Kaysing's wild accusation that Lovell is a liar who participated in a government conspiracy to fool the public is more harsh than being called wacky."
"Jarrah do you really not know why the suit was thrown out of court?"
Are you aware that prior to the metro article, Lovell sent Bill Kaysing AND Ralph Rene a very threatening letter calling Kaysing all sorts of things, then during the interrogations he denied knowing anyone called "Ralph Rene." So yes, Jim Lovell is a proven liar. And the only reason the case was thrown out of court, was because Kaysing didn't give the judge Rene's papers that pointed this out.
"Are you aware that prior to the metro article, Lovell sent Bill Kaysing AND Ralph Rene a very threatening letter calling Kaysing all sorts of things, then during the interrogations he denied knowing anyone called "Ralph Rene.""
Well if I was asked if I know "Jarrah White" I would say no because I never met you.
"...the only reason the case was thrown out of court..."
So why do you ask why it was thrown out of court if you already know the answer?
"Well if I was asked if I know "Jarrah White" I would say no because I never met you."
You can quit playing dumb, I'm immune.
"So why do you ask why it was thrown out of court if you already know the answer?"
I'm interested to see how many propagandists are willing to acknowledge the facts, rather than distort the truth with unfounded insults against Bill Kaysing.
""Well if I was asked if I know "Jarrah White" I would say no because I never met you."
You can quit playing dumb, I'm immune."
I don't see how writing one letter to someone shows that you know them. I write comments directed to you but I don't know you, just as you don't know me.
"I'm interested to see how many propagandists are willing to acknowledge the facts"
The facts are Bill Kaysing had no case, I'd love for you to show that he had a valid LIBEL case.
"I don't see how writing one letter to someone shows that you know them."
He knew very well who Ralph Rene and sent him a copy of his insulting letter to Kaysing, then denied that he knew anyone called Ralph Rene. Therefore, Jim Lovell is a proven liar.
"The facts are Bill Kaysing had no case,"
No the facts are that Jim Lovell made extremely slanderous accusations against Kaysing that he couldn't substantiate and during the interrogations told even more proven lies.
"He knew very well who Ralph Rene and sent him a copy of his insulting letter to Kaysing, then denied that he knew anyone called Ralph Rene. Therefore, Jim Lovell is a proven liar."
Not that it matters, it was a libel case, Kaysing wasn't suing Lovell for claiming he didn't know Ralph Rene. Plus when was Lovell under oath? I thought he never showed up in court and his lawyer just had the whole case thrown out? Plus can you please post some proof that Jim Lovell in fact knew exactly who Ralph Rene was at the time of questioning (well I'd like to see the actual question and answer in context too if that's possible.)
"If you commit perjury under the interrogations, then you cannot get a summery judgement."
I'm confused, what interrogations are you talking about? Maybe you know more about our legal system than I thought, as far as I know from a civil case you're served some papers, show up in court (or have a lawyer go on your behalf) and unless you're called as a witness you're not asked anything.
"All the relevant papers are shown in this documentary."
"I'm confused, what interrogations are you talking about?"
The interrogations held between the two parties during the trial. During which Lovell denied knowing anyone called "Ralph Rene" when asked by Bill Kaysing, he was lying because he had personally sent Rene a copy of his letter to Kaysing.
"The interrogations held between the two parties during the trial."
I think I know what you're talking about, we call that examining the witness.
So during the trial Jim Lovell took the stand as a witness and said he did not know anyone named Ralph Rene? Is this in the court transcripts? I'd really like to see that in context and I'm having a hard time finding it online.
"No the facts are that Jim Lovell made extremely slanderous accusations against Kaysing that he couldn't substantiate and during the interrogations told even more proven lies."
You obviously don't understand the United States legal system (which is fine since you live in Australia.)
Go look up Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. Study what is required to prove libel.
Lovell believes whole heartedly that Kaysing is wacky which means Kaysing had no case.
"Lovell believes whole heartedly that Kaysing is wacky which means Kaysing had no case."
Among other things, Lovell alleged that Kaysing only doubted the moon landings after watching Capricorn One. Anyone who has 'reviewed' Kaysing's book would know that Capricorn One was based on the book in question.
"Yes it was, and Lovell knew full well it was false."
Just gonna help you read this a little.
""Dear Mr. KAYSING [note lack of Ralph Rene's name]
I have REVIEWED [reviewed means looked over, not read in it's entirety and committed to memory] your manuscript "We Never Went To The Moon" [That wasn't Ralph Rene's manuscript, this letter was clearly not addressed to Ralph Rene]""
By the way, how was a movie made in 1978, based on a book published in 1981?
"By the way, how was a movie made in 1978, based on a book published in 1981?"
Are you really that stupid, read the fine print,""Capricoen 1" which was based on the initial edition of this book[...]" the initial edition was published in 1974, four years before Capricorn One.
"the initial edition was published in 1974, four years before Capricorn One."
Published by who? What was the ISBN number? All the info I found points to the book being published in '81 but it's entirely possible that was wrong or I'm just not looking at the right places. Plus can you prove that Lovell knew Kaysings 20 year old (at the time of the article) book wasn't based on a 20 year old movie, or that HE (and not the publisher of the article) was passing off the info as a fact?
"Are you really that stupid, read the fine print,""Capricoen 1" which was based on the initial edition of this book[...]" the initial edition was published in 1974, four years before Capricorn One."
Why does the director deny ever reading books on the moon hoax and go as far as calling people like Kaysing "ludicroous"? Oh yeah he's part of the conspiracy, how could I be so dumb?
'Why does the director deny ever reading books on the moon hoax and go as far as calling people like Kaysing "ludicroous"? Oh yeah he's part of the conspiracy, how could I be so dumb? '
Why according to Richard Hoagland did the LPI let somebody put a document in the press packs for the mariner fly by claiming that Apollo 11 had just been faked in the desert in Nevada?
It was NASA sponsored. They were encouraging rumours that it was hoaxed.
"Why according to Richard Hoagland did the LPI let somebody put a document in the press packs for the mariner fly by claiming that Apollo 11 had just been faked in the desert in Nevada?"
According to Richard Hoagland Mars is red and green (green being from the vegetation) with a blue sky.
He's claimed a lot of things (there's a face on mars (which he eventually retracted), we have secret anti gravity technology we're using to get into space) and I won't easily believe his claims without proof.
Presumably there must be an element of truth to this story because the head of the LPI Press Office is named by Hoagland as being the man with the doc's escort among a busy media corps.
Hoagland of course completely ignores what the document actually claimed and manages to turn into NASA are hiding alien ruins on the Moon.
"You're so lucky all convincing evidence has been destroyed. Nevermind you have no proof of it being destroyed. No eyewitnesses or written orders or contracts or affidavits or ANYTHING!"
I'd say that NASA are the lucky one's, not me .. After all, not everyone can pull off the scam of the century and still manage to cover it up after 40 years.
I've gotta get some work done so this will be my last post today...
...I'm not going to be satisfied, and neither should you be, with questionable reflections and shadows.
I want to see photos of the sets. Clear evidence showing the manufactured sets. I want afidavits from workers. I want to see copies of contracts for construction. I want to see budget and plans for construction. I want to see pictures of guys alligning miniatures in preparation for a shot juxtaposed with the result.
"I want to see photos of the sets. Clear evidence showing the manufactured sets. I want afidavits from workers. I want to see copies of contracts for construction. I want to see budget and plans for construction. I want to see pictures of guys alligning miniatures in preparation for a shot juxtaposed with the result."
Actually, some of this evidence is available, but of course most of it has long been destroyed.. Just like all of the original telemetry for all of the Apollo missions.
"There are hours of video of the rover cruising around - obviously not a miniature. Come on - didn't you watch Godzilla movies? We're talking 60's/70's special effects."
The video clips only show a few seconds of the Rover traveling at any given time, which is quite easy to fake on moonsets.
King Kong was made in the 1930s.. Godzilla was made in the 1950s .. Try Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Oddysey' for 1968 special effects .. The same kind of effects seen in all of the Apollo videos.
Will you admit you are wrong when I share that there were only 2 Godzilla movies produced in the 50's, 8 in the 60's, 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's...etc.
Again - just another example of stating something as fact when, in fact, it isn't.
Ugh! I gotta go! This is just pissing in the wind.
"Will you admit you are wrong when I share that there were only 2 Godzilla movies produced in the 50's, 8 in the 60's, 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's...etc."
Yes, it's true that the Godzilla movies were made those years too, but the special effects used for the later movies didn't improve much because of the BUDGET they were made with .. Unlike NASA's budget which was over 30 billion dollars in the 1960's, to produce the quality of special effects that Kubrick did in his 2001 masterpiece.
Again! Where is your proof that the budget for Godzilla movies was lower in the 60's and 70's?
You say these things without a shred of proof!
Just because you think it's true doesn't count as evidence. Where is the PROOF? Where are the scientists? Where?!? None of you can answer for that! Consider that hard! There are scientists of all options - and I mean all! But there are none of repute that will say the Moon landings were a hoax.
Again! Where is your proof that the budget for Godzilla movies was lower in the 60's and 70's?
That's not what I said .. Read my comment again.. I said that the special effects for Godzilla didn't improve much for the later movies.
They were cheesy, low budget Japanese films, made for kids .. You can't really be serious trying to compare them to the high budget, brilliant special effects of the Apollo Project!
The main point is you stated as fact that Godzilla movies were products of the 50's and I proved the majority were, in fact, NOT products of the 50's.
Kubric's moon does not resemble Apollo landing sights.
You're so lucky all convincing evidence has been destroyed. Nevermind you have no proof of it being destroyed. No eyewitnesses or written orders or contracts or affidavits or ANYTHING!
OMG - it is so funny that you all can continue with your theories in light of so little evidence!
"The main point is you stated as fact that Godzilla movies were products of the 50's and I proved the majority were, in fact, NOT products of the 50's."
It doesn't matter when they were made, because they have nothing to do with the Apollo movies.
"Kubric's moon does not resemble Apollo landing sights."
You're right.. The special effects used for the Kubrick film were much more realistic looking than those uesed for Apollo.
"Bad argument if you can prove your outlandish claims."
Sorry, typo ..It's a bad argument if you CAN'T prove your outlandish claims.
I asked you where I can find the Russian photographs allegedly taken during their unmanned Moon landings.. You claimed that they were a match for the Apollo photos, so I would like to see that proof.
At what point did I suggest their were Soviet photographs of us or them on the moon?
What I suggested, and stand by, is did our then arch-enemy, U.S.S.R. (or have they since) EVER...ONCE...EVEN WISPER that their observances of our flights, or shared lunar material, indicate a hoax.
No, they haven't.
Not once. And yet to do so would have carried MASSIVE political gain!
They actually congratulated us on our lunar successes.
"What I suggested, and stand by, is did our then arch-enemy, U.S.S.R. (or have they since) EVER...ONCE...EVEN WISPER that their observances of our flights, or shared lunar material, indicate a hoax."
The Russians never observed or tracked any of the Apollo flights .. They only picked up some radio transmissions, which could have been signals bounced off of the Moon .. Or even taped recorded, like the Russians did for one of their unmanned missions in lunar orbit.
"They only picked up some radio transmissions, which could have been signals bounced off of the Moon .. "
It would be pretty easy to figure out it's a bounced signal, once they have the signal they can find where it's coming from. If it's bouncing off the moon it'd be pretty obvious.
"Or even taped recorded"
The radio transmissions went for days, they wouldn't of had the technology to put a few days worth of recordings into space to broadcast them.
'Well there's stories of optical tracking of the missions, it wouldn't have been too hard for the Russians to pickup audio.'
Well their is myself and at least one other U-Ter who after an intial friendly response from Ian Morrison at Jodrell Bank received no reply when we inquired was the reason they were tracking Luna 15 because the Russian's couldn't themselves.
Your links don't work. Would you mind PMing me the actual links please?
I like how you skip the part of Van Allen's article explaining how a human exposed to the Van Allen Belts for two days would only have an even chance of survival.
I guess a fast transit of a few hours would be okay then; depending of course on the type of hull and then what kind of particles get through it.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
Well put it Jarrah!!!
I fucking love your videos. well done...
Vonshultze 1 year ago
the obvious reason NASA got to the MOON first and the SOVIETS were allowed to author the SPACE STATION is that AMERICANS make better movies.
Walt Disney and Werner Von Braun had been collaborating since the 1950s on making MOON fantasy films.
islandbuoy4 2 years ago
i hate this guys voice
but he is smart
wen790 2 years ago
The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!
Synthetrix 2 years ago
The Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.
Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung
Synthetrix 2 years ago
What shielded the LM?
FoosMasoos 2 years ago
@FoosMasoos I think it was alluminum.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
Jarrah, jamesbooty misses the entire exercise and fakery of the so called "cold war".... Little does he know or realize that the entire thing was a sham....
There is proof that Wall Street originally financed the so called Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the Soviets were financed by these same criminals since that time.. Their government was totally in cahoots with the American government from the start. The entire Space Race was nothing more than Propaganda... Propagandists are fools!
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago
@northerntruthseeker Bravo!... Bravo! If the TV says it true, then, well,.. it must be true.
cronos122770 2 years ago
If the hoax is true, nobody directly involved has talked, meaning anyone NOT directly involved has no direct knowledge of it. Therefore, every aspect of the hoax theory originated in someone's imagination, which is why it is all supported by questionable interpretations of circumstantial evidence. Genuine conspiracies are never exposed by someone dreaming up a scenario and then finding a few pictures that can support it; they are exposed by someone getting inside and producing concrete proof.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
This argument is severely lacking logic. If the Van Allen belts were impassible, both NASA and the USSR would know that neither side could put men on the moon, and at that point any motivation for either side to fake moon landings disappears. If we both know it can't be done, then there is no reason for either of us to pretend that we did it. NASA would only fake moon landings if they feared the USSR would beat us to the moon, but that would mean the Van Allen belts WERE in fact passable!
jamesbooty 2 years ago
'If the Van Allen belts were impassible, both NASA and the USSR would know that neither side could put men on the moon, and at that point any motivation for either side to fake moon landings disappears.'
If you want to know what the Soviet Union thought of the radiation, see these videos.
watch?v=w3Joz6vnpsg
watch?v=mPh079lMhI8
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago 2
@WhiteJarrah Dude, use your head. If NASA knew that moving through the Van Allen belts was impossible, why would they say that they did it? Do you think NASA believed it could hide that fact for all eternity? Or you think they just weren't thinking about the future?
KayBeeEee1983 4 months ago
In 1959, James Van Allen stated that radiation would be a problem "unless some practical way can be found to shield travelers." In the 10 years following that statement a practical method of dealing with the radiation was found, and Van Allen himself agreed that radiation would not pose a significant problem to the Apollo crews.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
'In the 10 years following that statement a practical method of dealing with the radiation was found'
The only practical way to shield space travelers is to put 2meters of water around the capsule. Only then would the radiation be reduced to 0.041rem/hr.
Aluminum shielded would just worsen the radiation because of all the fragmentation. The aluminum shield on the ISS increased the daily LEO doses from 0.025/day to 0.1rem/day.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Other means of shielding against high energy protons and electrons, like trajectories providing minimum exposure times combined with light-weight shielding, would be effective enough to reduce exposure to an acceptable level. Besides, if NASA knew the Van Allen belts were actually impossible to pass, the USSR would have known it too. Therefore, they would have known we were faking the moon landings and would have immediately exposed the deception rather than concede defeat in the space race.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
Van Allen explicitly stated that even a rapid trajectory would be lethal to astronauts and that effective shielding was beyond engineering feasibility in the near future.
And I wouldn't be so quick to trust the Soviets.
watch?v=nZN3PI7HRvU
watch?v=ma4-pqng8ZM
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
So.... you think the USSR was willing to accept the position of inferiority to the USA - FOR THE REST OF TIME - for a discount on wheat. Sorry, but this is a laughably implausible motive for the USSR to be complacent in a NASA space race coverup. Further, such an international conspiracy would either be impossible to maintain, or if it were maintained for 40 years, it would be impossible to expose. If that's the case, you might as well surrender to the matrix and enjoy your life.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
Basically the wheat deals were the price for secrecy. The US and Russians are now undeniably collaborators in space exploration.
Not to mention the fact that Alexei Leonov claimed that Moscow tracked Apollo 11 directly from the moon, despite the fact that Moscow was not in line of sight with the moon during the given time.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
That's a pretty low price for generations of national disgrace. Plus, with Russian complacency, NASA no longer needs to fake any moon landings.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
'That's a pretty low price for generations of national disgrace.'
It's no different to what the US currently does with China. How many human rights have the Chinese violated, yet the US doesn't put them on the list of World's Greatest Human Rights Violators because of all the free trade deals they have underway.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago 2
That's not the problem with this theory. The problem is that without the potential of the USSR beating us to the moon, there is no need to NASA to fake getting there. This is especially true if the radiation made it impossible for either side to do it for real. If both sides knew that it couldn't be done at all, there would be no reason for us to pretend to do it.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
You're missing the whole point. The USSR knew neither of us could land, that's true. The purpose was to fool the public so they could spend billions on the cold war. The motivation wasn't for Russia it was to fool us to justify military spending.
alexeemo 2 years ago
That is an illogical argument. The USSR would have no reason to accept the national humiliation of losing the space race just to give their capitalist adversary an excuse to spend its own money. Besides, most of the money was already spent BEFORE the first moon landing took place. If NASA faked the landings, the USSR would have immediately blown the whistle.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
@alexeemo "The purpose was to fool the public so they could spend billions on the cold war. The motivation wasn't for Russia it was to fool us to justify military spending."
I hope you're joking. How would the USA landing on the moon justify military spending? Why would we even need to justify military spending? Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Everyone in the USA already assumed that Russia was trying to annihilate us.
KayBeeEee1983 4 months ago
Van Allen explicitly stated that even a rapid trajectory would be lethal to astronauts and that effective shielding was beyond engineering feasibility in the near future.
And I wouldn't be so quick to trust the Soviets.
watch?v=nZN3PI7HRvU
watch?v=ma4-pqng8ZM
And if you want to see what they thought of radiation,
watch?v=w3Joz6vnpsg
watch?v=mPh079lMhI8
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Interesting.
machfron 2 years ago
Anyone who is interested in the space radiation issue should read this article.
3W's (dot) buzzcreek (dot) com/grade-a/MOON/articles1 (dot) htm
Cosmored 3 years ago
"All we really proved was how easy it is to fake the Moon landings on Earth." - Mythbusters
operationnorthwoodz 3 years ago
Does John H Mauldin deny man went to the moon?
NO!
So whats the point of quote mining him?
Ah I understand the same point with all quote mining, pretending people said somthing they did not!
Polygamy4Five 3 years ago
DURRR the space shuttle does not use water for it shielding, what a stupid video!
Polygamy4Five 3 years ago
Dr Van Allen: "With Explorer 1, the highest rate we could observe was 2,000 counts per second. We were able to calibrate that apparatus after the fact. We did a laboratory calibration on a spare instrument using that calibration curve of 100,000 counts per second. The intense radiation saturated the counter." NASA Moon maps show higher gamma radiation than the surface of the Sun. HA! PirateNews *org /hollywood *html
operationnorthwoodz 3 years ago
Thati s because the surface of the sun is not hot enough to emit in the gamma spectrum. The radiation emitted by the moon is from secondary particles, by interaction with the 'solar wind', stream of charged particles from the sun. These are partially, but only partially deflected by the earths magnetic field. If they were a serious concern, the cosmonauts who spent over a year in space would be poached. Luckey for them, but unlucky for your theory, they weren't.
loperspest 3 years ago
"why in the world would you send manned vehicle while the sun is raging on his peak years ?"
You either accept the risks and do what you can to mitigate them, or you don't go. There was a space race to be won. The 'nauts were almost all test pilots. They had the Right Stuff: you and I don't (although offered the chance to go to the moon I'd leap at it).
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
The mission dose (due to flares) would depend on the amount and energy of protons ejected, and whether they were aimed at the Earth. Not all "major" flares fit that criteria. Not all flares have an associated Coronal Mass Ejection either.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
When is the level of radiation outside the magnetosphere 10 times that of the ISS in orbit? Do you have a source for this?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
That's the problem with that list, it's being used as proof that the A12 astronauts would have been fried without an understanding of how the index equates to REM inside the CSM, inside the LM or inside a suit. That's a big leap. How about contacting some space scientists and asking them for their opinion instead of jumping to conclusions that may be ill-informed?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
No need to resort to petty insults 1plus8.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that flare died down long before Apollo 17 launched?
Ask yourself the question, why are no credible, peer reviewed scientists claiming that the A14 astronauts should have been adversely affected by those flares? I've seen the index, but I don't know how to convert those figures into a REM figure for astronauts protected by the CSM. Do you? Were they X-class flares?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
If an X-class flare had occurred during a mission, I'd want to know more about it. I've not been able to uncover any evidence that this happened. There were flares, which could be described as "major" depending on how you classify them (for example, flares exhibiting a large amount of radiowaves could be classified "major", but radiowaves aren't really an issue).
Since the flare occured some months before A17, there was no reaosn to think they were at any greater or lesser danger than before.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"because as you now know , they faked every single apollo missions , im glad you finally understanded HLAR "
Now that I've got the voice of truth to listen to, it has all suddenly become alarmingly clear.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
They knew the risks, and decided the chance of a potentially fatal event happening during a mission was low enough to make it worth making the attempt. IMO they got lucky, as the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 astronauts will testify.
Space travel is inherently risky. Attitudes to risk were completely different 40 years ago compared to now.
Travelling during a solar minimum may make sense for future missions, unless they develop improved shielding & predictive abilities.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"...so i hope now that you know this , you will realise that you are supporting a massive fraud , thanks."
Wow, I didn't realise that.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed!
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
There are big clues in the titles of 2 publications you reference in your clip.
"Prospects for INTERSTELLAR Travel" (Mauldin)
"Shielding Space Travelers - The perils of cosmic rays pose severe, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to human spaceflight to MARS AND BEYOND"
Cosmic rays increase cancer risk in LONG TERM missions, e.g. 2 years round trip to Mars, or decades to other star systems. No mention at all of cosmic rays being a showstopper for a 2 week round-trip to the moon.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"No mention at all of cosmic rays being a showstopper for a 2 week round-trip to the moon."
As usual, you overlook the fact that Mauldin specifically proposes meters of shielding over a FEW HOURS at EARTH DISTANCE FROM THE SUN, and even compares his proposed shield with EARTH's ATMOSPHERE.
And in Parker's case, you have overlooked the fact that Parker's shield is proposed for 2GeV cosmic radiation: the cosmic radiation in cislunar space being five times greater.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
The quote on page 226? He is clearly referring to the potential dose from solar flares in the first paragraph, NOT cosmic particle radiation.
He is also very clearly talking about cosmic particle radiation, NOT solar flares in the second paragraph. The 2 are fundamentally different. Either you've mis-comprehended what he's saying, or you've muddled the solar flare and cosmic radiation issues together for some reason.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"He is also very clearly talking about cosmic particle radiation, NOT solar flares in the second paragraph."
Perhaps you missed the third paragraph, he's clearly talking about solar AND cosmic radiation: both have the ability to penetrate meters of material will equally do a person severe damage.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Perhaps you missed the third paragraph, he's clearly talking about solar AND cosmic radiation: both have the ability to penetrate meters of material will equally do a person severe damage."
Wrong - here's the actual quote.
"Solar flares can deliver Gev protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles BUT AT MUCH HIGHER INTENSITIES".
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Wrong - here's the actual quote.
"Solar flares can deliver Gev protons in the same energy range as most cosmic particles BUT AT MUCH HIGHER INTENSITIES"."
I've read that quote a million times, the fact is that Mauldin proposes two-meters of shielding against solar and cosmic radiation within the GeV level, and the cislunar space radiation is as high as 10 GeV. It's hard to imagine Apollo doing what they said it did without Mauldin's proposed shield.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Mauldin proposes two-meters of shielding against solar and cosmic radiation within the GeV level, and the cislunar space radiation is as high as 10 GeV. It's hard to imagine Apollo doing what they said it did without Mauldin's proposed shield."
Because Mauldin is talking about INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, i.e. LONG TERM MISSIONS, when cosmic particles would be a BIG issue. Solar flares are only an POTENTIAL issue if a dangerous one is aimed at you while you're in cislunar space, or on the surface.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Because Mauldin is talking about INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, i.e. LONG TERM MISSIONS, when cosmic particles would be a BIG issue."
Then why does he compare his shield with the shield EARTH's ATMOSPHERE provides and specify right at the beginning that his shield would be needed OVER A FEW HOURS? And need I remind you that I've already demonstrated that the radiation in cislunar space is in the same energy range as the radiation Mauldin proposes his shield for.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
He was making a simple comparison. His proposed shield is 2m, Earth provide's the equivalent of 5 times that (10m). So what?
The quote about "a few hours" relates specifically to the danger posed by solar flares, NOT by GCRs. Read paragraph 1, page 226.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"He was making a simple comparison."
Why make the comparison if the radiation in geostationary space and interstellar space are not worth comparing?
"The quote about "a few hours" relates specifically to the danger posed by solar flares, NOT by GCRs."
In paragraph 3 Mauldin specifies that both CGRs and solar flares are as high as GeV.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
^By geostationary space, I meant to type geospace.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Read the last 2 sentences, 2nd para.
"Another effect of cosmic particles is permanent damage to retina and neural cells which don't replace themselves. At the rate astronaust saw flashes in their in unshielded spacecraft, they could lose most vision and brain function IN A FEW YEARS."
Cosmic rays are a danger on LONG TERM missions, producing long term effects e.g. cancer, cell damage. Solar flares can POTENTIALLY deliver large doses in a short amount of time.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Read the last 2 sentences, 2nd para.
"Another effect of cosmic particles is permanent damage to retina and neural cells which don't replace themselves. At the rate astronaust saw flashes in their in unshielded spacecraft, they could lose most vision and brain function IN A FEW YEARS.""
I've read that quote and I plan on commenting on it in an upcoming project: I wonder if Buzz has lost his eyesight yet.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Since he was in space for about 2 weeks, rather than several years, I find it unlikely.
You do grasp the notion that Mauldin is talking about how he would design a STARSHIP, for INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL? And how astronauts would have to cope with the effects of being in space for many years? He isn't referring to what you'd need to go to the moon for 2 weeks.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"You do grasp the notion that Mauldin is talking about how he would design a STARSHIP, for INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL? And how astronauts would have to cope with the effects of being in space for many years? He isn't referring to what you'd need to go to the moon for 2 weeks."
How many times do I have to say this? Mauldin, and Parker for that matter, are both talking about shielding astronauts from GeV radiation, which exists in cislunar space.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Mauldin is talking specifically about LONG TERM MISSIONS in a STARSHIP (his words). The book is called Prospects for INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL (interstellar = from star to star, not from Earth to Moon). He talks about the dangers to astronauts caused by exposure to GCRs over SEVERAL YEARS.
Same with Parker. The subtitle to the article is "The perils of cosmic rays pose severe, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to human spaceflight to MARS AND BEYOND". Mars means 18-24 months, NOT 2 weeks.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the radiation of cislunar space is in the same energy range as the radiation Parker and Mauldin propose their shields for?
"Same with Parker. The subtitle to the article is "The perils of cosmic rays pose severe, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to human spaceflight to MARS AND BEYOND"."
Are you aware that Parker states the idea of electrostatic shielding was proposed for a lunar mission?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the radiation of cislunar space is in the same energy range as the radiation Parker and Mauldin propose their shields for?"
I'm not ignoring it, it's not relevant to the argument! They are talking about LONG TERM MISSIONS, which are different to SHORT TEM MISSIONS. Astronauts on long term missions will receive a greater dose of radiation than Apollo astronauts. They are looking at ways of reducing this LONG TERM EXPOSURE.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"I'm not ignoring it, it's not relevant to the argument! They are talking about LONG TERM MISSIONS, which are different to SHORT TEM MISSIONS."
I've already demonstrated that Van Allen believed a short one-hour passage through the belts would be lethal to astronauts, and the radiation in cislunar space is much, much greater than what's encountered in the belts.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I've already demonstrated that Van Allen believed a short one-hour passage through the belts would be lethal to astronauts"
With respect, you misinterpreted what he said. For example, when he said astronauts could best take off over the poles, did he say that was the ONLY solution? BEST solution (from a radiation exposure POV), yes. ONLY solution, no.
Don't forget he was part of the committee that in 1958/9 advised that a lunar mission was technically feasible.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"when he said astronauts could best take off over the poles, did he say that was the ONLY solution? BEST solution (from a radiation exposure POV), yes. ONLY solution, no."
Elsewhere in the same article, he specifically said that a rapid transit through the radiation would not be sufficient to protect astronauts.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Elsewhere in the same article, he specifically said that a rapid transit through the radiation would not be sufficient to protect astronauts."
I don't have access to the full article so can't put this into context. Was he referring to travelling through the most intense equatorial region? Was he referring to un-shielded craft? Why didn't he mention this in 1958 when he agreed a moon landing was technically feasible?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"and the radiation in cislunar space is much, much greater than what's encountered in the belts."
I'd dispute this statement entirely. In fact it's the first time I've heard it claimed by anyone. The energy of GCRs may be higher than the average energy of VAB particles, but the flux density of GCRs if much lower, so the radiation levels are also lower.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Are you aware that Parker states the idea of electrostatic shielding was proposed for a lunar mission?"
Yes, and he stated why he thought it would create a worse problem than it cured. Why is this relevant to Apollo?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Why is this relevant to Apollo?"
Why was the electrostatic shield proposed for a moon mission if it wasn't required for a moon flight, as you state.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Why was the electrostatic shield proposed for a moon mission if it wasn't required for a moon flight, as you state. "
Just because something is proposed doesn't mean it's an absolute requirement. It means it's a proposal that will undergo further research, refinement and testing.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Just because something is proposed doesn't mean it's an absolute requirement."
That's that most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, that's like telling someone to take an umbrella out on a broiling hot day.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"That's that most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, that's like telling someone to take an umbrella out on a broiling hot day. "
If there's a small chance a rainstorm may develop while you're out, might be worth considering. Or you may weigh up the risks and decide against it.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Another effect of cosmic particles is permanent damage to retina and neural cells which don't replace themselves. At the rate astronaust saw flashes in their in unshielded spacecraft, they could lose most vision and brain function IN A FEW YEARS."
Obviously the flashes aren't a major concern seeing as NASA don't bother telling the STS Astronauts about them
SEE AULIS NEWS APRIL
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Just look at the first ten seconds of this video Dave; then tell us how Ralph R. is able to see star-intensity light in daylight through his ingenious experimental tube.
Do you say he is a liar again? Or do you say you have never bothered to duplicate his experiment to see whether he is correct in his findings?
Do you deny the human eye has a much far and away greater light range sensitivity than any camera invented to-date with a nominal shutter exposure?
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"tell us how Ralph R. is able to see star-intensity light in daylight through his ingenious experimental tube."
Unless some of the torchlight was reflected off the inside of the scope and into the smaller scope at 90 degrees, how would it affect his pupil diameter or night adaptation? I don't have a problem with what he's saying about that, I have a problem with his general conclusion about how it relates to Apollo.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
The viewer already has daylight adaption. Yet he can still see starlight-intensity through the adjoining optical aperture.
You don't get it ( yet again), Dave, do you?
michaelstmark 3 years ago
" Unless some of the torchlight was reflected off the inside of the scope and into the smaller scope at 90 degrees, how would it affect his pupil diameter or night adaptation? "
If his eyes are daylight-on-earth adapted, Dave, he looks through the star tube and he can still SEE starlight intensity.
That tells us all we need to know.
Armstrong and ALL the Apollo dusty dozenTM were.... LYING... about their capacity to see the stars on the "lunar surface".
No way out now for you now, tee hee.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
I think you need to listen properly to EXACTLY what he said. He said he could shine " a flashlight down it AT NIGHT, and still look across and see the stars. During the DAY, with the sun streaming down the barrel, I can see a BLACK ROOF ten miles away".
Using a scope looking through a blackened tube at 90 degrees, , Rene can see stars at night, and a roof 10 miles away during the day. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
No mention of being able to see stars during the daytime.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
" No mention of being able to see stars during the daytime "
Yes, but if you replicate the experiment during daytime you will still see the star-intensity light sources with your daytime-adapted pupils.
The Apollo hoax is still thereby officially De-Bunked, courtesy of RR.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"replicate the experiment during daytime you will still see the star-intensity light sources with your daytime-adapted pupils."
Will you really? Star intensity light sources like, er, stars perhaps?
"The Apollo hoax is still thereby officially De-Bunked, courtesy of RR. "
Of course it is. Rene looks across a black tube with a torch shining down it and sees stars AT NIGHT, and lo and behold men didn't go to the moon.
What's that phrase you like? Oh yea, graze on Mike. Graze on.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
The irony is, all Rene has done is confirmed what Armstrong/Collins said during the A11 conference, that they could see only see stars on the daylight side only BY LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTICS. (Sound familiar?)
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
" ...BY LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTICS."
Of course, but there again both Armstrong and Aldrin on many occasions have stated they could NOT see the stars from the lunar surface - of course taking into account daylight iris-contraction due to sunlit lunar surface.
Ralph R. appears to be saying that is all bye the bye.
Stars could still be registered by the human eye in daylight retinal contraction conditions.
If you have a problem with that, cite your specific references Dave.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
There's no case to answer. Ralph can believe what he likes, but all he's proved is that his telescope works both in the day and at night. Did he see stars during the day? No. He saw stars looking through his scope at night. Wowser.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
" No mention at all of cosmic rays being a showstopper for a 2 week round-trip to the moon."
Sure. Except the official Geiger Counter readings on the first Explorers went OFF THE SCALE.
Of course, then, to you grazersTM, that implies "totally harmless".
Jokers U R.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
The radiation readings from the Explorers were caused by the Van Allen Belts, NOT by cosmic rays!!!
The details of the shielding being discussed by Mauldin and Parker were specifically to mitigate the effect of long-term exposure and cancer risk caused by COSMIC RAYS.
Why is it that whenever the subject of radation crops up, some people try to obfuscate the issue by confusing cosmic rays, VA belts, flares, CMEs et al?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Last question, why would Jodrell Bank tell every reporter that they tracked Apollo 11 to the moon ..... yet for some reason tell David Percy a different story?"
That's a good question, that I will need some more time to answer.. I will post some of the interview from 'Dark Moon', where Percy was told in person that JB never tracked any of the Apollo missions.
Why JB is telling different stories to different people now, might have something to do with the UK being allies with America.
straydog02 3 years ago
test
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"...yet somehow I'm supposed to believe David Percy who doesn't quote a single person from Jodrell Bank?"
Actually, David Percy does state who he spoke with at Jodrell Bank .. If magoos doesn't locate it first, I will post that information here tomorrow.
straydog02 3 years ago
'That article doesn't actually say they didn't, they just didn't include it. It's like reading about Germany's history and they didn't write about BMW, Mercedes or Volkswagen and you use that to "prove" Germany never made any cars.'
Also highly unbelievable.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"That article doesn't actually say they didn't, they just didn't include it...."
zak's comparison of Germany's history not including any mention of car manufacturing, is the typical type of illogical non-comparison so often used by those attempting to make excuses for the lack of any real Apollo evidence.. In this case, the total lack of any real evidence that Jodrell Bank tracked Apollo 11 to the Moon with their 50 ft dish.
straydog02 3 years ago
I'm not prepared to debate this matter with zakabog again because I've already pointed out David Percys investigation into Jodrell Bank.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"I'm not prepared to debate this matter with zakabog again because I've already pointed out David Percys investigation into Jodrell Bank."
Yes, and I've done my best to read the relevant sections of the book, either I'm not reading the right sections, or his book doesn't have one single quote from Jodrell Bank that they couldn't track Apollo. It's all "According to sources..." or "It's been said" but never is it "Joe Bob from Jodrell Bank says 'We couldn't track Apollo'"
zakabog 3 years ago
I shall try and get Percy's book from my friend and quote the relevant pages this evening zakabog.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Hey stray I should have realised that zakabogs stubborn insistence on not accepting anything that disagrees with Moon Base Pick and Choose is because he is an Apollohoaxer dot conmerchant.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Hey stray I should have realised that zakabogs stubborn insistence on not accepting anything that disagrees with Moon Base Pick and Choose..."
Or it could be that I did everything you asked of me and all the evidence points to Jodrell Bank tracking Apollo? I e-mailed Jodrell Bank, I found an old article saying they tracked Apollo, I found other stories of other people tracking Apollo, yet somehow I'm supposed to believe David Percy who doesn't quote a single person from Jodrell Bank?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Or it could be that I did everything you asked of me and all the evidence points to Jodrell Bank tracking Apollo? I e-mailed Jodrell Bank .."
The worthless e-mail you received from Ian Morrison of Jodrell Bank was a direct quote that he lifted from an article that was written by someone who couldn't even get their facts straight about who allegedly piloted the A11 LM. In other words, your e-mail reply is nothing but erroneous, useless NASA disinformation. Just like the article you found.
straydog02 3 years ago
And I am still waiting on my car keys....
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"And I am still waiting on my car keys...."
I'm still waiting on my comment where I said aluminum would protect against radiation, I posted the original comment in it's context where I was clearly talking about a moon base, the comment that followed was talking about radiation shielding on one of these moon bases, not the shielding on any Apollo craft. You obviously assumed I meant the Apollo craft, and jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about aluminum, which is clearly wrong.
zakabog 3 years ago
moon base??? A moon base??? Talk about deflective, and distorted comments!
They have to get to the moon first before they can even consider some type of moon base...
Distorting information to suit your needs..Typical propagandist!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"moon base??? A moon base??? Talk about deflective, and distorted comments!"
Deflective and distorted comments? Okay, here's the comment I posted a day or two ago -
"Yes, that's why they're not currently setting up a permanent base on the moon. The chance of getting hit with potentially deadly radiation would be much higher if you're on the moon for months at a time."
Do you notice the part where I said "PERMANENT BASE ON THE MOON" I was obviously talking about shielding on a potential base.
zakabog 3 years ago
Again, our resident Propagandist zakabog has put his foot in his mouth.... Lets see him squirm out of this one..
I have watched demonstrations of rifle shots against blocks of material such as steel, and aluminum... Steel will depress, and if thin enough the projectile will go through.. Aluminum unless extremely thick will allow the rifle catridge projectile to go right through!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Again, our resident Propagandist zakabog has put his foot in his mouth.... Lets see him squirm out of this one.."
I don't have to "squirm" out of this one, if these micrometeorites are so deadly why is the ISS just fine in space with about as much shielding as anything from Apollo. How is it that Satellites are still in space working after all these years?
zakabog 3 years ago
You can pack up the keys for your Mustang GT...
Your comment made 22 hours ago, and for everyone to read and note:
"The micrometeorites aren't very hard to protect against, especially if you have sufficient protection to stop the radiation."
Sufficient protection by using what?? The craft were thin aluminum shells! There was no other shielding, therefore THE aluminum was the shielding! Your comment cannot possibly mean anything else!
Also, thin aluminum stopping projectiles at high speed?
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Sufficient protection by using what?? The craft were thin aluminum shells! There was no other shielding, therefore THE aluminum was the shielding! Your comment cannot possibly mean anything else!"
You said in regards to a moon base, the least of their problems would be radiation. The necessary protection from the radiation would be thick lead and possibly concrete, these barriers would easily stop the micrometeorites and no where did my comment say the shielding would be aluminum.
zakabog 3 years ago
Actually, micrometeorites have been known to pound the Space Shuttle while it has been orbiting the earth in LEO.... Beyond the magnetosphere, the interstellar speeds of objects is much the same, if not greater... It is amazing that NASA would not have shielded the craft better to avoid the risk of having a rock hit the modules and cause the death of astronauts... The hull was purposely thin because of the weight restrictions of the Saturn 5 just to get it off the ground!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Open mouth, stick in foot, zakabog.. You have been caught again distorting fact!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
From the director of Capricorn One
"I was aware that there were people who believed that we never walked on the moon, but I never read their books or consulted with them. And frankly, I think they are being totally ludicrous."
So I'm supposed to believe Bill Kaysing when he speaks about a movie someone else created, when that someone else says people like Bill Kaysing are totally ludicrous?
zakabog 3 years ago
Kaysing's book WAS published in 1974, 4 years before Capricorn One was released... End of story... This Propagandist is again wrong, and reaching...
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
Here's my source of the published date -
ottobib com/isbn/0879473886/mla
I looked up the ISBN number and all the dates I've found were 1981, I've yet to find one that says 1974, although if you can find one I would stand corrected. I didn't have to reach for that one since I looked up the date before I made my post.
You'd still need to prove that 20 years after Capricorn One came out Jim Lovell knew for a fact that it was based on Bill Kaysing's book (is that even a fact?)
zakabog 3 years ago
Micrometeorites aren't very hard to protect against? Is this guy kidding? With no atmosphere, and with speeds upwards of 10km/sec, a pebble becomes mightier than a bullet out of a shotgun! One small rock traveling at that speed will go right through a thin skinned aluminum craft, and keep on going!
Aluminum protects against radiation? This is too much! Aluminum of 30cm thick will only reduce cosmic gamma radiation about 30%! Apollo used only a max thickness of approx. 10cm for its modules!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Aluminum protects against radiation?"
I'll give you my 2008 Mustang GT if you can point out where I said "Aluminum protects against radiation." Seriously, you can print this out, have it notarized, I'll sign anything saying I'll give you the car fully outright no questions asked, won't ask for a penny if you can just find where I said aluminum protects against radiation.
zakabog 3 years ago
"a pebble becomes mightier than a bullet out of a shotgun!"
Yes but we're not talking about pebble sized objects, most micrometeorites are smaller than that (like cosmic dust), and their effects on a ship are sort of like sandblasting, there's actually a whole wikipedia article on them you can look at. It's very unlikely that they would encounter any objects large enough to cause severe damage during the trip to the moon. When was the last time a micrometeorite made a hole through the ISS?
zakabog 3 years ago
Protection from GCRs? That is minor compared to another issue.
I have been to the Smithsonian and have observed the Apollo service/command modules, and the LEM close up. They are flimsy in design, with no real shielding(thin aluminum?).
Micrometeorites are the real issue here, because of no moon atmosphere! A pebble traveling at interstellar speeds would have punched a hole in the LEM on the surface, or the Service Module in orbit! NASA did NOT shield these craft against this possibility.
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Protection from GCRs? That is minor compared to another issue. "
The micrometeorites aren't very hard to protect against, especially if you have sufficient protection to stop the radiation.
zakabog 3 years ago
Jarrah do you really not know why the suit was thrown out of court?
"Legal experts who were contacted agree that calling someone "wacky" does not a successful libel suit make. If anything, Kaysing's wild accusation that Lovell is a liar who participated in a government conspiracy to fool the public is more harsh than being called wacky."
zakabog 3 years ago
Good one.
grayhog86 3 years ago
"Jarrah do you really not know why the suit was thrown out of court?"
Are you aware that prior to the metro article, Lovell sent Bill Kaysing AND Ralph Rene a very threatening letter calling Kaysing all sorts of things, then during the interrogations he denied knowing anyone called "Ralph Rene." So yes, Jim Lovell is a proven liar. And the only reason the case was thrown out of court, was because Kaysing didn't give the judge Rene's papers that pointed this out.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Are you aware that prior to the metro article, Lovell sent Bill Kaysing AND Ralph Rene a very threatening letter calling Kaysing all sorts of things, then during the interrogations he denied knowing anyone called "Ralph Rene.""
Well if I was asked if I know "Jarrah White" I would say no because I never met you.
"...the only reason the case was thrown out of court..."
So why do you ask why it was thrown out of court if you already know the answer?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Well if I was asked if I know "Jarrah White" I would say no because I never met you."
You can quit playing dumb, I'm immune.
"So why do you ask why it was thrown out of court if you already know the answer?"
I'm interested to see how many propagandists are willing to acknowledge the facts, rather than distort the truth with unfounded insults against Bill Kaysing.
So far the number stands at zero.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
""Well if I was asked if I know "Jarrah White" I would say no because I never met you."
You can quit playing dumb, I'm immune."
I don't see how writing one letter to someone shows that you know them. I write comments directed to you but I don't know you, just as you don't know me.
"I'm interested to see how many propagandists are willing to acknowledge the facts"
The facts are Bill Kaysing had no case, I'd love for you to show that he had a valid LIBEL case.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I don't see how writing one letter to someone shows that you know them."
He knew very well who Ralph Rene and sent him a copy of his insulting letter to Kaysing, then denied that he knew anyone called Ralph Rene. Therefore, Jim Lovell is a proven liar.
"The facts are Bill Kaysing had no case,"
No the facts are that Jim Lovell made extremely slanderous accusations against Kaysing that he couldn't substantiate and during the interrogations told even more proven lies.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"He knew very well who Ralph Rene and sent him a copy of his insulting letter to Kaysing, then denied that he knew anyone called Ralph Rene. Therefore, Jim Lovell is a proven liar."
Typo, "He knew very well who Ralph Rene was"
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Typo, "He knew very well who Ralph Rene was""
Not that it matters, it was a libel case, Kaysing wasn't suing Lovell for claiming he didn't know Ralph Rene. Plus when was Lovell under oath? I thought he never showed up in court and his lawyer just had the whole case thrown out? Plus can you please post some proof that Jim Lovell in fact knew exactly who Ralph Rene was at the time of questioning (well I'd like to see the actual question and answer in context too if that's possible.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"Not that it matters, it was a libel case, Kaysing wasn't suing Lovell for claiming he didn't know Ralph Rene. Plus when was Lovell under oath?"
If you commit perjury under the interrogations, then you cannot get a summery judgement. All the relevant papers are shown in this documentary.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"If you commit perjury under the interrogations, then you cannot get a summery judgement."
I'm confused, what interrogations are you talking about? Maybe you know more about our legal system than I thought, as far as I know from a civil case you're served some papers, show up in court (or have a lawyer go on your behalf) and unless you're called as a witness you're not asked anything.
"All the relevant papers are shown in this documentary."
I'm sorry I'd actually like to read them.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I'm confused, what interrogations are you talking about?"
The interrogations held between the two parties during the trial. During which Lovell denied knowing anyone called "Ralph Rene" when asked by Bill Kaysing, he was lying because he had personally sent Rene a copy of his letter to Kaysing.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"The interrogations held between the two parties during the trial."
I think I know what you're talking about, we call that examining the witness.
So during the trial Jim Lovell took the stand as a witness and said he did not know anyone named Ralph Rene? Is this in the court transcripts? I'd really like to see that in context and I'm having a hard time finding it online.
zakabog 3 years ago
"No the facts are that Jim Lovell made extremely slanderous accusations against Kaysing that he couldn't substantiate and during the interrogations told even more proven lies."
You obviously don't understand the United States legal system (which is fine since you live in Australia.)
Go look up Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. Study what is required to prove libel.
Lovell believes whole heartedly that Kaysing is wacky which means Kaysing had no case.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Lovell believes whole heartedly that Kaysing is wacky which means Kaysing had no case."
Among other things, Lovell alleged that Kaysing only doubted the moon landings after watching Capricorn One. Anyone who has 'reviewed' Kaysing's book would know that Capricorn One was based on the book in question.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Among other things, Lovell alleged that Kaysing only doubted the moon landings after watching Capricorn One."
It wasn't passed off as fact, it was Lovell's opinion, and that doesn't constitute libel either.
zakabog 3 years ago
"It wasn't passed off as fact"
Yes it was, and Lovell knew full well it was false.
"Dear Mr. Kaysing
I have reviewed your manuscript "We Never Went To The Moon"" - Jim Lovell's letter to Kaysing and Rene.
""Capricoen 1" which was based on the initial edition of this book[...]" - Bill Kaysing, p68 We Never Went To The Moon.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Yes it was, and Lovell knew full well it was false."
Just gonna help you read this a little.
""Dear Mr. KAYSING [note lack of Ralph Rene's name]
I have REVIEWED [reviewed means looked over, not read in it's entirety and committed to memory] your manuscript "We Never Went To The Moon" [That wasn't Ralph Rene's manuscript, this letter was clearly not addressed to Ralph Rene]""
By the way, how was a movie made in 1978, based on a book published in 1981?
zakabog 3 years ago
"By the way, how was a movie made in 1978, based on a book published in 1981?"
Are you really that stupid, read the fine print,""Capricoen 1" which was based on the initial edition of this book[...]" the initial edition was published in 1974, four years before Capricorn One.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"the initial edition was published in 1974, four years before Capricorn One."
Published by who? What was the ISBN number? All the info I found points to the book being published in '81 but it's entirely possible that was wrong or I'm just not looking at the right places. Plus can you prove that Lovell knew Kaysings 20 year old (at the time of the article) book wasn't based on a 20 year old movie, or that HE (and not the publisher of the article) was passing off the info as a fact?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Are you really that stupid, read the fine print,""Capricoen 1" which was based on the initial edition of this book[...]" the initial edition was published in 1974, four years before Capricorn One."
Why does the director deny ever reading books on the moon hoax and go as far as calling people like Kaysing "ludicroous"? Oh yeah he's part of the conspiracy, how could I be so dumb?
zakabog 3 years ago
'Why does the director deny ever reading books on the moon hoax and go as far as calling people like Kaysing "ludicroous"? Oh yeah he's part of the conspiracy, how could I be so dumb? '
Why according to Richard Hoagland did the LPI let somebody put a document in the press packs for the mariner fly by claiming that Apollo 11 had just been faked in the desert in Nevada?
It was NASA sponsored. They were encouraging rumours that it was hoaxed.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Why according to Richard Hoagland did the LPI let somebody put a document in the press packs for the mariner fly by claiming that Apollo 11 had just been faked in the desert in Nevada?"
According to Richard Hoagland Mars is red and green (green being from the vegetation) with a blue sky.
He's claimed a lot of things (there's a face on mars (which he eventually retracted), we have secret anti gravity technology we're using to get into space) and I won't easily believe his claims without proof.
zakabog 3 years ago
Yes 99% of his claims are totally garbage.
Presumably there must be an element of truth to this story because the head of the LPI Press Office is named by Hoagland as being the man with the doc's escort among a busy media corps.
Hoagland of course completely ignores what the document actually claimed and manages to turn into NASA are hiding alien ruins on the Moon.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"You're so lucky all convincing evidence has been destroyed. Nevermind you have no proof of it being destroyed. No eyewitnesses or written orders or contracts or affidavits or ANYTHING!"
I'd say that NASA are the lucky one's, not me .. After all, not everyone can pull off the scam of the century and still manage to cover it up after 40 years.
straydog02 3 years ago
I will post some links here, so you can see how the landing footage was faked during the Apollo Simulation Project.
straydog02 3 years ago
I've gotta get some work done so this will be my last post today...
...I'm not going to be satisfied, and neither should you be, with questionable reflections and shadows.
I want to see photos of the sets. Clear evidence showing the manufactured sets. I want afidavits from workers. I want to see copies of contracts for construction. I want to see budget and plans for construction. I want to see pictures of guys alligning miniatures in preparation for a shot juxtaposed with the result.
grayhog86 3 years ago
"I want to see photos of the sets. Clear evidence showing the manufactured sets. I want afidavits from workers. I want to see copies of contracts for construction. I want to see budget and plans for construction. I want to see pictures of guys alligning miniatures in preparation for a shot juxtaposed with the result."
Actually, some of this evidence is available, but of course most of it has long been destroyed.. Just like all of the original telemetry for all of the Apollo missions.
straydog02 3 years ago
"There are hours of video of the rover cruising around - obviously not a miniature. Come on - didn't you watch Godzilla movies? We're talking 60's/70's special effects."
The video clips only show a few seconds of the Rover traveling at any given time, which is quite easy to fake on moonsets.
King Kong was made in the 1930s.. Godzilla was made in the 1950s .. Try Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Oddysey' for 1968 special effects .. The same kind of effects seen in all of the Apollo videos.
straydog02 3 years ago
Will you admit you are wrong when I share that there were only 2 Godzilla movies produced in the 50's, 8 in the 60's, 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's...etc.
Again - just another example of stating something as fact when, in fact, it isn't.
Ugh! I gotta go! This is just pissing in the wind.
grayhog86 3 years ago
"Will you admit you are wrong when I share that there were only 2 Godzilla movies produced in the 50's, 8 in the 60's, 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's...etc."
Yes, it's true that the Godzilla movies were made those years too, but the special effects used for the later movies didn't improve much because of the BUDGET they were made with .. Unlike NASA's budget which was over 30 billion dollars in the 1960's, to produce the quality of special effects that Kubrick did in his 2001 masterpiece.
straydog02 3 years ago
Again! Where is your proof that the budget for Godzilla movies was lower in the 60's and 70's?
You say these things without a shred of proof!
Just because you think it's true doesn't count as evidence. Where is the PROOF? Where are the scientists? Where?!? None of you can answer for that! Consider that hard! There are scientists of all options - and I mean all! But there are none of repute that will say the Moon landings were a hoax.
None.
None.
None.
Not a single one!
grayhog86 3 years ago
Again! Where is your proof that the budget for Godzilla movies was lower in the 60's and 70's?
That's not what I said .. Read my comment again.. I said that the special effects for Godzilla didn't improve much for the later movies.
They were cheesy, low budget Japanese films, made for kids .. You can't really be serious trying to compare them to the high budget, brilliant special effects of the Apollo Project!
straydog02 3 years ago
The main point is you stated as fact that Godzilla movies were products of the 50's and I proved the majority were, in fact, NOT products of the 50's.
Kubric's moon does not resemble Apollo landing sights.
You're so lucky all convincing evidence has been destroyed. Nevermind you have no proof of it being destroyed. No eyewitnesses or written orders or contracts or affidavits or ANYTHING!
OMG - it is so funny that you all can continue with your theories in light of so little evidence!
grayhog86 3 years ago
"The main point is you stated as fact that Godzilla movies were products of the 50's and I proved the majority were, in fact, NOT products of the 50's."
It doesn't matter when they were made, because they have nothing to do with the Apollo movies.
"Kubric's moon does not resemble Apollo landing sights."
You're right.. The special effects used for the Kubrick film were much more realistic looking than those uesed for Apollo.
straydog02 3 years ago
So "The special effects used for the Kubrick film were much more realistic looking than those uesed for Apollo."
Then the Russian landers must have used the U.S. movie sets, too - for they are dead-on the same as the Apollo look - not like Kubric's.
grayhog86 3 years ago
"Then the Russian landers must have used the U.S. movie sets, too - for they are dead-on the same as the Apollo look - not like Kubric's."
Quite possible, considering how dishonest the Russians were then.
Can you please tell me where I can find these Russian moonset photos? .. I would really like to see if they're a match for the Apollo sets.
straydog02 3 years ago
LOL - you're kidding.
You've concocted this whole U.S. lied theory in a vacuum without considering if our data (video/telemetry/etc) jives with the Soviets?
Bad science. Bad logic. Once again.
grayhog86 3 years ago
"You've concocted this whole U.S. lied theory in a vacuum without considering if our data (video/telemetry/etc) jives with the Soviets?
Bad science. Bad logic. Once again."
Does this mean that you have no Russian photographic proof to show me, or does it mean that none really exists?
Bad argument if you can prove your outlandish claims.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Bad argument if you can prove your outlandish claims."
Sorry, typo ..It's a bad argument if you CAN'T prove your outlandish claims.
I asked you where I can find the Russian photographs allegedly taken during their unmanned Moon landings.. You claimed that they were a match for the Apollo photos, so I would like to see that proof.
straydog02 3 years ago
I don't recall seeing any pictures of Cosmo-nots saluting hammer and sickles on the Moon Stray
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"I don't recall seeing any pictures of Cosmo-nots saluting hammer and sickles on the Moon Stray"
LMAO! .. Neither do I buddy.
straydog02 3 years ago
Just getting around to reading your drivel.
At what point did I suggest their were Soviet photographs of us or them on the moon?
What I suggested, and stand by, is did our then arch-enemy, U.S.S.R. (or have they since) EVER...ONCE...EVEN WISPER that their observances of our flights, or shared lunar material, indicate a hoax.
No, they haven't.
Not once. And yet to do so would have carried MASSIVE political gain!
They actually congratulated us on our lunar successes.
grayhog86 3 years ago
"What I suggested, and stand by, is did our then arch-enemy, U.S.S.R. (or have they since) EVER...ONCE...EVEN WISPER that their observances of our flights, or shared lunar material, indicate a hoax."
The Russians never observed or tracked any of the Apollo flights .. They only picked up some radio transmissions, which could have been signals bounced off of the Moon .. Or even taped recorded, like the Russians did for one of their unmanned missions in lunar orbit.
straydog02 3 years ago
LOL!
Gawd you guys are funny!
You don't know your ass from third base about any of this stuff!
LOL!
grayhog86 3 years ago
"They only picked up some radio transmissions, which could have been signals bounced off of the Moon .. "
It would be pretty easy to figure out it's a bounced signal, once they have the signal they can find where it's coming from. If it's bouncing off the moon it'd be pretty obvious.
"Or even taped recorded"
The radio transmissions went for days, they wouldn't of had the technology to put a few days worth of recordings into space to broadcast them.
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog why do you live under the illusion that signals were being tracked by anybody other than NASA?
Jodrell Bank never tracked any Apollo spacecraft because they weren't given the information to point their dishes.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"zakabog why do you live under the illusion that signals were being tracked by anybody other than NASA?"
astr ua edu/keel/space/apollo html
Well there's stories of optical tracking of the missions, it wouldn't have been too hard for the Russians to pickup audio.
"Jodrell Bank never tracked any Apollo spacecraft because they weren't given the information to point their dishes."
time com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901106,00 html
There's an article from 1969 that says you're wrong.
zakabog 3 years ago
'Well there's stories of optical tracking of the missions, it wouldn't have been too hard for the Russians to pickup audio.'
Well their is myself and at least one other U-Ter who after an intial friendly response from Ian Morrison at Jodrell Bank received no reply when we inquired was the reason they were tracking Luna 15 because the Russian's couldn't themselves.
Your links don't work. Would you mind PMing me the actual links please?
greenmagoos