|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2011 12:45:39 GMT -4
And your evidence is . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 6, 2011 12:53:54 GMT -4
It may well be that early on in all of this, it was determined that the radiation concerns simply could not be countenanced. They may have decided to fake the whole thing simply based on this risk. (Emphasis mine) Taking your first very-much-hypothetical proposition as granted for the purposes of this discussion: Why would perpetrating a fraud be more palatable than simply stating that the proposed activity presents an unacceptable level of risk, and subsequently not doing it?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 13:34:04 GMT -4
My views as regards the best evidence proving Apollo's fraudulence have to do more with character assessment in a sense, demonstrating that principals such as Charles Berry, the astronauts themselves and others, are acting. So your thoughts are essentially subjective opinions. Why do you propose that we ignore the mountains of well studied evidence to accept your opinion? BTW how did you obtain this expertise you claim to have in differentiating between actual events and acting?
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 6, 2011 15:33:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 6, 2011 18:10:03 GMT -4
fattydash, what exactly in Van Allen's 1959 Sci Am paper was so sobering?
Are we talking about the same paper in which he said that the belts were "by no means a death zone", and were a concern only if humans were to spend extended periods in them?
And are we talking about the same author who said much more recently, after that idiotic Fox TV special aired, that allegations that radiation presented an impenetrable barrier to the Apollo missions were "entertaining nonsense"?
You may be a MD as you claim. You may even know something about radiation physiology. But being an MD gives you no special insights into nuclear physics, solar physics or spacecraft engineering and space mission planning. So we'll need a little more than your personal hunches, please.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 6, 2011 19:28:35 GMT -4
It may well be that early on in all of this, it was determined that the radiation concerns simply could not be countenanced. They may have decided to fake the whole thing simply based on this risk. Conjecture. If NASA had discovered that the radiation posed an insurmountable risk then why wouldn't they just come right out and admit it? It would have been far less damaging to the reputation of the United States than getting caught faking the Moon missions would have been... and they certainly would have been caught because a hoax like that would be guaranteed to fail from the start. I believe that if the radiation was a deal breaker then a simple press conference in which someone from NASA (and perhaps the President) honestly explained the problem would have been enough to satisfy the tax payers. It would have made headlines, for sure, but getting caught faking the Moon landings would have been disastrous. It would not make sense to fake Apollo when the guaranteed outcome is the complete destruction of the United States' reputation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2011 19:35:53 GMT -4
And certainly the Soviets would have worked it out. Not to mention quite a lot of people since then.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 6, 2011 21:48:45 GMT -4
That said, as a physician with some day to day exposure as regards radiation concerns, ... I don't know how others here feel about your claimed credentials, but I would like some proof that you're an actual physician.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:55:30 GMT -4
Fiveonit. Have another doc take a look at what I am writing. They should be able to confirm. If not, have them pitch me a few questions.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:04:37 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit. They might not admit it if they thought it would be almost as good to fake it. There would be a lot to gain in pretending if the theater was convincing enough. Just with regard to the American people themselves, convincing the general public how capable we were as a nation, that would provide a great deal short term gain wise.
Also, just for the sake of throwing one idea out there, consider this Lunar Orbit, say the Soviets did know about the radiation risk. If we faked it well enough, they might be fooled into believing we had a radiation protection technology that they simply did not understand. It might have been scary for them. This is just a hypothetical, but this type of thing is worth thinking about. Often times, I view the astronauts as cold war overt operatives. Kind of like spies in that they do secret work, secret work out in the open.
Ultimately, I would imagine that most countries with sophisticated spying capabilities, Russia, Isreal, Great Britian, China and others, all came to know over time, some sooner than others, that Apollo was nopt real.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 6, 2011 22:07:53 GMT -4
Also, just for the sake of throwing one idea out there, consider this Lunar Orbit, say the Soviets did know about the radiation risk. What the Soviets knew was that living organisms could be sent to the Moon and return to Earth alive. Or do you believe Zond 5 was faked too?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 22:16:01 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit. They might not admit it if ..... All of which means nothing if you haven't shown that the moon missions were fake. Which you have not. Please refrain from idle speculation on motivations and make your case.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 6, 2011 22:29:24 GMT -4
... say the Soviets did know about the radiation risk. The Soviets did know about the radiation risk, they studied it, and they concluded it was not a problem for a manned lunar flight.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:31:48 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit asked for a possible explanation. He did not ask for THE explanation. He did not ask me to prove that Apollo was fraudulent. His question was why not admit the truth were radiation concerns prohibative and I pointed out that assuming this to be the case, assuming radiation concerns were prohibative, there would still be a perception of the possibility for significant secondary gain by faking the landing. Lunar Orbit asked a very specific question and I provided one possible answer. His question to me was based on speculation,.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 6, 2011 22:44:04 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit. They might not admit it if they thought it would be almost as good to fake it. There would be a lot to gain in pretending if the theater was convincing enough. I don't think you grasp the scale of a hoax like that. It would have been impossible to pull off successfully. I'm not exaggerating, it would be guaranteed to fail. They couldn't just fool the people of 1969. They would have had to fake the Moon landings in such a way that people 500 years later would be fooled as well. How could NASA plan for what some future space faring nation, commercial enterprise, or even individuals, might discover in the future? There are high school kids today who have launched cheap cameras to the edge of space, and they did it without any awareness of the government. Who knows, maybe in 20 years some kid might send a camera to Tranquillity Base. If Apollo was faked there will be no lunar module there... how will the government explain that? That is why a hoax would be doomed to fail from the start. NASA cannot control every person on Earth for the rest of time. That means it would only be a matter of time before the hoax would be exposed. Knowing that, NASA would have to be complete idiots to even attempt to fake it. Minor short term gains followed by a long term total downfall of the reputation of the United States. Foolish. And now, 40 years later, the Russians have direct access to the American spacecraft technology. They have entered Apollo spacecraft and the Space Shuttles in orbit, and commanded the International Space Station. If they were fooled in 1969 they sure as hell wouldn't be now. And why haven't they exposed the hoax? Don't you think some of them might have something to gain by tarnishing the American's reputation?
|
|