|
Post by drewid on Jul 7, 2011 2:57:47 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,. All your "evidence" so far is, assumptions, wild guesses and conjecture. You have no actual evidence at all do you? Nothing that would stand up to any scrutiny. I could say NASA got round any possible risk with magic radiation reflecting paint, such a thing may well have been invented as a response to the risks of the cold war. Of course it would still be useful today in military nuclear applications (subs and carriers for instance) and it would still be classified. Naturally there is no evidence for this. Why should anyone believe your speculation? Evidence man, where is the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 3:23:01 GMT -4
Astronauts who are experienced aviators pretending to not see things they should, doctors not behaving as doctors typically do, principals in the Apollo story behaving out of character. I presume these people to be actors. This is my evidence. This is my take.
Apollo is theater. That is my opinion. I may be wrong. I understand my views are not conventional, but they have been honestly acquired, views based on my life experience. I look to no one else for explanations. Someone recently said those of us engaged in activity dealing with hoax issues simply repeat what the next guy says. Right or wrong, that claim cannot be made in my case. My views, my approach is unique. I know this. I know it strikes many as odd and lacking in substance. But tell me why the official postion is any more reasonable?
You have a rock that you say is authentic because it came from the moon. If that is not the case, you say then I should be able to tell you how to make one here on earth. You tell me to outline this process whereby a similar rock could be produced and I say I do not know how. this is knowledge I do not have. I have no expertise in this regard. You claim that because I do not know how to make such a rock, it then stands to reason your rock is indeed authentic and my position therefore becomes discredited, proven false. But in addition to the rock, you also have an astronaut. And this astronaut does not behave a an astronaut would be expected to behave. He is an astronaut that tells stories about not seeing things that we kniow he must be able to see given the circumstances. So I tell you, your claim does not strike me as valid because for your rock to be real, your astronaut must be real too, and he is not. If he were real then surely you could show me how you would make an astronaut that would not know how his eyes worked in the dark. Perhaps I do not know how to make your moon rock, but neither do you know how to make an honest aviator that denies his own physiology, something he hitherto understood very well. Matter of fact, once upon a time, his life depended on it.
So we are at a stand still. I understand this. Neither side can move. I cannot make your rock. You cannot make my astronaut. I also understand my approach to this is extremely unconventional. But in all honesty, I do believe my appoach to be sound and my views correct.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 7, 2011 3:43:36 GMT -4
Geology is a lot more reliable than human nature.
Of course you believe your approach to be sound and your views correct. It doesn't mean they are. You are positing that people should behave a certain way. When they don't, you deny how human psychology works. You deny that there are times when it makes sense to give an oversimplified answer to a question which is not, bluntly, relevant. You attempt to overturn the objective with the subjective and then claim that you understand science.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 3:53:45 GMT -4
as a physician with some day to day exposure as regards radiation concerns Oooh! Excellent. A person who claims, anonymously and without cite, to be 'good' at the radiation issue. I make the very same claim.So, would you be happy to engage in a real methodical, scientific investigation? I'm very happy to drive it, step by step, and I would ask that you either accept or concede my points as we go. If you like, you could start the ball rolling, and just explain what types of radiation were of concern, and why. Please provide some numbers and citations - I get very sick of handwaving, and I trust you won't be doing that, bein' a doctor and all...And if you don't want to engage in this..? I will anyway. Your absence will be all the information needed to determine the truth of your claims. And if, at the end of that investigation, you are found to be incorrect in your concerns, what should we make of your claim to be familiar with this topic? If I am found to be incorrect, I will happily admit to ignorance and an attempt to deceive the forum. You'll do the same, I trust? Would you mind very much quoting the relevant sections ion context, as I don't draw the same conclusion from that document. Could this be the first time that FD provides a citation? BTW, I *did* have my doctor look at your first few claims. His words were "He's full of it, and no doctor". Me, however..? I think you should be given a chance. ;D And I LOVE your irony: Yes. Correct. Perhaps because of the rocks, the photographic record, the journals, the blueprints, the movies, the video, the fact that it all matches perfectly, the independent verification.. and I could continue. Somehow compared to your grammar and spelling errors, lack of logic, handwaving and unwillingness to provide cites or even quotes, I prefer the history. But here's your chance to turn it around. Engage in a full debate on the radiation issue, instead of changing the topic every five seconds. Surely you would JUMP at the chance to really prove you are who you say you are...
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:10:28 GMT -4
I have not studied the radiation issue in any detail, but have the background necessary to come to some reasonable determination about the threat of exposure. I'll tell you what, over the next week or two I'll look into it and let you know what I think. You can do your thing with me, run me through your presentation, and I'll provide you with my best answers/responses. It will be a worthwhile activity for me as I am not familiar with the problem in any great detail. I have read much of the early stuff; van Allen's original paper and the early reports published in Nature and Science magazines.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 5:15:43 GMT -4
Earlier... Followed by:
Hmm.
If you are familiar with even the basics of radiation, you could easily and IMMEDIATELY tell us what types of radiation were at issue, what your specific concerns were, and how we could assess the issue.
You could also have quoted the Van Allen article you referred to.
WHY did you not do either?? Needed some google time?
CITE the article. Or withdraw the claim.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:45:22 GMT -4
The first van Allen article, at least the first I am familiar with is from Scientific American, 1959.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 7:10:28 GMT -4
With all due respect, medical credentials are not relevant to the issue of whether the Apollo astronauts could survive their radiation exposures on their trips to the moon.
If there were open questions relating to how much radiation the human body could withstand, then a medical background, particularly one in health physics, might be relevant. But there aren't. We all know the approximate full-body dose it takes to give the average adult human acute radiation sickness. We even have a pretty good idea of how much radiation it takes to significantly increase long-term cancer rates.
The fact is that the Apollo astronauts received far less than those doses, and this has everything to do with solar physics, nuclear physics, spacecraft engineering, materials science, and orbital mechanics. Not medicine.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 7:32:33 GMT -4
Fair enough. We deal with radiation all the time in the context of treating cancer patients. I make no claims as regards expertise. I am familiar with the basics. Were I to read the relevant material, my opinion would be far from gospel. that said, I imagine I would not struggle gaining a command of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2011 7:38:20 GMT -4
Astronauts who are experienced aviators pretending to not see things they should, doctors not behaving as doctors typically do, principals in the Apollo story behaving out of character. I presume these people to be actors. This is my evidence. This is my take. Apollo is theater. That is my opinion.... But in all honesty, I do believe my appoach to be sound and my views correct. And that is your entire basis for calling dozens/hundreds/thousands of people frauds, liars and cheats! What does that make you?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 7:43:17 GMT -4
I think almost everyone that worked on Apollo thought it was a legit project. So out of 400,000 people , let's say 200 know it's theater. Everyone else is dutifully doing their thing as in the cliche example always brought up, the Manhattan Project.
I think the astronauts believed what they were doing was the right thing to do. they participated in fraud , but are not bad people. Their actions in my mind are quite reasonable.
This far out, the thing is doing damage and in ways we cannot even appreciate. The longer it stays hidden, the worse the fallout.
I think the astronauts, especially Armstrong have suffered a lot.
That's my take.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 7, 2011 7:47:51 GMT -4
Everyone else is dutifully doing their thing as in the cliche example always brought up, the Manhattan Project. You may need a better example, there was very little about the Manhattan Project which remained secret for long. Especially from the Russians...
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2011 8:20:23 GMT -4
I think almost everyone that worked on Apollo thought it was a legit project. So out of 400,000 people , let's say 200 know it's theater. Everyone else is dutifully doing their thing as in the cliche example always brought up, the Manhattan Project. I think the astronauts believed what they were doing was the right thing to do. they participated in fraud , but are not bad people. Their actions in my mind are quite reasonable. This far out, the thing is doing damage and in ways we cannot even appreciate. The longer it stays hidden, the worse the fallout. I think the astronauts, especially Armstrong have suffered a lot. That's my take. You either have a low opinion of the intelligence of engineers or an inflated notion of how easy it is to keep secrets. Likely you have both. Calling intelligent and dedicated people "dupes" without the first shred of evidence is really pretty low.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 7, 2011 9:12:45 GMT -4
I think almost everyone that worked on Apollo thought it was a legit project. So out of 400,000 people , let's say 200 know it's theater. Everyone else is dutifully doing their thing All right, let's go with that. How many people would know it was fake? Let us generously assume that only the landings were fake, and that it was in fact possible to go to the Moon, but the landing was not possible. So who needs to know, or would know, that the landing was not taking place? Well, seven flights were made with the intent to land, so that is 21 men who absolutely know that it is fake. Since the flight to the Moon still occurs then the Saturn V and the CSM have to work, so they need to be genuine articles. maybe no-one on the contractors building or checking them out needs to know. Spacesuits are still useful things to have in space, so the spacesuit manufacturers are still making working suits. The LM does not need to work. That means veryone making the LM knows that they are building a machine that will not work. Despite the common idea of compartmentalised work, you can't employ a bunch of contractors to do a job and have them blindly do it without knowing that they are making something fake. Grumman provided the contract proposal for the LM, and they designed and built it. Engineers are not stupid, and someone in that company would have to know that what they were building would not need to work, and others would know that what they were building would not work even if they had not been in on the original plan. That adds up to quite a few people. If no-one at Grumman knew they only had to build a fake LM then they would actually go right ahead and build a working one, in which case the need to fake the landings goes away entirely. Then there's the people who created and worked on the set that would need to be used to film all those hours of surface footage. How many is that? And where is this set that can be depressurised and rigged to show low gravity somehow? That in itself is a huge project that many people would have realised its purpose even if they had not been told. Comparing a classified military research program into weapons of mass destruction to a development project carried out in the full glare of the public eye all over the world is hardly a valid method of argument. As to the astronauts suffering a lot, have you ever actually met any? I have. They're not showing any signs of suffering. in fact they are quite happy to discuss their time on the program with endless lines of people.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 9:39:59 GMT -4
trebor, the point with regrd to the Manhattan project is not that the Russians knew, it is that those Americans involved in the project were not aware that they were working on a bomb.
How many Americans involved in the front lines of intercepting Japanese military/naval messages leading up on the strike at Pearl Harbor were aware that the information was being withheld from the commanding offices at Pearl?
|
|