Apollo 17: A Little More Controversy

[Dave Greer]

Well, since you refuse to believe that anything Wozney has presented has any value becasue of Windley's pretense of a rebuttal on clavius, then maybe this article will show you that it's not only the dangers of the Van Allen belts which present a danger to humans in deep space, but also the Moon itself .

Please don't put words into my mouth! I didn't even refer to what Windley says about Wozney's claims. I read Wozney's claims myself, and the only thing he as to say about the Van Allen belts is (and I repeat):-

"it is also a threat to the astronauts".

Here was my reply which you appear to have missed, I'll repeat it again:-

That's it. "It is also a threat to the astronauts". Smoking cigarettes is a threat to people's health, but people still do it, and they don't all immediately drop down dead.

So where is the empirical evidence about the Van Allen belts? To say "It is a threat to the astronauts" is meaningless because it's not quantified. Nobody doubts that the Van Allen belts are a potential hazard to be overcome, but a potential hazard is a long way from an impenetrable barrier.

So I'll ask again, can you provide any empirical evidence that proves that the Van Allen belts are impossible for astronauts to safely traverse in an Apollo Command Module, using the same orbital inclination as the Apollo flights used in order to bypass the most dangerous zones? That's empirical evidence, not a general statement such as "it's a threat to astronauts".

The Moon is entirely radioactive ... and to believe that the Apollo astronauts were properly protected against this deadly cosmic radiation while traveling to and then allegedly landing on the the Moon, is being naive' as to how dangerous the Moon really is, especially with the flimsy, improper shielding used during the Apollo missions .

"The gamma rays from the Moon do not come from reflected gamma rays of the Sun. Instead, high energy particles (mostly protons) that are travelling very close to the speed of light, called cosmic-rays, continuously slam into the Moon. When these particles collide with the lunar surface, they react with the particles in the Moon's surface, exciting them and generating gamma rays. This process is similar to what goes on in particle accelerators on Earth.

The Moon is brigher in gamma rays than the quiet Sun! In fact, the most sensitive gamma-ray detector flown to date, EGRET aboard the CGRO satellite, was not able to detect the quiet Sun. (The Sun goes into periods of extreme activity, during which it is called an active Sun; the Sun is said to be quiet when it is not experiencing such activity.)"

This issue is entirely unrelated to the Van Allen belts. I'm happy to discuss more than one aspect of radiation at the same time, but I'm going to keep on bugging you about the Van Allen belts if you keep avoiding the issue!

OK, the moon is "entirely radioactive". NEWSFLASH!!!! The Earth is entirely radioactive!!! Why aren't we all frying in the radiation hell that is the Earth?

It simply is not sufficient to present a case that it's impossible to go to the moon due to radiation without quantifying the level of exposure, and the level of threat actually faced at various parts of the trip by astronauts. Like I said in my previous post, it's like saying because smoking cigarettes causes cancer, it's impossible to smoke a cigarette without dying. 1.2 million people die in road traffic accidents worldwide each year... but people happily use their cars to commute to work everyday.

Let's look at quantifying some of this.

"The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year"

Source

The level of exposure isn't the same in all locations: some areas are naturally more radioactive than others. For example, look at an area in Iran called Ramsar.

"The peak dose of radiation received by a person living in Ramsar over one year is 260 mSv"

Source

People in Ramsar are exposed to over 100 TIMES the amount of radiation in one year than the worldwide average!!! Surely noone lives in this radiation hot-spot? Ramsar is actually a seaside resort, surrounded by orange orchards, that has hosted international conferences. You would have thought people would have avoided being exposed to 100x the worldwide average radiation levels, surely?

The fact that people do live here quite happily demonstrates that you can't just say that something is radioactive and expect people to run in the opposite direction, head filled with nightmare visions of Hiroshima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Same with the moon. You can't use as evidence against Apollo "the moon is radioactive!" and expect to be taken seriosuly by anyone who knows anything about radioactivity unless you provide some quantitative evidence to back your claim up.

I've provided sources that show the average worldwide exposure due to background radiation is 2.4mSv, and one location on Earth is 260mSv. Can you provide sources that back up your implied claim that the dose due to gamma ray emission on the moon would be deadly to the Apollo astronauts? I can provide sources that disprove your claim. Here's an abstract from an article by K. HAYATSU, S. KOBAYASHI, N. YAMAxxxxA, M. HAREYAMA, K. SAKURAI,AND N. HASEBE, of the Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo.

Source

The figures in the table show the levels of exposure due to ambient radiation on the moon, in mSv per year.

The MAXIMUM level of ANNUAL exposure due to ambient radiation (which includes the gamma radiation you mentioned) is 310 mSv. Compare this to the annual exposure for the residents of Ramsar. 310 mSv on the moon, 260 mSv in Ramsar. Now consider the fact that Apollo astronauts were only on the moon for a maximum of 3 days.

If you study the table and read the article, you'll see that the exposure due to lunar gamma rays is of very little concern at all: the main contributor to ambient lunar surface radiation was GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays), as you can see from the figures. The contribution to overall dose from lunar gamma rays was on a level commensurate with average worldwide background doses on Earth.

More here .

http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tut...urces/moon.html

"How dangerous is the radiation in space?

Prior to the 1950's nobody knew what outer space was. In the 1950's and 1960's NASA launched probes to investigate space. NASA discovered that the sunshine in outer space is full of X-rays, protons, and other atomic particles.

The earth's magnetic field and atmosphere shield us from the X-rays and atomic particles. A lot of ultraviolet light is also blocked by the atmosphere, especially the high frequency ultraviolet light.

NASA also discovered gamma radiation in space. However, not much of it was coming from our sun. Instead, the gamma rays were coming from every direction of the universe.

More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays.

You can see this effect in particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, and X-ray machines. In an X-ray machine, a metal target is bombarded by high speed electrons. The atoms of the metal react by emitting X-rays. The faster the electrons are traveling when they hit the target, the more powerful the X-rays.

The surface of the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that come from outer space. However, the particles that hit the moon are traveling at a much higher speed than the electrons in an X-ray machine. The result is that the moon emits powerful gamma rays, not weak X-rays. The moon is a spherical target in a "cosmic gamma ray machine".

If gamma rays appeared purple to our eyes, and if we could travel beyond our atmosphere, we would find that the moon is glowing purple, and that it is much more purple than the sun.

Outer space is a horrible environment, similar to the inside of a nuclear reactor, although the radiation in space is not as concentrated as in nuclear reactor.

How did NASA protect the astronauts from all the x-rays, gamma rays, and atomic particles? NASA claims the radiation is insignficant, so not much protection is needed. "

If an astronaut were to travel to the moon, he would first have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts. This is an area of high concentration of protons and electrons.

If an astronaut travels beyond the radiation belts, he will be exposed to gamma rays, x-rays, atomic particles, and meteors from every direction."

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

Hyperbole, innuendo, scaremongering, rhetoric, disinformation, handwaving.

I prefer facts and figures, as I've presented. You know where you are with them.

EDIT: Typo.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

Hyperbole, innuendo, scaremongering, rhetoric, disinformation, handwaving.

You consider this article to be all that ???

http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tut...urces/moon.html

Looks like you're the one doing the handwaving old bean .

I will see what info I can find on the dangers of the Van Allen belts and get back to you .

Edited February 4, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Matthew Lewis]

I see no figures in that article. Are the levels of x-rays or gamma radiation found on the Moon high? That article doesn't say but you assume they are anyway.

[Dave Greer]

Hyperbole, innuendo, scaremongering, rhetoric, disinformation, handwaving.

You consider this article to be all that ???

http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tut...urces/moon.html

Looks like you're the one doing the handwaving old bean .

I will see what info I can find on the dangers of the Van Allen belts and get back to you .

Pretty pictures of the moon in gamma and xray frequencies. Not a single figure in sight to explain what kind of dose astronauts would have been exposed to on the surface.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term handwaving dear boy.

"The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether, or a deliberate gesture and admission that one is intentionally glossing over detail for the sake of time or clarity. It can be meant as an accusation or in a more positive light, depending on the context."

Source

I provided a link to a study that offered an empirical analysis of ambient lunar radiation. That ain't handwaving. Linking to a site that shows pretty pictures but doesn't say diddly about the level of radiation on the moon, certainly is handwaving. It's like taking a pea-shooter to a gun-fight. Unfortunately for your argument I'm sat here with a 15" howitzer.

Source

Now, can you provide something bigger than a pea-shooter that counters the empirical evidence in this study? If you don't understand the figures just say so, I'm more than happy to explain.

[Duane Daman]

It looks like "Diamond Dave" is conducting a willie wagging contest with his "empirical analysis" radiation chart ... He has a 15 " howitzer and I only have a pea shooter !

Now, can you provide something bigger than a pea-shooter that counters the empirical evidence in this study? If you don't understand the figures just say so, I'm more than happy to explain.

Yeah Dave, please explain to the idiot with ADD and dyslexia what that chart means .

When I have the time I will see if I can find some non-handwaving evidence which show how dangerous the belts are to human life .... It's not easy to find though, cuz NASA has now taken over the internet with their wide spread disinformation .

[Dave Greer]

It looks like "Diamond Dave" is conducting a willie wagging contest with his "empirical analysis" radiation chart ... He has a 15 " howitzer and I only have a pea shooter !

Now, can you provide something bigger than a pea-shooter that counters the empirical evidence in this study? If you don't understand the figures just say so, I'm more than happy to explain.

Yeah Dave, please explain to the idiot with ADD and dyslexia what that chart means .

When I have the time I will see if I can find some non-handwaving evidence which show how dangerous the belts are to human life .... It's not easy to find though, cuz NASA has now taken over the internet with their wide spread disinformation .

Duane old boy, you've been arguing that radiation in the Van Allen belts or on the moon is so high that Apollo can't possibly have happened for years now, without ever providing empirical evidence to support your claim! Oh, your excuse now is that NASA have "taken over the internet".

I stand by the statement I made a few days ago - you believe that radiation levels are too high because you need them to be too high in order to prop up your Apollo Hoax theory. Those pesky little things called 'facts' are completely contrary to your claims.

Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason you can't find hard data showing that radiation levels are too high for Apollo to have happened is because it doesn't exist, and never has existed? Problem you have is, once you realise that radiation wasn't the Apollo showstopper you claim it to be, your hoax theory is out at sea, taking on water, and sinking like a lead balloon.

Good luck with finding it. Personally I think you've got more chance of riding an invisible pink unicorn on a wild goose chase and turfing up the holy grail. But what do I know - I was under the impression that noone in their right mind would drop a hammer into a sandpit, see that it looks different to video of a hammer being dropped on the lunar surface, and use this as evidence that the video can't have been taken on the moon! The only thing it could possibly be used as evidence of, is that the video wasn't filmed on Earth in a large sandy studio! Mr Magoo might as well have trekked across the Sahara and used his lack of frostbite as evidence that Scott never reached the South Pole.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Gavin Stone]

Well I didn't see this coming!

[Duane Daman]

NASA has taken over the internet with their disinformation ... but it won't matter soon because the scientists who are studying the Van Allen belt radiation today will soon prove with thier research just how dangerous the belts are and it will also become very clear that no manned missions are going through or beyond them until the radiation is understood and the proper shielding is invented .

NASA wouldn't be spending millions of dollars sending balloons into the belts in 2012 to study the radiation levels if they thought they were harmless to astronauts .

Here's one article about some of the new discoveries in the belts .

Physicists Determine Source of 'Killer' Electrons in Earth's Radiation Belt.

Electrons trapped in the outer Van Allen radiation belt, a doughnut-shaped region of high-energy particles that surrounds Earth, kept in place by our planet's magnetic field, can have velocities approaching the speed of light. But the number of these “killer” electrons varies wildly: a few one day, many more the next. The cause has puzzled scientists – until now.

These 'killer' electrons can harm astronauts and even passengers on regular airline flights that go through Earth's polar regions,” the paper's lead author, LANL physicist Yue Chen, said to PhysOrg.com. “Therefore, people need to know the source of the these electrons so as to develop the ability to predict when they'll be most numerous. Our paper finally settles the argument.”

http://www.physorg.com/news111752449.html

[Duane Daman]

I actually found another article that isn't NASA disinformation claiming how "safe the Van Allen Radiation belts are ."

The Exploration of Space

Early in 1958, the physicist James Van Allen found himself thoroughly puzzled by data from a newly launched satellite, Explorer l. It carried a Geiger counter, an instrument to detect radiation in space, but its data could only be received for a few minutes at a time when it was over a ground station. The intermittent data raised more questions than it answered. It showed plausible values of radiation intensity while the craft was low in its orbit. But at high altitude, there were no counts at all! Moreover, other data showed sharp transitions, with the count suddenly stopping and then just as suddenly resuming.

He concluded that there might be a problem with the satellite's equipment. It relied on a battery for electric power, and the battery would shut down if onboard temperatures were too high or too low. Still, he was prepared to learn more. When Explorer 3 reached orbit, two months after its predecessor, it carried an onboard temperature sensor. It also carried a tape recorder that could hold radiation readings from an entire orbit. Van Allen got the first such data two days after launch, and found his puzzlement increasing.

The new data showed the count rising rapidly as the craft climbed upward. Then it dropped to zero, as had happened with Explorer l. The count stayed at zero until Explorer 3 returned to lower altitude, and then resumed. Yet through it all, measured onboard temperatures remained at moderate levels, assuring good battery operation. Hence the results could not have resulted from extreme onboard temperatures.

Mystified, Van Allen talked it over with two of his colleagues. The three men quickly realized they were seeing the consequence of a quirk in the Geiger counter itself. It could not respond if the radiation was too intense; it would shut down and refuse to give a reading. They concluded that Explorer 1 was flying through a zone of very strong radiation that surrounded the planet, trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. Substantiated by data gathered by later Explorer spacecraft, this zone quickly became known as the Van Allen belt.

Other spacecraft soon made further discoveries. Explorer 4, which flew in July 1958, carried radiation shielding. This screened out some of the radiation, to keep its Geiger counter from being swamped. Van Allen studied its data, and concluded that the peak radiation intensity would kill an astronaut following exposure of only a few days. Then in December, the space probe Pioneer 3 soared to an altitude of 63,000 miles (191,389 kilometres) and showed that there was a second radiation belt, some 10,000 miles (16,093 kilometres) above the Earth's surface. The inner belt was at 2,000 miles (3,219 kilometres) from the Earth. Fortunately, it was high enough to allow astronauts to fly safely in orbit while remaining well below the dangerous altitudes.

More here .

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%...l%20Physics.htm

[Duane Daman]

The Apollo Plague

In 1998 the Space Shuttle soared to an altitude of 350 miles - one of the highest ever recorded (except for the Apollo missions, of course). At this altitude the astronauts were several hundred miles below the Van Allen Radiation Belts with shielding superior to that which the Apollo astronauts used, yet they were exposed to so much radiation that they reported being able to see the radiation as shooting beams of light whenever they closed their eyes. CNN followed the story and issued this report:

"The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed. The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

The fact is, space is an extremely hazardous place. The nuclear fusion reactions in the sun release such massive amounts of energy, it actually creates a current of invisible cosmic rays through space. When these particles reach the Earth's magnetic field, some of them collect in what's called the Van Allen radiation belts. The waves of energy which pass through these belts are then filtered through the atmosphere and ozone, and what little energy remains will still burn your skin if it's exposed too long.

When you have an X-ray photograph taken, the doctor puts a 1/4 inch lead shield over your torso to protect your vital organs from 1/100th of a second's exposure to the radiation. The Apollo super-astronauts on the other hand, supposedly flew outside the Earth's atmosphere, through thousands of miles of dense solar radiation collected in the radiation belts, through another couple hundred thousand miles of invisible currents of cosmic rays before entering the Moon's orbit. The Moon has little to no atmosphere, which consists of mostly Hydrogen, Helium, Neon and Radon, a toxic chemical outgassed from the Moon's core, so what do you think happens to all of that unfiltered solar radiation which constantly bombards the surface of the moon? Do you really believe anyone could survive this trip - and then do it again for the voyage home? We are to believe Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the surface of the moon in an aluminum can to place a new cornerstone in the evolution of mankind; to make our mark, to place our flag and our name in the heavens...

http://www.truthinprophecy.com/blog/apollo.php

[Dave Greer]

NASA has taken over the internet with their disinformation ... but it won't matter soon because the scientists who are studying the Van Allen belt radiation today will soon prove with thier research just how dangerous the belts are and it will also become very clear that no manned missions are going through or beyond them until the radiation is understood and the proper shielding is invented .

How can you possibly make such a statement? Even the scientists doing the studies don't know in advance what the conclusion will be. Perhaps you should contact them and offer your predictive services, I'm sure they'll welcome your input.

NASA wouldn't be spending millions of dollars sending balloons into the belts in 2012 to study the radiation levels if they thought they were harmless to astronauts .

"The probes will test models that predict how the belts are generated and what causes them to decay."

Source

Science and knowledge evolves, it isn't static.

Here's one article about some of the new discoveries in the belts .

Physicists Determine Source of 'Killer' Electrons in Earth's Radiation Belt.

Electrons trapped in the outer Van Allen radiation belt, a doughnut-shaped region of high-energy particles that surrounds Earth, kept in place by our planet's magnetic field, can have velocities approaching the speed of light. But the number of these “killer” electrons varies wildly: a few one day, many more the next. The cause has puzzled scientists – until now.

These 'killer' electrons can harm astronauts and even passengers on regular airline flights that go through Earth's polar regions,” the paper's lead author, LANL physicist Yue Chen, said to PhysOrg.com. “Therefore, people need to know the source of the these electrons so as to develop the ability to predict when they'll be most numerous. Our paper finally settles the argument.”

http://www.physorg.com/news111752449.html

Nice try, but if these killer electrons mean it's impossible for Apollo astronauts to travel to the moon, why isn't it impossible for aircraft to fly over the poles, since the electrons can also harm passengers on those flights? You need to come up with some empirical evidence about the actual level of exposure involved.

Killer electrons aren't so named because if one flies through your body you'll drop down dead. They're called killer electrons because they are thought to be responsible for causing satellites to fail (probably by altering the binary state of several bits in memory, thereby corrupting software). They may be dangerous to astronauts because they can be destructive to DNA, and lengthy exposure can lead to an increased cancer risk, as well as the risk to the systems onboard the spacecraft they are flying in.

Killer electrons are a potential hazard - NOT an insurmountable brick wall.

[Dave Greer]

I actually found another article that isn't NASA disinformation claiming how "safe the Van Allen Radiation belts are ."

<snip>

Other spacecraft soon made further discoveries. Explorer 4, which flew in July 1958, carried radiation shielding. This screened out some of the radiation, to keep its Geiger counter from being swamped. Van Allen studied its data, and concluded that the peak radiation intensity would kill an astronaut following exposure of only a few days. Then in December, the space probe Pioneer 3 soared to an altitude of 63,000 miles (191,389 kilometres) and showed that there was a second radiation belt, some 10,000 miles (16,093 kilometres) above the Earth's surface. The inner belt was at 2,000 miles (3,219 kilometres) from the Earth. Fortunately, it was high enough to allow astronauts to fly safely in orbit while remaining well below the dangerous altitudes.

More here .

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%...l%20Physics.htm

"...the peak radiation intensity would kill an astronaut following exposure of only a few days."

Notice peak radiation. In other words, the most intense part of the inner belt. It's never been claimed that the Apollo astronauts went through the most intense parts of the belts - they followed a path that skirted the less dense outer regions. On top of that, they took about an hour to go through these less dense regions, not a few days.

Congratulations, you just debunked your own argument.

[Dave Greer]

The Apollo Plague

In 1998 the Space Shuttle soared to an altitude of 350 miles - one of the highest ever recorded (except for the Apollo missions, of course). At this altitude the astronauts were several hundred miles below the Van Allen Radiation Belts with shielding superior to that which the Apollo astronauts used, yet they were exposed to so much radiation that they reported being able to see the radiation as shooting beams of light whenever they closed their eyes. CNN followed the story and issued this report:

"The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed. The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

The fact is, space is an extremely hazardous place. The nuclear fusion reactions in the sun release such massive amounts of energy, it actually creates a current of invisible cosmic rays through space. When these particles reach the Earth's magnetic field, some of them collect in what's called the Van Allen radiation belts. The waves of energy which pass through these belts are then filtered through the atmosphere and ozone, and what little energy remains will still burn your skin if it's exposed too long.

When you have an X-ray photograph taken, the doctor puts a 1/4 inch lead shield over your torso to protect your vital organs from 1/100th of a second's exposure to the radiation. The Apollo super-astronauts on the other hand, supposedly flew outside the Earth's atmosphere, through thousands of miles of dense solar radiation collected in the radiation belts, through another couple hundred thousand miles of invisible currents of cosmic rays before entering the Moon's orbit. The Moon has little to no atmosphere, which consists of mostly Hydrogen, Helium, Neon and Radon, a toxic chemical outgassed from the Moon's core, so what do you think happens to all of that unfiltered solar radiation which constantly bombards the surface of the moon? Do you really believe anyone could survive this trip - and then do it again for the voyage home? We are to believe Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the surface of the moon in an aluminum can to place a new cornerstone in the evolution of mankind; to make our mark, to place our flag and our name in the heavens...

http://www.truthinprophecy.com/blog/apollo.php

Still waiting for that empirical evidence you were going to supply to prop up your claims.

From the Prophecy site you linked to:-

"You’d think if the Apollo moon landing had actually occurred, the film and photogaphy used to document the events would be treasured and preserved like gold and diamonds in a vault. However, now NASA has admitted to LOSING THEM ENTIRELY?!"

Utter nonsense. Or anti-Apollo disinformation if you prefer.

[Craig Lamson]

The Apollo Plague

In 1998 the Space Shuttle soared to an altitude of 350 miles - one of the highest ever recorded (except for the Apollo missions, of course). At this altitude the astronauts were several hundred miles below the Van Allen Radiation Belts with shielding superior to that which the Apollo astronauts used, yet they were exposed to so much radiation that they reported being able to see the radiation as shooting beams of light whenever they closed their eyes. CNN followed the story and issued this report:

"The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed. The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

The fact is, space is an extremely hazardous place. The nuclear fusion reactions in the sun release such massive amounts of energy, it actually creates a current of invisible cosmic rays through space. When these particles reach the Earth's magnetic field, some of them collect in what's called the Van Allen radiation belts. The waves of energy which pass through these belts are then filtered through the atmosphere and ozone, and what little energy remains will still burn your skin if it's exposed too long.

When you have an X-ray photograph taken, the doctor puts a 1/4 inch lead shield over your torso to protect your vital organs from 1/100th of a second's exposure to the radiation. The Apollo super-astronauts on the other hand, supposedly flew outside the Earth's atmosphere, through thousands of miles of dense solar radiation collected in the radiation belts, through another couple hundred thousand miles of invisible currents of cosmic rays before entering the Moon's orbit. The Moon has little to no atmosphere, which consists of mostly Hydrogen, Helium, Neon and Radon, a toxic chemical outgassed from the Moon's core, so what do you think happens to all of that unfiltered solar radiation which constantly bombards the surface of the moon? Do you really believe anyone could survive this trip - and then do it again for the voyage home? We are to believe Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the surface of the moon in an aluminum can to place a new cornerstone in the evolution of mankind; to make our mark, to place our flag and our name in the heavens...

http://www.truthinprophecy.com/blog/apollo.php

Wow Duane, you are starting to look like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz with all of this clutching of straws....

[Duane Daman]

Wow Duane, you are starting to look like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz with all of this clutching of straws....

Well, I'd much rather be the scarecrow than the Wizard of Oz ( good analogy Craig ! ) who hides behind a curtain of deceit, the way NASA does, when duping people into believing that the Van Allen radiation belts are not at all dangerous to human life.

I might not be able to find any "figures" to support my argument, but the current scientific articles are finally admitting just how dangerous deep space radiation really is for manned space flights ... and NASA has finally admittd that humans are not venturing out to the Moon or to Mars until the proper radiation shileding can be developed sometime in the future.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Duane Daman