Jump to content
The Education Forum
Duane Daman

NASA Warped our View of Space

Recommended Posts

NASA warped our view of space

When I complained to some people that NASA faked the moon landing, a few of them responded something to the effect:

"Even if NASA faked Apollo, nobody was killed, so no harm was done. So why should I care?"

First of all, there are accusations that NASA murdered a few people.

Second, even if nobody was hurt, and even if there was no cost to the taxpayers, the Apollo moon hoax hurt the human race because it has given people a warped view of the universe. This in turn is causing other problems.

An extreme example might help explain how a "harmless" scam can hurt a nation. Imagine that the U.S. Navy fakes a trip to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and claims to have discovered hundreds of technically advanced cities full of mermaids. Would you dismiss that scam as a harmless prank?

That type of scam would do more then waste money. For example, it would cause millions of people around the world to fantasize about traveling to the bottom of the ocean to visit those cities. School textbooks would teach students about the incredible discovery of the mermaid cities. Private companies would look for investors to build submarines that can handle the intense pressure. And Americans would boast that only America has the technology to visit the mermaid cities.

Let's now consider the effect of the Apollo moon hoax.

Can astronauts see stars from the moon?

My Science Challenge has a diagram to explain this. NASA wants us to believe that astronauts cannot see stars from the moon's surface, or when traveling to and from the moon.

If astronauts cannot see stars when they look into outer space, what do they see? Do they see whiteness? Do they seek a blue sky? Do they see clouds?

If astronauts cannot see stars, what do they see when they look into outer space?

Do they see a white sky? Do they see rainbows?

NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars.

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.

The truth about radiation in space will never be known until the world gets better governments.

Low earth orbits are safer than deep space.

John Glenn and other early astronauts did not need very much protection from radiation because:

They spent only a few hours in space.

Astronauts in a low orbit are protected from most of the protons and electrons that come from the sun because the earth's magnetic field deflects them.

The earth is a shield to objects that are close to it, as shown in the drawing below.

The black arrows show that a lot of radiation and meteors is blocked by the earth when an object is in low earth orbit.

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.

What happens to a living creature as it travels through the Van Allen radiation belts? How long can a creature survive inside those belts? And how long can it survive the radiation of deep space?

There are also lots of tiny meteors flying from every direction at extremely high speeds. How long can an spacecraft survive bombardment by tiny meteors? How long can the space suit of an astronaut survive the bombardment? We will never know until we get better governments.

The Auroras.

There is less protection from the sun's atomic particles at the north and south poles because the earth's magnetic field diminishes at those locations. Some of the electrons and protons from the sun slam into the air molecules near the poles. This causes the atoms to glow, just like in a neon lamp. We refer to the glow as the "Auroras".

The glow of the auroras is proof that space is deadly.

The colorful auroras are fascinating, but they are proof that outer space is a very dangerous place. Since the atomic particles cause the atmosphere to glow, what would they do to astronauts? We will never know until we get better governments.

Airplane trips expose us to radiation.

The earth's atmosphere and magnetic field protect us from a lot of the radiation and particles from outer space. Therefore, when we fly in an airplane we are exposed to a slight increase in radiation. The higher the plane flies, the more radiation we experience.

If we were to fly directly over the north or south poles, we would be exposed to even more radiation. Supposedly, all airlines know about this, so none of them fly over the poles.

Airlines also alter their routes when the sun ejects large amounts of particles towards the earth. The airlines are more concerned about the atomic particles from outer space than the Apollo astronauts.

NASA puts a monkey into space in 1969.

Before sending people to the moon, NASA decided to conduct an experiment to determine the effect of a long space flight. On the 29th of June 1969 NASA put a monkey into orbit around the earth. The plan was to have the monkey circle the earth for 30 days, and then bring it back to earth for an analysis.

NASA is secretive on how close to the Van Allen radiation belts this monkey reached, but they admit that the monkey's health began deteriorating after a few days in orbit. On the ninth day NASA decided to bring the spacecraft down. The monkey died eight hours after the spacecraft was recovered.

Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon.

The monkey may have died simply because of the way NASA confined it to a tiny spacecraft, but even so, I would consider its death to be a sign that NASA was not ready to send people to the moon.

NASA puts frogs into space in 1971.

In November 1970, 1½ years after claiming to have the technology to put people on the moon, NASA put two frogs into orbit for 7 days. Unlike the monkey, NASA had no intention of bringing the frogs back to earth. They simply wanted to observe the frogs.

I suppose that the death of the monkey caused NASA to wonder if they can keep anything alive in outer space for more than a few days.

De we need protection from ultraviolet light?

Without an atmosphere to remove the high frequency ultraviolet light from the sunlight, human skin and eyes would be damaged quickly. However, one of NASA's videos show an astronaut wandering around on the moon in the sunlight without his tinted visor.

You can see this and other videos at the NASA web site.

Eventually somebody at the control center on earth suggests that he lower his tinted visor.

Many visitors to Florida are more concerned about ultraviolet light than the astronauts. The astronauts were behaving as if they were on a theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous environment.

Is weightlessness fun?

NASA creates the impression that weightlessness is lots of fun, as if it is equivalent to floating in a pool of water. However, all the evidence suggests that it is more horrible than being on a small ship in rough water.

Weightlessness causes serious problems with our digestive system and our sense of balance. The end result is that astronauts vomit. Furthermore, remaining weightless for long periods of time is bad for our health.

Does every astronaut vomit in space? How often do the astronauts vomit? Do they have trouble sleeping? Is it difficult for them to swallow food? The truth about these issues will not be known until we get better governments.

Do moon rocks have sharp edges?

The astronauts fell down several times while on the moon, but they showed no regard to whether the broken rocks on the ground were capable of tearing a hole in a pressurized space suit. They never bothered to look at themselves to see if there were any tears, and the other astronauts did not bother to check one another to see how their suits were holding up.

The astronauts were behaving as if they were in damp sand that was safe to fall down in. The damp sand would also explain why they were leaving footprints.

The images from the surveyor spacecraft show the moon to be a dry mixture of crushed rock. If some moon rocks have sharp edges, falling down could tear a hole in the space suit.

We will never know what the moon's surface is like until we get better governments.

..............................................................

Source:

For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NASA warped our view of space

<snip>

Can astronauts see stars from the moon?

My Science Challenge has a diagram to explain this. NASA wants us to believe that astronauts cannot see stars from the moon's surface, or when traveling to and from the moon.

If astronauts cannot see stars when they look into outer space, what do they see? Do they see whiteness? Do they seek a blue sky? Do they see clouds?

If astronauts cannot see stars, what do they see when they look into outer space?

Do they see a white sky? Do they see rainbows?

NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars.

<snip>

..............................................................

Source:

For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

No need to go any further.

This is a flat out lie.

NASA nor anyone else who has a brain has ever said such a thing. Everyone has always said that the stars are visible from space and the moon. To claim anything else, is asinine.

Duane - I sure hope you simply posted this for our information, and haven't bought into this persons delusions!

P.S. - This is a watered down version of my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars."

Neil said they couldn't see any stars from the lunar surface by eye , from the daylight side of the moon, unless they were looking through the optics ... So I guess that he , Buzz Lightyear and the Space Cadet were lying .

v2sdhz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Source:

For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

Are we really to take the unsourced claims of a bigoted Holocaust denier with no relevant expertise in the field seriously? (Yes a bit of an ad hominem, but I don't care, some ideas are so crackpot that they cast doubt on the other beliefs of their backers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\\\"NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars.\\\"

Neil said they couldn\\\'t see any stars from the lunar surface by eye , from the daylight side of the moon, unless they were looking through the optics ... So I guess that he , Buzz Lightyear and the Space Cadet were lying .

v2sdhz.jpg

Notice the phrase \\\"unless they were looking through the optics\\\". That was because they were answering a question that specifically asked whether they could see the stars \\\"in the solar corona\\\". They had an experiment where they specifically worked with photographing the solar corona and were referring to that.

Edited by Matthew Lewis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think looking at the transcript of the interview is instructive:

REPORTER I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the varlous edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.

ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...nding/ch-7.html

Though it’s not totally clear if they were saying they never ever saw any stars while on “the lunar surface” or if they only didn’t see them “in the solar corona” (much as I hate to admit it) it sounds to me like they meant the former. Not that this seems at all odd to me for the same reason that they wouldn’t appear in photos. Due to the lack of atmosphere and reflective nature of the lunar surface sunlight must have been far more intense than on earth (and yes the lack of atmosphere would make the starlight stronger as well) The astronauts' pupils must have contracted to pin pricks and/or their visors were highly light absorbent. In any case it would have been hard for starlight to compete.

1st hoax proponents have to show beyond a reasonable doubt my interpretation of the interview is correct, then they would have to prove that Armstrong and Aldrin should and could have seen the stars and finally they would have to explain why they would say they couldn’t see the stars when they should have been able to and intuitively to most people it seems like they should have been able to see them.

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NASA warped our view of space

When I complained to some people that NASA faked the moon landing, a few of them responded something to the effect:

"Even if NASA faked Apollo, nobody was killed, so no harm was done. So why should I care?"

First of all, there are accusations that NASA murdered a few people.

Indeed, this is an accusation upon which no-one has provided supporting evidence. Let us all bear in mind that anyone can make accusations; proving them, on the other hand....

Second, even if nobody was hurt, and even if there was no cost to the taxpayers, the Apollo moon hoax hurt the human race because it has given people a warped view of the universe.

I agree totally. it give a false impression of capabilities, and the science evolved therefrom.

Let's now consider the effect of the Apollo moon hoax.

Can astronauts see stars from the moon?

My Science Challenge has a diagram to explain this. NASA wants us to believe that astronauts cannot see stars from the moon's surface, or when traveling to and from the moon.

This is partially incorrect. The astronauts reported stars during their travels. Additionally, seeing stars from the lunar surface has some problems. I think I covered this before, but if not I'll go over it again.

Because we see images of a black lunar sky, we tend to think that the lunar surface is 'dark'. This is not so. The near side of the Moon gets just as much - if not more - light as we do here on the Earth. Without an appreciable atmosphere to scatter and colour light though, it 'appears' dark. So there is the same light level on the lunar surface, affecting our ability to see (relatively) dim stars. Some of the brighter stars might be visible, but they would be significantly dimmer than we would expect.

If astronauts cannot see stars when they look into outer space, what do they see? Do they see whiteness? Do they seek a blue sky? Do they see clouds?

If astronauts cannot see stars, what do they see when they look into outer space?

Do they see a white sky? Do they see rainbows?

See above.

NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars.

See above.

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.

This has been covered in yet another previous thread. The danger from radiation for a short duration mission (i.e. Apollo) is an acceptable risk. Long duration missions (such as a Moon base or Mars exploration) require much greater protection.

The truth about radiation in space will never be known until the world gets better governments.

Evidence of this?

Low earth orbits are safer than deep space.

In general, yes.

John Glenn and other early astronauts did not need very much protection from radiation because: They spent only a few hours in space.

Astronauts in a low orbit are protected from most of the protons and electrons that come from the sun because the earth's magnetic field deflects them.

The earth is a shield to objects that are close to it...

Yes, the VAB protects us from a majority of the harmful solar radiation.

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.

What happens to a living creature as it travels through the Van Allen radiation belts? How long can a creature survive inside those belts? And how long can it survive the radiation of deep space?

There are also lots of tiny meteors flying from every direction at extremely high speeds. How long can an spacecraft survive bombardment by tiny meteors? How long can the space suit of an astronaut survive the bombardment? We will never know until we get better governments.

A lot of the information required to answer these questions has already been gathered; for long duration missions, however, more data is needed. For the Apollo missions, enough data was available to decide it was an acceptable risk with respect to radiation. Micrometeorites were also considered in this regard.

I'll post some more when I get back from walking my dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Auroras.

There is less protection from the sun's atomic particles at the north and south poles because the earth's magnetic field diminishes at those locations. Some of the electrons and protons from the sun slam into the air molecules near the poles. This causes the atoms to glow, just like in a neon lamp. We refer to the glow as the "Auroras".

The glow of the auroras is proof that space is deadly.

The colorful auroras are fascinating, but they are proof that outer space is a very dangerous place. Since the atomic particles cause the atmosphere to glow, what would they do to astronauts? We will never know until we get better governments.

Once again, supposition. Why don't you show proof that the exposure time that the Apollo astronauts experienced would have been deadly?

Airplane trips expose us to radiation.

The earth's atmosphere and magnetic field protect us from a lot of the radiation and particles from outer space. Therefore, when we fly in an airplane we are exposed to a slight increase in radiation. The higher the plane flies, the more radiation we experience.

If we were to fly directly over the north or south poles, we would be exposed to even more radiation. Supposedly, all airlines know about this, so none of them fly over the poles.

Airlines also alter their routes when the sun ejects large amounts of particles towards the earth. The airlines are more concerned about the atomic particles from outer space than the Apollo astronauts.

As a professional aviator, I have to protest a little about what you have said. Yes, aircrew do receive higher radiation dosages and it has been brought up as an OH&S concern - but the amount has yet to be shown as very detrimental to aircrew health. If it were particularly bad, you'd find a higher incidence of cancers, etc, amongst aircrew. To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case.

Also, crews fly polar routes on a regular basis. Indeed, your claim that "... none of them fly over the poles" is incorrect. Prior to the Mt Erebus disaster, Air New Zealand flew regular Antarctic sightseeing trips, and they are now being reintroduced. If you can, could you please point out any warning that they give to passengers about possible radiation hazards? I don't think you'll find any, because it is not an appreciable hazard on an occasional basis.

NASA puts a monkey into space in 1969.

Before sending people to the moon, NASA decided to conduct an experiment to determine the effect of a long space flight. On the 29th of June 1969 NASA put a monkey into orbit around the earth. The plan was to have the monkey circle the earth for 30 days, and then bring it back to earth for an analysis.

NASA is secretive on how close to the Van Allen radiation belts this monkey reached, but they admit that the monkey's health began deteriorating after a few days in orbit. On the ninth day NASA decided to bring the spacecraft down. The monkey died eight hours after the spacecraft was recovered.

Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon.

The monkey may have died simply because of the way NASA confined it to a tiny spacecraft, but even so, I would consider its death to be a sign that NASA was not ready to send people to the moon.

Could you quote an authoritative source for this claim? I've never heard of it before. I'm not saying it isn't true - just that I have never heard of it.

To my knowledge, the only "monkey" flights were made by HAM and ENOS, prior to the Mercury flights.

NASA puts frogs into space in 1971.

In November 1970, 1½ years after claiming to have the technology to put people on the moon, NASA put two frogs into orbit for 7 days. Unlike the monkey, NASA had no intention of bringing the frogs back to earth. They simply wanted to observe the frogs.

I suppose that the death of the monkey caused NASA to wonder if they can keep anything alive in outer space for more than a few days.

No, the purpose of the flight was to investigate the effect of microgravity on the otolith, a sensory organ that responds to changes in an animal's orientation within the Earth's gravitational field. The bullfrogs were chosen because their labyrinth is very similar to that of humans.

Once again, this is simply an indication of further research - not that the Apollo missions were in any way 'faked'.

De we need protection from ultraviolet light?

Without an atmosphere to remove the high frequency ultraviolet light from the sunlight, human skin and eyes would be damaged quickly. However, one of NASA's videos show an astronaut wandering around on the moon in the sunlight without his tinted visor.

You can see this and other videos at the NASA web site.

Eventually somebody at the control center on earth suggests that he lower his tinted visor.

Many visitors to Florida are more concerned about ultraviolet light than the astronauts. The astronauts were behaving as if they were on a theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous environment.

This is taken a little out of context. Were the astronauts provided with shielded visors? Yes, they were. Did they have to use them all the time? No, not all the time. The concern was primarily about solar radiation damage to the eyes, and for this reason they mostly operated on the lunar surface with them down. On the odd occasion, however, they raised them. The visor distorted the colour vision of the astronauts slightly, and so when there was a particular discovery ("There is orange soil here!") they raised them to confirm that it was not an illusion caused by the visor. They also did this, on the rare occasion, to have a photo taken of them. None of the occasions were particularly hazardous, but Mission Control reminded them to minimise the additional exposure.

Is weightlessness fun?

NASA creates the impression that weightlessness is lots of fun, as if it is equivalent to floating in a pool of water. However, all the evidence suggests that it is more horrible than being on a small ship in rough water.

Weightlessness causes serious problems with our digestive system and our sense of balance. The end result is that astronauts vomit. Furthermore, remaining weightless for long periods of time is bad for our health.

Does every astronaut vomit in space? How often do the astronauts vomit? Do they have trouble sleeping? Is it difficult for them to swallow food? The truth about these issues will not be known until we get better governments.

Once again, not all the information is provided. Do astronauts suffer from 'space sickness'? Yes - but not everyone. It is analogous to sea sickness or air sickness. Not everyone suffers. From memory, about 35% of astronauts suffer from it, and most adjust after a few hours. In particular, the additional room aboard the Apollo capsule played a part. Frank Borman on Apollo 8 suffered from it. Rusty Sweickhart on Apollo 9 suffered from it. Chronic spacesickness is a problem for some people, but for the most part, people adjust after a day of exposure.

Do moon rocks have sharp edges?

The astronauts fell down several times while on the moon, but they showed no regard to whether the broken rocks on the ground were capable of tearing a hole in a pressurized space suit. They never bothered to look at themselves to see if there were any tears, and the other astronauts did not bother to check one another to see how their suits were holding up.

The astronauts were behaving as if they were in damp sand that was safe to fall down in. The damp sand would also explain why they were leaving footprints.

Quite incorrect. A check was done each time an astronaut had a 'tumble'; it was only common sense. There was concern about an astronaut puncturing their suit, so they were made tough (the suits!) for a lunar environment.

The images from the surveyor spacecraft show the moon to be a dry mixture of crushed rock. If some moon rocks have sharp edges, falling down could tear a hole in the space suit.

We will never know what the moon's surface is like until we get better governments.

And I want cheaper fuel prices, and a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. Keep preaching.

At this stage I have to make a slight apology - I didn't realise that the post was a quote; I thought it was Duane's own work. Where I have referred to / asked for an explanation, this should be taken as referring to Mr Hufschmid, and not Duane as was originally indicated.

..............................................................

Source:

For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quite incorrect. A check was done each time an astronaut had a 'tumble'; it was only common sense. There was concern about an astronaut puncturing their suit, so they were made tough (the suits!) for a lunar environment."

Have you even watched the Apollo videos ? .... Charlie Duke alone fell down more times than the comedian Chevy Chase ever did on any Saturday Night Live episode , and nobody ever even took a peek at his spacesuit for any rips ...

And you didn't know that the monkey died either ... I will post the article explaining his untimely death right before the Apollo 11 launch .. Your other objections don't even seem worth bothering with .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you didn't know that the monkey died either

I looked up the details, and you were quite correct. A pigtail monkey named 'Bonnie' was launched on Biosat 3, which was planned for a 30 day mission. It was brought down early because Bonnie's health began to deteriorate, and she died shortly after being recovered.

The sources all say that she died because of dehydration.

Some might claim that she really died because of exposure to the radiation from the Van Allen Belts.

That would be wrong, because Biosat 3 was only at an altitude of between 220km and 240km, too low for the VABs to be a problem. Even the South Atlantic Anomaly, which dips down to about 200km, wouldn't have been a problem because it only affects objects with an orbital inclination between 35 and 60 degrees. Biosat 3 had an inclination of 33 degrees. This is similar to the Apollo 7 (230-300km / 32 degrees) and Apollo 9 (200-230km / 33 degrees) missions.

So, although the information was accurate, it appears to have no bearing on the viability of the Apollo missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NASA warped our view of space

When I complained to some people that NASA faked the moon landing, a few of them responded something to the effect:

"Even if NASA faked Apollo, nobody was killed, so no harm was done. So why should I care?"

First of all, there are accusations that NASA murdered a few people.

Second, even if nobody was hurt, and even if there was no cost to the taxpayers, the Apollo moon hoax hurt the human race because it has given people a warped view of the universe. This in turn is causing other problems.

An extreme example might help explain how a "harmless" scam can hurt a nation. Imagine that the U.S. Navy fakes a trip to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and claims to have discovered hundreds of technically advanced cities full of mermaids. Would you dismiss that scam as a harmless prank?

That type of scam would do more then waste money. For example, it would cause millions of people around the world to fantasize about traveling to the bottom of the ocean to visit those cities. School textbooks would teach students about the incredible discovery of the mermaid cities. Private companies would look for investors to build submarines that can handle the intense pressure. And Americans would boast that only America has the technology to visit the mermaid cities.

Let's now consider the effect of the Apollo moon hoax.

Can astronauts see stars from the moon?

My Science Challenge has a diagram to explain this. NASA wants us to believe that astronauts cannot see stars from the moon's surface, or when traveling to and from the moon.

If astronauts cannot see stars when they look into outer space, what do they see? Do they see whiteness? Do they seek a blue sky? Do they see clouds?

If astronauts cannot see stars, what do they see when they look into outer space?

Do they see a white sky? Do they see rainbows?

NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars.

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.

The truth about radiation in space will never be known until the world gets better governments.

Low earth orbits are safer than deep space.

John Glenn and other early astronauts did not need very much protection from radiation because:

They spent only a few hours in space.

Astronauts in a low orbit are protected from most of the protons and electrons that come from the sun because the earth's magnetic field deflects them.

The earth is a shield to objects that are close to it, as shown in the drawing below.

The black arrows show that a lot of radiation and meteors is blocked by the earth when an object is in low earth orbit.

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.

What happens to a living creature as it travels through the Van Allen radiation belts? How long can a creature survive inside those belts? And how long can it survive the radiation of deep space?

There are also lots of tiny meteors flying from every direction at extremely high speeds. How long can an spacecraft survive bombardment by tiny meteors? How long can the space suit of an astronaut survive the bombardment? We will never know until we get better governments.

The Auroras.

There is less protection from the sun's atomic particles at the north and south poles because the earth's magnetic field diminishes at those locations. Some of the electrons and protons from the sun slam into the air molecules near the poles. This causes the atoms to glow, just like in a neon lamp. We refer to the glow as the "Auroras".

The glow of the auroras is proof that space is deadly.

The colorful auroras are fascinating, but they are proof that outer space is a very dangerous place. Since the atomic particles cause the atmosphere to glow, what would they do to astronauts? We will never know until we get better governments.

Airplane trips expose us to radiation.

The earth's atmosphere and magnetic field protect us from a lot of the radiation and particles from outer space. Therefore, when we fly in an airplane we are exposed to a slight increase in radiation. The higher the plane flies, the more radiation we experience.

If we were to fly directly over the north or south poles, we would be exposed to even more radiation. Supposedly, all airlines know about this, so none of them fly over the poles.

Airlines also alter their routes when the sun ejects large amounts of particles towards the earth. The airlines are more concerned about the atomic particles from outer space than the Apollo astronauts.

NASA puts a monkey into space in 1969.

Before sending people to the moon, NASA decided to conduct an experiment to determine the effect of a long space flight. On the 29th of June 1969 NASA put a monkey into orbit around the earth. The plan was to have the monkey circle the earth for 30 days, and then bring it back to earth for an analysis.

NASA is secretive on how close to the Van Allen radiation belts this monkey reached, but they admit that the monkey's health began deteriorating after a few days in orbit. On the ninth day NASA decided to bring the spacecraft down. The monkey died eight hours after the spacecraft was recovered.

Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon.

The monkey may have died simply because of the way NASA confined it to a tiny spacecraft, but even so, I would consider its death to be a sign that NASA was not ready to send people to the moon.

NASA puts frogs into space in 1971.

In November 1970, 1½ years after claiming to have the technology to put people on the moon, NASA put two frogs into orbit for 7 days. Unlike the monkey, NASA had no intention of bringing the frogs back to earth. They simply wanted to observe the frogs.

I suppose that the death of the monkey caused NASA to wonder if they can keep anything alive in outer space for more than a few days.

De we need protection from ultraviolet light?

Without an atmosphere to remove the high frequency ultraviolet light from the sunlight, human skin and eyes would be damaged quickly. However, one of NASA's videos show an astronaut wandering around on the moon in the sunlight without his tinted visor.

You can see this and other videos at the NASA web site.

Eventually somebody at the control center on earth suggests that he lower his tinted visor.

Many visitors to Florida are more concerned about ultraviolet light than the astronauts. The astronauts were behaving as if they were on a theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous environment.

Is weightlessness fun?

NASA creates the impression that weightlessness is lots of fun, as if it is equivalent to floating in a pool of water. However, all the evidence suggests that it is more horrible than being on a small ship in rough water.

Weightlessness causes serious problems with our digestive system and our sense of balance. The end result is that astronauts vomit. Furthermore, remaining weightless for long periods of time is bad for our health.

Does every astronaut vomit in space? How often do the astronauts vomit? Do they have trouble sleeping? Is it difficult for them to swallow food? The truth about these issues will not be known until we get better governments.

Do moon rocks have sharp edges?

The astronauts fell down several times while on the moon, but they showed no regard to whether the broken rocks on the ground were capable of tearing a hole in a pressurized space suit. They never bothered to look at themselves to see if there were any tears, and the other astronauts did not bother to check one another to see how their suits were holding up.

The astronauts were behaving as if they were in damp sand that was safe to fall down in. The damp sand would also explain why they were leaving footprints.

The images from the surveyor spacecraft show the moon to be a dry mixture of crushed rock. If some moon rocks have sharp edges, falling down could tear a hole in the space suit.

We will never know what the moon's surface is like until we get better governments.

..............................................................

Source:

For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

This is scary stuff. The Hubble sent back unusual, even pretty, photos. Are they genuine? Reading this, I don't think anyone went to the moon. The moon in space is purple! -- my favorite color. What a shock. I'd like to know what they saw on the dark side of the Moon. It's something the rest of us can't see. Does NASA have pictures of it? How far up are our satellites? I'm thinking Google's Earth. Please answer.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have no fear Kathy ... The members on this forum who defend Apollo, will have you convinced that nasa really did fly nine manned missions , a half a million miles each , into the deadly radiation of deep space , to return them all home alive and well again , using antiquated technology , very little radiation shielding , and a craft that wasn't even properly tested ... The space monkey died and a week later Apollo 11 launched for the moon on live TV ... Right .

Then they will convince you that the millions of people who believe Apollo was a hoax , are just a bunch of "ignornant , crackpot, conspiracly nuts " , who fell for some untrue stuff about nasa in books , written by some crazy guys just trying to make a buck.... In other words .... THINK FOR YOURSELF instead of allowing those who's job it is to think for you .

Edited by Duane Daman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is scary stuff. The Hubble sent back unusual, even pretty, photos. Are they genuine? Reading this, I don't think anyone went to the moon. The moon in space is purple! -- my favorite color. What a shock. I'd like to know what they saw on the dark side of the Moon. It's something the rest of us can't see. Does NASA have pictures of it? How far up are our satellites? I'm thinking Google's Earth. Please answer.

Kathy

Kathy -

If any of the posted fantasy were true it would be frighting. However, it is so wrong its laughable.

As for images of the far side of the moon - try these two links for a start:

Astronomy Picture of the Day – 2007 February 25. (composite from the Apollo 16 Mission)

Wikipedia article "Far side of the Moon" which has some of the most recent images taken by Clementine and one of the first - taken by the Soviet Luna 3, in 1959.

There are many close-ups in the various Apollo photo archives.

One good place to start is the Apollo Image Atlas.

Just to nit-pick one thing - the phrase "dark side of the Moon" is a misnomer - the lunar day is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 seconds long, therefore entire moon receives approximately 14.8 days of sunlight and 14.8 days of darkness - during one lunar "day".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have no fear Kathy ... The members on this forum who defend Apollo, will have you convinced that nasa really did fly nine manned missions , a half a million miles each , into the deadly radiation of deep space , to return them all home alive and well again , using antiquated technology , very little radiation shielding , and a craft that wasn't even properly tested ... The space monkey died and a week later Apollo 11 launched for the moon on live TV ... Right .

Then they will convince you that the millions of people who believe Apollo was a hoax , are just a bunch of "ignornant , crackpot, conspiracly nuts " , who fell for some untrue stuff about nasa in books , written by some crazy guys just trying to make a buck.... In other words .... THINK FOR YOURSELF instead of allowing those who's job it is to think for you .

Duane,

You mention the monkey again; as I said you were right about it dying - but I have said it has no bearing on Apollo.

Am I in error with any part of my Biosat 3 details? If so, where & what?

What relevance does Biosat 3 have to Apollo? Exactly why would the monkey dying mean that Apollo could not have been achieved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have no fear Kathy ... The members on this forum who defend Apollo, will have you convinced that nasa really did fly nine manned missions , a half a million miles each , into the deadly radiation of deep space , to return them all home alive and well again , using antiquated technology , very little radiation shielding , and a craft that wasn't even properly tested ... The space monkey died and a week later Apollo 11 launched for the moon on live TV ... Right .

Then they will convince you that the millions of people who believe Apollo was a hoax , are just a bunch of "ignornant , crackpot, conspiracly nuts " , who fell for some untrue stuff about nasa in books , written by some crazy guys just trying to make a buck.... In other words .... THINK FOR YOURSELF instead of allowing those who's job it is to think for you .

Duane,

You mention the monkey again; as I said you were right about it dying - but I have said it has no bearing on Apollo.

Am I in error with any part of my Biosat 3 details? If so, where & what?

What relevance does Biosat 3 have to Apollo? Exactly why would the monkey dying mean that Apollo could not have been achieved?

I know if a monkey died after a few days in space, I wouldn't go up in any spacecraft afterwards.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...