Dave Greer

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.

Dave .... Greenmagoos left a comment for you on his video chanel which pretty much sums up how he feels about your ignorance about the reality of the Apollo photography . I would post it here but that would be breaking the forum's rules and we all know what happens to members who do that . But you can read his reply here . http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Gej3IZibeMM Thanks for playing messenger-boy, but I couldn't really care less about what Mr Magoo is saying to get a rise out of me on another forum. I'll remain happy in my ignorance, foolishly believing men landed on the moon!

I believe this is the person you're looking for, Evan: I think this definitively puts the matter to rest... Now that's what I'm talking about! Eye-poppingly good evidence that the photo was taken in a vacuum. That's one dedicated whistleblower...

Nope, the hammer acts as a compound pendulum (albeit one without a fixed pivot). Like I said, Mr Magoo needs to read up on compound pendulums and centre of mass if he doesn't understand what he sees in the Apollo clip. Of course, both you and I know he won't do that, so I included the clip of the double-swinging pendulum to demonstrate that anyone can make any claim they like about something they don't understand. Fortunately, a lack of understanding is not proof of anything except a person's ignorance on a subject. I happily admit to being mostly ignorant about the chaos theory surrounding the motion of a double pendulum, but I wouldn't use my own ignorance to claim that the footage of that double-pendulum is evidence of some kind of chicanery. It ain't magic, and it ain't wires. Mr Magoo doesn't seem to hold himself to that standard: he sees something he doesn't understand, and uploads a video to Youtube as proof of fakery. The only person he's fooling is himself.

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". 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. Hyperbole, innuendo, scaremongering, rhetoric, disinformation, handwaving. I prefer facts and figures, as I've presented. You know where you are with them. EDIT: Typo.

I think your friend Mr Magoo needs to spend some time learning a bit about physics if he wants to understand what's going on here. Here are some terms he may wish to familiarise himself with. Compound pendulum Centre of mass I'm willing to bet he's not really interested in understanding the mechanics of what's happening, so instead he can look at this nice video of a double pendulum in action. No doubt he has another ready explanation for how it apparently defies the laws of physic... Now that's magic! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Whvl6CikDxA

You might be on to something with your Cowboy connection David old bean. I've managed to dig up photographic proof that cowboys have indeed been to the moon. As you can see, this photo has stars in the background, something NASA curiously left out of their Apollo photos as they knew they would never be able to accurately fake them in 1969, despite the invention of planetaria in the early 20th century. http://api.ning.com/files/0enKoagnOm*Nam9R.../CowboyMoon.jpg As for your ispace specs, I've ordered a pair off your "Suckerspecs" website for my mate Bob from down the pub. Hopefully he'll have better luck on a Friday night than he does with just his beer goggles.

Yes, the Apollonic Rebus Technique is one I've been perfecting over the years. I became interested in the Rebus Technique while reading a book on ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Through my research I discovered evidence that the ancient Egyptians knew all about helicopters, motor cruisers and zeppellins. I find a very good way of analysing Apollo images is by blinking my eyes very quickly while staring at the computer screen, then keeping them firmly shut and analysing the resultant patterns that form on the inside of my eyelid. That way I can be sure that what I'm seeing is the raw image that hasn't been photoshopped in any way. I've taken this technique a step further and use it as a kind of "mental satnav". Before I set off on a long journey, I plan the route in Google Earth, then use the "blink technique" to "burn" the image of the desired route onto the back of my retina. If I get lost along the way, all I have to do is squeeze my eyes tightly shut while driving along, and lo and behold I have an instant "mental map" of the area. I actually made it to the bottom end of my street using this technique not so long ago. Sadly the magistrates were somewhat bemused by this concept, and saw fit to add 6 points to my driving licence instead. I remain undeterred. As for Hidden Mickeys... I've uncovered proof that aliens knew about Mickey Mouse many millenia ago, in fact I suspect he is some kind of uber-mouse that was worshipped by the murine aliens. And you thought Mount Rushmore was a wonder?

Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields .... Otherwise known as the Apollo showstopper . http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm This is all the evidence you have to show that it's impossible to survive a trip through the Van Allen belts? Most of that page is devoted to interplanetary radiation due to solar events, not the Van Allen belt itself. The only thing the author says about the effect the bels would have on an astronaut is:- "it is also a threat to the astronauts". 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".

Double post. Or CIA interference.

Put it all together... what have you got? ROCKET WHISTLEBLOWER PLAIN TO SEE - GENE KRANTZ So there you have it people. Gene Krantz was the infamous Apollo flute-blower all along. I know what you disinformationists are going to say - "bunnies in the clouds", or "pareidolia", or whatever the lastest NASA excuse is. Ask yourself this: what are the chances of random reflections on foil spelling out such a sentence? I've used my wristwatch to calculate that it's about the same chance as 2 people in an elevator sharing the same birthday - in other words 30 TRILLION TO ONE. How about applying Occam's shaver for once? I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my most cromulent apologies to Duane and Jack - seems they were right all along.

I've un-earthed (should that be un-mooned?) undeniable evidence proving who the main Apollo whistleblower is. Take a butchers at this photo, AS14-66-9261. It shows the area under the LM descent stage taken during the Apollo 14 mission. Here's a close up of what appears to be some kind of loose foil beneath the lander - what it's doing there is anyone's guess. There appear to be some strange symbols on the foil, in the light diagonal strip. In my next post I'll examine each one, using cutting edge forensic detection methods, from top right to bottom left. The conclusion will shock you.

Ooh, I like a good puzzle. Plane? Symbol of war? Dare I go for the obvious and say oil? Not sure about the Maddie reference, but Iraq is sitting on a fortune of oil reserves... $30 trillion to be precise. Sub. Beneath the waves. Below. Under. Land? Putting it all together... The war is to do with $30 trillion of oil under the land? Which all makes perfect sense except for one thing - I can't figure out how Maddie fits in, so I may be well off course!

Like I said, you can believe what you like, but it isn't backed up by any facts. Heaven forbid that scientists should actually try to improve their current level of knowledge by gathering and analyzing more data! You can't have read the article, especially one of the sentences you highlighted. "a future NASA mission to study near-Earth space radiation. This type of radiation is hazardous to astronauts, orbiting satellites and aircraft flying high altitude polar routes." The mission isn't trying to determine whether it's safe for astronauts to fly through less intense parts of the belts on the way to the moon. "The mission will study how accumulations of space radiation form and change during space storms." There are very real problems with satellites and humans being in the radiation belts. There just isn't a big problem with humans traversing the belts for a short period of time, through the less dense zones. Satellites that operate within the belts require sensitive components to be radiation hardened. The ISS travels through part of the belts (the South Atlantic Anomaly), spending a total time of about 90 minutes every day in the SAA. You can argue that levels of radiation in the SAA aren't sufficient to give a significant dose to astronauts housed in the ISS - and you'd be right. Now the burden of proof lies with you to prove that the level of exposure the Apollo astronauts would have received while in the CM would have been far too high to allow for a one hour journey through them. So let's get down to the nitty gritty - please provide the empirical evidence you have used to determine that it is impossible for astronauts to travel through the belts, as claimed by the Apollo missions. If you can't do this then my assessment must have been right - you believe it because you need an Apollo showstopper, even though you have no facts to back it up. Awful things, facts. Always getting in the way of a good story!

I believe that the Van Allen radiation belts are far more dangerous for humans than NASA's scientists have admitted to .... Of course they would have to down play how deadly they are because if Dr. James Van Allen's and Nazi rocket scientist Werner Von Braun's original scientific findings were allowed to stand, then NASA would have an awful lot of explaining to do as to how they allegedly sent nine manned missions through the belts and onto the Moon without anyone even puking, much less frying . You're entitled to your belief, but is that belief based on the facts, or a need to have a showstopper for the hoax theory to hold any water? As for the late Dr Van Allen, here's his take on the situation: "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." If radiation levels were so much higher than stated that they would kill an astronaut who took about an hour to travel through the outer edges in a well-shielded command module, satellite failures would be very high indeed, since satellite designers rely on published data to protect delicate components from damage. If NASA is continuing to send probes into the belts, then it blows out of the water the idea that only a very small amount of people are "in the know" about the "Apollo hoax". Top brass in successive years must know about it, as must the scientists responsible for analysing data returned by probes. For example, the Radiation Belt Storm Probes Mission planned for 2012 involves the science departments from the Universities of Boston, Iowa and Minnesota, and the Jersey Institute of Technology. How many more people must NASA keep on paying off to lie about the results? On top of that, the belts aren't just NASA's preserve. Any nation with a space programme has the ability to send probes into the belts for research purposes to measure radiation intensities. Europe (ESA), Japan, India, China, Russia. I suppose they're all quite happy to go along with NASA's great lie about exactly how dangerous the belts are, now and for all time? In the meantime, those satellites in the belts keep on working within expected parameters. Strange that... Why would a space shuttle deliberately expose astronauts to the belts for no gain? Remember, the Apollo astronauts skirted the less dangerous parts of the belts in about an hour. A ten day shuttle mission that orbitted through the same region would expose astronauts to 240 TIMES as much radiation. What is to be gained from this? The ISS does indeed travel through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), several times each day. Why do you suppose astronauts living on board the ISS, and performing 8 hour EVAs, aren't being fried to death in their suits by the radiation they encounter? Is it because the hazard has been blown out of all proportion on certain pro-Hoax disinformation sites? No, that's not what he actually said. I've had to endure another 30 minutes of "Was It Only A Paper Moon" to get the actual quote. "It goes up, hits the atmosphere and stops". He makes this statement several times. He's just misinterpreted what he's seeing. The dust does go up, but since gravity is acting on it it slows down until it does indeed stop when each individual particle reaches it's maximum height, then immediately starts falling back to the lunar surface. Nothing whatsoever to do with a "wall of atmosphere" stopping the dust. I'd have one of the mugs, the lads at work would appreciate the irony. Thanks for the offer, but I don't think my lady-friend would appreciate the T-shirt.

It's not so much the form of the radiation, it's how much of it gets absorbed by the body (usually calculated at the Blood Forming Organs). For example, Gamma Rays are the most penetrative form of radiation, but they aren't as ionising as other forms of radiation such as Alpha particles and Beta particles. Alpha partciles are highly ionising, but can't even penetrate human skin, so Alpha sources aren't really hazardous unless ingested. Anyone making claims about the Van Allen belts being an inpenetrable wall of radiation that humans can't pass through is doing little more than handwaving. I've yet to see anyone make a remotely convincing case using actual data. It's usually vague references to a "wall of deadly radiation" that needs "six feet of lead for protection, information that doesn't seem to come from a reputable scientific source for such data, and is only ever replicated on pro-hoax sites. I've never understood Collier's claims about a "wall of atmosphere". If there's an atmosphere then it's all around - the dust can't suddenly hit a wall of atmosphere and then immediately fall back to Earth. His claim gets more and more nonsensical the more you look at it - if this mystery wall of atmosphere is somehow capable of stopping dust dead in it's tracks, why doesn't it billow about in the thick atmosphere? How can it fall back to Earth so quickly? IMO it's quite clearly filmed in a vacuum, but obviously I have no way of proving this. I just know that Collier's explanation makes no sense.

Makes sense to me too. Here's an Apollo 16 training image that gives an idea of how far away the astronaut might be while hammering in the core sample.

That's because there's more than one thing to consider when comparing the Moon to the Earth. The lower gravity means that disturbed dust will longer to settle on the moon; whereas the lack of atmosphere conversely means that disturbed dust won't be impeded as it is on Earth. When comparing it to Earth, you'd have to pay attention to the particulate size, atmospheric conditions, etc. To do this empirically you need to know what force it applied to the dust with each step, and measure the height the dust/sand rises to, and how quickly it takes to fall. Otherwise we are just comparing subjective opinions. My subjective opinion is that the motion of the dust is what I would expect in low gravity and a vacuum (the link I gave in an earlier post being a very good example). I think the rooster tails is also good evidence of this being filmed in a vacuum. No atmospheric clouding. Check out these images which show how I believe the dust motion is happening. It's both! But remember that particulate size will affect motion on Earth - larger particles won't be as easily affected by the atmosphere. Dust goes up, dust comes down. Apart from that, I fail to see how this video proves that lunar dust behaves exactly like sand on a beach.

Calm down old boy - all I said was I hope youre joking. The answer is right there in that quote from Von Braun. He's used an analogy. The raindrops hitting an aircraft flying through a cloud create a secondary effect - sound waves (you can hear the raindrops). Transfer this to the situation of a spacecraft flying through the Van Allen belts. The electrons (raindrops) hitting a spaceship (aircraft) flying through the Van Allen belts (cloud) create a secondary effect called Brehmstrahlung radiation (soundwaves). The Brehmstrahlung radiation is in the form of EM radiation, possibly xrays. Quick primer In a nutshell - there are two basic types of "radiation" (1) Particle radiation: alpha particles, beta particles (electrons), protons, neutrons etc (2) EM or electromagnetic radiation - xrays, gamma rays etc (these are exactly the same as light, radiowaves, microwaves, infrared, only with much higher energies) When particle radiation travelling at a high velocity slows down, it emits a secondary form of radiation in the form of EM radiation (e.g. xrays). The energy of this secondary radiation is essentially dependent on two things: the original energy of the particle, and what material stops the particle. Bizarrely, if you use lead to shield against particle radiation, the seondary radiation emitted is of a much higher energy than if a less dense material is used for shielding, e.g. water, polyethylene, or aluminium. This is precisely why lead is not a good shield against particle radiation. It has its uses against xrays and gamma rays, but for shielding against high energy protons and electrons in the Van Allen belts. Another reason why it isn't used a great deal in manned spacecraft - it's very heavy, therefore difficult and expensive to get into orbit. So can I, if I aim an almighty kick at a suitable clump of sand and deliberately kick it as far as I can. Look at the video more closely. He loses his balance and falls over, and his left boot digs into the surface. Sends up a huge spray of lunar dust, about 3 metres long. He hasn't tried to kick the dust any great distance, nor has he moved in such a way that suggests to me would create so much dust if it was filmed on Earth. There are many examples of dust being kicked about in Apollo videos, have a seacrh on the ALSJ. I'd suggest the later missions (A15-A17) are probably better due to improved TV technology.

Both the quotes in your first post mentioned UV exposure. The Van Allen belts don't affect UV levels - the ozone layer does that. Astronauts in LEO are well above the ozone layer. On top of that you must have missed the fact that both the pressure helmet and the protective visor are made of lexan, a material almost completely opaque to UV. So, astronauts in LEO can raise their sun visor and not get fried by UV, just as astronauts on the moon can raise their sun visor and not get fried by UV. Re cosmic ray radiation. Cosmic rays weren't a major problem for Apollo astronauts because of their rarity. The sun-visor provided no protection against cosmic rays anyway - so lifting it wouldn't increase the exposure due to cosmic rays. The exposure to Apollo astronauts from cosmic rays wasn't a serious consideration - however, it will be for possible trips to Mars, where round trip missions of 2 1/2 years will increase chances of cancer in later life, and of cataracts. Apollo round trips of 2 weeks compare quite favourably with Mars round trips of 120+ weeks. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7753 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray You are joking with this comment I hope! Correct. Now where is your evidence that the secondary radiation was so high that it would kill or seriously injure a suited and booted astronaut? All well and good, but again there's no evidence presented that shows how this would have made it impossible for Apollo astronauts to go to the moon? I could quote a load of information about background radiation on Earth, but how does that prove the Earth is too radioactive to live on? You've never seen lunar soil kicked in long trajectories in Apollo videos? Here's one such example, around the 22 second mark. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1653633.mov

Actually, I believe he might have been killed by the Deja FLU .. At least that's what the conspiracy theory is . Deja Flu, Deja Flu Bless you. Sorry dave, I've messed up your post, I was supposed to be replying, and I've somehow edited it appologies. i'm having a lot of trouble with the Forum software recently. anyone else. I must protest this abuse of moderator power most strongly. Mr Turner has had it in for me ever since I exposed the East Anglian Tourist Board's complicity in the great pyranot scandal in the "My Brother Never Went to Egypt" thread. I notice he credited me with voting for him as "Beanie Wearer of the Year" in the 2007 forum awards. He's even got the gall to blame his Orwellian interference in my right to free speech on "problems with the forum software"! Strange, I don't see anyone else having problems with the forum software, do you old bean-ie wearer? Face it buster, you're busted.

Actually, I believe he might have been killed by the Deja FLU .. At least that's what the conspiracy theory is . Deja Flu, Deja Flu Bless you. Sorry dave, I've messed up your post, I was supposed to be replying, and I've somehow edited it appologies. i'm having a lot of trouble with the Forum software recently. anyone else.

I'm not sure if this what you're asking but I found this . "The gold layer reduced the light transmittance of the visor to only 2 percent compared to approximately 15% for a standard neutral visor depending on type. The same sort of gold layer was applied also to astronaut's helmets to protect them from the damaging ultraviolet rays in the 200 to 300 millimicrons range." http://www.flightgear.dk/flash.htm The effect of raising the visor ? The astronaut would no longer be protected from the dangerous effects of solar radiation on the Moon . "Other solar radiation, particularly ultraviolet rays may cause severe sunburn in a few seconds." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_adaptation_to_space Duane The section of the Wiki article you quoted from referred to physiological effects of astronauts completely unprotected while in the vacuum of space, i.e. no spacesuit or helmet. An astronaut raising his sun visor would still be protected from UV light by two things: his protective visor, and his pressure helmet. Both were made of Lexan, which is quite opaque to UV light below 385nm. EDIT: the visors used by astronauts during EVAs on the ISS are quite similar. Check out the following image. One astronaut has his gold visor partially raised, the other doesn't. There are plenty of other images of ISS EVAs showing astronauts with the gold visor raised. You might want to let your Youtube buddy Mr Magoo know about this, because he's using footage from the film Deep Impact as "scientific proof" that the Apollo astronauts would have been blinded by the sun. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kkRG3EaEGfk http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images...088-702-024.jpg

I think it more likely he was killed by Deja Vu.

Internet etiquette - netiquette. Upper case is good for highlighting certain words or phrases, but using it on entire passages is considered the equivalent of shouting, and makes it more difficult to read. I've already answered the question. It would have been nice to have that as part of the historical record, and it would help to know the reasoning behind the decision (weight considerations was speculation on my part, but one that makes sense). Perhaps it could have been possible to set up the camera they used later to monitor the cabin during lift off. Do I find it highly strange? No. Do I wish we had the footage? Yes. GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?