NASA Moon Tapes Lost--Then Found Again?! Are They Covering Up UFOs? Did NASA Hoax Science and Fake Moon Landings?
skep...@aol.com
Apollo Lunar Landing Videotape Mystery
"The [lunar landing] tapes aren't lost, says the NASA official in
charge of the search. But he doesn't know where they are." --
Seattle Times/Associated Press
How did NASA manage to lose the original high-quality videotapes
of the first lunar landing and all of the Apollo missions? The
historic Apollo videotapes have recently been found again, according
to news reports and a press release on the NASA website, and "15
key moments" were shown recently for the first time at the Newseum
in Washington, DC. Yet the new clips shown raise more questions
than they answer.
Almost exactly 40 years ago, on July 20, 1969, NASA's first
successful
moon landing brought us those famous words from Apollo 11's Neil
Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon, "That's one small
step for man, one giant leap for mankind." A huge milestone in the
history of mankind had been crossed.
Yet for all the importance of this amazing feat, somehow NASA claims
that the original high-quality video tapes went missing. As revealed
in a report by the Seattle Times/Associated Press nearly two years
ago:
NASA said Tuesday it was launching an official search for more than
13,000 original tapes of the historic Apollo moon missions.
Everything
from all 11 missions from launch to splashdown is on the videos.
What's missing are the never-before-broadcast clear original videos,
not the grainy converted pictures the world watched on television.
The tapes aren't lost, says the NASA official in charge of the
search. But he doesn't know where they are. The original video,
taken directly from the moon and beamed to deep space network
observatories in Australia, has never been seen by the general
public or even NASA officials.
How could NASA lose vital documentation from one of the most
important
events in human history? Wouldn't NASA scientists have been dying
to pour over these high quality images and investigate every aspect
of the lunar surface in the images? Yet according to this article,
NASA officials never even saw the original footage. Why not? And
why weren't these landmark videos made available to all interested
back in 1969?
As mentioned above, NASA claims that the tapes were recently found.
An intriguing report in the U.K.'s Daily Express on June 28th stated
"The Sunday Express can now reveal that the missing tapes containing
the original high quality images have been found." Yet strangely,
a Google search reveals Fox News was the only other media outlet
to report on this important finding. Yet NASA then later confirmed
the finding with their July 13th press release stating some greatly
improved moon landing videos would be released. Now comes the even
more bizarre news today from this Reuters report:
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40
years ago were erased and re-used. They were part of a batch of
200,000 tapes that were degaussed - magnetically erased - and re-used
to save money. But newly restored copies of the original broadcast
look even better. NASA released the first glimpses of a complete
digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies
the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin
walking on the surface of the moon.
The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-
based
Lowry Digital, will be released in September. Lowry, best known for
restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with
some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original
landing. The preview is available at www.nasa.gov.
What's going on here? NASA loses the tapes of one of the most
important landmark events in human history. Then they find them,
but parts have been erased to save money. And now Hollywood is being
paid to restore the videos.
How could anyone allow these historic tapes to be erased to save
money? How could they even have been lost in the first place? I
don't doubt that the Apollo missions went to the moon, but there
does appear to be some kind of cover-up and manipulation going on
here.
Hundreds of military and government witnesses have gone on record
claiming a major cover-up around UFOs. Among them are a former chief
of the CIA, the former chiefs of defense of the UK and Canada, and
two NASA astronauts, including Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to
walk on the moon. Could the moon landing video tapes have contained
some images with UFOs or other objects that they didn't want the
public to see?
What you can do:
a.. Inform your media and political representatives of this important
information. To contact those close to you, click here. Urge them
to explore what's really going on with the NASA moon landing tapes
and the UFO question.
b.. Read concise summaries of revealing major media reports on UFOs
available here.
c.. Explore other fascinating, well researched articles suggesting
a UFO cover-up at this link.
d.. Learn more about the intriguing UFO question and its implications
in this powerful lesson from the free Hidden Knowledge Course.
e.. Visit our UFO Information Center at www.WantToKnow.info/ufoinformation.
f.. Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and spread the
word on by email and on websites, so that we can fill the role at
which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a
difference.
Posted April 19, 2009
Article written by Fred Burks for PEERS and the WantToKnow.info
Team. Fred served as personal language interpreter to Clinton, Bush,
Cheney, Gore, and other top dignitaries in secret meetings. As part
of an international network of researchers and news analysts, Fred
obtains and disseminates key, reliable information about powerful,
yet little-known forces which shape our world. For more of his
articles, click here.
Final Note: WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance
disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which
call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive
change. Please visit our Inspiration Center at
http://www.WantToKnow.info/inspirational for an abundance of
uplifting
material.
See our archive of revealing news articles at
www.WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles
Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly
to support this important work.
To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order:
www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk
Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the
nonprofit
PEERS network:
www.peerservice.org - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration,
education, & empowerment www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the
world has a heart www.personalgrowthcourses.net - Dynamic online
courses powerfully expand your horizons www.WantToKnow.info -
Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups www.weboflove.org
- Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
To respond to this message, visit www.WantToKnow.info/contactus.php
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one
email every few days):
Monica
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/apollo_lunar_landing_videotapes
> uplifting
> material.
>
> See our archive of revealing news articles atwww.WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles
>
> Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly
> to support this important work.
>
> To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order:
>
> www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk
>
> Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the
> nonprofit
> PEERS network:
>
> education, & empowermentwww.momentoflove.org- Every person in the
> world has a heartwww.personalgrowthcourses.net- Dynamic online
> courses powerfully expand your horizonswww.WantToKnow.info-
> Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-upswww.weboflove.org
> - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
>
> To respond to this message, visitwww.WantToKnow.info/contactus.php
> To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one
> email every few days):
>
> www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe
It's called Disinformation.
mozark
You're starting to give a bad name to conspiracy theorists
everywhere. :-)
This ridiculous scenario would've cost more than actually landing on
the moon. So WTF?
Swillabrew
news:a025f5c8-b428-49b3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
And can we get an "OT"?
Go Blazers !
skep...@aol.com
But the United States couldn't land men on the moon because of the
radiation in the Van Allen belts.
Father Haskell
What type of radiation? Gamma? X-ray?
Father Haskell
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/apollo_lunar_landing_videotapes
>
>
> "The [lunar landing] tapes aren't lost, says the NASA official in
> charge of the search. But he doesn't know where they are." --
> Seattle Times/Associated Press
>
> How did NASA manage to lose the original high-quality videotapes
> of the first lunar landing and all of the Apollo missions? The
> historic Apollo videotapes have recently been found again, according
> to news reports and a press release on the NASA website, and "15
> key moments" were shown recently for the first time at the Newseum
> in Washington, DC. Yet the new clips shown raise more questions
> than they answer.
I guess the missing chapters from the xian bible
prove xianity is a crock, too.
...
> Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly
> to support this important work.
>
> To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order:
(snip addy)
But of course...
mozark
> radiation in the Van Allen belts.
Van Allen belts? Didn't Eddie Zachary used to sell those?
SonicsR1/WAB
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/apollo_lunar_landing_videotapes
>
Have you ever mentioned this...
Despite being in the shadow, look how clearly the front of his
spacesuit is compared to the shadow on the ground which blacks out the
surface of the moon.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg
Look at the angle of two shadows in the foreground. If you extend them
they will meet which can't happen with one light source (the sun)
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5961.jpg
Does anyone find it strange that you can clearly read "United State"
even though it's in the shadow.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg
hahahahahaha
Dewey
a3a6-b29...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
I was present when astronomers at UCSD shot a laser at the prism
Armstrong placed on the moon. We could see the reflection in a
telescope. That would be really hard to fake. BTW, the mirror is a 3-
corner reflector designed to reflect light back in the incident
direction no matter what direction that is. If they could fake that, it
would be far out.
--
"I talked to God about that and he was like, 'No.'"
- Joe The Plumber, hearing the voices
raven1
You'd think that the Soviets would have pointed that out if it were
the case.
$Bill
Been explained:
* The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The
spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the
astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium
hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory
from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize
radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the
Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels
were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average
dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation
received by living at sea level for three years. The
spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes
and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and a half. The
astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft.
The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed
for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.
* The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the
Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six
Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth
orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be
caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.
However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least
thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of
those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar
missions.
Gary Rosen
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:9r6s65dbtvidhq1kb...@4ax.com...
This is a common mistake in dealing with septic, that "thinking" is
involved in any way.
- Gary Rosen
$Bill
> On Jul 27, 12:53 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/apollo_lunar_landing_videotapes
>>
>> Apollo Lunar Landing Videotape Mystery
>
> Have you ever mentioned this...
>
> Despite being in the shadow, look how clearly the front of his
> spacesuit is compared to the shadow on the ground which blacks out the
> surface of the moon.
> http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg
Duh - it's white! The moon's surface reflects light in all directions
and anything white is going to pop.
> Look at the angle of two shadows in the foreground. If you extend them
> they will meet which can't happen with one light source (the sun)
> http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5961.jpg
I think I've seen an explanation of this phenomena, but I don't remember
what it was. Light on the moon plays some strange tricks. If the sun
were almost directly overhead, something like this could easily occur.
We would need a perspective picture from behind this to be sure.
> Does anyone find it strange that you can clearly read "United State"
> even though it's in the shadow.
> http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg
See above.
Mario
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/apollo_lunar_landing_videotapes
>
> uplifting
> material.
>
> See our archive of revealing news articles atwww.WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles
>
> Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly
> to support this important work.
>
> To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order:
>
> www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk
>
> Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the
> nonprofit
> PEERS network:
>
> education, & empowermentwww.momentoflove.org- Every person in the
> world has a heartwww.personalgrowthcourses.net- Dynamic online
> courses powerfully expand your horizonswww.WantToKnow.info-
> Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-upswww.weboflove.org
> - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
>
> To respond to this message, visitwww.WantToKnow.info/contactus.php
> To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one
> email every few days):
>
> www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe
Hey Skep. What is with you? Do you enjoy being ridiculed?
skep...@aol.com
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT), "skepti...@aol.com"
>
> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 1:11 pm, mozark <swoon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dude, come on!
>
> >> You're starting to give a bad name to conspiracy theorists
> >> everywhere. :-)
>
> >> This ridiculous scenario would've cost more than actually landing on
> >> the moon. So WTF?
>
> >But the United States couldn't land men on the moon because of the
> >radiation in the Van Allen belts.
>
> You'd think that the Soviets would have pointed that out if it were
> the case.
ENVIRONMENT radiation and the van allen belts
"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." -- Dr. James Van Allen
If you have not yet read the radiation primer, you are invited to do
so. There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space
travel.This general charge is usually made by people who don't
understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the
horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is
not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively
fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of
radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable
problem to avoid radiation exposure. It doesn't matter how difficult
or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since
it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the
landings had to have been faked.This is a common method of argument
that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving
something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the
conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities,
simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-
fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative
to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come
to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past
healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems
plausible. The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly
impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so
conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various
sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote
frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to
try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly
threat. But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about
radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people
in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can
simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy. The Van Allen belts
are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be
fried.Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there
is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that
radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make
suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is
high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against.
And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts
of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them
quickly, limiting the exposure. The Van Allen belts span only about
forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below
the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory
printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend
to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The
actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports
of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public,
give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory. Each
mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its
landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast
trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way,
the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined
to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that
trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts. This
is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be
dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to
investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the
repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an
intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10
astronauts. NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern
Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the
more intense parts of the belts.True, but the point was to validate
the scientific models using hard data, and to ascertain that a
spacecraft hull would indeed attenuate the radiation as predicted. We
know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic
Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each
orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo
astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van
Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]This is exactly the opposite of the
recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each
90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of
8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a
matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must
be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over
several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has
time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation. A
short, intense exposure is safer than continuous or periodic exposure
at lower intensity.
Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more
intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days
of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than
days of accumulated low-level exposure. The four-hour figure is
reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in
flux and energy, it's not as if there's a clearly demarcated boundary.
It's a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases
from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?
It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from
the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this
amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts
adequate protection.The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many
conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the
definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead
would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in
excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van
Allen belts. While such drastic measures are needed to shield against
intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the
nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the
Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy
electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of
the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced. Metals can be used to shield
against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance.
Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various
substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen
radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of
the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation
shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for
structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better
than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic
number, the less Bremsstrahlung. The notion that only vast amounts of
a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a
good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation
case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding
against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to
attempt to do it! Official NASA documents describing the pre-Apollo
studies of the Van Allen belts clearly state that shielding was
recommended for the Apollo spacecraft, yet no shielding was provided.
[Mary Bennett and David Percy]"Shielding" does not always mean thick
slabs of dense material.
Commensurate with the common perception of radiation as an inescapably
deadly force is the notion of radiation shielding as universally heavy
and dense. Percy and others seem to rely on the notion that radiation
shielding, if present, would have been very conspicuous -- or
prohibitively bulky. As discussed in the previous question, shielding
against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say
that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to
ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the
principles of radiation shielding. And it must be kept in mind that
shielding was only one element of a multi-pronged solution for safely
traversing the Van Allen belts. It was never intended that the
shielding in the command module would provide the only protection for
the astronauts. The shielding was adequate to protect the astronauts
against the circumstances of the trajectory and exposure duration
worked out by the mission planners. NASA apologists come up with
different numbers for estimates of the exposure in the Van Allen
belts. This suggests they really don't know what they're talking
about. [Mary Bennett and David Percy]All the estimates we've seen lie
within the same order of magnitude and generally outline a plausible
method of computation. This stands in contrast to the conspiracist
estimates which generally have no quantitative support. Computing the
precise exposure for Apollo astronauts is very difficult. That's why
the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure the actual exposure. The
factors involved in computing expected exposure analytically include:
Exact trajectory. The Van Allen belts are not uniformly shaped. They
have thick and thin spots. And the level of radiation is not constant
at all points. Toward the center of the belt cross sections there is
more radiation than at the edges. Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know
the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van
Allen belts. But they know that they don't know this, and so they
frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed
through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of
overestimating the exposure. Exact velocity. Exposure time is very
important to a correct computation of radiation dosage. Because the
velocity of the spacecraft is constantly changing, the same ambiguity
which governs the geometry of the trajectory also governs the rate at
which it is followed. And most enthusiasts (and all conspiracists)
lack the information and skill to precisely determine the velocity of
the spacecraft during the Van Allen belt traversal, and therefore the
exposure time. Exact energy and flux. In any given cubic meter of the
Van Allen belts there will be a soup of particles at various energy
levels and fluences. Energy describes the velocity of the particle,
how far it will penetrate, and how much damage it will do if it hits
something. Flux is the density of particles, how many of them pass
through a given area in a second. Generally, the higher the energy the
lower the flux. Low-energy particles (i.e., protons 30 MeV and below)
can be ignored because they do not penetrate the spacecraft outer
hull. But at each point along the trajectory through the Van Allen
belts there is a different continuum of flux and energy. It requires a
lot of mathematics to fully solve this system. And since some of the
variables are hard to determine, they're typically approximated.
Probabilistic factors. Even should a high-energy particle penetrate
the spacecraft hull to the interior, it will only cause problems in
the human organism if it is absorbed in tissue. It is possible for the
particles to pass through the body without colliding, in which case
they are harmless. The human body varies in density. Particles are
more likely to collide with dense tissue like bone. The amount of
absorbed radiation is a statistical probability based on how much
radiation is detected by dosimeters. To summarize then, a fully
accurate analytical solution must first determine the exact trajectory
of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This will give a
continuous function describing particle flux and energy at each point
along the trajectory. At each point in the trajectory we will have a
function giving flux per given energy level. So a 100 MeV proton will
have, say, a flux of 20,000 particles per square centimeter per second
at that point in space. But for other energy levels the flux will be
different at the same point. The total irradiation inside a spacecraft
will be the sum of all the fluences at energies capable of penetrating
the hull and shielding. And at each point along the trajectory the
velocity of the spacecraft must be determined so it can be known how
much time the spacecraft spends at that point. This is multiplied by
the conglomeration of fluences to arrive at a dose. This dose is
simply the amount of radiation present. It must be converted to a
meaningful value that describes its likely effect on human tissue.
Again, energy and fluence come into play, because low-energy particles
(but still high enough to penetrate the shield) are likely to
accumulated in the outer layers of the skin and cause damage which is
sloughed off harmlessly. High-energy particles are absorbed in the
bones and internal organs, causing much greater injury. The procedure
for analytically computing a radiation dose is simple enough in
principle as outlined above, but of course is very difficult to
actually carry out. This is why engineers generally don't try to
compute the dosage to any great degree of accuracy ahead of time. They
are happy simply to arrive at an order of magnitude which provides
adequate design criteria. The actual radiation exposure is always
measured, not computed. So then was it measured on Apollo?Yes. Each
astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each
astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.
New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed stronger
and more dangerous than NASA says. [Bart Sibrel]Sibrel misinterprets
the source article published by CNN. It was reported only that the Van
Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than
previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement
of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and
must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have
implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since
these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts
for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra
polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory
exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a
negligible hazard. Sibrel and others argue that NASA has under-
reported the intensity of the Van Allen belts for many years as part
of a cover-up. They argue that the real magnitude of the radiation is
now being made known, and that it's strong enough to have precluded a
successful Apollo mission. Unfortunately that's a very naive argument.
The United States has never been the only spacefaring nation, nor the
only nation ever to study the Van Allen belts. Canada provide valuable
data to the Apollo project, and the USSR duplicated all the U.S.
research, and may even have conducted more. For thirty years the same
body of engineering data used to produce the Apollo spacecraft has
been used by all nations in designing communication satellites,
probes, and other devices intended to operate in and beyond the Van
Allen belts. If this data had seriously under-reported the actual
radiation present, the spacecraft engineered to those standards would
all have failed prematurely due to radiation damage. This is a very
important point since it involves the financial interests (to the tune
of billions of dollars!) of countries with no special desire to
protect the reputation of the United States. Had this data been
seriously wrong, someone surely would have complained by now.
Satellites are insured against premature loss, and the insurers want
to make sure the spacecraft are engineered to the best possible
standards. There is immense worldwide economic incentive to having the
best available data on the Van Allen belts, so it's highly improbable
the the U.S. has been intentionally providing erroneous data to the
entire world for thirty years. An orbital nuclear detonation in 1962
code-named Starfish Prime created a third Van Allen belt composed of
high-energy electrons. This belt was a hundred times more intense than
the existing Van Allen belts and was computed to have a half-life of
20 years. [Bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 309]
Fig. 1 - The aurora produced by the Starfish Prime high-altitude
nuclear detonation.
The authors give no reference for the claim that this artificial
radiation belt was "a hundred times" more "intense" than the naturally-
occurring belts. Nor do they define what is meant by "intense". The
Starfish Prime test did in fact produce a temporary artificial
radiation belt, and it's true that this belt persisted longer than
anticipated. But it was not an impediment to the Apollo missions
because it had dissipated to a safe level by then, and was very small
(and easily avoided) to start with. Radioactive half-life applies to
radioisotopes only. It does not apply to clouds of magnetically-
retained charged particles. The authors imply that their theory is
confirmed by expert authors, but in fact the author they cite
discusses only the general concept of radioactive half-life. Bennett
and Percy are responsible for having misapplied it to this problem.
Radioactive half-life and particle belts have nothing at all to do
with each other. The dispersal of this belt doesn't have anything to
do with radioactive decay, and a great deal to do with solar weather
and shifting magnetic fields. The authors argue that such a radiation
belt would still be highly intense to this day. However they have
shown no evidence that any of the radiation from Starfish Prime is
still there. Instead they refer to irrelevant scientific principles
and claim it "must" still be there. A secret study done by the Soviet
Union and obtained by the CIA determined that a meter of lead would be
required to shield against deep space radiation.Many conspiracists
allude to this alleged report, but none of them can attest to actually
having seen it. Since they can argue the alleged report is closely
held by the CIA and therefore still top secret, the conspiracists are
protected from refutation. No one can prove the non-existence of any
document, much less one that is allegedly classified by an
intelligence agency. Unfortunately it's more straightforward to note
that the conspiracists cannot expect the world to accept an argument
based on evidence which they cannot produce. If it's so top secret,
how do they know about it? It's fairly easy to show that such a
document likely does not exist. We know that great thicknesses of lead
are not required to shield against particle radiation. We know that
Soviet science and engineering were excellent. We note with no small
amusement and no small suspicion that the conclusion of the alleged
report contradicts the commonly accepted principles of physics, and
that it instead bears a striking resemblance to the naive assertions
of inexpert conspiracy theorists who claim that only thick sheets of
lead are suitable for radiation shielding. The alleged report is
plausible to the lay reader but utterly unconvincing to the scientist.
The Soviet lunar spacecraft design demonstrates they did not believe a
meter or two of lead was required to shield against radiation.
History provides the final proof. Had the Soviets actually believed
that great thicknesses of material were required to shield against
radiation, they would have questioned the design of the Apollo
spacecraft. The spacecraft clearly did not provide a meter of lead
shielding, yet NASA claims it successfully traversed the Van Allen
belts. Yet the Soviets acknowledged then and continue to acknowledge
today that the Apollo program was a clear success. In recent years the
Western world has been able to examine the Soviet spacecraft design
which was to have carried cosmonauts to the moon. They did not provide
a meter of lead for their spacecraft either. Soviet cosmonauts have
been quoted as saying radiation was a very grave concern.And NASA
officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing.
Radiation is a very great concern, but there's a vast difference
between a "concern" and an insurmountable obstacle. The conspiracist
argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and
nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that
these problems couldn't have been solved.
skep...@aol.com
> "raven1" <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9r6s65dbtvidhq1kb...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT), "skepti...@aol.com"
> > <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>But the United States couldn't land men on the moon because of the
> >>radiation in the Van Allen belts.
>
> > You'd think that the Soviets would have pointed that out if it were
> > the case.
>
> This is a common mistake in dealing with septic, that "thinking" is
> involved in any way.
>
> - Gary Rosen
Aren't these exciting questions to chew on and talk about with other
people, to share things and learn new information?
skep...@aol.com
> > uplifting
> > material.
>
> > See our archive of revealing news articles atwww.WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles
>
> > Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly
> > to support this important work.
>
> > To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order:
>
> >www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk
>
> > Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the
> > nonprofit
> > PEERS network:
>
> > education, & empowermentwww.momentoflove.org-Every person in the
> > world has a heartwww.personalgrowthcourses.net-Dynamic online
> > courses powerfully expand your horizonswww.WantToKnow.info-
> > Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-upswww.weboflove.org
> > - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
>
> > To respond to this message, visitwww.WantToKnow.info/contactus.php
> > To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one
> > email every few days):
>
> >www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't control whether people are disrespectful or not.
These are questions and topics are on my mind.
It is a valuable use of time to throw these topics around.
jemcd
Or perhaps misinformation?
Tim McGaughy
Nonono. He meant the Van Halen belts, zones of intense radio signals
containing some of the most lethally obnoxious music known to man.
Michael Fletcher
> It's called Disinformation.
How's the sexism coming along over on alt.native?
skep...@aol.com
Van Helsing belts, once one by Frankenstein, Dracula and the Wolfman.
Michael Fletcher
Obnoxious!?
Okay, maybe some. But Eddie VH created some of the tastiest riffs ever
despite being burdened with more chops than he could possibly need.
Most guys with his technique sound like note factories. EVH was a good
composer.
But yeah, I guess a Van Halen belt could be pretty deadly.
Tim McGaughy
You're forgetting that the negative effects of the David Lee Roth signal
far outweigh any good effects.
raven1
You might benefit from that.
raven1
>On Jul 27, 2:27�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT), "skepti...@aol.com"
>>
>> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 27, 1:11�pm, mozark <swoon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Dude, come on!
>>
>> >> You're starting to give a bad name to conspiracy theorists
>> >> everywhere. :-)
>>
>> >> This ridiculous scenario would've cost more than actually landing on
>> >> the moon. So WTF?
>>
>> >But the United States couldn't land men on the moon because of the
>> >radiation in the Van Allen belts.
>>
>> You'd think that the Soviets would have pointed that out if it were
>> the case.
OK, so now you're refuting your own posts. Did you have a point?
bozak
whats next, raul mata, john tolas, and freddie blassie smack???
mozark
>
> whats next, raul mata, john tolas, and freddie blassie smack???
LOL
We're so old. . .
Father Haskell
> SonicsR1/WAB wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 12:53 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/apollo_lunar_landing_videotapes
>
>
> > Have you ever mentioned this...
>
> > Despite being in the shadow, look how clearly the front of his
> > spacesuit is compared to the shadow on the ground which blacks out the
> > surface of the moon.
> >http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg
>
> Duh - it's white! The moon's surface reflects light in all directions
> and anything white is going to pop.
>
> > Look at the angle of two shadows in the foreground. If you extend them
> > they will meet which can't happen with one light source (the sun)
> >http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5961.jpg
>
> I think I've seen an explanation of this phenomena, but I don't remember
> what it was. Light on the moon plays some strange tricks. If the sun
> were almost directly overhead, something like this could easily occur.
> We would need a perspective picture from behind this to be sure.
Focal length of the camera lens needs to be considered.
I would *expect* a wide angle setting was used, since
the resulting greater depth of field saves a gloved
photographer much dicking around with focus.
Multiple light sources are highly unlikely here, since
their overlap would diminish or even kill each others'
shadows.
skep...@aol.com
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT), "skepti...@aol.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 2:27 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT), "skepti...@aol.com"
>
> >> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 27, 1:11 pm, mozark <swoon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Dude, come on!
>
> >> >> You're starting to give a bad name to conspiracy theorists
> >> >> everywhere. :-)
>
> >> >> This ridiculous scenario would've cost more than actually landing on
> >> >> the moon. So WTF?
>
> >> >But the United States couldn't land men on the moon because of the
> >> >radiation in the Van Allen belts.
>
> >> You'd think that the Soviets would have pointed that out if it were
> >> the case.
>
> OK, so now you're refuting your own posts. Did you have a point?
I'm adding information to the thread for readers to learn from in that
post, not necessarily promoting my argument.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gary Rosen
"mozark" <swoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a025f5c8-b428-49b3...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Dude, come on!
>
> You're starting to give a bad name to conspiracy theorists
> everywhere. :-)
>
> This ridiculous scenario would've cost more than actually landing on
> the moon. So WTF?
septic's mind was lost and they never found it ... no wait, that implies
he had a mind to begin with.
- Gary Rosen
skep...@aol.com
> "mozark" <swoon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
More items on the block in the face of NASA's claims of having imaged
the lunar platform. In Wisnewski's book, One Small Step, numerous
items are clarified. One of them is the astonishing accuracy record
of accurate landings of the Apollo missions. At a time when the
speed of re-entry increased significantly, when the angle and degree
of re-entry into the atmosphere became extremely critical, the
accuracy of splashdown landings increased by more than ten fold.
The graph denoting the accuracy increase change is very shocking.
The Gemini missions (the orbital ones) in which it was just a matter
of casually re-entering the atmosphere at a carefully chosen moment,
even with options on when to do it, found the landings sometimes close
and sometimes very far from the intended landing sites near the
receiving vessels.
Variances of 50-100 kilometers were common.
But the angle of re-entry coming from the moon had to be hit on a
gnats ass with no margin for error, just to avoid burning up or
skipping out of the atmosphere like a pebble over the surface of a
pond, never to return again. The return speed from the moon was much
faster than orbital speed. Entering too straight on would cause
certain burn-up in the atmosphere. The window for proper re-entry
angle alone was very narrow. This narrow angle had to be hit with
very little control for adjustments - adjustments which would have had
to have been made tens of thousands of miles out with those little
attitude adjustment thrusters. So being able to pick a special place
to land in the ocean was not really a part of the equasion - it would
have been more about just getting successfully down to earth hopefully
in the ocean.
But instead of the landings being far more off-the-mark from the ideal
landing zone than the earlier Gemini missions, they were spot on. All
of em. In other words, they were obviously dropped from air cargo
planes as acknowledged by one trans-continental pilot who witnessed
such an event. (Name withheld for obvious reasons)