An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by Darkmind

Please put up some proof that there was a major solar event during the Apollo 11 flight, because otherwise you're not very convincing.

It was on the 16 th mison.
It was an interview with the physicists it was on fox chanel apart from the conspiracy.
Further more i find your argument inconsistent and hold my opinion, it was a hoax.
Here why dont you research before posting silly words.
Here is something regarding him shownig he is not fiction.
leadbelly.lanl.gov...


[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Ah yes, the Fox network - a true wealth of information
Another 'enlightened' individual joins the 'cause' of chaos.
Oh and I'm sorry, you seem to have missed my previous post...
Here is an article, contributed to as well by your Geoff Reeves - the solar flares were inbetween missions..

quote: During the Apollo program, there were several near-misses between the astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon and a deadly solar storm event. The Apollo 12 astronauts walked on the Moon only a few short weeks after a major solar proton flare would have bathed the astronauts in a 100 rem blast of radiation. Another major flare that occurred half way between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 moonwalks would have had a much more deadly outcome had it arrived while astronauts were outside their spacecraft playing golf. Within a few minutes, the astronauts would have been killed on the spot with an incredible 7000 rem blast of radiation.
sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 9-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Darkmind

Please put up some proof that there was a major solar event during the Apollo 11 flight, because otherwise you're not very convincing.

It was on the 16 th mison.
It was an interview with the physicists it was on fox chanel apart from the conspiracy.
Further more i find your argument inconsistent and hold my opinion, it was a hoax.

I feel a Victor Meldrew groan coming on... The Fox Channel? Are you joking?? Taking anything from the Fox Channel seriously, is, well, not advised. Their political slant is crude and their sensationalistic attitude even cruder.
As for my arguments, they are not inconsistent at all, and I am rather bewildered as to why you would think so. I'll make my position perfectly clear - Mankind went to the moon with the Apollo programme. Then we came back. End of story.

Originally posted by Darkmind

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Darkmind

Please put up some proof that there was a major solar event during the Apollo 11 flight, because otherwise you're not very convincing.

It was on the 16 th mison.
It was an interview with the physicists it was on fox chanel apart from the conspiracy.
Further more i find your argument inconsistent and hold my opinion, it was a hoax.

I feel a Victor Meldrew groan coming on... The Fox Channel? Are you joking?? Taking anything from the Fox Channel seriously, is, well, not advised. Their political slant is crude and their sensationalistic attitude even cruder.
As for my arguments, they are not inconsistent at all, and I am rather bewildered as to why you would think so. I'll make my position perfectly clear - Mankind went to the moon with the Apollo programme. Then we came back. End of story.

I rather lisen to a physician than to your argument or have you been atending class are you a physics profesor
And about them playng golf and moonwalking on the 16 mision your right
it would of killed them on the spot thats why they never went there.
If you fake one you can fake all of them.

Here you go is he still a figure of my imagination why dont you read the page
leadbelly.lanl.gov...


[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
I rather lisen to a physician than to your argument or have you been atending class are you a physics profesor

And about them playng golf and moonwalking on the 16 mision your right
it would of killed them on the spot thats why they never went there.
If you fake one you can fake all of them.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Nope, I just have a degree in history, a nose for politics and current affairs and a job as a journalist, making me a nosy parker. I have also taken the time to look at the arguments and realise that the Hoax position is full of holes. Did you read the previous post? About the fact that the solar activity took place between Apollos 16 and 17?

Originally posted by Darkmind

Originally posted by pepsi78
I rather lisen to a physician than to your argument or have you been atending class are you a physics profesor

And about them playng golf and moonwalking on the 16 mision your right
it would of killed them on the spot thats why they never went there.
If you fake one you can fake all of them.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Nope, I just have a degree in history, a nose for politics and current affairs and a job as a journalist, making me a nosy parker. I have also taken the time to look at the arguments and realise that the Hoax position is full of holes. Did you read the previous post? About the fact that the solar activity took place between Apollos 16 and 17?

Not acording to him .Should i lisen to a physicist who keeps trak of this kind of things and know very well what they are or should i lisen to you.
Acording to him it was on the 16 th mision so i am going to give him credit.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78


Not acording to him .Should i lisen to a physicist who keeps trak of this kind of things and know very well what they are or should i lisen to you.
Acording to him it was on the 16 th mision so i am going to give him credit.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Neither actually, I think that you should listen to the guys quoted towards the bottom of this article: www.firstscience.com...
who make it clear that the solar flare happened between Apollo 16 and 17. They sound as if they know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by Darkmind

Originally posted by pepsi78


Not acording to him .Should i lisen to a physicist who keeps trak of this kind of things and know very well what they are or should i lisen to you.
Acording to him it was on the 16 th mision so i am going to give him credit.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Neither actually, I think that you should listen to the guys quoted towards the bottom of this article: www.firstscience.com...
who make it clear that the solar flare happened between Apollo 16 and 17. They sound as if they know what they're talking about.

Look you can belive what you want but i know what i have herd from this guy in his own words saing it was imposible and that the solar explosion
was on the 16 th mison.



If you are happy to think man went on the moon belive so but i will just hold my opinion.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Here you go is he still a figure of my imagination why dont you read the page
leadbelly.lanl.gov...


[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I am aware of his, I asked about Renay - can't you read? (Rhetorical question)

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by pepsi78
Here you go is he still a figure of my imagination why dont you read the page
leadbelly.lanl.gov...


[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I am aware of his, I asked about Renay - can't you read? (Rhetorical question)

What do you want a picture of him on the fox chanel?
I got one and he sustains the same opinion of Reeves.
What would i gain by lieing to you, nothing.
You just have to get your hands on the documentary it is all over the internet.
you will see that the two of them have the same opinion.

And lets get something settled. Apollo 16 was in April 1972. Apollo 17 was in December 1972. There were two large solar flares that year, at the start of August. And here's a link about the storm (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get to it): www.spenvis.oma.be...

QED.

Pepsi,

you have not proven that it happened during apollo 16.

As I posted it happend for about 10 days in Aug 1972, they call it the 'seahorse' flare cause the picture


looks kinda like a sea horse.

anyway apollo 16 had returned in April 1972, and apollo 17 left in December 1972. Giveing a few months on either side. If this professor says that it happened during Apollo 16 then he would be disagreeing with the entire astronimical community.

Hubble would have to focus on the area around " Area 51 " to confirm the site that was on the Nasa photos

Originally posted by Darkmind
And lets get something settled. Apollo 16 was in April 1972. Apollo 17 was in December 1972. There were two large solar flares that year, at the start of August. And here's a link about the storm (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get to it): www.spenvis.oma.be...

QED.

This is not what this man is saing.



Isnt he a scientist and and isnt the other guy Geoffrey D. Reeves a expert
on what hapens in space with radiation.
And the two of them sustain it hapened on the date of the mision are we to asume that the two of them are just a bunch of idiots and are loons for makeing such statements?Man who dedicate their life to studing such events.


Here to for a opinion on how the belt looks with out solar exlosions added to it.
Even walkin pass that it would render siknes on them and hard burns.




And here to see how radiation acts even if it does not kill you.



And to think the astronauts did not show a sign of what so ever beeing sick or not a single burn.

I dont see how i can change my opinion your arguments are inconsistent
has i told you.
The moon missions are a ferry tail
[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Darkmind
And lets get something settled. Apollo 16 was in April 1972. Apollo 17 was in December 1972. There were two large solar flares that year, at the start of August. And here's a link about the storm (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get to it): www.spenvis.oma.be...

QED.

This is not what this man is saing.



Isnt he a scientist and and isnt the other guy Geoffrey D. Reeves a expert
on what hapens in space with radiation.
And the two of them sustain it hapened on the date of the mision are we to asume that the two of them are just a bunch of idiots and are loons for makeing such statements?Man who dedicate their life to studing such events.


Here to for a opinion on how the belt looks with out solar exlosions added to it.
Even walkin pass that it would render siknes on them and hard burns.




And here to see how radiation acts even if it does not kill you.



And to think the astronauts did not show a sign of what so ever beeing sick or not a single burn.

I dont see how i can change my opinion your arguments are inconsistent
has i told you.
The moon missions are a ferry tail
[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I've never heard these men speak, so they might be saying that the Easter Bunny exists as well. The dates are a matter of public record - maybe they have their wires crossed or have misremembered. The 'seahorse' solar flare (nice pic by the way Half) took place at the start of August 1972. A major sun spot erupted on August 2 and kept blowing off for ten days. Google it if you like. Go and check it out like I did, placing the links up here on my previous posts. It was a huge solar flare. And it happened in August. Apollo 16 was in April. Apollo 17 was in December. There were no other major events that year on the same scale, as large as the August events. Papers were written about them, because they were so large. As for the two people you have mentioned, Moon hoax 'experts' tend to blur the truth, if not bend it completely. They also have a habit of ignoring opposing evidence. There was no major solar flare during Apollo 16. But there was in August 1972. I think it likely that your two 'experts' are indulging in wishful thinking. Plus, again, FOX NEWS???? Give me a break!

Oh and one last thing. Those pictures are of the Northern lights, not the Van Allen Belt, and of what appear to be Japanese atom bomb victims. Not a valid connection.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Darkmind]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Darkmind]

Originally posted by pepsi78
I am aware of his, I asked about Renay - can't you read? (Rhetorical question)

What do you want a picture of him on the fox chanel?
I got one and he sustains the same opinion of Reeves.
What would i gain by lieing to you, nothing.
You just have to get your hands on the documentary it is all over the internet.
you will see that the two of them have the same opinion.

I just have checked and they say (on the solar flare):

Reeve says:

A magnetic storm will come along and that can increase the intensity of the radiation belts by maybe a thousand times above what it was before

Rene says

Around the rotating Sun comes this intense flare, the biggest one of the 20th century. It went on for 3 or 4 days, all the while slowly rotating.

It's actually the narrator that says Rene said it was during the mission - you'd think if this was true they would show footage of him saying it. Nothing that they said implies that this was the case during the mission at all - and I doubt Reeves at least would say it.

Like the narrator you are putting words in their mouths.
It still surprises me how many people fall for the trick of a narrator, some clips of interviews out of context and some dramatic music. People that fall for that and refuse to listen to real facts deserve everything coming to them.



[edit on 9-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Nortern light above 500 miles above earth atmosfear?
Okay i get it every one is seeing what they want to see.
I got my opinion on the radiation belt and you got yours.

Agent smith what more do you want the guy doing the documentary
is quoting exactly like this:acordind to Renay the apolo 16 mision coincided with one of the suns intense storms ever recorded.


Of course he was makeing a link to the mision why else would he mention
about it in this docuemntary why in the world would he talk about it in this documentary.
"Around the rotating Sun comes this intense flare, the biggest one of the 20th century. It went on for 3 or 4 days, all the while slowly rotating."

But let's move on
Since the lunar module never moved has nasa claims how do we
explain the the lunar module is present only in one of them.
This has no explanation has the background in the foto is the same.
This is clearly staged.
Same background, if the luner module never moved how is it posible
that it does not apear in the background.





[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

^ the first picture is taken with the LM behind the photographer...

Originally posted by pepsi78
Nortern light above 500 miles above earth atmosfear?
Okay i get it every one is seeing what they want to see.
I got my opinion on the radiation belt and you got yours.

What exactly do you think is in those pictures if it's not the 'Northern Lights'?
You might want to read up before you make even more of a fool of yourself...

www.northern-lights.no...

Agent smith what more do you want the guy doing the documentary
is quoting exactly like this:acordind to Renay the apolo 16 mision coincided with one of the suns intense storms ever recorded.

Whoops... too late...
What would I like? At least the bit where the guy allegedly says it (even though that alone would still not be condemning evidence seeing as all records state otherwise). Seems weird having to conceal a 'smoking gun' like that in the discarded footage - you'd think they'd actually show it... don't you think?
The point is they didn't say it, the narrator does. If I go round telling everyone that I met you last week and you told me that "I wholeheartedly believe in Santa Claus". - Does that mean santa exists? No... and it doesn't mean you said it either.
You might want to watch "Dark side of the Moon" - I'll tell you now that it is an admitted joke to prove how things can be twisted however the program makers want. I thought I'd warn you because it's pretty subtle and it would take some intelligence to work it out, unfortunately the program makers did such a good job some idiots didn't work it out.

Of course he was makeing a link to the mision why else would he mention
about it in this docuemntary why in the world would he talk about it in this documentary.

There are documentaries debunking all the crap in the Fox one - so how come you don't believe them? For someone that thinks they are 'enlightened' or 'thinking out of the box' you don't seem to be doing much thinking at all and you also seem pretty susceptable to suggestions.

But let's move on
Since the lunar module never moved has nasa claims how do we
explain the the lunar module is present only in one of them.
This has no explanation has the background in the foto is the same.
This is clearly staged.
Same background, if the luner module never moved how is it posible
that it does not apear in the background.

Did it occur to you that maybe the first photo was taken the other side of the Lander? Or was that too simple for you....

[edit on 9-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by pepsi78
Nortern light above 500 miles above earth atmosfear?
Okay i get it every one is seeing what they want to see.
I got my opinion on the radiation belt and you got yours.

What exactly do you think is in those pictures if it's not the 'Northern Lights'?
You might want to read up before you make even more of a fool of yourself...

www.northern-lights.no...

Agent smith what more do you want the guy doing the documentary
is quoting exactly like this:acordind to Renay the apolo 16 mision coincided with one of the suns intense storms ever recorded.

Whoops... too late...
What would I like? At least the bit where the guy allegedly says it (even though that alone would still not be condemning evidence seeing as all records state otherwise). Seems weird having to conceal a 'smoking gun' like that in the discarded footage - you'd think they'd actually show it... don't you think?
The point is they didn't say it, the narrator does. If I go round telling everyone that I met you last week and you told me that "I wholeheartedly believe in Santa Claus". - Does that mean santa exists? No... and it doesn't mean you said it either.
You might want to watch "Dark side of the Moon" - I'll tell you now that it is an admitted joke to prove how things can be twisted however the program makers want. I thought I'd warn you because it's pretty subtle and it would take some intelligence to work it out, unfortunately the program makers did such a good job some idiots didn't work it out.

Of course he was makeing a link to the mision why else would he mention
about it in this docuemntary why in the world would he talk about it in this documentary.

There are documentaries debunking all the crap in the Fox one - so how come you don't believe them? For someone that thinks they are 'enlightened' or 'thinking out of the box' you don't seem to be doing much thinking at all and you also seem pretty susceptable to suggestions.

But let's move on
Since the lunar module never moved has nasa claims how do we
explain the the lunar module is present only in one of them.
This has no explanation has the background in the foto is the same.
This is clearly staged.
Same background, if the luner module never moved how is it posible
that it does not apear in the background.

Did it occur to you that maybe the first photo was taken the other side of the Lander? Or was that too simple for you....

[edit on 9-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Yes it is posible that it might be taken from the other side it is a posibility.
But i do keep a strong opinion about the belt and especialy what the two
scientists commented on.
Maybe it is the nortern lights not so hard so admit when i wach them close, the earth apears to close to them but the belt remains the same for me and the same go's for the remarks made by the scientists.

In the entire history exept the so called apolo lunar misions no maned craft went above or in to the belt.
what i dont want to belive is not that it didint kill them but no simtoms
no burns that is not posible.
what i agree on with you is that yes the shoot could of been pictured from the side

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]