Neil Armstrong Recalls Hair-Raising Apollo Moon Landing

Originally posted by OpenEars123


Insta respect to you my friend!

Yes I kinda gathered that, but it was nice to hear it from someone else..

Looks like he's got his boyfriend (in another basement) backing him up now, we're all dooooooooooomed!!!!!

Lol, some kids on the net hilarious,,,

You might want to learn how to read, because that poster was saying the moon hoax arguments are garbage.

reply to post by paradox


First fact, from van allen himself.. There is DEADLY radiation that would kill humans passing through the belts. Start with that friend... Check out how they were abke to get their film back unscathed, using 1960's tech, then check out what lengths the shuttle had to go throug to protect its film... Which, i might add, never went through the belts.. .??? Or, how about the protection of astronauts on a radioactive moon surface due to no atmosphere..

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by paradox

 

First fact, from van allen himself.. There is DEADLY radiation that would kill humans passing through the belts. Start with that friend... Check out how they were abke to get their film back unscathed, using 1960's tech, then check out what lengths the shuttle had to go throug to protect its film... Which, i might add, never went through the belts.. .??? Or, how about the protection of astronauts on a radioactive moon surface due to no atmosphere..

Van Allen has publicly refuted the moon-tard arguments FFS.

"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.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by OpenEars123


Insta respect to you my friend!

Yes I kinda gathered that, but it was nice to hear it from someone else..

Looks like he's got his boyfriend (in another basement) backing him up now, we're all dooooooooooomed!!!!!

Lol, some kids on the net hilarious,,,

You might want to learn how to read, because that poster was saying the moon hoax arguments are garbage.

YOU might want to read, I was only relying to a specific part of what he quoted. The reason I didn't quote the 'specific' piece i was replying to, was purely for intellectual people to decipher. i.e NOT YOU.
Haven't you got something you should be colouring in right now??

Originally posted by Nspekta

First fact, from van allen himself.. There is DEADLY radiation that would kill humans passing through the belts. Start with that friend...

Oh that's a fact is it? Because....

"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 A Van Allen

If that is not enough:

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.
www.wwheaton.com...

And this is true, the radiation does take its toll on some astronauts. Cataracts, for example.

Check out how they were abke to get their film back unscathed, using 1960's tech, then check out what lengths the shuttle had to go throug to protect its film... Which, i might add, never went through the belts.. .???

What are you talking about? And what does "1960s tech" have to do with anything? Were they cavemen or something? My god....you aren't using facts, you are using your own uneducated opinion.

Or, how about the protection of astronauts on a radioactive moon surface due to no atmosphere..

Yes, there is radiation on the moon...the suits only stop part of it, but there are long terms effects. There have been quite a few studies done on the radiation exposure of astronauts and the long term effects on their health. No one said being an astronaut isn't a risky job.

Originally posted by OpenEars123

YOU might want to read, I was only relying to a specific part of what he quoted. The reason I didn't quote the 'specific' piece i was replying to, was purely for intellectual people to decipher. i.e NOT YOU.
Haven't you got something you should be colouring in right now??

edit on 27-5-2012 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)

Absolutely nothing you quoted was in agreeance with anything that you have said.

In fact, everything that poster said is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I know, it must be an embarrassing mistake to have made, but no need to lash out in anger my friend. You've already made yourself look like a big enough douche earlier. No one likes an old man beater, or a woman beater.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by cavalryscout
I have a simple question.

IF they went to the moon why can't we see any of the stuff they left behind? The flag for example.

With the tech. we have today isn't there a telescope that can zoom in on the 'landing platform' or the U.S. flag or something that proves man walked on the moon?

They can but they won't because there is nothing there folks.....we can't get to the moon today either!!!!

Agree!!!!! They can photograph a universe in the making a millions of light years away yet we can't get good clear photos of the moon or the mysterious places on Mars. Go figure.

phys.org...

Astronomers have uncovered an extreme stellar machine -- a galaxy in the very remote universe pumping out stars at a surprising rate of up to 4,000 per year. In comparison, our own Milky Way galaxy turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.

The discovery, made possible by several telescopes including NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, goes against the most common theory of galaxy formation. According to the theory, called the Hierarchical Model, galaxies slowly bulk up their stars over time by absorbing tiny pieces of galaxies -- and not in one big burst as observed in the newfound "Baby Boom" galaxy.

Originally posted by OpenEars123

Fair enough I made a mistake, and am 'man' enough to admit it. Notice the word 'man'?

There ya go. Now was that so hard?
But a "man" still wouldn't "knock" an elderly man "on his ass."

So enjoy your attempt at a witty (and attention seeking) comeback, as I won't be reading it.
Night night, and be careful not to colour outside the lines!

Well, you are welcome to join in on the conversation about radiation and why you believe the moon landings are faked. Then I can debunk everything for you one by one, and save you the embarrassment from ever using the arguments ever again. Or...you can run away because you have been embarrassed. Your call! Either way, I don't think anyone will be sad that you will not be gracing us with your wisdom here any longer. lol

so how about that interview with armstrong

I thought this part was awesome

When asked about the conspiracy theories, Armstrong laughed and said that there's no way the 800,000 Nasa staff working on the project could have kept a secret.
‘People love conspiracy theories, they're very attractive,’ he said.
‘But they were never a concern to me, because I know someone is going to fly back up there and pick up the camera I left there.’

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by Jagermeister

 

Mr. Armstrong and the work of tens of thousands of people around the globe accomplished the most incredible feat in human history. He will die soon, and when he does, we will no longer be able to hear the words of the first human being to ever set foot on another world.

For those of you who belittle the landing on the Moon, the Christian religion, marriage between a man and a woman, etc. you might want to slap yourself back into reality.

so why Neil is not open with sexual orientation with Buzz?

NASA Experiences Worst PR Disaster Since Aldrin-Armstrong Gay Weekend Getaway

www.enduringvision.com...

Their historical example could encourage NASA space exploration:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A T T E N T I O N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The topic is "Neil Armstrong Recalls Hair-raising Apollo Moon Landing", NOT each other or your personalities.

Please keep your eye on the ball, folks. Feel free to debate, discuss. Please knock off the namecalling and personal attacks.

Be nice.

Thanks

reply to post by Nspekta


Wrong.

Considering you are most likely paradox who has just signed up under a new user name (4th overall post?!? Lol right)

And:

Ps, nice try paradox... I believe that there are rules about starting a secondary user name.. Might wanna check it out before you catch trouble from the mods

Equally incorrect.

IMO, if you believe that man landed on the moon, you have been hypnotized/brainwashed.

^ ^ ^ Wrong, again.

Jarrah white has some interesting insights..

You see, I have studied the space program since childhood. Saw the Apollo 11 mission live, at home, on our TV. In the den. I was in grade school, then.....and far more intelligent on the sciences and the technology than that poor excuse for a wannabe "entertainer" from Australia who has had his fifteen minutes of "moon Hoax" infamy.....

Each and every claim made by that fool (he really cannot be that ignorant, in truth --- but, he is starved for attention, and wishes to have a career as an 'entertainer'....this is his ploy. Fortunately for the sake of Humanity, there are far, far more educated and intelligent people out in the World than he apparently counted on. There are countless refutations to his nonsense videos, all available on YouTube. I'd suggest that the major thread about him that exists right here on ATS as a invaluable beginning to see the end of 'Jarrah White').



In the last 40+ years my understanding of the science and technological feats, and all that has transpired since added to furthering the comprehension of the reality of Apollo. I'd suggest a visit to a library, where there are numerous resources known as "books" that can provide far more in-depth detail and fleshing-out than merely sitting at a computer and "surfing" the 'Net.

However, others reading this thread, i would recommend researching the moon landing to discover the amazing amount of discrepsncues and coverups that are brushed aside by nasa and moon landing believers.

Yes, indeed --- hence, my suggestion to step away from the Internet, and do proper research, absent the noise and nonsense that so sadly infests it, all too often.


On a positive note, supporting Neil Armstrong's and the eleven other men who performed EVAs on the Lunar surface (and of course, nearly another million, or so, people who were at one time involved in the Apollo Program in one way or another), there are a great number of irrefutable sources, even on the Internet too. Once people learn how to differentiate the garbage from the reality. A smattering of understanding of some basic physics and other sciences is necessary, however, or else one will fall under the influence of a con artist like Jarrah White, et al.


Finally, in tribute to the subject of this thread, there are of course (since the LCROSS mission arrived in Lunar orbit, back in 2009) photos of the Apollo landing sites, thanks to the aspect of LCROSS that is devoted to photographing and documenting the entire surface of the Moon.....the Lunar Orbiter Camera. Here, a compilation of a few that feature the Apollo 11 site, as it exists today in situ....near the end are included some portions of the live (at the time) TV camera that was broadcasting, further cementing the reality......as that event coincides perfectly with what has been photographed, from low orbit, in just the last few years.

(For a thorough understanding of the video below, all of the author's notes and comments must be read, at the YouTube channel site):

www.youtube.com...


One more bonus video, from Apollo 14 (third to land on the Moon) that is also irrefutable proof of the reality. Thanks to seeing this from another ATS thread, it was an unintended 'happy accident' caught on video, of a pendulum motion.

Anyone with the proper science education will realize that the nature of a pendulum precludes this from having occurred in an Earth's 1G gravitational field. It (the pendulum) can ONLY have behaved as shown in a gravitational field equivalent to that of the Moon's:

www.youtube.com...


Only two examples of reality......reality, something that people like Jarrah White have yet to emerge into........

Originally posted by PluPerfect



I'd suggest a visit to a library, where there are numerous resources known as "books" that can provide far more in-depth detail and fleshing-out than merely sitting at a computer and "surfing" the 'Net.

edit on 27-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)

Good lord man! Steady On!!.......BOOKS !!???

Are you seriously suggesting to a hoax believer that he read a...Lord forbid....BOOK? In this day and age??

The serious hoax-believing-man would never lower himself to such degradation, why would he? For research all he needs is a trusty connection to the world-wide web and the ability and attention span to sit and watch a youtube video.....no more....no less.

I'd tip my hat to you if I had one on, alas I fear your wise words shall fall upon deafened ears.

If Niel had a hair his children would be up there giving the Hoaxer the Up your wazoo.
Guess what? Nobody been dare. fu NASA

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Sorry the first link is broken and links to the ABC article... for some reason the format of a breaking news OP is kinda screwed up and the links get all messed up..

Here is the link again -

thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au...

I hope this one works

For those mentioning photographs of distant stars, etc - I don't think they're using film to do that. And I think any footage done with film, besides the possible moon footage, was done inside earth's magnetic field.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


what do you mean?