Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

@sisu so are you saying we have never been to the moon?

PS any news on that upcoming court case re AIDS being man-made.

 

I just can't be arsed to copy and paste from the Clavius site the systematic destruction of every tired,old nonsense that Sis if farting out again. I will if needs be (does anyone here think I have to, or can I just post the link?). But just a few points:

The radiation issue, as we've already discussed in previous posts on this, is serious. The first astronauts who go to Mars are probably going to die there, especially if we adopt Aldrin's one-way ticket approach, supplied by the conveyer belt that he, Dr Rendevous, a proper ****ing scientist-engineer, worked out. That's why they'll send middle-aged people like me.That's what the guy in the vid is talking about. You can't really protect humans from really high doses of particles in outer space for 2 years, or even on the surface of Mars for that long. In fact, had there been a solar flare during an Apollo mission there would indeed have been problems. But I'd go in a shot to Mars if had any qualifications. The Apollo missions, however, were two weeks long maximum. As VA points out, they went through the belts in hours, not days. Gemini 11 spent longer in and around the VA belts. Conrad and Gordon were exposed to several times more radiation on that mission than they did on Apollo12.

But the fact that radiation is an issue is a preposterous jump of a conclusion to say that it's impossible. An utterly bizarre conclusion that VA himself debunked. If you can't accept that I think it's you who is dealing with faith-in-the-face-of-evidence issues.

As to some of that other drivel, they're the same suits (and batteries) used for EVA's of similar times by astronauts in low earth orbit missions, such as Apollo 9. The cranks have never brought this issue up before regarding them - what's so special about EVA's on the moon?

The funny one is the lack of a flame on the blast-off from the moon. They used a hypergolic combination that didn't use oxygen on the ascent engine for reliability. There was no redundancy built into that engine - if it didn't fire they were stuck there (famously, it didn't on 11 for a few seconds after Aldrin pressed ignition; a scary moment, I'm sure). Perhaps they should have inserted a flame into the pictures taken by the rover of the ascent of 17 for effect. Maybe with some Clangers and the Soup Dragon peeping over the craters for the level of understanding you're displaying.

As to the blast crater under the LM: why would there be one until it took off? Even in those photos you show you can see clear, exposed rock where some, if not all dust has been disturbed. Some landing sites, such as the one 12 landed on in the Ocean of Storms, were more dusty than others. Mountainous areas like Hadley Rile and Descates were less so, and thus left bigger scorch marks after the ascent engine blasted off (as seen by the satellite photos). But I'll say this about the supposed lack of craters on the landing sites - is the friutcake theory now that NASA never even sent craft to the moon at all, as opposed to not sending humans? I'm confused. Even most of the crank literature I've read doesn't deny that you can't explain away the laser range-finders and ASLEP arrays left on the surface by any other means than a craft (an Apollo without crew) went there. Btw, you do understand that the dust kicked up by the then feeble enregy of the descent engine would more-or-less go straight back down as there is no atmosphere on the moon for the particles to float about in?

But anyway, as to logic, argument and faith. You are forever the complete dickhead who staked a whole argument about faked photographs on the moon by citing a family photograph left there 43 years ago. You actually said, ffs, that it couldn't have survived 40 years until now, so how could they have taken a photograph of it. Now you're trying to say it couldn't have been photographed as they couldn't bend over (didn't have to, they had a hinge mechanism on the suit for the camera, and also it had auto-focus; Duke could have taken that from 10ft away, simply leaning over. He didn't have to be right on top it). Btw, there's film of Duke, appropriately, leaning over and bending on one knee to collect a particularly large rock on Descartes. It's a fallacy to say they couldn't bend over in those suits (though he did have scary moment trying to emulate John Young's (his Commander) leap in the air salute when he fell on his back pack. But, point is, your logic was that it was fake because it couldn't survive the 40-odd years on the moon to now be photographed. Do you not accept that this is atypical of the farcical, crackpot thinking associated with the cranks?

And that's the point about you paranoid headfucks - you scattergun a 1001 and more totally fatuous points, almost every one of them instantly dismissable. But you expect total, instant uniform consistency and unambiguity from the narrative you are trying to 'prove' conspiracy about. Well, let's sort of level the playing field here - your pisspotical point re the Duke family photograph has proven that you're totally unsuited to any logical discussion involving point and counterpoint, especially as you cannot even acknowledge that the argument you proposed is totally ****ed.

Btw, I agreed with you regarding Rosetta and snowball comets. Have you spent too much time in the VA belts having your brain cells and memory bombarded with radiation and other particles, or has something else ****ed up your brain?

 

I don't think there's any point. I doubt Sis would change his mind whatever you say.
A link to the site would be ok for anyone who wants to look at it but hasn't mastered Google yet.

 

http://www.clavius.org/

Enjoy. Say goodbye to Sis's pseudo-science and crackpot graphs and vids (at least on this subject) forever.

 

What? As it happens, five of the nine manned-missions to the moon were in the 70's WTF is your point?

 

Donga you dope, NASA said the spacesuits protected astronauts on the moon from radiation, that was a bare faced lie.

Not only were the astronauts exposed to this radiation in suits and the craft from when they entered and left the magnatosphere all the way to the moon, and while there and all the way back, were exposed to radiation, all the DNA damaging rays, for days. You clown No protection in the craft or suits.

NASA has sent no one since because they still cannot protect astronauts, but you dont understand wtf you are talking about. copy paste is like that, even with the shielding that is too heavy to send into space. The only reason the ISS can operate is because it is at low altitude, and protected by our magnotosphere, to even suggest the pinnacle of space travel was in the 60s, is a joke you clown



So NASA have told plenty of porkies, bit saying the suits were radiation shielded is a big one. They had to tell it, because it was a fraud. 70 years is usually the release time for such classified stuff, when everyone is dead, not long to go now.

Also all moon footage shown to the world was filmed on a big 1960s projection TV, there was no feed and that is why the footage is ****, it had to be ****, because it was a set. The media were pissed that this was the way they were meant to show the "event", broadcasting a TV screen to the world.


The scientific reality is when particles hit the moon's surface they create a cloud of particles just as dangerous. Those anstronauts should have died decades ago. Your ignorance is astounding. Scientific ignorance that is. Off to another debunk site with you, try reading some scientific stuff though, better than debunk sites

 

Evidence, please. And the word of Sibrel is not evidence.

As to the suits, they adequately shield enough from enough radiation. Nothing, ever, anywhere can shield you from all particles in space. No-one claims they do.Your argument is akin to saying that if you go out into a storm in a wetsuit but still get slightly wet you'll drown. Idiotic. And at least three of the Apollo astronauts did die of cancers. Are you saying that they all must have by now for it to be true?

Interestingly, I met Jim Lovell last month. He went there twice. Must be an old doppleganger - or is he a fantastical liar who's kept this up for 40 years?

Btw, do you accept that you totally ****ed up re the Duke photograph yet?

 

Yeah, neither does that tosspot Van Allen. You school him, Sis.

 

more ****., as usual, you like being able to regurgitate stuff, thinking is not your thing mate.

NASA only started shielding suits in the late 80s

You're just treading water here

Your space knowledge is like your history, good with names and details like that but overall contexts and lessons, not so good

You think knowing someone's right name is history Who cares about the lessons eh, not you, you thick as **** fool

 

They didn't die of cancer they were assassinated by NASA to stop them revealing the #conspiracy

Do you even have their medical records?

 

and the other nuts shows up, the scientist who doesn't know anything about science

If you are the measure of science we are well and truly ****ed.

 

Astro actually believed Einstein's light clock experiment was an actual experiment where they sent a train moving at the speed of light

 

Quote?

 

Astro also thinks muons prove relativity. Doesn't understand logical fallacy either and thinks a hot day is climate

 

Evidently they didn't kill enough of them to suit the pseudo-science.

 

Whereas you you have no knowledge or details at all to base your nonsensical arguments on.

Do you still maintain:

a) They couldn't have taken photos on the moon because of the heat

b) The Duke family photo is fake because it was supposedly taken 40-odd years later (by presumably the most powerful satellite camera ever to leave earth's orbit) and couldn't have lasted on the moon's surface in 1960's wrapping (even though nobody said it had, even in 70's wrapping).

Tedious details, I know, but just try and indulge us with an answer, eh?

 

Does the moron think he's called Van Allen or something?

 

**** me, I missed that first time around.

Congratulations Sis, you've just killed satire forever. We'll bury it with your Duke family photo hoax theory.

 

1.Do you have no self awareness?

2. Do you have any news on that upcoming courtcase re AIDS be man made?

3. Are you ever going to answer a question or just continue to post shyte and then run away?

 

Waist? They could, with difficulty. and the camera had a hinge on the bracket. Interestingly (for a nerd like me, anyway) that the one of his foot is the only one that Aldrin took. Armstrong took all the others. In Armstrong's autobiography, he attributes Aldrin's lack of photos to Aldrin being a bit of a prima-donna (fair enough, he is brilliant but a bit of a Sheldon) who had a monk on because he didn't get out first. the two were still slightly bickering about it 40 years later. Makes you wonder why they were so bothered, as they never really went there and must have known that future generations would easily work that out.

Hmmm.