View previous topic | View next topic

Moon Landings a hoax?

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

MasterGaijin
748355.  Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:20 pm Reply with quote

I have just watched the QI episode on BBC on Friday 1/10/2010 where Stephen Fry debunked the conspiracy theories about the moon landings. I would just like to say that I did watch a programme about the moon landings and every con-theory that was proposed, I said to myself, "That can be explained." until they mentioned one thing...the Van Allen radiation belt. It was said that even now, with today's technology it is impossible to send a human to the moon because the radiation would kill them and they would need 6 feet of lead surrounding them and the NASA astronauts had thin foil covering their vessels. Earth orbit is safe but to venture to the moon would be deadly.
A Russian cosmonaut was asked why the Soviet Union never sent anyone to the moon and he said, "It's simple. The radiation would kill them."
If this is true, then how could these men have travelled to the moon and returned with absolutely no ill-effects whatsoever? I would love to hear any answers. Thank you.

PS...It was also said that one mission to the moon coincided with a massive solar flare. That should have killed the astronauts yet they didn't even have minor radiation sickness. Any answers?


Last edited by MasterGaijin on Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
MinervaMoon
748360.  Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:29 pm Reply with quote

A lot of the fear of the Van Allen radiation belt comes from an incomplete understanding of their purported danger. Here's a discussion on Bad Astronomy, and Googling will bring up other sources.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation

 
Sadurian Mike
748361.  Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:31 pm Reply with quote

Van Allen himself, a man who really ought to know, has dismissed the effects of the belts as easily defeatable. Only a very thin layer of lead is required, and electronics have to be hardened.

Whilst the astronauts almost certainly did suffer a higher-than-normal dose of radiation, it wasn't enough to inflict any immediately dangerous conditions.

 
CB27
748362.  Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:37 pm Reply with quote

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3422566.html?page=1&c=y

 
Neotenic
748403.  Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:57 pm Reply with quote

I guess this is the weird thing about persistent conspiracy theories.

To me, there's just one thing that needs to be considered. Logistics. The number of people that would have to have been 'in' on some vast hoax would have been, well, vast. To believe it could be a hoax is to believe that, at least, hundreds of people were involved in the most remarkable story of all time and not one of them blabbed to the press at any point since.

I don't think so.

Then there's reams of physical evidence - the missions were observed from points all over the planet by independent parties.

And yet some half-understood and fairly esoteric scientific theory is enough to push all of that to one side to give the conspiracy theory room to survive.

It seems to me that they are mostly things that people really, really, really want to be true, even though they are pure fantasy. The reasons for wanting to sustain this fantasy are legion, but I think that wanting to believe that there really is someone in control, even if they are totalitarian and duplicitous - and therefore humanity isn't blindly stumbling around with no real clue what it's actually supposed to be doing - is actually quite a comfort to some.

 
gruff5
748476.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:58 am Reply with quote

i think the former USSR might have been in there pretty quickly to point out it was a hoax, if there was ANY chance of that

 
Sadurian Mike
748478.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:05 am Reply with quote

I don't think it was the landings that were the hoax, I think it is the moon itself that isn't real.

 
soup
748507.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:11 am Reply with quote

Moon what Moon ? The Earth is flat and the stars are just holes in the 'blanket' that is the night sky.

 
Efros
748553.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:48 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
I don't think it was the landings that were the hoax, I think it is the moon itself that isn't real.


Which one?

 
zomgmouse
748555.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:52 am Reply with quote

 
Jenny
748642.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:37 pm Reply with quote

This really belongs in H series talk, so I'll move it.

 
exnihilo
748649.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:04 pm Reply with quote

Mitchell & Webb Moon Landing Sketch.

 
Jenny
748651.  Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:12 pm Reply with quote

Brilliant!

 
Zebra57
748681.  Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:50 am Reply with quote

Wallace and Gromit managed it
or did they?

 
gruff5
748935.  Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:03 pm Reply with quote

according some interpretations of quantum theory, the Moon does not exist until we look at it

 

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group