i see you guys are still on this topic. why is it easier to believe a conspiracy than the truth? well i guess its human nature. very soon voyager 1 and 2 will also become hoax, mars expeditions to follow. political lies, scandals and conspiracies are normally declassified by the US courts after sometime. if moon walking was a lie, it would have been declassified long ago by the government. U see there are americans who have no other job but to get the truth out for the public. and they take it to the supreme court. if their best attempts to get the truth out is on youtube.com then its obviously not credible. if you find americas moon walking difficult to swallow, guess what, voyager 1 is at the edge of our solar system. and its still working. and thats more difficult to acheive than sending men to our nearest neighbour.

lunar landings are just too big events to be classified as a hoax. if truly it was a lie, it wont just be personally uploaded youtube videos that will discredit it or some free webspace personal websites. it will probably be the biggest lie in last century and countries like russia, england and france will have something to say about it. the world will chew up america.

The Moon is the only celestial body to which humans have travelled and upon which humans have landed. The first artificial object to escape Earth's gravity and pass near the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 1, the first artificial object to impact the lunar surface was Luna 2, and the first photographs of the normally occluded far side of the Moon were made by Luna 3, all in 1959. The first spacecraft to perform a successful lunar soft landing was Luna 9, and the first unmanned vehicle to orbit the Moon was Luna 10, both in 1966.[8] The United States (U.S.) Apollo program achieved the only manned missions to date, resulting in six landings between 1969 and 1972. Human exploration of the Moon ceased with the conclusion of the Apollo program, although several countries have announced plans to send people or robotic spacecraft to the Moon.

so russia got there before america but was unmanned

source wikipedia ( just type 'moon')

APOLLO FAKE
How Michael. J. Tuttle faked the Apollo Moon pictures.

This web page will reveal how Michael J Tuttle manipulated, (doctored), pictures from the so called Apollo training simulations, then posted them on NASA web sites as being genuine pictures taken on the Apollo Moon missions.  I regularly get e-mail from PAN's claiming that digital manipulation of photo's was not available back in 1969. Sheesh. People have been creating fake photographs ever since the camera was invented, and who is saying the pictures were taken back in 69 anyway? PAN's cannot seem to get it into their pea sized brains the fact that THE MAJORITY OF NASA's FAKE MOON PICTURES WERE CREATED IN THE MID 90's. Ninety five percent of NASA's fake Moon pictures on their web site WERE NEVER SEEN PRIOR TO THE LAUNCH OF THE INTERNET. They had to produce a considerable number of fake Moon pics, otherwise the public would want to know why there were so few. I would also like to point out to the PAN's that NOT ALL fake Moon pictures were digitally manipulated. The controversial picture of Aldrin has not been digitally tampered with, and there were a number of pictures taken in the fake Moonscape scene at Langley, which did not require any alteration to pass it off as a Moon picture.
The task was handed to Michael J. Tuttle in 1994, and here is how he did it using early versions of Adode Photo shop.



tactics as Tuttle to make a fake Moon picture.

This beach photograph was taken from Tuttle's web site. Let's do some PIXEL TRICKS manipulation with the image, using Photoshop, and the same tactics as Tuttle to make a fake Moon picture.









By now you should get where I am coming from, and where I'm going too. If that person with hand glider were not in the pic, and the ruffled sand were smoothed out a bit, you would have a TYPICAL NASA FAKE MOON PICTURE. All you need to do is paste your astroNOT where you want him. The few blades of grass can easily be erased, its just that I do not need to go the whole hog to get my point across.
Notice total absence of tire tracks directly behind the Moon buggy rear wheel. The Moon buggy and it's shadow have been pasted onto photograph, OR if buggy was genuinely in the picture, it's been placed/lowered there by some crane.
The two pictures below are from a NASA web site. It shows how the images were altered from the original scene. The picture left appears to have a dark sunset at top section, whilst the picture on right shows differing textures between sky line, foreground and pasted mountains. Now before idiotic PAN's begin e-mailing me suggesting I doctored the photo's, I will repeat. THE PICTURES ARE FROM A NASA ARCHIVE SITE. Incidentally Tuttle has owned up to digitally altering photographs for NASA, (see APOLLOFEEDBACK). For years PAN's, and NASA, have denied the Moon photo's were fake. Now the truth is out NASA may as well admit defeat. The game is definitely up.




Come along Mr. Tuttle you know full well what appears here is the truth. You also created the 360 degree landing site FAKE shots.
Hundreds of questions have been put to NASA regarding the alleged Moon photographs, and not once have they replied with a logical explanation. One of those questions was:- "Why are some Moon photographs in color, whilst others are in monochrome?" According to NASA no expense was spared with Apollo, so why the difference, why aren't ALL the photographs in color?
The answer to that question is quite simple. A few color photographs were taken during the Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 period. Those photographs were for publicity/press coverage. However in later years, when the Internet came into existence, the public wanted to see more photographs from those Apollo missions, and of course none were available. NASA therefore instructed Tuttle to "conjure up" some authentic looking Moon pictures. Using the method shown above, it was easier to compose a picture in 8 bit grayscale, and in any case if Tuttle left the original colors, in the picture, it would be obvious the surface was nothing more than sand. In the fake Apollo 14 shot with Shepherd holding the flag, the surface is sandy colored, simply BECAUSE IT IS SAND. That is why Moon boot footprints show up so well.

Source: http://apollofake.bravehost.com/

@horus,
i guess u know ur links aint there hmmm,

and i been thinking,will somebody pls contact the russians or kgb on this issue abi since they are the greatest antagonist of the americans.cos this argument is just going back and forth.

@skyope
nobody here is generalising , we are just debating on the fact that they do not have the technical capabilities to go to the moon in the 60's

mdsocks:

@skyope
nobody here is generalising , we are just debating on the fact that they do not have the technical capabilities to go to the moon in the 60's

And where exactly did that 'fact' come from? What research did you do?

And enough with that 'radiation belt' bullcrap. You said technical capabilities, huh? Now show some research you've done into the capababilties of the Saturn V rocket and the accompanying Lunar Module.

Here's a starting point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

Mdsocks, you claim to be a geologist, eh? Now read this

Apollo returned 381.7 kg (841.5 lb) of rocks and other material from the Moon, much of which is stored at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston.

In general the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.2 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar mare, to about 4.6 billion years for samples derived from the highlands crust.[25] As such, they represent samples from a very early period in the evolution of the Solar System that is largely missing from Earth. One important rock found during the Apollo Program was the Genesis Rock, retrieved by astronauts James Irwin and David Scott during the Apollo 15 mission. This rock, called anorthosite, is composed almost exclusively of the calcium-rich feldspar mineral anorthite, and is believed to be representative of the highland crust. A geochemical component called KREEP (an acronym for rocks with high abundances of potassium, rare earth elements, and phosphorus) was discovered that has no known terrestrial counterpart. Together, KREEP and the anorthositic samples have been used to infer that the outer portion of the Moon was once completely molten (see lunar magma ocean).

Almost all of the rocks show evidence for having been affected by impact processes. For instance, many samples appear to be pitted with micrometeoroid impact craters, something which is never seen on earth due to its thick atmosphere. Additionally, many show signs of being subjected to high pressure shock waves that are generated during impact events. Some of the returned samples are of impact melt, referring to materials that are melted in the vicinity of an impact crater. Finally, all samples returned from the Moon are highly brecciated as a result of being subjected to multiple impact events.

Considering the fact that the unmanned moon probes have only ever succeeded in grabbing a few grams of moon samples, how did these samples come about.

As to why the US hasn't gone back, what could be gained by going back just yet? Don't forget that the Saturn V rocket is much more powerful than any other rocket booster the US has created since then. After the end of the Apollo program the US (and Russia) have concentrated on low-earth orbit systems. The innovative Shuttle program started soon after and that in itself is EXTREMELY expensive, yet more rewarding (i.e in Satellite Deployment, ISS)

Chai!!! Wikipedia don suffer.

Can a public editable encyclopedia become a real substitute to proper knowledge or even reference to facts? I think not.

seun001:

@horus,
i guess u know your links aint there hmmm,

and i been thinking,will somebody please contact the russians or kgb on this issue abi since they are the greatest antagonist of the americans.because this argument is just going back and forth.

Your statement is a direct indictment on Nigerians and their refusal to read widely. This moon hoax story has been going on for some time now. Did you really think it's something that just cropped up?

How naive you are! Do you think the Russian KGB and GRU weren't actively involved in spying on the US space progress even in the '60s? You think the Russian Space Agency didn't scrutinize the tapes carefully, or weigh the possibility of a ruse/hoax?

You think TASS (the russian news agency) wouldn't have joyfully broadcast propaganda to high heavens if there was even the faintest sniff of a hoax? The same TASS that happily bashed the US during the failed Iran rescue attempt,  the Vietnam war and the Bay of Pigs fiasco?
Do you even have any idea the humiliation the Soviet Union suffered through on being beaten to second-place? It's EXACTLY like how the entire US was thrown into a somber mood when Yuri Gagarin first orbited the earth.


That would have been the first question anyone of intelligence should have asked himself before even lending ears to the whole hoax theory.

If these brains represent the present crop of intelligent Nigerians, then we might as well pack it in.

_{imagine someone saying we should inform the KGB on a matter that was a great humiliation to the Soviet Union over 30 years ago, during the height of the cold war}

Afam:

Chai!!! Wikipedia don suffer.

Can a public editable encyclopedia become a real substitute to proper knowledge or even reference to facts? I think not.

Nice try, retard, but studies have shown Wikipedia to be about as accurate as Encyclopaedia britannica on scientific issues

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

Yes, it's public and editable but new edits are reviewed often.
And yes, the wikipedia entry makes reference to known facts. There's no mention of any dispute in the contents of that article.

if you had troubled yourself to scroll down you'd have seen the sources for the information. They definitely are credible.

So what's your problem, little man?

@texazzpete
thank you

is it not quite obvious. all arguments for the hoax are sourced from websites owned by individuals or uploaded videos from youtube which we all can do. all arguments against the hoax are sourced from government websites, encyclopedia, history websites that are well respected throughout the world.

Deaths of key Apollo personnel.
In a television program about the hoax allegations, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of ten astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having[b] possibly been killed as part of a cover-up.[/b]

Ted Freeman (T-38 crash, 1964)
Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident, 1966)
Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967). His son, Scott Grissom said the accident was a murder. Bill Kaysing also makes this claim, p. 41.
Ed White (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Ed Givens (car accident, 1967)
C. C. Williams (T-38 accident, October 1967)
X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program in November 1967 - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later canceled) program.
NASA worker Thomas Baron (automobile collision with train, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired.) Ruled as suicide. Baron was a quality control inspector who wrote a report critical of the Apollo program and was an outspoken critic after the Apollo 1 fire. Baron and his family were killed as their car was struck by a train at a train crossing.
Lee Gelvani said he almost convinced James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to contact Gelvani about it; however he died of a heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Deaths_of_key_Apollo_personnel

Afam:

Chai!!! Wikipedia don suffer.

Can a public editable encyclopedia become a real substitute to proper knowledge or even reference to facts? I think not.

For someone who claims wikipedia is not a good source of knowledge acquisition, just because it does not support his balderdash, here is one recent gyration to wikipedia:

Afam:

One good thing about a public forum is that it gives one ample time and space to show the world how stupid one can get.

Short of going into a lecture here the content below is from the link someone posted as I noticed you shamelessly avoided the issue when facts made nonsense of your position based on warped sense of reasoning.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Inland port
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Inland harbor be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

The term inland port is used in two different but related ways to mean either a port on an inland waterway or an inland site carrying out some functions of a seaport.
Contents
[hide]

    * 1 As a port on an inland waterway
    * 2 As an inland site with seaport function
          o 2.1 Advantages of inland location
    * 3 Examples on inland waterways
    * 4 Examples of inland sites
    * 5 See also
    * 6 References

[edit] As a port on an inland waterway

An inland port in the wide sense, as used in common speech, is simply a port on an inland waterway such as a river, lake or canal. The United States Army Corps of Engineers publishes a list of the Top 20 Inland US. Ports for 2003 and for this purpose states that 'Inland Ports' are ports that are located on rivers and do not handle deep draft ship traffic. The list includes familiar ports such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Memphis.[1]

[edit] As an inland site with seaport function

The term inland port is also used in a narrow sense in the field of transportation systems to mean a rather more specialised facility that has come about with the advent of the shipping container in international transport. Rather than goods being loaded and unloaded in such ports, shipping containers can just be transferred between ship and road vehicle or ship and train. The container may be transferred again between road and rail elsewhere and the goods are only loaded or unloaded at their point of origin or final destination.

Shipping containers allow some functions traditionally carried out at a seaport to be moved elsewhere. Examples are the functions of receiving, processing through customs, inspecting, sorting, and consolidating containers going to the same overseas port. Container transfer at the seaport can be speeded up and container handling space can be reduced by transferring functions to an inland site away from the port and coast.

Distribution may also be made more efficient by setting up the link between inland site and seaport as, say, a high-capacity rail link with a lower unit cost than sending containers individually by road. The containers are still collected from their origins or distributed to their ultimate destinations by road with the transfer happening at the inland site.

An Inland Port' is just such an inland site linked to a seaport. This kind of inland port does not require a waterway. It is often written with initial capitals to indicate a difference to the common usage. Key features of an Inland Port are the transfer of containers between different modes of transportation (intermodal transfer) and the processing of international trade. This differentiates an inland port from a container depot or transport hub.[2]

The term inland port may also be used for a similar model of a site linked to an airport or land border crossing rather than a seaport.

The definition of inland port in the jargon of the transportation and logistics industries is:

    "An Inland Port is a physical site located away from traditional land, air and coastal borders with the vision to facilitate and process international trade through strategic investment in multi-modal transportation assets and by promoting value-added services as goods move through the supply chain". — Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas.[3]

Inland Ports may also be referred to as dry ports or intermodal hubs.

[edit] Advantages of inland location

Handling cargo containers at inland facilities (where land and storage space may also be cheaper) can cut the time container ships spend in port and speed the flow of containers between ships and the land transportation system of trucks and trains.

The idea is to move the time-consuming sorting and processing of containers inland, away from congested seaports. When a ship is delayed in port, it's not making money.

An inland port could also speed the flow of cargo between ships and major land transportation networks, which would carry goods to the rest of the country.

++++++++++++++++++

Is this guy throughly knowledgeable at all?

@horus
they went to the moon in 1969 how could they have started murdering people before they claimed to have been to the moon? As concerning the apollo 1 fire, well there is a possibility of knowing before hand that it was not going to work. but you know they were on immence pressure and wanted to prove themselves. so they probably took a risk and it went bad. and they started to cover their tracks to prevent shut down of funds from the goverment who were also under pressure from the american people. am just guessing here. so some people had to go to keep their mouth closed for the greater good.

Short of going into a lecture here the content below is from the link someone posted as I noticed you shamelessly avoided the issue when facts made nonsense of your position based on warped sense of reasoning.

Anyone with brain will know that the wikipedia link was posted by someone. I don't rush to wikipedia to learn any new thing.

Not that I expect mrpataki to understand this anyway, he is irredeemably stupid.

@skyope
you think like a little boy,
check facts, the farthest distance the rocket as reached after the aclaimed mission was just 3500 miles or so(not sure), while the distance from earth to moon is approx. 350,000 miles
do you seem to reason atall

Afam:

Anyone with brain will know that the wikipedia link was posted by someone. I don't rush to wikipedia to learn any new thing.

Why bother to explain your actions bothering on stupidity to me? Am I your lecturer? Yet you were able to adequately copy and paste the whole of the wikipedia content just so that your other proponent can see your point?!

Face it man! You are grossly un-intelligent and intellectually handicapped - deficient in adequately holding a discourse on any subject matter, except on the ground of peddling your backup kva inverters.

Alaba market warlord!

texazzpete:


Your statement is a direct indictment on Nigerians and their refusal to read widely. This moon hoax story has been going on for some time now. Did you really think it's something that just cropped up?

How naive you are! Do you think the Russian KGB and GRU weren't actively involved in spying on the US space progress even in the '60s? You think the Russian Space Agency didn't scrutinize the tapes carefully, or weigh the possibility of a ruse/hoax?

You think TASS (the russian news agency) wouldn't have joyfully broadcast propaganda to high heavens if there was even the faintest sniff of a hoax? The same TASS that happily bashed the US during the failed Iran rescue attempt, the Vietnam war and the Bay of Pigs fiasco?
Do you even have any idea the humiliation the Soviet Union suffered through on being beaten to second-place? It's EXACTLY like how the entire US was thrown into a somber mood when Yuri Gagarin first orbited the earth.


That would have been the first question anyone of intelligence should have asked himself before even lending ears to the whole hoax theory.

If these brains represent the present crop of intelligent Nigerians, then we might as well pack it in.

_{imagine someone saying we should inform the KGB on a matter that was a great humiliation to the Soviet Union over 30 years ago, during the height of the cold war}

i don't know what's wrong with u and i fear to imagine what it might be.how has my post insulted the intelligence of nigerians.or u where in such a hurry to reply my post that u forgot to cool down and digest my post.of course the hoax theorist have been on for several years not sometime as u propounded,mr technologist,

so if the 'kgb' and the 'gru' spied on the 'us' during the space programme and they saw nothing wrong with it,u,a technologically backward nigerian seem to see something wrong with it but u refused to do ur own research but prefer to argue on other peoples work?i now see how intelligent u are.
peeps have begged u and all ur cohorts supporting the hoax theory to come up with new evidence thought up by just a single one of u,yet u keep copying and posting,following a scent that was never there.
if the Russians cannot puncture holes in the whole space program success then it means it happened period.

and by the way i ain't in support or against the whole issue.

mrpataki:


Face it man! You are grossly un-intelligent and intellectually handicapped - deficient in adequately holding a discourse on any subject matter, except on the ground of peddling your backup kva inverters.

Olodo, you still don't get it, there is nothing like backup kva inverters. You go school at all?

Apollo returned 381.7 kg (841.5 lb) of rocks and other material from the Moon, much of which is stored at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston.

And what was the apollo manager doing in Antartica months before the whole mission,
To make you understand a little bit more
Antartica is believe to have almost the same rock composition as the moon.

The only one question i will ask you is that
Why have the moon probes after that which have mapped the surface of the moon not found leftovers from the missions.
because they brought back a rock does not give credibility to the whole mission.

You guys have to learn one thing,
The Us is so secretive, so they can feed you with rubbish and you not restraining to check it very well will bounce at it and shout very correct
while it is the wrong info


MOON LANDING IS HOAX
Even the latest travelling to the van aldrien belt , astrounants say they can see solar flares with their eyes, not to talk of been on the moon


If the space suit could protect the astronuants from radiation why is it not used during the Nuclear power station havoc.?

Mr pataki would you pls post your opinion on the topic
and not Afam chasing kid

mdsocks:

@skyope
you think like a little boy,
check facts, the farthest distance the rocket as reached after the aclaimed mission was just 3500 miles or so(not sure), while the distance from earth to moon is approx. 350,000 miles
do you seem to reason atall

The Saturn V rocket booster was NEVER designed to boost the Lunar and Command Modules to the moon. It was simply designed to put both modules into Space by generating enough thrust to escape the earth's gravity. The 3-stage rocket was designed to burn for just 20 minutes (on average) with the final stage separating from the spacecraft.
Obviously you have failed to do ANY research whatsoever.
You almost fooled me there. Why a scientist would spurn a learning oppportunity for the lure of conspiracy theories escapes me, but there you go.

seun001:

i don't know what's wrong with u and i fear to imagine what it might be.how has my post insulted the intelligence of nigerians.or u where in such a hurry to reply my post that u forgot to cool down and digest my post.of course the hoax theorist have been on for several years not sometime as u propounded,mr technologist,

so if the 'kgb' and the 'gru' spied on the 'us' during the space programme and they saw nothing wrong with it,u,a technologically backward nigerian seem to see something wrong with it but u refused to do your own research but prefer to argue on other peoples work?i now see how intelligent u are.
peeps have begged u and all your cohorts supporting the hoax theory to come up with new evidence thought up by just a single one of u,yet u keep copying and posting,following a scent that was never there.
if the Russians cannot puncture holes in the whole space program success then it means it happened period.

and by the way i ain't in support or against the whole issue.

Perhaps you suffer from vision problems. How on earth do my posts above show i'm in support of the hoax theory? I would have thought my stance in the whole issue is clear to all but the most criminally dumb.
I had difficulty following your thought processes. So what's the difference between 'sometime' and 'years ago'? How did i find and post links to back up my claims if that isn't research?
Take a good look at the articles i've posted, the comments i've made and see if you can make a comparison between your subpar intelligence and mine.

mdsocks:


And what was the apollo manager doing in Antartica months before the whole mission,
To make you understand a little bit more
Antartica is believe to have almost the same rock composition as the moon.

The only one question i will ask you is that
Why have the moon probes after that which have mapped the surface of the moon not found leftovers from the missions.
because they brought back a rock does not give credibility to the whole mission.

You guys have to learn one thing,
The Us is so secretive, so they can feed you with rubbish and you not restraining to check it very well will bounce at it and shout very correct
while it is the wrong info


MOON LANDING IS HOAX
Even the latest travelling to the van aldrien belt , astrounants say they can see solar flares with their eyes, not to talk of been on the moon


If the space suit could protect the astronuants from radiation why is it not used during the Nuclear power station havoc.?

Antartica has rocks similar to the moon rocks? What part of -
A geochemical component called KREEP (an acronym for rocks with high abundances of potassium, rare earth elements, and phosphorus) was discovered that has no known terrestrial counterpart. Together, KREEP and the anorthositic samples have been used to infer that the outer portion of the Moon was once completely molten (see lunar magma ocean).

Almost all of the rocks show evidence for having been affected by impact processes. For instance, many samples appear to be pitted with micrometeoroid impact craters, something which is never seen on earth due to its thick atmosphere.

- do you not understand?

What moon probes? After the Apollo landing just how many moon probes were sent? the Russians definitely weren't that interested anymore after having lost the big prize. Do you know jusy how big the moon is, that satellite probes would map every part of it?

mdsocks:


You guys have to learn one thing,
The Us is so secretive, so they can feed you with rubbish and you not restraining to check it very well will bounce at it and shout very correct
while it is the wrong info

Good. So how did you 'check it very well' before jumping on the Hoax bandwagon?


Your gist about the Radiation belt is becoming very tiresome. Read this

Challenges and Responses

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see Radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

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 metal 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. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.[58] 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.[12], pp. 160–162
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 early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[59] 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. [60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

that link above contains answers to all the half-baked questions you've been asking.

So i'm asking you now, don't get angry, get curious! Read the link above, start thinking for yourself!

mdsocks:


If the space suit could protect the astronuants from radiation why is it not used during the Nuclear power station havoc.?

Did you just ask that question? Sheesh! What Nuclear power station havoc? When has NASA claimed its space suits could protect humans from any level of radiation. More importantly, are you totally unaware that the space craft itself provided the main protection from Radiation in-flight?

Mdsocks, Why?

Afam:

Olodo, you still don't get it, there is nothing like backup kva inverters. You go school at all?

At least I made myself productive while I was in Univeristy, not spending quality time at Alaba Market and playing football all day long which you engaged yourself in.

Did you just ask that question? Sheesh! What Nuclear power station havoc? When has NASA claimed its space suits could protect humans from any level of radiation. More importantly, are you totally unaware that the space craft itself provided the main protection from Radiation in-flight?

texxazpete, if they know it can't protect them, would it then be advisable to send them to the moon
Or if they had been on the moon , 90% of them should have died due to radiation
am not currently on my system, i might get the approx. wrong just bear with me

mdsocks:

texxazpete, if they know it can't protect them, would it then be advisable to send them to the moon
Or if they had been on the moon , 90% of them should have died due to radiation
am not currently on my system, i might get the approx. wrong just bear with me

I meant to say *all* levels of raidation, not *any*. During the 30 minutes through the Van Allen belt the spacecraft itself protected them. Outside the spacecraft their suits protected them from the much more manageabloe radiation on the moon surface.
Unless, of course, you're challenging *all* spacewalks as fakes. if that, i'll stop talking to you immediately!

Unless, of course, you're challenging *all* spacewalks as fakes. if that, i'll stop talking to you immediately!

this clearly shows your level of understanding you have on this topic

The solar flares are much more brutal on the moon

mdsocks:

@skyope
you think like a little boy,
check facts, the farthest distance the rocket as reached after the aclaimed mission was just 3500 miles or so(not sure), while the distance from earth to moon is approx. 350,000 miles
do you seem to reason atall

your choice of words is rather unfortunate. your post seems to suggest that you think saturn v would actually reach the moon, thats also rather unfortunate. come on mdsocks, those kind of rockets are just temporary transport systems for space exploration. they are designed for the purpose of overcoming the escape velocity and propelling spacecraft towards its goal. that means they dont go far. spacecraft however have their own rocket propulsion system that takes over after the initial rocket cuts off. and i thought that was common knowledge. guess i was wrong

mdsocks:

this clearly shows your level of understanding you have on this topic

The solar flares are much more brutal on the moon

You're always cocky about things you don't know!

There are no solar flares ON the moon. Solar flares are (as the name implies) phenomena restricted to the sun. Large solar flares do not happen all the time. In fact, throughout the Apollo missions i don't think there was a single large flare during the mission window. Scientists have gotten pretty good at predicting when large solar flares would occur.

Without any major solar activity taking place, the moon landers were exposed to pretty much the radiation they'd face in a normal spacewalk.

@horus
they went to the moon in 1969 how could they have started murdering people before they claimed to have been to the moon?

They prepared the Hoax Before 1969.
Those who died are the 12 who know about the Hoax Project.
I know,you will tell me 12 witness Dead is a coincidence,or 12 coincidences?
This link is from Vikipedia,not from me.

Horus:

Those who died are the 12 who know about the Hoax Project.

there are 100s if not thousands of NASA workers and sceintist that worked on the apollo project. it will take more than just 12 murders to silence them all till this day. or you telling me NASA workers were deceived as well.

there are 100s if not thousands of NASA workers and sceintist that worked on the apollo project. it will take more than just 12 murders to silence them all till this day.

Apollo program and Hoax project are 2 different thing.
Only 12 people knew about the hoax project,and they are by coincidence exactly the 12 people who died,in 12 successive death by coincidence,of course!!

Horus:

Apollo program and Hoax project are 2 different thing.
Only 12 people knew about the hoax project,and they are by coincidence exactly the 12 people who died,in 12 successive death by coincidence,of course!!

ok. lets say the hoax project was secretive with only 12 peoples knowledge, according to u. that does not affect the 100s to 1000s that worked with the apollo program and if it was not successful dont u think someone will have talked since then. this is not CIA or MAFIA working with the code of omerta. this are scientists. someone will have talked. except u say that the apollo program never even existed. and it was all a lie.

ok. lets say the hoax project was secretive with only 12 peoples knowledge, according to u.

According to Wickipedia ,not from me,this is the second time I tell you the source is from Wickipedia.(Link was provided on this thread)

don't u think someone will have talked since then. this is not CIA or MAFIA working with the code of omerta. this are scientists. someone will have talked.

This is why we know the landing was a Hoax,Because some people talked

except u say that the apollo program never even existed. and it was all a lie.

No,I never said that,when?.what I tald you is that The Apollo program and the Hoax moon landing ARE 2 DIFFERENT THING[/B].(Look at my previous post).
There was an Apollo program,but there was [b]NO moon landing.
The Hoax is about the moon landing,and Not about the Apollo program.
there was different trips in space only done by The Apollo program but NOT on the moon.