Zodiackillersite.com

Tahoe 27
I take it you are not a astro physicist so try reading the book before answering .
I do not know what you are talking of coming in and out of protective layer- ozone layer ? that keeps the low % of beta ,gamma ,alfa rays that are not redirected from our magnetic fields from killing us all here on earth . the moon has neither of these

ace ventura wrote:Tahoe 27
I take it you are not a astro physicist so try reading the book before answering .
I do not know what you are talking of coming in and out of protective layer- ozone layer ? that keeps the low % of beta ,gamma ,alfa rays that are not redirected from our magnetic fields from killing us all here on earth . the moon has neither of these

Nope not an Astro-Physicist, but I gather none of us here are.

My point was we can burn up in the atmosphere re-entering it, but we have (and had in the 60's) the technology to overcome that...for the most part. That doesn't happen landing on the moon. I was not writing about the ozone layer.

As far as the book, nope haven't read it. I wasn't commenting on the book. It doesn't appear anyone else who commented read it either. And I'll tell you, it won't convince me.

Welsh Chappie wrote:According to experts the astronauts would have needed to be in a vehicle that had a protective outer layer of led that was several inches thick. As NASA knew, the thing wouldn't even get off the ground if they attempted such a thing.

What if they told you...

"America land first man on Sun say NASA. The initial investigation carried out by the astronauts of the surface area has discovered that "Houston, it's a bit hot up here." As long as the give them some fire retardant t-shirts they'll be fine rite?

Would you believe them if they said that because your absolutely adamant this could not have been hoaxed because they had the US flag with them that they left on the suns surface!

WC, not sure why you make a big deal about this.

Landing on the sun is perfectly feasible...

We just need to do it at night.

If anyone is interested enough to READ this book you can read selective pages from it at the link provided.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Dar ... i7qKZ5dIMC

If Z really wanted and craved media attention, july 1969 was not the best time to try and achieve it .
if it was a diversion to draw media from apollo it was a perfect time .

some where in the book tells of a super computer back then being fed all the data of apollo 11 and calculating the odds of the astronauts landing on the moon then returning unharmed at 1000 to 1

Tahoe27 wrote:I hate crap like this.
It was real. People all over the world watched it. Our flags can still be viewed. Or are all those photos faked too?

Agreed. I like a good hoax theory, but this one's silly. 400,000 people colluded? Re-he-he-heally?
Wiki (yes I know some people don't like wiki) has a fabulous section on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landi ... y_theories

Us darn American liars are full of it and just want to bs the world with our fake technology!

Well, I still want a '57 Chevy Bel Air convertible, even if they ain't real.

I am not really trying to start a moon shot hoax thread here . I mostly just mentioned it as it is a good dective exercise-,something I think some members could use ... tahoe xxv11 .., if you are going to base your conclusions on a suspect ,event, or whatever, contrary to the evidence that supports a different or unrealistic ,unfeasable , or not possble result and blindly defend your side ,then you are what I like to call- bIASED -and should find a different hobby than amateur sluth. and I also found the book interesting and credable ,being written by a top expert in that field , maybe the members who called it silly would read the online book and then explain some of the points as how they are incorrect .

AAllll RRightyyy Tthenn !

ace ventura wrote:I am not really trying to start a moon shot hoax thread here . I mostly just mentioned it as it is a good dective exercise-,something I think some members could use ... tahoe xxv11 .., if you are going to base your conclusions on a suspect ,event, or whatever, contrary to the evidence that supports a different or unrealistic ,unfeasable , or not possble result and blindly defend your side ,then you are what I like to call- bIASED -and should find a different hobby than amateur sluth. and I also found the book interesting and credable ,being written by a top expert in that field , maybe the members who called it silly would read the online book and then explain some of the points as how they are incorrect .
AAllll RRightyyy Tthenn !

Obviously you thought my comment directed at you.

I could absolutely give my opinion on everything in the book, but would it matter to you? My guess is no. For every one scientist who says we could not have landed on the moon, you could find a hundred who says we could have and we did. Because I don't agree with you, or the "expert"...I'M biased and I should find a different hobby? You think because I have not read this particular book, I have not heard all this before?

Did you read my links to experts who said the hoax theory was ridiculous? After all, it's the experts opinions that matter, right?

Hey, you read mine and I'll read yours....I doubt either of us will have a difference of opinion.

No need to get personal and rude about it. I would certainly NEVER tell someone they should "find a different hobby" because their views are different than mine.

By the way, how's being a Pet Detective working out for you? Alrighty then...

Neil Armstrong speech:

"It was once noted that the only bird that could talk was the Parrot, and He didn't fly very well..." Well the parrot just repeats something that it's been told to say. Neil then turns toward the President and laughs saying "I'll be brief" as if to say "You know where i'm going with this I know but don't worry, i'll be brief and not too specific."

He continues: "Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say; we've only completed the beginning, we leave you much that remains undone. There are great ideas undiscovered and breakthrough's available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers."

What could he possibly mean by that I wonder??

Here is a link to that speech:

http://youtu.be/SFPiwnVL9ic

Here's how the Van Allen belts were discovered, and what the reaction to their discovery was...

"Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'."

Yet Apollo 11 and it's crew breezed through these belts once on their way to the moon, then again returning to Earth, without one health issue and without one instrument being effected in the slightest. Hmmmm

And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, passing through the belts themselves if just the beginning. NASA themselves state that the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day! To put it into perspective....

IAEA exposure dose limit is 5 rems in any single year.

Apollo Astronauts would have been exposed to 375 rems per day with no atmosphere on the moon to protect them and no led shielding in their space shuttle.

"High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover. Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr. Unprotected dose Fatal."