Of for pete's sake. I am not questioning about the validity of the space race nor the so called moon landing. However there are doubts in my head that are needed to be answered. I would like the answer to be in a civil form without name calling or links found from google search. Long term radiation from cosmic rays, solar flares and surface of the moon has not been answered. They were on the moon for a sufficient duration in which included a moon walk. The whole surface of the moon are highly exposed to radiation. When cosmic rays hits the moon surface this generates another dangerous spray of radiation. Hence begs the question? There has to be dna damage to the astronauts. The space suit can shield you from its full force but not completely.
I don't know why I'm getting myself into this, but here goes... It was mentioned earlier in the thread that one of the best pieces of evidence that we were, in fact, on the moon is that immediately after the landing we starting doing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments. This is where we reflect lasers off of mirrors we placed on the Moon. I did not just look this up on google, I happen to personally know multiple people who have been involved in these experiments since the beginning.
The key is "prolonged" exposure. I won't post the whole article, but here is an excerpt: "The number of astronauts is too limited to provide reliable information on the effects of space radiation. Only 24 of the men from the Apollo missions to the moon have been exposed to the unique radiation of outer space. While two of those 24 died of cancer in the decades following the missions, Cucinotta believes that it is “highly unlikely” that their cancers were related to their short, one-week journeys to the moon." http://scienceline.org/2009/01/28/tech-storrs-cancer-space-radiation-mission-risk/
Oh yes you can, although the telescope I looked through was actually an observatory one at his house....that he has trained to look at the spot...it is VERY cool. You are certainly playing hard to like, but to quell your ignorance. Richard Garriott buys the Luna 17 from Sothebys "Texas computer game designer Richard Garriott was such a space nut (Dad is Skylab astronaut Owen Garriott), he spent $60,000 on a lunar rover Sotheby's auctioned last December. Problem: The Luna-17 is still up there. Sotheby's service doesn't include delivery. . . " DD
Ah right, nasa.gov is your source of information. Another trident who refurbishes info without knowing. I guess I shoulda known there are somethings best left alone and not to distend the so called event.
So please, great font of wisdom, ever so kindly tell us your calculations for recieved radiation by each individual during each of the Apollo missions. Please include all figures and math. TIA. I am reminded of the 9/11 truther mantra, "if a building that big were hit by an airplane, it wouldn't fall like that." Really? How many buildings that big have you seen hit by an airplane, that you can profess expertise to state how it would or wouldn't fall? Exactly how much time have you spent on the moon measuring ionizing radiation, that you can tell us that they would all recieve a cancer causing mega dose?
What is your expertise? What are your sources? Why is it you can read some conspiracy nut's ideas and then claim nobody else can site different sources to disprove them?
What does a solar flare do? How many major solar flares were there during the Apollo missions? What kind of pattern does a solar flare travel in?
It is impossible. You are either lying or were lied too. I know a little about optics and telescopes, you didn't see anything. I love the backtrack though. Keep them coming. Unfortunetly your latest "observatory" story doesn't hold water either.
Sorry for not reading the whole thread, but MythBusters ran a whole episode dedicated to this myth, and there's a pretty clear explanation for each conspiracy suggested by the doubters. A must watch for anyone who doubts this really happened.
And what evidence have you offered other than your own opinion? Also I have a hard time taking your argument seriously when you misuse the term "physic".
At first, I thought he claimed "psychic" was his power. Then I read more, saw he was actually serious, then realized he typed "physic" instead and had some lols.
Hmmmm...maybe it was just a pic after all, much liquor was consumed...but I know he bought the darned thing. DD
I knew you would answer one of three ways. 1. well I saw it, so whatever 2. google and try to argue 3. man up and admit to being full of it. The much more interesting thing is you seeing something that is physically impossible to see. Even if you had robot eyes and the worlds largest telescope in orbit, the limits of visible light radiation prevent that kind of resolution. Hubble cannot see it. Please just admit it.
