09-11-2010, 04:08 PM
Jim,
The non-survivable radiation belt argument seems, to this layman, strong.
Are you able to offer for review (or at least provide links to) whatever counter-arguments have been posited by NASA and/or other "mainstream" scientific sources?
At first blush, this aspect of the controversy seems open to relatively easy resolution by addressing the following:
-- The types of radiation through which trans-lunar vehicles must pass.
-- The effective shielding, if any, installed on the human-carrying components of the Apollo spacecraft.
-- Survivable limits of human exposure.
-- Elapsed time of human exposure.
I am obliged to stipulate that exposure of a moon landing hoax would fit quite neatly into my world view. Which is all the more reason why I wish to move cautiously toward such a conclusion.
Jack, you may once again opine that I am overly cautious when examining conspiracy evidence. You may be right. But I'd remind one and all that I have lead -- or at least been one of the leaders of -- the charge to expose and utterly reject false debate on JFK and related deep political conspiracies and to recognize that we are at war with the bastards. While my profile has not been as high as those of others similarly disposed, the record of my endeavors in these areas may be traced back to the earliest Lancer conferences and "The Third Decade."
Jim and Jack, I'd like your views on the ITEMs I've posted above.
Charles
The non-survivable radiation belt argument seems, to this layman, strong.
Are you able to offer for review (or at least provide links to) whatever counter-arguments have been posited by NASA and/or other "mainstream" scientific sources?
At first blush, this aspect of the controversy seems open to relatively easy resolution by addressing the following:
-- The types of radiation through which trans-lunar vehicles must pass.
-- The effective shielding, if any, installed on the human-carrying components of the Apollo spacecraft.
-- Survivable limits of human exposure.
-- Elapsed time of human exposure.
I am obliged to stipulate that exposure of a moon landing hoax would fit quite neatly into my world view. Which is all the more reason why I wish to move cautiously toward such a conclusion.
Jack, you may once again opine that I am overly cautious when examining conspiracy evidence. You may be right. But I'd remind one and all that I have lead -- or at least been one of the leaders of -- the charge to expose and utterly reject false debate on JFK and related deep political conspiracies and to recognize that we are at war with the bastards. While my profile has not been as high as those of others similarly disposed, the record of my endeavors in these areas may be traced back to the earliest Lancer conferences and "The Third Decade."
Jim and Jack, I'd like your views on the ITEMs I've posted above.
Charles
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene