Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[frenat]

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.

That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.

Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.

Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.

Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.   Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.

Stop, you're breaking my irony meter.  Got an accurate flat Earth map yet?  An explanation for how the sun sets below the horizon?  An explanation for 24 hours of Sun in the Antarctic?  An explanation for how the sun sets later at higher altitudes?  How about how radar and radio range increases with altitude?  Or how the sun rises due East for EVERY PERSON on the planet on the equinoxes when on a flat Earth it would be in the North East?

There is NO EVIDENCE for a flat Earth.  The world was proven round over 2,000 years ago and no amount of recent ignorance on youtube will ever change that fact.

[JayUtah]

Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.

I spoke to Dr. Van Allen.  He specifically repudiates the hoax claimants.  He specifically said there's nothing to prevent missions to the Moon.  Maybe that's why every single astrophysicist in the world believes in Apollo.  But then you don't believe in astrophysics, or science.  Except, of course, for the one astrophysicist talking decades ago in a way you think you can spin to support your belief.

If I were to ask you the difference between a rad and a REM, would you be able to answer?  Or would you be stuck with what you Googled from hoax web sites?

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.

Yeah, we even go so far as to point out facts.  How silly is that, right?

[JayUtah]

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.

Actually I practice it professionally, and have done so successfully for 30 years.  All you seem capable of is attracting laughter.

[Peter B]

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.   Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.

I have to say that's rich coming from someone whose comments about Flat Earth are copied and pasted from the "200 proofs of a Flat Earth" book, and who noticeably ignores questions about issues which aren't covered in that book.

Plus, please note this yet again: NASA is not the only space agency in the world. If you don't like NASA, that's fine. Talk to the Russians instead. Talk to the Chinese. Talk to the Europeans. Heck, talk to the North Koreans. Just don't expect them to say anything different from NASA about whatever aspect of the space environment you're griping about this time.

[JayUtah]

I have to say that's rich coming from someone whose comments about Flat Earth are copied and pasted...

All of his stuff is copypasted.  None of it is original.  That's why I'm sure he's just a troll.

[gillianren]

And doesn't he literally claim religious motivation for various of his beliefs?

[Zakalwe]

And doesn't he literally claim religious motivation for various of his beliefs?

There's nothing more religious in life than blindly adhering to the writings of a single book and denying any and all evidence that contradicts the contents of said book. No matter if it is the bible (hes a declared Catholic) or Eric Dubay's (he draws all his stuff from "200 proofs..")

[Zakalwe]

...and, naturally, the irony and ridiculousness of someone declaring that satellites do not exist whilst simultaneously using a compute that connects to a world-wide network of computers, all connected by links that use timing signals from satellites will be totally lost on him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35491962

[bknight]

...and, naturally, the irony and ridiculousness of someone declaring that satellites do not exist whilst simultaneously using a compute that connects to a world-wide network of computers, all connected by links that use timing signals from satellites will be totally lost on him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35491962

Picking and choosing which data might support his position even though those data points destroy his position and beliefs, go figure.

[Apollo 957]

Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.

Done that. It closes with a summary, handily highlit in yellow in your version.

"Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is ... Since a human being exposed for two days ...."

First - for every MAXIMUM level, there's a matching MINIMUM, is there not? If the maximum level is X, the level EVERYWHERE ELSE must be less than X, must it not?

Second - Apollo astronauts were not exposed to even the maximum for two days. They were exposed to a far lesser level for a matter of minutes.

You do realise that further studies were done after 1958, don't you? That this wasn't the final word? 

[Apollo 957]

The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want. 

[Zakalwe]

Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf

Don't you just love it when haoxies quote mine something and then provide the whole document that shows the full text in context?

Tradosaurus, me old mucker, on page 47, just after the handy yellow highlighting (no doubt, for the hard of thinking) did you read "Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travellers against the effects of radiation..."? Did you stop for a second and look into the shielding that is provided in the Apollo CM?

Secondly, did you not recognise that the trajectories followed by the probes in that article and the trajectories followed by Apollo were different? One went through the most active parts of the belts to research them and the other avoided the majority of the belts precisely because of the information gleaned from experiments like these. I'll leave a genius like yourself to work out which mission was which....

Finally, did your "research" only include popular scientific magazines up to 1959? Why not from later? Or would that be just another example of a hoaxie's efforts to quote-mine? Why didn't you research how Apollo flew their trajectories?


I await your answers with baited breath......

[Zakalwe]

If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.

[bknight]

If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.

Irony meter seems to be pegging out.

[raven]

Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?