Youtube comments of TheFlat EarthTruth (@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth).

  1. 99
  2. 45
  3. 29
  4. 23
  5. 22
  6. 21
  7. 18
  8. 17
  9. 17
  10. 16
  11. 15
  12. 15
  13. 14
  14. 14
  15. 13
  16. 13
  17. 13
  18. 11
  19. 11
  20. 10
  21. 10
  22. 10
  23. 9
  24. 9
  25. 9
  26. According to the Australian psychologist Stephan Lewandowsk who has considerable experience in studying and treating people who are under the influence of conspiracy theories, there are certain main traits common to all conspiratorial thinking. (1) Something must be wrong. Although conspiracy theorists may occasionally abandon specific ideas when they become untenable, those revisions don’t change their overall conclusion that “something must be wrong” and the official account is based on deception. (2) Persecuted victim. Conspiracy theorists perceive and present themselves as the victim of organized persecution. At the same time, they see themselves as brave antagonists taking on the villainous conspirators. Conspiratorial thinking involves a self-perception of simultaneously being a victim and a hero. (3) Contradictory. Conspiracy theorists can simultaneously believe in ideas that are mutually contradictory. For example, believing the theory that Princess Diana was murdered but also believing that she faked her own death. This is because the theorists’ commitment to disbelieving the real account is so absolute, it doesn’t matter if their belief system is incoherent. (4) Immune to evidence. Conspiracy theories are inherently self-sealing—evidence that counters a theory is re-interpreted as originating from the conspiracy. This reflects the belief that the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy (e.g., the FBI exonerating a politician from allegations of misusing a personal email server), the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (e.g., the FBI was part of the conspiracy to protect that politician). (5) Overriding suspicion. Conspiratorial thinking involves a nihilistic degree of scepticism towards the real account. This extreme degree of suspicion prevents belief in anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Read more in his “Conspiracy Theory Handbook” easily available online as a PDF. It also gives help on how to talk to family and friends who are suffering such delusions.
    9
  27. 9
  28. 9
  29. 9
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 8
  33. 8
  34. 8
  35. 8
  36. 8
  37. 8
  38. 7
  39. 7
  40. 7
  41. 7
  42. 7
  43. 7
  44. 7
  45. 7
  46. 7
  47. 7
  48. 7
  49. 7
  50. 7
  51. 6
  52. 6
  53. 6
  54. 6
  55. 6
  56. 6
  57. 6
  58. 6
  59. 6
  60. 6
  61. 6
  62. 6
  63. 6
  64. 6
  65. 6
  66. 6
  67. 6
  68. 6
  69. 6
  70. 6
  71. 6
  72. 6
  73. 6
  74. 6
  75. 6
  76. 6
  77. 6
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 6
  83. 6
  84. 6
  85. 5
  86. 5
  87. 5
  88. 5
  89. 5
  90. 5
  91. 5
  92. 5
  93. 5
  94. 5
  95. 5
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 5
  151. 5
  152. 5
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 4
  192. 4
  193. 4
  194. 4
  195. 4
  196. 4
  197. 4
  198. 4
  199. 4
  200. 4
  201. 4
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 4
  207. 4
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262. 4
  263. 4
  264. 4
  265. 4
  266. 4
  267. 4
  268. 4
  269. 4
  270. 4
  271. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    4
  272. 4
  273. 4
  274. 4
  275. 4
  276. 4
  277. 4
  278. 4
  279. 4
  280. 4
  281. 4
  282. 4
  283. 4
  284. 4
  285. 4
  286. 4
  287. 4
  288. 4
  289. 4
  290. 4
  291. 4
  292. 4
  293. 4
  294. 4
  295. 4
  296. 4
  297. 4
  298. 4
  299. 4
  300. 4
  301. 4
  302. 4
  303. 4
  304. 4
  305. 4
  306. 4
  307. 4
  308. 4
  309. 4
  310. 4
  311. 4
  312. 4
  313. 4
  314. 4
  315. 4
  316. 4
  317. 4
  318.  @filthyusratus  Hi Christopher, hope that you are well. You mentioned "the van Allen radiation belt (sic)". It is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    4
  319. 4
  320. 4
  321. 4
  322. 4
  323. 4
  324. 4
  325. 4
  326. 4
  327. 4
  328. 4
  329. 4
  330. 4
  331. 4
  332. 4
  333. 4
  334. 4
  335. 4
  336. 4
  337. 4
  338. 4
  339. 4
  340. 4
  341. 4
  342. 4
  343. 4
  344. 4
  345. 4
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. 3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377. 3
  378. 3
  379. 3
  380. 3
  381. 3
  382. 3
  383. 3
  384. 3
  385. 3
  386. 3
  387. 3
  388. 3
  389. 3
  390. 3
  391. 3
  392. 3
  393. 3
  394. 3
  395. 3
  396. 3
  397. 3
  398. 3
  399. 3
  400. 3
  401. 3
  402. 3
  403. 3
  404. 3
  405. 3
  406. 3
  407. 3
  408. 3
  409. 3
  410. 3
  411. 3
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. 3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. 3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475. 3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. 3
  489. 3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493. 3
  494. 3
  495. 3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539.  @Alex-hr2df  Thank you for your reply. I asked for evidence, unfortunately all that you have been able to do is make further unevidenced claims. These claims are the usual jaded offerings that have been debunked many, many times before. (1) "Shadows in images proving spot lights"...If there were multiple light sources as you claim then every single object would produce multiple shadows. However we do not observe this in any of the thousands of Apollo photographs. (2) “No crater of thrusters”. The Descent Stage rocket engine produced a thrust of just 3000lb on landing and this engine was cut some 2m above the surface. No “crater” could possible be expected in these conditions. (3) “No dust on the the (sic) pads”. Incorrect, dust is observed on the landing pads in some of the missions ( AS16-107-17442). That said, what exactly does basic Physics tell us should happen to dust disturbed and given momentum in a vacuum? (4) “Camera lens crosshairs hidden behind objects”. The crosshairs aren’t behind objects, they’re washed out, as occurs often for any thin object photographed against an overexposed bright background, especially after repeated analogue duplications of a photo. The apparently covered crosshairs are often visible in the original pictures. (5) “Illuminated dark side of the astronaut”. (Please identify this photograph). Does the lunar surface reflect light, yes or no? (6) “Ridiculous fuel capacity compared to distance”. Strange that none of the many thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers involved in the Apollo Program and the many who have studied it over the decades see any difficulty here. Please provide your detailed calculations on this issue to include all your research, assumptions, published work etc. One has a choice, blindly regurgitate the usual conspiracy nonsense claims without providing any evidence to back them up or actually go and study some basic science. Take care.
    3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756.  @MrMandelsohn  Hi again M, thank you for your reply. Your latest post is, I think that you will agree, less of a question and more of a statement of opinion. That said. (1) They are not my excess death figures it is simply a fact that the UK saw over 91k extra deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. This sudden spike in mortality is similar to what was witnessed in 1915 (war), 1918 (war & flu), 1929 (flu), 1940 (war) and 1951 (flu). (2) The evidence shows clearly that negative outcomes for Covid-19 increase with age and that age is by far the greatest predictor of an infected persons risk of dying. This can be said for many if not the majority of illnesses.(3) There has been considerable research in to the impact of lockdowns on suicide and self harm rates. The research clearly shows that suicide and self-harm rates did not increase as a result of lockdowns. Some countries actually observed a fall. (4) I have seen no evidence that there was widespread "stress and depression destroying immune system" or that alcoholism causes a significant increase in deaths. (5) "cancelled treatment lack of diagnosis" During the early Covid-19 waves are you seriously suggesting that hospitals should have continued as normal? Close on 80k healthcare staff contracted Covid-19 and over 900 died. And bringing unvaccinated patients who already by definition had health issues into close contact with others was a certain way to cause more deaths. At least it is to your credit you are no longer making the ridiculous claim that treatment was "stopped". (6) I am also glad that you have admitted that your original claim of a 99.7& survival rate for Covid-19 was wrong. Take care.
    2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. ​ @mrvivek815  Thank you for your reply. Not even slightly. It is not simply a matter of "deciding" to go or not to go. A large number of conditions and variables had to perfectly align for this to be possible. The Apollo Program, landing men on the Moon and successfully returning them to Earth has few, if any, equals in terms of human exploration. The sheer level of manpower, resources and finance needed for this endeavour as well as political will and imperative mark this out as a unique event without comparison. The Apollo Program required over 400,000 people in the US to be involved. These included some of the top engineers, chemists, Physicists and other subject experts that were available. In addition there was the involvement of some 50,000 individuals oversees in such tasks as the various tracking stations of the MSFN (Manned Space Flight Network) right across the Globe. The MSFN used a network of giant satellite dishes and radio antenna such as Goldstone (70m), Parkes, Australia (64m), Honeysuckle Creek, Australia (24m) and Madrid, Spain (34m). The Saturn V Rocket was manufactured by multinational companies such as Boeing, Douglas and North American Aviation. The Landing Module by Grumman and computers by IBM. Dozens of other firms were involved. NASA budget was 4.41% of the Federal Budget in 1966 compared to 0.48% in 2020. The Apollo Program lasted over a decade and built upon the work done in the Mercury and Gemini Programs. During the Apollo era NASA had basically just one aim, to fulfil Kennedys promise of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth". The geo-political situation of the 1960's and the Cold War also gave huge impetus to the project. Although all 6 Moon Landings occurred in the presidency of Richard Nixon they were very much in the public mind associated with JFK. Nixon was not particularly keen in continuing the Apollo Missions. By 1972 the Apollo Program had fulfilled all of its objectives and more. The space exploration agenda moved on to satellites, Skylab, Voyager Probes and the Space Shuttle. Thankfully after over five decades the scientific, financial and political conditions have aligned once again and the Atriums Program looks set to return humans to the Moon. Take care.
    2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. Hi jim, hope that you are well. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts (please use capitals) as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. Your knowledge and understanding of the Van Allen Belts is lacking. These are regions of trapped particle radiation. They do not contain anything that would cause astronauts to be "burnt up like a crisp" as you claim. These belts were discovered and named after Dr. James Van Allen. He wrote "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen
    2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276.  @andylaauk  Hi andy again. With a break through virus it is not surprising that a certain number of fully vaccinated people will get seriously ill, hospitalised and die. However the rates of serious illness, hospitalisation and deaths in the unvaccinated cohort in every country that I have researched is far out of proportion to their size in the community and their risk factor for serious illness and death is unfortunately many times greater than for the vaccinated population. There are many. many reports and research papers from many different countries that show this, here are just a sample. (1) "Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant, CDC data show", Author: Owen Dyer, Published in British Medical Journal, 16 Sept 2021. (2) Public Health England recently published document "Covid-19 Surveillance Report Week 36 ", What is really interesting in that in Table 5(b) is the comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts for Covid-19 death rates per 100,000 of population. This shows that unvaccinated people in all age groups are far more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated. 18-29 = 4 times, 30-39 = 6.5 times, 40-49 = 6.3 times, 50-59 = 9.1 times, 60-69 = 6.7 times, 70-79 = 5.4 times & >80 = 3.2 times. (3) The ONS report, "Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 2 July 2021", 13 Sept 2021, which states "Of the 51,281 deaths from Covid-19 in England between 2 January and 2 July 2021, 50,641 were of people who were not fully vaccinated. It is sad to see so many needless deaths of so many unvaccinated people.". Have a read of these and let me know what you think. Take care.
    2
  1277.  @lynnB3159  Hi Lynn, I hope that you are well. You mentioned that in your opinion the vaccine "does not work and ruins your bodies immune system". I have not seen any evidence or research that suggests either of these opinions to be true. If you can provide or reference any I would be delighted to discuss it with you. I have encountered a large body of research that shows that vaccines are highly effective in reducing serious illness and deaths from Covid-19. For example: (1) "Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant, CDC data show", Author: Owen Dyer, Published in British Medical Journal, 16 Sept 2021. (2) Public Health England recently published document "Covid-19 Surveillance Report Week 36 ", What is really interesting in that in Table 5(b) is the comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts for Covid-19 death rates per 100,000 of population. This shows that unvaccinated people in all age groups are far more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated. 18-29 = 4 times, 30-39 = 6.5 times, 40-49 = 6.3 times, 50-59 = 9.1 times, 60-69 = 6.7 times, 70-79 = 5.4 times & >80 = 3.2 times. (3) The ONS report, "Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 2 July 2021", 13 Sept 2021, which states "Of the 51,281 deaths from Covid-19 in England between 2 January and 2 July 2021, 50,641 were of people who were not fully vaccinated. It is sad to see so many needless deaths of so many unvaccinated people.". Have a read of these and let me know what you think. Take care.
    2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. Hi Ivan, hope that you are well. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378.  @marianogilglz9049  H again Mariano, thank you for your reply. Why are you going off on a tangent about "big pharma"? Why not stick to the points at hand? (1) Is it not true that Dr Laurie is an expert in obstetrics and gynaecology, not viruses. and she does not has any qualifications or experience in virology or epidemiology (nor in fairness does she claim to in the video) so my original point still stands. (2) Is it not a fact that one of the papers that Laurie relies in in her meta study the paper by Elgazzar A, Eltaweel A, Youssef SA, et al. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic. Res Square. 2020, was actually withdrawn last July by the journal that published it due to issues of fabrication of data, plagiarism and also, bizarrely, it turned out that it contained data from patients who had died before the trial had actually started! (3) Is it not also true that several other papers that she cites in the meta study also have been found to have major errors and flaws including the same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people. Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random. Numbers unlikely to occur naturally/ Percentages calculated incorrectly ? (4) Isn't it also true that the largest and highest quality ivermectin study published so far is the Together trial at the McMaster University in Canada, which found no benefit whatsoever for the drug when it comes to the treatment of Covid-19? Take care & stay safe.
    2
  1379.  @marianogilglz9049  Hi again Mariano "you obviously are somebody paid to do so". It is regrettable that you can not have a civil discussion without resorting to fantasy. You also seem to wish wish to constantly change the topic of our discussion by introducing new material and new names. You have done this before. This discussion is not about you and me, it is about the facts. This discussion is about Therese Laurie, Ivermectin, and your assertion that she is "an expert in coducting (sic) ..drug evaluations" (1) I claim that this is incorrect as she is in fact qualified in obstetrics and gynaecology and does not have qualifications in epidemiology or virology or related fields. (2) I also state clearly that there are major issues with some of the reports that she cites in her meta study? For example the paper Elgazzar A, Eltaweel A, Youssef SA, et al. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of covid-19 pandemic. Res Square. 2020, was actually withdrawn in July 2021 due to issues of fabrication of data, plagiarism and also, bizarrely, it turned out that it contained data from patients who had died before the trial had actually started! (3) Several other papers that she cites in the meta study also have been found to have major errors and flaws. In short, Laurie's meta study has been shown to be based on flawed and possibly fabricated research and is not considered reliable in any way. You have not been able to counter my above three points in any way. When you agree that the above 3 points are factual then I am more then happy to discuss further issues. Take care.
    2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. "I still don't understand"...just because you personally do not understand these issues does not mean that other are the same. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452.  @cocos8903  Hi again CoCo S. "60,000 medical scientists ....on the Great Barrington declaration" Again, and with the greatest of respect, you really need to do some research on this. The GBD was unverified online petition which numbered among its early signatories Dr. Michael Mouse, Dr. Adolf Hitler and at least a dozen Dr. Harold Shipmans. As the names added became more and more ludicrous the list of signatures was hidden from the public. While there was a small number of real scientists and medical professionals involved the vast majority of names were either false, homeopaths, faith healers or the same individuates logging in several times.The ideas mentioned in it are unsupported by existing scientific evidence, are entirely speculative and are nothing more than a fringe view. The president of UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences, Professor Sir Robert Lechler has described the idea as “unethical and simply not possible.” He also points out that the virus “is in no way benign for the young and fit” and that there is much that we still have to discover about the long term effects of the disease. The WHO and numerous public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, unscientific and would lead to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions. In late 2020 in a document published in The Lancet more than 6,200 real scientists, health professionals, and research organizations signed a memorandum rejecting herd immunity as a legitimate strategy and described it as a “dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.” The GBD and its extreme right wing backers in the US has been totally discredited and shown up for the nonsense that it is.
    1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. Hope that you are well. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729.  @Andrew-ri5qo  Hi again Andrew, it is good that you are more civil this time, I respect that. Let us not lose sight of the fact that I originally mentioned to you that your comment that "The virus is immune to these vaccines" is incorrect and politely aske you "to prove me wrong". To date you have not done that. I do not call you a liar for making this claim, I just think that you are wrong.The report from PHE that you cited showed that in a highly vaccinated population the risk of death from Covid-19 is much higher in the unvaccinated population which is the opposite of your original claim. To back my assertion that vaccines work (1)I draw you attention to the Public Health England website and the recently published document "Covid-19 Surveillance Report Week 36 ", What is really interesting in that in Table 5(b) is the comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts for Covid-19 death rates per 100,000 of population. This shows that unvaccinated people in all age groups are far more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated. 18-29 = 4 times, 30-39 = 6.5 times, 40-49 = 6.3 times, 50-59 = 9.1 times, 60-69 = 6.7 times, 70-79 = 5.4 times & >80 = 3.2 times. (2) The ONS report, "Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 2 July 2021", 13 Sept 2021, which states "Of the 51,281 deaths from Covid-19 in England between 2 January and 2 July 2021, 50,641 were of people who were not fully vaccinated. It is sad to see so many needless deaths of so many unvaccinated people." and from US data (3) ""Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant, CDC data show", Author: Owen Dyer, Published in British Medical Journal, 16 Sept 2021.". Take care.
    1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787.  @AlienFrequency  Hi again AF, thank you for your reply and I hope that you continue to be well. In your original comment you wrote "There are so many weird, unexplainable videos and other circumstantial facts that debunk that they actually went (to the moon)" and I asked you if you would be good enough to elaborate on this comment. You did, thank you, but I find it interesting that most, if not all, of your back-up comments do not directly refer to the Apollo Missions but things that happened decades later. Your comments are also vague, you fail to give specific details of anything that you claim eg: Source, video, date, website etc, so it makes it difficult for me to be specific in my reply. That said: (1) "Obama", "low earth orbit". What exactly was this comment?, what was it's context? Please provide the original source, otherwise I can not comment on it. (2) "NASA "losing" the original footage". Some magnetic tapes used for Apollo 11 Mission where reused in the late 1980's due to cost reasons. However there is no missing footage from Apollo 11 as all the video transmissions that were relayed to the Mission Control in Houston during the mission was also recorded on a format which could be broadcast on television. (3) "NASA saying we don't have the tech anymore". From the end of the Apollo Program in 1972 to the current Artemis Mission this is basically an accurate statement. Grumman are no longer making Lunar Lander Modules. Boeing, Douglas and North American Aviation were no longer building Saturn V rockets, the Apollo Program was wound down, it's objectives reached, and tens of thousands of scientists, engineers etc, were moved to other tasks or lost their jobs. The NASA budget was slashed from 4% of US government spending during Apollo years to less than 0.5% today and NASA priorities in the 1970's had moved on to projects such as Voyager and Mariner probes and the space shuttle. All the plans, blueprints, designs and technical documents for all the Apollo Mission hardware all still exist but the knowledge base of the 400,000 plus employees is long gone and the Apollo Mission technology is lost to time. To go to the moon again, NASA will have to start from scratch, which is exactly what they are doing with the Artemis Program. (4) "astronaut opens the hatch door and it flops around like it's made of paper". Where in any of the footage from any of the Apollo Missions did this occur? Are you perhaps referring to the thermal covers over the hatches on the ISS? Please explain. (5) "ISS footage where there are clear green screen or CGI effects". I am aware that such ridicules notions are peddled by certain individuals that will "cherry pick" certain video artefacts and streaming errors and weave a narrative around them. The questions that you have to ask yourself is are these people suitably qualified to make such judgements and also why do the only ever show tiny snippets of the thousands of hours footage available? The YouTube video titled "Debunking the 'FAKE' claims once and for all" on the channel of professional photographer Dave McKeegan, will debunk all this better than I. Take care.
    1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. H Graham, hope that you are well. You wrote "how could those Apollo astronauts survive passing through the Van Allen radiation belt?". It is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. It is not simply a matter of "funds". The Apollo Program, landing men on the Moon and successfully returning them to Earth has few, if any, equals in terms of human exploration. The sheer level of manpower, resources and finance needed for this endeavour as well as political will and imperative mark this out as a unique event without comparison. The Apollo Program required over 400,000 people in the US to be involved. These included some of the top engineers, chemists, Physicists and other subject experts that were available. In addition there was the involvement of some 50,000 individuals oversees in such tasks as the various tracking stations of the MSFN (Manned Space Flight Network) right across the Globe. The MSFN used a network of giant satellite dishes and radio antenna such as Goldstone (70m), Parkes, Australia (64m), Honeysuckle Creek, Australia (24m) and Madrid, Spain (34m). The Saturn V Rocket was manufactured by multinational companies such as Boeing, Douglas and North American Aviation. The Landing Module by Grumman and computers by IBM. Dozens of other firms were involved. NASA budget was 4.41% of the Federal Budget in 1966 compared to 0.48% in 2020. The Apollo Program lasted over a decade and built upon the work done in the Mercury and Gemini Programs. During the Apollo era NASA had basically just one aim, to fulfil Kennedys promise of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth". The geo-political situation of the 1960's and the Cold War also gave huge impetus to the project. Although all 6 Moon Landings occurred in the presidency of Richard Nixon they were very much in the public mind associated with JFK. Nixon was not particularly keen in continuing the Apollo Missions. By 1972 the Apollo Program had fulfilled all of its objectives and more. The space exploration agenda moved on to satellites, Skylab, Voyager Probes and the Space Shuttle. Thankfully after over five decades the scientific, financial and political conditions have aligned once again and the Atriums Program looks set to return humans to the Moon. Take care.
    1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. You asked "how is moon landings not a common thing or haven't happened again?" (It did happen again of course, 5 times). The Apollo Program, landing men on the Moon and successfully returning them to Earth has few, if any, equals in terms of human exploration. The sheer level of manpower, resources and finance needed for this endeavour as well as political will and imperative mark this out as a unique event without comparison. The Apollo Program required over 400,000 people in the US to be involved. These included some of the top engineers, chemists, Physicists and other subject experts that were available. In addition there was the involvement of some 50,000 individuals oversees in such tasks as the various tracking stations of the MSFN (Manned Space Flight Network) right across the Globe. The MSFN used a network of giant satellite dishes and radio antenna such as Goldstone (70m), Parkes, Australia (64m), Honeysuckle Creek, Australia (24m) and Madrid, Spain (34m). The Saturn V Rocket was manufactured by multinational companies such as Boeing, Douglas and North American Aviation. The Landing Module by Grumman and computers by IBM. Dozens of other firms were involved. NASA budget was 4.41% of the Federal Budget in 1966 compared to 0.48% in 2020. The Apollo Program lasted over a decade and built upon the work done in the Mercury and Gemini Programs. During the Apollo era NASA had basically just one aim, to fulfil Kennedys promise of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth". The geo-political situation of the 1960's and the Cold War also gave huge impetus to the project. Although all 6 Moon Landings occurred in the presidency of Richard Nixon they were very much in the public mind associated with JFK. Nixon was not particularly keen in continuing the Apollo Missions. By 1972 the Apollo Program had fulfilled all of its objectives and more. The space exploration agenda moved on to satellites, Skylab, Voyager Probes and the Space Shuttle. Thankfully after over five decades the scientific, financial and political conditions have aligned once again and the Atriums Program looks set to return humans to the Moon. Take care.
    1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. @Jon Snow went MGTOW And again more obfuscation and unfortunately more misinformation. "Otherwise, the evidence suggests that Antibody-dependent enhancement is equally likely to be the problem" ...Sorry, you can not shoehorn in you pet hypothesis without evidence. For a start ADE is exceptionally rare, secondly there is no evidence that ADE is occurring as a result of Covid vaccines. If Covid vaccines did carry a significant risk of ADE then people who are vaccinated would have more severe disease. This is not being observed. On the contrary evidence from multiple sources show that people who are vaccinated and infected with Covid typically have very mild disease or none at all. In fact, the majority of COVID-19 deaths in the USA are now in people who aren't fully vaccinated. In May, fully vaccinated people made up just 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths. That means 99.2% of COVID-19 deaths were in unvaccinated people. This shows how effective the vaccines are in preventing deaths and serious illness. As for Israel the evidence is still showing that being vaccinated dramatically reduces the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation and death. Health Ministry data shows that the rate of serious cases among unvaccinated people over 60 is nine times more than the rate among fully vaccinated over 60's and that serious illness for the unvaccinated under 60's is over double the rate of their vaccinated counterparts. I get it that you have opinions and that you wish that the evidence matched these opinions. Unfortunately, science, and life, do not work this way.
    1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. Hi t, hope that you are well. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315.  @Alex-hr2df  Thank you for your reply in which you show a poor understanding of basic Physics, the Apollo Program and ever seem unaware of your own previous comments. Again, all you have done is repeated some of your unevidenced claims, ignored others and added a few more without, as is your custom, providing any evidence to back them up. Your comments continue to underline your very poor knowledge and lack of research on the topic. (1) “I never said multiple lights. Spotlight is a single light”….Incorrect. What you wrote was “Shadows in images proving spot lights". (2) “free fall from 2m would smash the hell out of the equipments and landing pads”….Incorrect. The Lunar Module was designed to drop the last 5ft. This was done to prevent the LM descent module engine from reflecting thrust back up into the engine bell and possibly causing catastrophic damage. (3) “being carried up until 2m above the surface MUST create a crater”…..The LM had landing pods, what do you think that they were for? (4) “Did you see NASA the takeoff video also? Why doesn't it show any dust blown-away or any crater being formed? Please don't tell me the thruster started 2m above the surface”…….Here you display your total ignorance of the Apollo Program. The Ascent Stage of the Lunar Module was a separate spacecraft with its own rocket engine and propellent supply. It used the Descent Stage as its launch pad. The thrust produced by the Ascent Stage rocket engine never impacted on the surface so a crater and dust disturbed was impossible. (5) “You believe dust should be scattered. This is wrong. Moon has a gravity, and with little-to-no air the dust should settle quickly on the pads without to move at all”….Again totally incorrect. With the absence of atmospheric resistance the dust particles will continue to move away and outwards from the LM following the basic rules of Physics. The engine engine thrust pushed most of the dust away before landing and the descent engine was turned off before the LM touched the surface. (6) “but it's clearly hand-spread”. Again a made up claim with absolutely aero evidence. You seem to have totally ignored your other unevidenced claims such as “Ridiculous fuel capacity compared to distance”. Strange that none of the many thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers involved in the Apollo Program and the many who have studied it over the decades see any difficulty here. Please provide your detailed calculations on this issue to include all your research, assumptions, published work etc. Do not pretend that you know anything about basic Physics or the Apollo Program. You clearly do not. Take care.
    1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. Hi ozelot, hope that you are well. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. Hi, hope that you are well. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. The Van Allen Belts belts were discovered and named after Dr. James Van Allen. He wrote "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen
    1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. Several people in the comments are seeking the scientific research that shows vaccine efficiency. This is a fair question to which I will attempt to give answers. A very large amount of research has been carried out on this issue by a broad number of organisations from many different countries. The overwhelming bulk of this evidence shows that vaccines are very effective in reducing infection, transmission, serious illness, hospitalisation and death. In short, vaccinated people are less likely to get serious ill and less likely to pass the virus on to other people. (1) ICNARC (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Center) Report on Covid-19 cases in Critical Care, England, Wales & NI, 24 Dec 2021. This report shows 75% of patients admitted to critical care in May 2021 had not received any vaccine. This figure drops to 48% by November as vaccination rates increased but is still far higher than percentage of unvaccinated in population. The report shows clearly (p44-48) that people who have not received any vaccine are many times more likely to get seriously ill and need ICU care than people who are vaccinated as demonstrated in graphs on p45, 46 and table 48. (2) Whole period age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status, per 100,000 person-years, England, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 October 2021. Dataset available on ONS website. This data shows that the age-standardised mortality rate of Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 population = 938.9 for unvaccinated and just 33.6 for people who have received 2 doses of vaccine. (3) Report “Vaccination status of Covid-19 cases June-December 2021, HSE (Health Service Executive, Ireland). This data shows that during the months July –November 2021 unvaccinated individuals were at least 4 times more likely to be admitted to hospital with Covid-19 and at least 11 times (up to 15 on some months) more likely to be admitted to ICU (Intensive Care Units) than individuals who had received 2 doses of vaccine. (4) The U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Program at One Year: How Many Deaths and Hospitalizations Were Averted? Schneider et al, 2021. This report concludes that without the U.S. vaccination program, COVID-19 deaths would have been approximately 3.2 times higher and COVID-19 hospitalizations approximately 4.9 times higher than the actual toll during 2021. Take care & stay safe.
    1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. ​ Jonny Mosquito  Hi again JM, thanks for your comment. (1) It doesn't. Heat moves by 3 methods conduction, convection & radiation. If you place a cover over a thermometer on a cold night (shade it) it will be warmer than its surroundings and radiate and reflect heat back towards the thermometer. A photon can not have negative energy. A spectral analysis of Moonlight shows that it is reflected Sunlight. (2) Because it is not true! (3) Is it? I think that the Moon's angular size is pretty much constant at about 0.5 degrees. I have never measured it as otherwise. I think that the effect you refer to is an optical illusion. (4) A hypothesis is a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited data. If more data shows that it is wrong then it is wrong! Sometimes your initial "educated guess" is just wrong. (5) The Earth does not orbit the Sun in a circle but in a elliptical (oval) orbit with the Sun at one focus. This is why we are slightly closer to the Sun in Jan and slightly further away 6 months later. This makes very little difference to the heat energy that we receive from the Sun (if you were 150 cm from a fire would moving 1cm make any great difference). What really makes the difference is the angle that the rays of Sunlight strike the surface of the Earth. This changes as the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.5 degrees to the plane of our orbit around the Sun. In summer the Sun is high in the sky, large angle, so plenty of direct sun rays. In winter the Sun is lover in the sky so the Sun's light strikes at a much shallower angle so the energy is spread out over a larger area. Take care and stay safe.
    1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928.  @edyg2551  Hi e, hope that you are well. It is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. Hi Rick, hope that you are well. You wrote (2) "Temperature swings by magnitudes in the sunlight vs darkness". While it is correct to state that the moon's surface experiences a wide temperature range over the course of a lunar day (in the range 140K to 400K) However these temperatures were never encountered during any of the Apollo missions. All the Apollo landings were planned to occur at lunar dawn, when the lunar temperature is somewhere in the middle of the range. For example, during the Apollo 11 mission, the measured temperature range was between -23°C to 7°C (250K to 280K). (2) " the radiation levels outside of the magnitosphere". (I assume that you mean magnetosphere). The main radiation danger was the Van Allen Belts and the risk here was minimised by spending as little time as possible in this region. (3) " In 2 hours at the beach on earth we get sunburned". Sunburn is caused by Ultra Violet radiation which will not penetrate clothing let alone a multi-layer spacesuit. (4) "if it was so easy". Absolutely nobody has ever even hinted that travel to the moon is "easy". In the Apollo era it took over a decade of planning, over 400,000 workers in the US, another 50,000 internationally, a global network of giant satellite dishes, many billions of dollars and over 4% of US annual spending. (5) "why didn't the space shuttle go to the moon for a fly-by?". The space shuttle was designed and used in Low Earth Orbit. It was never intended to, nor could it, go to the moon! Good luck with your future education on space travel. Take care.
    1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. It is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. I have found that it is pretty much guaranteed that anyone who mentions the Van Allen Belts as an insurmountable obstacle to space travel really knows next to nothing about radiation or these belts. The Van Allen Belts are called after James Van Allen, who worked for NASA and is credited with their discovery. While travel through this region of space requires careful planning, it is not the insurmountable obstacle that many reality deniers, in their ignorance, imagine it to be. The Van Allen Belts is a region of charged particles originating mainly from the solar wind that are contained by the Earth's magnetic field. The capsule walls and equipment shielded the astronauts from the vast majority of the particle radiation. The radiation dosage received by an astronaut while passing through the Van Allen Belts will depend on factors such as speed, shielding, trajectory, time spend in the region etc. The aim of the Apollo missions was to minimise the time spent in this region of space and thus reduce the exposure to a minimum. Here is quote from James Van Allen himself in 2004. "the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights". Take care.
    1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1