It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 150
29
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78



Dude, do you have any clue as to what a minimum boundary is??? 100MeV protons with a flux GREATER THAN 100 particles/cm2-sec is the MINIMUM present in the SAA, not the MAXIMUM. That's just what defines the beginning of the SAA, the maximum can vary over time. In any case, I haven't seen you provide the first lick of evidence for the flux present outside the magnetosphere. All you've done is sit there pretending to attack my arguments without a shred of supporting evidence. I'm growing quite tired of destroying your arguments with proof only to have you come back to the same argument without any proof.


I am telling you the flux inside the magnetosphere is not biger than outside.
I can give you alot of reasons for this.
1 the moon blocks part of the particles heading to earth.
2 some of the particles get traped in the van alen belts.
3 the magnetic field also is responsible for pushing particles away.

This with look at the north pole or look at the anomaly in the van alen belt is just plain sily.
I was not even talking about particles in the van alen belt, and about the north pole you got a biger flux because you got a hole in the magnetosphere at north pole it's where it comes real close to earth, so the flux from outside is very close to earth, in some parts of the north pole there is no magnetic field, so that explains it.




LMFAO, this is rich. The moon blocks part of the particles heading to earth? You already said it yourself, the moon has no atmosphere or magnetosphere to speak of. If it's such a giant obstacle in the sky, then why don't the gamma rays that are apparently "blazing away from it" kill astronauts in low earth orbit? They don't lose any energy on the trip, and they are only blocked by the atmosphere, and we all know how bright night can be during a full moon, so I guess this is another one of your self-contradictions. Of course, the truth of the matter is that the moon is also only .5 degrees wide in the sky from earth, that's completely insignificant.

As for particles getting trapped, THAT'S THE POINT! That's why I'm correct when I say that a spaceship that constantly goes in and out of the part of the magnetosphere and van allen belts known as the southern atlantic anomaly, receives more flux than there is outside the magnetosphere.

By the way, that was a look at the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, not the north, and it wasn't a POLE. Please for the love of all that is holy, tell me that you're aware that the aurora can appear over parts of the world far south or north of either pole. The magnetosphere is disturbed by solar activity, allowing charged particles to reach more middle latitutdes. I don't frankly care if you're talking about particles in the van allen belt or not, I did just to show how ridiculous your theory is that the flux out there is enough to be lethal in any reasonable time frame.




posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
In one breath you complain about higher energy gamma rays, and then you go say something like this:
[qoute]You do not have to have heavy mettals, the particle simply has to colide with other atoms in the moon soil to produce the effect"

If you want a high MeV, then yes it better hit a heavy metal. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth constantly.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by ngchunter
 


For your answer , you will never have a big flux in earth's orbits , the magnetic field deflects a good part of them.
This is silly to insist that the sama particle flux on the moon is present in earth's orbit.




GOES is not in LEO, it's beyond most of the earth's protection, beyond the main Van Allen belt. It's silly to suggest that the particle flux on the moon is dramatically more than the particle flux past the main van allen belt. For your information, the outer belt is mostly plasma ions with about .05MeVs. The best you can find there are ions with about 1 MeV, it is not a significant shield against high energy cosmic radiation.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Who exactly did you hope to fool with this statement? Me? I'm insulted. Suddenly you seem to have overlooked the fact that in order for there to be high energy gamma rays, GCRs must first collide with a heavy metal.


Or with the heavy atoms in the moon soil.



Aluminum is not a heavy metal, it therefore prevents the formation of excessive EM radiation in the first place!


I'm not even talking about the space jorney to the moon yet, I'm strictly talking about what happened on the moon.
You did bring this subject in to our conversation. so I quoted you on it on the subject of the discussion, telling you that by hitting the moons soil EM radiation would be generated in the form of gamma and it would penetrate the hull of the craft, as in particles crashing on the moon , generating gamma, and then hitting the craft's hull.
Aluminium offers no important protection to gamma rays.
I aslo stated that particles traveling near speed of light would penetrate the aluminum hull, and that is because you had a thin aluminum hull.
Any way this is irelevaant on who is right, since most of the time the astronauts were outside the LEM exposed to radiation.



This is precisely why thin layers of aluminum are a GREAT choice for spacecraft construction as opposed to lead,

Yea, not when your talking about high energy EM types, protection with aluminium in this case offers no protection, since particles colide with the moon's surface and produce gamma rays and x-rays.


The fibrous insulation they used beyond the thin lead skin is even better for blocking particles without causing excessive EM radiation backscatter.

To bad astronauts were on the moon in the craft, where the soil of the moon did cause such events.



Lead is not even desireable, aluminum is great. Yes, you could use 6 feet of lead, but that is the most inefficient worst way to do it.

You use 6 feet of lead for electro magnetic radiation, it's the only protection for this type of radiation.




So you're admitting that every single apollo mission up till 11 was real then? Thank you. You never made this clear before, so I had to address these points, glad you're ok with the journey to the moon. Don't worry though, I'm working hard to resolve your fears that the radiation on the moon is enough to be lethal.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   


The majority of protons that travel in space have a range of 70- to 100 mev in general, exceptions are the some protons reaching mejurments of GEV

This live data from GOES begs to differ:
www.swpc.noaa.gov...
Clearly, in our neck of the woods lower energy protons are more abundant. None of them are that high though, and clearly the background flux of cosmic radiation is very very very low, nothing to be concerned with.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   


The ISS goes into the SAA an average of an hour a day. You're wrong again, as usual.

If the ISS go's in to part of the van alen belts prove it with an article, othewise drop it. Your articles sustains no such thing.



you're the one arguing that no GCRs make it through the magnetosphere anyway (which is also wrong), therefore the magnetosphere is a treasure trove of particle radiation, including trapped GCR particles. It's an area of particle density because that's what it does, it traps particles

You don't seem to understand, I'm not talking about the ones that are traped, I'm taking about the ones that impact the atmosphere, there is no such evidence that particles from the van alen belt heading down to earth.




The SAA is a low hanging part of it and the ISS passes through it constantly, proving that GCRs are not lethal to the crew,

Show it, show me that the ISS enters the van alen belt, so far it's just your saing.
The only time in recent past that this happend was I beilive around the 90's
when the space shuttle went the highest ever above the earth near the boundries of the van alen belts, not in the belts but near them.The astronauts reported seeing radiation passing thru their eyes and costumes. the space shuttle turned back. this incident happened for a time of no more than 5 minutes, you do not know what you are sustaining, this is insaine.






either through interactions with the aluminum hull producing EM radiation, or through direct interactions.

I'm not debating what impact cosmic rays has directly with the hull of the craft, but take it from me this is total crap.

Some would sustain the apollo adventures even if the moon was burning in front of them.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   


So you're admitting that every single apollo mission up till 11 was real then? Thank you. You never made this clear before, so I had to address these points, glad you're ok with the journey to the moon. Don't worry though, I'm working hard to resolve your fears that the radiation on the moon is enough to be lethal.

No to the contary I don't want to get in to this discusion yet, I'm leaving it out since the subject is something else and I have no idea why you are bringing it up since it has nothing to do with EM emmisions, since aluminium is null against pure form of high EM radiation type.
So far you have proved jack.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter


The majority of protons that travel in space have a range of 70- to 100 mev in general, exceptions are the some protons reaching mejurments of GEV

This live data from GOES begs to differ:
www.swpc.noaa.gov...
Clearly, in our neck of the woods lower energy protons are more abundant. None of them are that high though, and clearly the background flux of cosmic radiation is very very very low, nothing to be concerned with.

Too bad the article does not specify the location, it could be inside the magnetosphere or in our skys.
It could be very well an astronomic observer from earth looking at the skys.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78



So you're admitting that every single apollo mission up till 11 was real then? Thank you. You never made this clear before, so I had to address these points, glad you're ok with the journey to the moon. Don't worry though, I'm working hard to resolve your fears that the radiation on the moon is enough to be lethal.

No to the contary I don't want to get in to this discusion yet,

Yet? See, looks like I was right to cover all my bases ahead of time. Thanks for proving me right.


I'm leaving it out since the subject is something else and I have no idea why you are bringing it up since it has nothing to do with EM emmisions, since aluminium is null against pure form of high EM radiation type.
So far you have proved jack.


I've proven the hull wouldn't generate much EM in the first place. As such, there's no significant EM for the command module to block. You just don't get it, without significant EM being generated from the hull, every apollo mission up till 11 is entirely possible and real.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by ngchunter


The majority of protons that travel in space have a range of 70- to 100 mev in general, exceptions are the some protons reaching mejurments of GEV

This live data from GOES begs to differ:
www.swpc.noaa.gov...
Clearly, in our neck of the woods lower energy protons are more abundant. None of them are that high though, and clearly the background flux of cosmic radiation is very very very low, nothing to be concerned with.

Too bad the article does not specify the location, it could be inside the magnetosphere or in our skys.
It could be very well an astronomic observer from earth looking at the skys.



That's not an "article", that's live data. Too bad you don't know what GOES is or you'd realize it's above the main van allen belt. Are you honestly suggesting that GOES 11 is faked using "observers on the earth"? Care to explain how the heck they manage to fake weather forecasts? goes.gsfc.nasa.gov... Hear that everyone? Pepsi just accused a geostationary weather satellite of being faked. Fact is, GOES orbits in a geostationary orbit 35,000 km above the earth. The main van allen belt ends at only 10,000km. 35,000km is high enough to make observations of the proton flux without the vast majority of our magnetosphere interfering.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   


If the ISS go's in to part of the van alen belts prove it with an article, othewise drop it. Your articles sustains no such thing.

The SAA is a low hanging part of the van allen belt.
"The South Atlantic Anomaly (or SAA) is the region where Earth's inner van Allen radiation belt makes its closest approach to the planet's surface."
en.wikipedia.org...
This is BASIC information that anyone claiming to be an expert on the radiation environment of space should already know. ISS passes through this all the time unscathed.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   



I've proven the hull wouldn't generate much EM in the first place. As such, there's no significant EM for the command module to block. You just don't get it, without significant EM being generated from the hull, every apollo mission up till 11 is entirely possible and real.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]

That is not a valid theory on the moon, and even if it were and of course it is not all of this is irelevant to this part of our disscusion because they were outside the craft most of the time on the moon.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

The SAA is a low hanging part of the van allen belt.
"The South Atlantic Anomaly (or SAA) is the region where Earth's inner van Allen radiation belt makes its closest approach to the planet's surface."
en.wikipedia.org...
This is BASIC information that anyone claiming to be an expert on the radiation environment of space should already know. ISS passes through this all the time unscathed.
[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]

You keep deraling the subject, I was not even insisting on energy hazards of direct particles impact on the hull of the craft.
The main subject is EM emissions on the moon.
Since the aluminium can as you call it protects from particles as you say, there is no reaction.

I do not even know how we got here, I was talking about gamma radiation.
You just derailed the subject in this area when I keep insisting that it's less of an importance for me since I'm talking about something else.

I could say with a confort that due to the lack of reaction of particles in earth orbit you proved absolutly nothing, since particle impact with the aluminium can as you say do not cause reactions, and since on the moon there is a whole difrent story.

However reading upon an article it states that the ISS does pass spending 20 minutes in the SAA but too bad for you... the astronauts have to recuperate after passing within the SAA , an exposure of 20 minutes gives the body time to recuperate, anything above 20 minutes would cause astronauts problems and this is only posible with good shielding.

The apollo mission spent over 30 minutes in the belts. on going to the moon and 30 on return.


the ISS shielding is made of 1.89 g/cm2of aluminum, 0.218 g/cm2of Nomex® honeycomb wall, 0.08 g/cm2of Nomex® cloth, 0.06 g/cm2Durette® batting, and 0.72 g/cm2silicone rubber. The 1.89 g/c

Now I ask you, how about Apollo?
care to specifiy the shielding of the craft as in material and thiknes.

But I told you this is irelevant, gamma rays would kill the astronauts on the moon.

I still can't seem to find reason for the apollo adventures.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78




I've proven the hull wouldn't generate much EM in the first place. As such, there's no significant EM for the command module to block. You just don't get it, without significant EM being generated from the hull, every apollo mission up till 11 is entirely possible and real.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]

That is not a valid theory on the moon,

How many times do I have to say this? That's not what I'm talking about and you know it!

and even if it were and of course it is not all of this is irelevant to this part of our disscusion because they were outside the craft most of the time on the moon.

Your entire response is irrelevant since I wasn't referring to time spent on the moon.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


The SAA is a low hanging part of the van allen belt.
"The South Atlantic Anomaly (or SAA) is the region where Earth's inner van Allen radiation belt makes its closest approach to the planet's surface."
en.wikipedia.org...
This is BASIC information that anyone claiming to be an expert on the radiation environment of space should already know. ISS passes through this all the time unscathed.
[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]


You keep deraling the subject, I was not even insisting on energy hazards of direct particles impact on the hull of the craft.
The main subject is EM emissions on the moon.
Since the aluminium can as you call it protects from particles as you say, there is no reaction.

I do not even know how we got here, I was talking about gamma radiation.
You just derailed the subject in this area when I keep insisting that it's less of an importance for me since I'm talking about something else.

I could say with a confort that due to the lack of reaction of particles in earth orbit you proved absolutly nothing, since particle impact with the aluminium can as you say do not cause reactions, and since on the moon there is a whole difrent story.


I never said it caused no reactions, that's a lie. I said it caused significantly weaker and fewer reactions.

However reading upon an article it states that the ISS does pass spending 20 minutes in the SAA but too bad for you... the astronauts have to recuperate after passing within the SAA , an exposure of 20 minutes gives the body time to recuperate, anything above 20 minutes would cause astronauts problems and this is only posible with good shielding.

The apollo mission spent over 30 minutes in the belts. on going to the moon and 30 on return.

Too bad for you the extra ten minutes is not nearly enough to be dangerous or lethal. 70 minutes between hitting it again in consecutive orbits is not nearly enough time to fully recuperate.



the ISS shielding is made of 1.89 g/cm2of aluminum, 0.218 g/cm2of Nomex® honeycomb wall, 0.08 g/cm2of Nomex® cloth, 0.06 g/cm2Durette® batting, and 0.72 g/cm2silicone rubber. The 1.89 g/c

Now I ask you, how about Apollo?
care to specifiy the shielding of the craft as in material and thiknes.

But I told you this is irelevant, gamma rays would kill the astronauts on the moon.

I still can't seem to find reason for the apollo adventures.

If you want to suggest that Apollo's shielding is not enough for the van allen belts the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the specs and prove it to be insufficient. You STILL have not shown that the radiation beyond the belts is sufficient to kill the crew. I've already shown that the flux of particles coming from the moon at gamma wavelengths is small at best, not enough to be lethal. I've already shown that the proton flux beyond the main belt is tiny when the sun is relatively quiet (like now). It doesn't matter one iota that GCRs create high energy gamma rays when they hit heavy elements on the moon, we're only talking about 1 or less photon per minute here. There aren't that many GCR particles out there to being with at energies greater than 100, we're talking fluxes of about 10-2, that's pathetic. To suggest that it could cause enough cascades of gamma rays to be lethal is sheer lunacy lol.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   


I never said it caused no reactions, that's a lie. I said it caused significantly weaker and fewer reactions.

This is even more funnny, you do not know in what direction to head to.
First you come and state that your aluminium can does wonders, then you come and say in an atempt to prove earth orbit is like the moon that "you know we got gamma rays here too and it's no harm."


It's only natural to compare the 2 objects to show you it's beyond any doubt that the moon does not compare to earth orbit to gamma radiation.


The reality of things.
Earth in gamma ray.


Moon in gamma ray



Nasa lied , and lied before.
Nasa stated that the other space around the moon is hoter than the moon in gamma emissions.But any idiot can notice that the picture shows something else.When nasa took a look at the picture they were shocked.





If you want to suggest that Apollo's shielding is not enough for the van allen belts the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the specs and prove it to be insufficient. You STILL have not shown that the radiation beyond the belts is sufficient to kill the crew. I've already shown that the flux of particles coming from the moon at gamma wavelengths is small at best, not enough to be lethal. I've already shown that the proton flux beyond the main belt is tiny when the sun is relatively quiet (like now). It doesn't matter one iota that GCRs create high energy gamma rays when they hit heavy elements on the moon, we're only talking about 1 or less photon per minute here.

Yea calculations done by NASA.I do not trust nasa it lied before.
And what photons are you talking about?
Protons are other particles , it's not important for a proton to colide with a photon to produce the efects, it will simply produce the effect on impact with other atoms in the moon soil.
Are you talking about photons as particles traveling and hiting the moon, because that does not matter, you are giving me specifications on a totaly difrent particle.
As for the apollo shielding I find it many times inferior to that of the ISS.





There aren't that many GCR particles out there to being with at energies greater than 100, we're talking fluxes of about 10-2, that's pathetic. To suggest that it could cause enough cascades of gamma rays to be lethal is sheer lunacy lol.

The majority of particles are betwen 70 - 100 and higher.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78



I never said it caused no reactions, that's a lie. I said it caused significantly weaker and fewer reactions.

This is even more funnny, you do not know in what direction to head to.
First you come and state that your aluminium can does wonders, then you come and say in an atempt to prove earth orbit is like the moon that "you know we got gamma rays here too and it's no harm."

Liar. I did not compare the gamma rays in earth orbit to those on the moon's surface, I compared the gamma rays in earth orbit to those in cislunar space as I initially had no idea you were ONLY referring to lunar landings, not to cislunar space. The skin of the lunar lander is very very thin, it was not designed for significant radiation shielding as that part of the trip only occured after the van allen belts had been passed. My comments about aluminum are to show how much better of a shield it is than lead when it comes to particle radiation. You claim gamma rays are far, far, far, far, far, more destructive than particle radiation. First you should prove that, and second, tell us why you think lead is so great since it will create more EM radiation than aluminum during a longer part of the mission. STOP APPLYING WHAT I'M SAYING ABOUT PARTICLE RADIATION TO EM RADIATION. YOU KEEP CONFUSING THE TWO.



It's only natural to compare the 2 objects to show you it's beyond any doubt that the moon does not compare to earth orbit to gamma radiation.

Is that what I asked you to prove? Nope.



The reality of things.
Earth in gamma ray.


Moon in gamma ray


Is that what I asked you to prove? Nope. Did you quantify either image? Nope. Does this even prove that there's significantly more gamma rays on the moon than in earth orbit? Nope: Earth's atmosphere blocks gamma radiation through ionization, it does not reflect it. The surface amounts of gamma rays radiating into space is not a realistic measurement of the gamma ray environment in earth orbit. You fail again. Nonetheless, it's not even what I asked you to do, it's completely irrelevant. You still fail to quantify how many photons of high energy gamma rays are actually present on the surface of the moon for a given time frame.



Nasa lied , and lied before.
Nasa stated that the other space around the moon is hoter than the moon in gamma emissions.But any idiot can notice that the picture shows something else.When nasa took a look at the picture they were shocked.

You're right, they would be an idiot to think that a picture can show "something else": HOW COULD EMPTY SPACE BE EXPECTED TO REFLECT OR REFRACT GAMMA RAYS PRESENT THERE BACK TO A TELESCOPE OR CAMERA LOCATED ELSEWHERE?! Without significant amounts of material to bounce off of, WHY OH GOD WHY DO YOU EXPECT THAT THIS PICTURE CAN ACT AS A MEASUREMENT OF THE GAMMA RAY ENVIRONMENT NEAR THE MOON OR ELSEWHERE IN NEARBY SPACE? Once again though, what does this have to do with what I asked you to prove, a quantitative value of HOW MANY HIGH ENERGY PHOTONS ARE ACTUALLY PRESENT THERE and then show it to be "lethal." You won't do it because you can't do it, instead you handwave to unrelated points that no one even brought up before. I never argued that the gamma ray amounts are equivalent, I simply stated that it does not matter if the moon is brighter in gamma rays than a given object that is expected to be black. That your earth picture actually reveals the planet shows that the telescope and camera that took the picture should be expected to overexpose any neraby object that produces or reflects even dim amounts of gamma ray light. Your own irrelevant "point" is a shot to your own foot.






If you want to suggest that Apollo's shielding is not enough for the van allen belts the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the specs and prove it to be insufficient. You STILL have not shown that the radiation beyond the belts is sufficient to kill the crew. I've already shown that the flux of particles coming from the moon at gamma wavelengths is small at best, not enough to be lethal. I've already shown that the proton flux beyond the main belt is tiny when the sun is relatively quiet (like now). It doesn't matter one iota that GCRs create high energy gamma rays when they hit heavy elements on the moon, we're only talking about 1 or less photon per minute here.

Yea calculations done by NASA.I do not trust nasa it lied before.

Oh so they lied about gamma ray measurements in MY case but not YOUR photo? How terribly convienent for you. You're now claiming that a fairly recent mission to the moon was also faked. I guess that's why an amateur astronomer with a telescope like mine was just barely able to detect the lunar crash of the "fake" satellite at exactly the correct time at the end of the satellite's mission.
www.pgoelz.com...


And what photons are you talking about?
Protons are other particles , it's not important for a proton to colide with a photon to produce the efects,

What in the world are you going on about? You're completely confused about what I said, I strongly suggest you re-read every post I made again and study it closely to understand. Then you can tell me where I said ANYTHING about a proton colliding with a photon. You're just making crap up and attributing it to me.


it will simply produce the effect on impact with other atoms in the moon soil.
Are you talking about photons as particles traveling and hiting the moon,

NO. I'm talking about all gamma rays from the moon, either generated there or reflected. The GRS on lunar prospector counted ALL gamma ray photons.

because that does not matter, you are giving me specifications on a totaly difrent particle.
Wrong.


As for the apollo shielding I find it many times inferior to that of the ISS.

Still haven't proven it. You haven't even said why you believe that. The fibrous materials used between the inner and outer hull on apollo was fine.






The majority of particles are betwen 70 - 100 and higher.

This has already disproven that statement:
www.swpc.noaa.gov...

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
youtube.com...


Originally posted by ngchunter

His fellow prisioners were not exactly his family, he was married and was not allowed to have direct contact with his wife during his stay. The length of their detention is the key point, not where it occurs. For goodness sakes, Neil was forced to spend his birthday locked in the LRL. No wonder he was depressed.



Imagine Armstrong went really to the Moon and walked on its ground. Nobody did it before.

He had to overcome his fear, he had to confront death, he went there at his own risk and peril, he ran along a road full of hazards, he endangered his life, he had to overcome many obstacles and unforeseen events.

He did an incredible achievement, an astonishing exploit, he walked on an unknown world, he saw a landscape that took his breath away, it seemed to him to live in a surreal environment, he were amazed, astonished, greatly surprised, enchanted, bewitched, spellbound.

He was very pleased, very contented, very glad, very happy.
He felt the most strong, invincible, able, brave, courageous, fearless, valiant, bold man in the world.

Three weeks after his incredible enterprise, in this press conference he should be the most enthusiastic, excited, elated, euphoric, thrilled, satisfied, pleased, gratified, contented man in the world.

But his guilty conscience doesn't allow him to be pleased and his behaviour shows that he is ashamed of himself because of the BIG FRAUD in which some authoritative person convinced him to partecipate for the glory of HIS COUNTRY.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by -bigbrain-]



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by -bigbrain-
youtube.com...


Originally posted by ngchunter

His fellow prisioners were not exactly his family, he was married and was not allowed to have direct contact with his wife during his stay. The length of their detention is the key point, not where it occurs. For goodness sakes, Neil was forced to spend his birthday locked in the LRL. No wonder he was depressed.



Imagine Armstrong went really to the Moon and walked on its ground. Nobody did it before.

He had to overcome his fear, he had to confront death, he went there at his own risk and peril, he ran along a road full of hazards, he endangered his life, he had to overcome many obstacles and unforeseen events.

He did an incredible achievement, an astonishing exploit, he walked on an unknown world, he saw a landscape that took his breath away, it seemed to him to live in a surreal environment, he were amazed, astonished, greatly surprised, enchanted, bewitched, spellbound.

He was very pleased, very contented, very glad, very happy.
He felt the most strong, invincible, able, brave, courageous, fearless, valiant, bold man in the world.

That's your assumption, a projection of YOUR feelings, not the feelings of someone you obviously don't know much about. You assume positive feelings while ignoring the psychological stress of spaceflight followed by confinement.



Three weeks after his incredible enterprise, in this press conference he should be the most enthusiastic, excited, elated, euphoric, thrilled, satisfied, pleased, gratified, contented man in the world.

Your assumption, to make an invalid point that intentionally omits the rest of the story; he had just come out of confinement. Three weeks after being locked up I'm sure the initial excitement had passed. Armstrong is not an outgoing exuberant person in the first place, his own colleages remarked that they weren't surprised by his profound first words on the moon because he rarely said anything, but when he did say something it was always important. He still refuses to sign autographs and he's quick to sue anyone who uses his image for monitary gain without permission. He rarely gives interviews and shuns the spotlight. He didn't even give a full television interview before the flight, and it wasn't until 2005 that 60 minutes finally got to sit down with him for the first "television profile." You want to know why he was so introverted after 3 weeks of confinement? You want to know what he actually felt "bad" about? The answer is right there in that 60 minutes interview: ""The one thing I regret was that my work required an enormous amount of my time and a lot of travel," Armstong told Bradley, "and I didn't get to spend the time I would have liked with my family as they grew up." " He also stated "Friends and colleagues, all of a sudden, looked at us...treated us slightly differently than they had months or years before when we were working together," something a man who shuns attention certainly didn't appreciate.


But his guilty conscience doesn't allow him to be pleased and his behaviour shows that he is ashamed of himself because of the BIG FRAUD in which some authoritative person convinced him to partecipate for the glory of HIS COUNTRY.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by -bigbrain-]

Armstrong was never that outgoing in the first place, he's always been an introvert and he was separated from his family more than he wanted to be, so how can you possibly think that 3 WEEKS of near solitary confinement wouldn't have any affect on his attitude? You may naively think that fame and glory are everything in life, that it should have made him "happy" in spite of being away from his family for that long, but it's quite clear that your opinion is just that, naive.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Here's some final simple proof that we really went to the moon. A 360 degree video pan from apollo 11.
hq.nasa.gov...

In case you don't understand how this shot makes a hoax impossible, let me ask one question: where's the film crew? Where's the end of the stage?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join