moon landing hoax, page 1

Originally posted by Sunofone

the BOTTOM LINE is that the whole issue lies in the scientific establishments claim that beyond the van allen radiation belt the cosmic radiation can be endured by the type of craft that was used in apollo--the two camps can be divided into one of either 2 groups--1-those that believe the establishments claim of nonlethal radiation beyond the VARB and are convinced we went to the moon and everything is legitamate--2-those that feel the military machine strong armed the scientific establishment into misinforming the public because of national security and everything has been faked------------THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO VENTURE BEYOND THE BELTS AGAIN--

how many years are we going to have to wait before we go again?40-50yrs--100yrs-why???????????????????????????????????????????????????...
slate.msn.com...

First of all, the article you posted shows *no* conclusive evidence, except for the one quote-
"The union cites Federal Aviation Administration figures that estimate that 27,000 hours of flight time�a reasonable amount of time in the career of a flight attendant�can lead to a 1 percent increase in the odds of dying from cancer."
Thats really nothing, statistically speaking. Smoking causes a MUCH higher incidence of cancer than this statistic. And keep in mind that this number (27,000 hours) equates to nearly 9 YEARS of flight time (27000 hours/8= 3375 days= 9.24 years...if my math is wrong please correct me)

Another brief quote- "A precise correlation between GCR exposure and cancer has yet to be established, but NASA was worried enough to hold back Thomas, who has spent 43 days in space on four previous missions."
43 DAYS? Heck, Id be more worried about his muscle atrophy than his risk of cancer.
The fact of the matter is, Cosmic Radiation *may* cause cancer, it *may* cause health concerns, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY of any reputable claim has stated that it will KILL an astronaut. (and quite frankly, back in 1969, they had bigger concerns than the "cancer threat" to a few astronauts)

43 days. 1 percent.

You are blowing things WAY out of context, and thus, still only spouting opinion.

By the way-
"THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO VENTURE BEYOND THE BELTS AGAIN--"
No its not
No matter if this happened TOMORROW, there will be paranoid conspiracy theorists that will say "IT NEVER HAPPENED"
Why?
Well, IF the 1969 lunar landing was faked (and I dont believe it was) convincingly, then how much MORE convincing could a 2004-2005 hoax be made, considering the HUGE strides we've made in CGI?
Nowadays (as opposed to 1969) ANYTHING can be faked to a degree that the mass population would be fooled.
The mass public likes to think it is more intelligent than the audiences of 1969, but are they? As a mass, are they really any more intelligent?
So the counter-argument would then be "well, modern day audiences are MORE succeptible to mass marketing auto suggestion (due to hours and DAYS spent in front of the TV), so therefore they are even MORE succeptible to a hoax than they were in 1969"
In other words, a modern day trip to the moon could be seen as a fake (by conspiracy theorists at least) and there is NOTHING the scientific community could say that would convince them otherwise, due to their own idiotic circular (and self confirming) logic.

One more point-
"how many years are we going to have to wait before we go again?40-50yrs--100yrs-why???????????????????????????????????????????????????..."

Perhaps 10 years, perhaps 50 years, perhaps 100 years.

Why? Money and public interest.
If the money aint there to do it, it isnt going to happen.
If the public interest isnt there, it isnt going to happen.

GWB has made an attempt at generating public interest (to his credit) but he has failed (to his or the publics discredit)
(Dont anyone flame me for being a pro or anti Bush person...my political opinion is irrelevant....I only state what he has tried to do and the public's general reaction)

Done with rant for now