SA>>The speed at which the chip passed through the belts
SA>>would minimize the radiation exposure.

 LL> This has been shown to be false.  For example, the shuttle
 LL> astronauts only travel 175 miles into space,

incorrect... with an orbital period of 1 hour, 32 minutes and 20 seconds,
the international space station orbits at an average altitude of 250
statute miles...

 LL> far below the Van Allen Radiation Belts.  And even then,
 LL> the astronauts suffer from radiation exposure. The Van Allen
 LL> Radiation Belts have much higher concentrations of radiation
 LL> than the amount of radiation below the Belts.  And it would
 LL> take at least two days of travel to get through the Van Allen
 LL> Radiation Belts in order to reach the Moon, plus another two
 LL> days of travel through the Belts in order to get back to
 LL> Earth.  IOW, the astronauts would be radiated toast.

how much radiation does one get from the Van Allen Belts? is it more than
what the original glow in the dark watches gave off? is it more than
conventional televisions give off? is it more than conventional computer
monitors give off? is it more than chernobyl released into the atmosphere?
is it more than what the two A-bombs the US dropped on japan released into
the atmosphere?

SA>>The number of high energy particles can be low within the fluxes, and
SA>>low energy particles would be less likely to be able to pass through
SA>>the metal of the ship or even the skin of the astronaut.

 LL> Even in low earth orbit, astronauts have reported seeing
 LL> "lights", while including while having their spacesuits on.
 LL> Those "lights" are the result of particles traveling through
 LL> their brains, causing hallucinations.

hallucinations? i don't think so... seeing the actual results of particle
collisions and decay, possibly... many people see these on a daily basis...
to many, they appear as spots floating in front of their eyes... black
spots and white spots... even when their eyes are closed...

 LL> It is pure fantasy to believe the Van Allen Radiation Belts
 LL> would be harmless to astronauts who attempted to travel
 LL> through them.

since, supposedly, no one has been thru them, how do you or anyone else
know? it is all pure speculation...

 LL> There was not enough shielding on the Apollo spacecraft, nor
 LL> was the shielding on the astronauts' spacesuits sufficient to
 LL> prevent radiation exposure from extensively harming the
 LL> astronauts.

chicken wire and some aluminum foil are enough to shield a TVRO dish from
an overhead microwave beam so that the TVRO dish can pick up the satelite
signals as desired... why isn't it sufficient for use in shielding the
astronauts?

SA>>The estimates I saw looking this up on the net put the radiation
SA>>exposure at approximately the level allowed by the government for 1
SA>>year's worth of on-the-job exposure.

 LL> Scientists like to put a positive spin on things.  Especially
 LL> since many of them work directly or indirectly for NASA.  It
 LL> doesn't make any of their claims true, but it does keep them
 LL> on the payroll.

most scientists are interested in the science and the accuracy thereof...
they are not in it just for the money...

>>LL>There was no burn crater underneath the engine of the lunar
>>LL>module after it supposedly landed on the Moon.

SA>>And why would you expect one?

 LL> Fuel comes out of the bottom of the lunar module.  When the
 LL> lunar module gets close to the surface, the heat of the fuel
 LL> causes a burn crater to be formed in the soil on which it
 LL> lands.  The same principle would apply if one were to take a
 LL> blow torch and hold the flame directly to the ground.  It
 LL> forms a small burn crater.

the keyword being "small"... this is also reliant on the makeup
of the soil... the rockhard clay we have around here doesn't crater
anything like beach sand would... and moist loamy soil might burn slightly
but would also not crater like beach sand but would also not resist as much
as packed clay...

 LL> What is even more amazing is that no lunar dust is seen on
 LL> pictures of the lunar module after landing.  Astronauts have
 LL> described lunar dust as being extremely fine dust, almost
 LL> like flour.  And yet, no lunar dust is seen on pictures of
 LL> the lunar module after it supposedly landed on the Moon.

there is dust blown out during the landing... it is visible in the videos
that have been displayed for years... that the dust leaves the area at a
high velocity is one thing that causes it to not appear that there is
any...

>>LL>The American flag is shown blowing in the wind, even though there is
>>LL>no atmosphere to speak of on the Moon, nor any wind.

SA>>In those pictures it is obvious the flag is wired to stand out like it
SA>>blowing in the wind.

 LL> A battery-operated flag???

no, a stiff wire shoved into the flag to make it stand open rather than to
hang down as they do on earth on days without breeze enough to open them...
not unlike a shirt hanging on a close hanger...

)\/(ark