Man-kind never set foot on the planetary body known as the 'moon', acc to Bible (KJB), Hist. & Sci.

Isn't that the guy who used to just read scriptures on the tv on like UHF channels? If so, I remember listening to that guy when I was young (I was Roman Catholic then). I like that he read the scriptures, and had a nice calm even voice (like for radio). I know his theology was off (later), but I always enjoyed his reading (he did a lot of OT reading).

 

So you think it hilarious and something to mock at when a video is presented which is obviously bogus on the subject of the Moon landings, but when I present other videos, from NASA, which has some of the same type of 'direction' in it (like 'talk'), and obvious forgery (filming inside the capsule while pretending to get a shot of the earth from cislunar space with a transparency on the window, while blue light of earth shines in the other window behind them, of which Bart Sibrel had official footage of and was the reason that the Apollo astronauts threw him out of their house, offices, and threatened him), and terrible acting (like golfing on the moon?) with people pulling the 'strings'.

Why do you not care about those, but only seek to mock at the video I gave? Aren't they all as worthy to mock at?

 

Radioactivity in cissolar and cislunar space:

"... the sun produces a fairly steady flux of light in optical wavelengths, it produces bursts of x-rays and other short wavelength photons that directly modify the ionosphere and high frequency radio communication; it emits a continuous but unsteady flow of ionized material into the heliosphere (the solar wind) that our magnetic field detects and must exclude; it occasionally ejects high energy particles that can be deadly to electronic components and biological systems; it often ejects "tongues" or "ropes" or "clouds" of gas that move through the ambient interplanetary medium and impact the Earth and other planetary bodies; and it radiates noise in frequencies that can be received by working antennas and thus interferes with communication ..." - intro

"... The area between the Sun and the planets has been termed the interplanetary medium. Although sometimes considered a perfect vacuum, this is actually a turbulent area dominated by the solar wind, which flows at velocities of approximately 250-1000 km/s (about 600,000 to 2,000,000 miles per hour). Other characteristics of the solar wind (density, composition, and magnetic field strength, among others) vary with changing conditions on the Sun. The effect of the solar wind can be seen in the tails of comets (which always point away from the Sun). ...

... Intense solar flares release very-high-energy particles that can be as injurious to humans as the low-energy radiation from nuclear blasts. Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere allow adequate protection for us on the ground, but astronauts in space are subject to potentially lethal dosages of radiation. The penetration of high-energy particles into living cells, measured as radiation dose, leads to chromosome damage and, potentially, cancer. Large doses can be fatal immediately. Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died. (Astronauts who had time to gain safety in a shelter beneath moon soil would have absorbed only slight amounts of radiation.) ..." - http://web.archive.org/web/20050426205707/http://ess.geology.ufl.edu/ess/Notes/040-Sun/primer.html​

As an instance of this:

"... estimates of human exposure in interplanetary space, behind various thicknesses of aluminum shielding, are made for the large solar proton events of August 1972 and October 1989. A comparison of risk assessment in terms of total absorbed dose for each event is made for the skin, ocular lens, and bone marrow. Overall, the doses associated with the August 1972 event were higher than those with the October 1989 event and appear to be more limiting when compared with current guidelines for dose limits for missions in low Earth orbit and more hazardous with regard to potential acute effects on these organs. Both events could be life-threatening if adequate shielding is not provided ..." - Interplanetary crew exposure estimates for the August 1972 and October 1989 solar particle events - PubMed
​

Apollo 16 - April 16-27, 1972
Apollo 17 - December 7-19, 1972

"... The sun goes through a natural solar cycle approximately every 11 years. The cycle is marked by the increase and decrease of sunspots -- visible as dark blemishes on the sun's surface, or photosphere. The greatest number of sunspots in any given solar cycle is designated as "solar maximum." The lowest number is "solar minimum." ..." - Solar Minimum; Solar Maximum​

"... the epoch of AP8 model (1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum) ...

... Galactic cosmic ray particles originate outside the solar system. They include ions of all elements from atomic number 1 through 92. The flux levels of these particles are low but, because they include highly energetic particles (10s of MeV/n ~ E ~ 100s of GeV/n) of heavy elements such as iron, they produce intense ionization as they pass through matter. As with the high energy trapped protons, they are difficult to shield against. Therefore, in spite of their low levels, they constitute a significant hazard to electronics in terms of SEEs. ...

... The levels of galactic cosmic ray particles also vary with the ionization state of the particle. Particles that have not passed through large amounts of interstellar matter are not fully stripped of their electrons. Therefore, when they reach the earth's magnetosphere, they are more penetrating than the ions that are fully ionized. The capacity of a particle to ionize material is measured in terms of LET and is primarily dependent on the density of the target material and to a lesser degree the density and thickness of the shielding material." - SEECA - Section 3​

So the Apollo 16 & 17 'missings' were supposedly occurring during the timeframe of a peek solar maximum cycle.

"... We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours ..." - The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year; Edward P. Ney; page 89 - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=b...s+made+during+the+last+solar+maximum+in+1957"​

Apollo 11 (July 16-24, 1969)
Apollo 12 (November 14-24, 1969)
Apollo 13 (April 11-17, 1970)
Apollo 14 (January 31, 1971 - February 9, 1971)
Apollo 15 (July 26 - August 7, 1971)

most of which is roughly 11 years later (1957 + 11, 1968) in the same solar maximum cycle (within about 3 years, 1969-71.

Again:

"... SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.

High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover

Protected dose 1O-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal ..." - Dr. Ray Noonan's Archives: NASA's Humans in Space by Ken Jenks​

"... The main space weather hazard to human life is the ionizing radiation resulting from exposure to high energy particles. These energetic particles may come from distant stars and galaxies (galactic cosmic radiation); they may be found trapped in planetary radiation belts, such as the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts; or they may be ejected into space by the Sun in the solar wind or more rapidly by solar flare eruptions (figure 2). To put the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective, at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000; using 5.0 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding, the REM for one year continuous exposure would be reduced to about 550. (Note: REM = dose (RAD) x Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of particular ionizing radiation.) Although drastically reduced by shielding, 550 REM for a sample population would cause radiation sickness and about 50 percent deaths. Astronauts protected with only a spacesuit during normal-length extra-vehicular activity at geostationary altitude could receive about 0.43 REM per day under minimum to moderate solar activity conditions, which is sufficient to damage the eyes and other vital organs. Under high solar activity, and most importantly during large solar flare occurrences, daily REM values could be a thousand-fold higher and probably lethal. In comparison, an earth-bound person would have an estimated total yearly radiation dosage in the range of 0.17 to 2.6 REM; the daily dosage would be approximately 4.7 x 10-4 to 7.1 x 10-3 REM (2 to 3 orders of magnitude less than the astronauts daily dosage in our example). ..." - Spaced-Based Solar Monitoring and Alert Satellite System (SMASS)​

 

Here are the Solar H-alpha Flare Events of 1969-1972:

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1969

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1970

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1971

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1972​

Here are the Solar X-Ray Flares Events of 1969-1972:

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1970

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971

Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972​

Apollo 11 (July 16-24, 1969)

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1969/solar-flares-halpha_196907.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969/solrad_1969.txt​

Apollo 12 (November 14-24, 1969)

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1969/solar-flares-halpha_196911.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969/solrad_1969.txt​

Apollo 13 (April 11-17, 1970)

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1970/solar-flares-halpha_197004.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1970/solrad_1970.txt​

Apollo 14 (January 31, 1971 - February 9, 1971)

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197101.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197102.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971/solard_1971.txt​

Apollo 15 (July 26 - August 7, 1971)

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197107.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197108.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971/solard_1971.txt​

Apollo 16 - April 16-27, 1972

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1972/solar-flares-halpha_197204.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972/solard_1972.txt​

Apollo 17 - December 7-19, 1972

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1972/solar-flares-halpha_197212.pdf

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972/solard_1972.txt​

Dr. James Van Allen's scientific research paper, which was never refuted by him in a scientific journal:

"... Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30,000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding.

The hazard to space-travelers may not end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts. According to present knowledge the other planets of our solar system may have magnetic fields comparable to the earth's and thus may possess radiation belts of their own. The moon, however, probably has no belt, because its magnetic field appears to be feeble. Lunar probes should give us more definite information on this point before long. ..." - Scientific American, page 47 - http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/SciAm1959March/ScientificAmerican_VanAllenBelt.pdf

"... "The Moon is totally exposed to solar flares," explains solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. "It has no atmosphere or magnetic field to deflect radiation." Protons rushing at the Moon simply hit the ground--or whoever might be walking around outside. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
​

During another peak time a massive solar flare took place in 2005:

"... The Jan. 20th [2005] proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy. Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water. A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance.

"An astronaut caught outside when the storm hit would've gotten sick," says Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. At first, he'd feel fine, but a few days later symptoms of radiation sickness would appear: vomiting, fatigue, low blood counts. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate​

1989 - 15-20 years (roughly 2 cycles) brings us right back to peak solar flare years of 1969-72.

" ... The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta.

Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.

It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
​

But Solar Flares are simply instance of instance bursts, and not counting the standard solar winds at those peak times (coming from the Sun/Sol, and doesn't even include that which is coming from extra-solar-system space). NASA would have been fools to attempt such real endeavors at those peak times! Instead, what we see in the video of Apollo 11, etc is LEO outside with blue tint of earth in the windows, which is below 400 miles, below Van Allen belts, behind massive Van Allen belt shielding.

The radiation of Van Allen and beyond is not merely destructive to human (biological) cells, but also very destructive to communications, electronic equipment, and as such, even low level bursts of Gamma, X-Rays, etc can 'kill' a guidance system, life-support and homeostasis systems, dosimetry system, etc. If those systems are damaged or dead then the persons inside the tin can, are also just as dead, even before they die of lack of oxygen, cold or heat, radiation, etc.

 

I did say his theology was off, but your own theological inconsistencies are just as bad robycop3.

Deception, hmmm. What do you think about this? Do you really think this took place on the lunar surface? Golf and a Javelin throw? Notice the ending result of both please. Also keep an eye on the 'lunar soil' (which is supposed to be 1/6th earth gravity with no 'air' resistance):

"... A golf ball 'lost' by Alan Shepard on the Moon that he claimed travelled 'miles and miles' has been found in newly restored images — and it only travelled 40 yards.

On February 6, 1971, the Apollo 14 mission commander hit two golf balls across the lunar surface as one of the final acts of NASA's third crewed Moon landing.

One of the balls was hit into a crater, but the other was said to have travelled 'miles and miles' — at least by Commander Shepard.

However, newly restored images of the Apollo 14 landing site suggest that his golf swing may not have been as successful as he first thought.

In fact, the first ball came to rest 24 yards from Commander Shepard's 'teeing off' point, while the second flew a mere 40 yards.

The only footage of the swing was captured on grainy video, but Andy Saunders, an image specialist, has painstakingly enhanced high-resolution scans of the footage from the lunar mission.

He digitally enhanced scans recently released of the photographic film and used a 'stacking technique' including smaller 16mm footage shot by the crew.

This allowed him to find the second ball — not seen in five decades — and work out that, rather than travelling 'miles and miles', it had moved a mere 40 yards.

In some accounts, Commander Shepard allegedly 'smuggled' the key part of his makeshift golf club up to the Moon — hiding the head of a specially-adapted six iron inside one of his socks to get it aboard the rocket. ...

... Following the 'game' of golf, Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell threw a lunar scoop handle in the manner of a javelin — and it settled in the same crater as Commander Shepard's first golf ball. ..." - Alan Shepard's 'lost' golf ball only travelled 40 yards on the Moon

See also - Remastered images reveal how far Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon
​

Please. Think about this event. Look at what was recorded (carefully). Think about the physics that should have taken place in 1/6th earth gravity with no 'air' resistance with ball, javelin, soil, etc. Think about the angle of the shot of the two balls and the angle of the Javelin thrown. Think about the possibility that the ball and Javelin landing in the same 'crater' only a few yards away. Think about 'smuggling' anything onto a carefully controlled and weight checked facility (for fuel). Think about the silliness of the script and the words themselves. You do not think that is deception, and at the minimum absurdity?

 

If you would watch the single video I presented to you, you would see that it (Hammer-Feather) was in studio faked, and is easily reproduced here on earth:

Man-kind never set foot on the planetary body known as the 'moon', acc to Bible (KJB), Hist. & Sci.

Rate of fall is not the issue, but their landing location and the 'energy' that was seen given for each, as well as the direction each was 'sent', as I had stated.

Additionally, both 'ball' and 'javelin; have no impact crater, no disturbed element of lunar soil, no roll back, or forward for 'ball'. It's as if they were just placed into position as props, or digitally (photo'ed) edited in:

 

If you would view the video I presented, you would see that it can be done with a simple false hammer, and false feather (made to weigh the same), created in slow motion capture in studio.

 

Watch the video. A film producer shows how it is done, easily, and has been done even in other hollywood films (without digital).

 

Here's the video again:



See time index (no excuses now, I even narrowed it down to just that small clip):

02:02:41 - 02:04:58

"... So this is it: the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a survey showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year.

British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings.

For Americans, a 1999 Gallup poll gave just 6 percent of skeptics, and a 2013 Pew Research poll showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. That is suspiciously low. A 2005-2006 poll “found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon,” which is closer to the British data and more credible. It is interesting to note that in a poll made by Knight Newspapers one year after the first moon landing, more than 30 percent of respondents were suspicious of NASA’s trips to the moon. Many of those early skeptics may have converted over the years, or simply lost the energy to dissent. ..." - The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind? - Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

 

Yeah, 'facts':

"... Considerable interest is assured from your peers' conclusions regarding the likelihood of NASA allowing its Apollo ‘radiation workers’ to be exposed to cosmic particles:

"The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares. When cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet, and trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!" – Robert Naeye, PhD, NASA. Dr Robert Naeye is now Editor in Chief of Sky & Telescope, the world’s most respected and influential popular astronomy magazine. ..." - The Apollo Investigation, Open Letter to Professor Brian Cox – follow up. Seven Questions and a Request from David Orbell. AULIS Online – Different Thinking
​

Right back to the 'boots' problem, aren't we?​