Right, well I see while I was writing, there are more "issues" so let us continue.
Moonrock could have been collected by an unmanned craft, or were meteorites.
Let's start with the unmanned craft. Where are the plans for such a craft? How were they launched or landed with no-one seeing them? Where did the budget come from to pay for these secret missions? All big problems. Lets add more. The rocks were specifically selected, the Astronauts had geology training to make sure that what they brought back was material that the geologists wanted, not a bunch of random rocks like that Soviets ended up with. In fact in some cases during the 'J' missions, the geologist on Earth would point out a rock they wanted when they saw it on the TV and get the Astronauts to collect that rock for them. Add to that that there are nearly 380 kg of Apollo samples including 8 foot long core samples, soil cores, soil scoops, rock chips and whole rocks. What sort of unmanned probe has the diversity to collect that range of samples, and if it existed in 1969, why haven't we been using it on Mars since then, why have the unmanned probes we use today gone backwards from these theoretical ones? Note here that the Soviets had three successful returns and achieved very little but a random sample of small rocks and dust, and a three foot core. How did the US achieve so much more?
Okay, so how about using lunarites? Well, here a problem. In 1969 they didn't know that lunarites existed. The first one wasn't found until ten years after Apollo 11, in 1979, and the first to be identified as from the moon wasn't until two years later in 1981. Add to that that lunarites have a fusion crust from passage through the Earth's atmosphere, weathering, micro-fissures from their passage through the atmosphere and other sides of being a meteor. To a geologist a rock is a novel. They can tell you its entire life history, from when it was formed, to when it was knocked off the moon to when it landed on Earth. When that is the sort of knowledge you are trying to fool, how do you manage it?
There is another problem though. In the 1990's a probe was sent to the moon and surveyed the minerals. It was then discovered that there is a portion of the moon that has high in a low radioactive form of potassium. Ironically, this is the exact area that the Apollo missions landed, and as such their samples show high amounts of the substances located in that area. Most of the Lunarites we have found are not from that area though, they are from all over the moon. How could NASA have known that?
So as you see, while they might sound good to start with, there are some very serious problems with either of these suggestions.
For more on Lunar Meteorites,
see this page
Film and Radiation.
There is very little radioactivity on the moon itself. There is some natural from the soil (as mentioned above), some from Cosmic Radiation, and a little from a reaction with the soil and cosmic radiation. Over all, the amount of radioactivity on the moon is considered unlikely to be harmful for a trip of less than 90 days (the longest the astronauts were there was 3.) Since the film was in a metal canister, it was shielded from most of the effects, though if you look through the photos you will find that a number do display signs of cosmic rays having hit the film, however cosmic rays are pretty rare things.
VA Belts Revisited.
So, back to the VA Belts. The film was inside the Capsule, which if you recall I pointed out had more than adequate shielding due to the insulation matting and aluminium plating. They were also inside their own metal canisters, which is more shielding. The claims of needing vast amounts of lead are rubbish. They come from a study on
Interstellar space travel where the author stated that any generational space ship travelling between the stars would require the equivalent of six-feet of lead. (note he didn't say they had to have six-feet of lead, just the equivalent.) But this is for a ship that people would live an entire lifetime on, not one on which they would spend 10 days.
There is also the claim that the Soviets believed that you needed six-feet of lead. Not true. In fact we can look at their own Lunar Craft. Zond 5 sent a payload of frogs worms and other living creatures in a cis-lunar flight, returning them to earth alive. The Soviet LOK (there version of the CM) was nothing more than a standard Soyuz, slightly modified in shape, with the removal of the solar panels and the addition of fuel cells. Where was their six feet of lead? If they had virtually the same protection as the Apollo craft for their planned missions, why was NASA wrong? (I'm going to quickly note it here that the Soviet Lunar missions failed because they couldn't get the first stage of their heavy lifter to work, the rest of the space craft did.)
Finally, what about the man that knew the Belts better than anyone else, Dr Van Allen. Though an opponent to manned space travel, believing that (for his science) unmanned was faster and cheaper, he categorically refuted any claims of the Van Allen Belts being a danger to manned space travel. This is the guy that found then and who had studied them for 10 years before Apollo 8 passed through them.
Add to that that Gemini spent time in the belts, the ISS spends time in the belts and the Space Shuttle has spent time in the belts, all longer than the two hours that Apollo was exposed to them. How can you claim that the Belts can't be travelled? Are you claiming greater knowledge that Dr James Van Allen himself? The world's leading authority on the belts, a man who devoted much of his life to their study says it was possible, what proof do you have that he was wrong?
