Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 545

Thread: Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228

    Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4

    It seems the lunar surface is radioactive so could we have really landed on the moon and not have been aware of this fact?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Lord Foul

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, what exactly are you contending? If this radioactivity was newly discovered by Chang'E-4, then NASA didn't know about it in 1969, so why wouldn't they send astronauts to the Moon? If they knew about it, then this isn't news and it has nothing to do with Chang'E-4.

    Here is a publication that reports the Chang'E-4 findings.
    The Lunar Lander Neutrons and Dosimetry experiment aboard China’s Chang’E 4 lander has made the first ever measurements of the radiation exposure to both charged and neutral particles on the lunar surface. We measured an average total absorbed dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 μGy/hour and a neutral particle dose rate of 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour.
    This paper talks about radiation exposures in a variety of situations. Table 1 summarizes a lot of this info. It reports astronauts, in particular Apollo 10, being exposed to ~18 μGy/h. So this doesn't seem to be particularly new information.

    For comparison, it reports Chernobyl clean-up workers were exposed to 320 μGy/h.

    This source says that "The whole-body exposure threshold for acute hematopoietic syndrome or "radiation sickness" is 500 mGy." That's 500,000 μGy. And even 20 μGy/hr, the astronauts would have to be on the moon for 25,000 hours. My understanding of the concerns raised by the Chang'E-4 data is for long term habitation, not for a visit of a day or several.

    Lastly, ignoring your radiation concerns, what about all the rest of the overwhelming data supporting the Apollo landings on the Moon? Whether NASA sent astronauts into a dangerous situation or not (and multiple dangers were well known), they overwhelmingly demonstrate that men really did land on the Moon.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Thank you for the welcome. Chang'E-4's validate the readings of the LRO. The surface of moon is radioactive and this was unknown by NASA until the LRO was launched in 2009. It would not have been possible to have gone to the moon and not be aware. The dosimetry worn by the astronauts would have detected the radiation. The dust filled space suits would have indicated the lunar surface was radioactive. Throughout the Apollo lunar missions, astronauts exposed themselves to lunar dust and ingested it. They noted that it smelled like gun powder. Theses things would not have happened if NASA had been aware the lunar surface was radioactive. The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation. The fact that the actual exposure rate for the mission was .22 mgy/day means that Apollo 11 did not transit the Van Allen Belt and did orbit or land on the moon. That is if we are to believe the published exposure rates

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,406
    That is less radioactive than Cornwall.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    That is less radioactive than Cornwall.
    But does anyone still believe Apollo 11 landed in Cornwall?

    Sorry. On topic: It was generally known that the Apollo astronauts would be exposed to radiation while they were on the moon, because it was known they'd be exposed to radiation on the way to the moon, from cosmic rays. I'd need to dig through my references, but my recollection is that the dosage rate on the lunar surface and in low lunar orbit turned out to be (predictably) about half of what was received during transit, because the moon shadowed out about half the cosmic rays.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-14 at 08:42 PM.
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It seems the lunar surface is radioactive so could we have really landed on the moon and not have been aware of this fact?
    It would have been utterly astonishing if the lunar surface wasn’t somewhat radioactive. The Earth’s surface is radioactive, after all, to a varying extent depending on location, but there are always some radioactive isotopes. For that matter, people are radioactive, due to naturally radioactive isotopes in our bodies. Anywhere you go, there will be some radiation exposure and not just due to radioactivity, the important question is how much you will be exposed to.

    And we have rock samples from the Apollo landing sites, so this isn’t exactly a revelation.

    I’ve seen no indication that Apollo astronauts would have had a dangerous radiation exposure, and further there is a great deal of evidence showing the missions occurred, so of course I believe the Apollo 11 LM landed on the Moon, and astronauts from that mission and others walked on the Moon.

    You will need a much better argument than just that Chang'E-4 detected radiation if you’re going to call the Apollo landings into question.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It seems the lunar surface is radioactive so could we have really landed on the moon and not have been aware of this fact?
    No I don't believe, I know from all the data that was gathered by the program.
    Here is a link to radiation doses that the astronauts received during the missions, you will note that A14 had a higher reading, and that is because one of the badges was broken so only two badges went into their averages.

    https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

    Direct question to you, What are your understandings concerning the Apollo program? Did the program send 24 men to close proximity to the Moon, land 12 and return all safely?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,301
    An article from 2012, entitled Radiation exposure in the moon environment.
    Measurements on the lunar surface performed during the Apollo missions cover only a small energy band for thermal neutrons and are not sufficient to estimate the exposure. Very recently some data were added by the Radiation Dose Monitoring (RADOM) instrument operated during the Indian Chandrayaan Mission and the Cosmic Ray Telescope (CRaTER) instrument of the NASA LRO (Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter) mission. These measurements need to be complemented by surface measurements.
    So what Chang'E-4 has done is produce more complete data for a radiation risk that was already known about, and was specifically (if partially) investigated by the Apollo missions.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,301
    By the way, if anyone wants to read the remarkably detailed analysis of radiation exposure experienced by the Apollo XI astronauts, try to get hold of a copy of Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First Lunar Landing Mission Apollo XI. (Unfortunately all the copies I'm aware of require some sort of institutional access.)
    We have a lot of detail relating to particle energies and doses, but less information about the time sequence of the exposure.

    Grant Hutchison


    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,936
    Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4?
    Well, I should hope not, Apollo 11 landed about fifty years BEFORE Chang’E... ;-)
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    It seems the lunar surface is radioactive so could we have really landed on the moon and not have been aware of this fact?
    The unshielded radiation rate of ~0.3 mGy/day was first reported by the very first lunar soft lander, Luna 9, in 1966. The Chang'E-4 radiation data is much more refined than this, but not surprising and not substantially different than what was known prior to the first Apollo landing. No astronaut ever laid down without a space suit on the lunar surface for an extended period, so their absorbed dose is lower than the total unshielded dose. The radiation in low lunar orbit and on the surface of the moon is lower than during the trip to the moon because the moon provides shielding from GCR, and neither the Luna 9 nor the Chang'E-4 data contradicts the Apollo record.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    But does anyone still believe Apollo 11 landed in Cornwall?


    That would explain a lot.
    You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and I won't have it!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I think it is important to concentrate on the undeniable fact that the radiation dose of the Apollo 11 is impossible. It is comparable to all ELO missions. The background radiation in space outside of the Van Allen Belt would result in a higher dose. The moon is a radiation source and rather than shielding background radiation, it raises it. Radiation levels in orbit around the moon and on the surface of the moon would raise mission dosage. This would be true if there was no Van Allen Belt. It is obvious to the casual observer that any exposure in the Van Allen Belt would only increase mission dose. I am not saying lunar radiation is fatal. I am saying it is proof that the stated radiation levels are improbable.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    The other point I would stress is no one in there right mind would willingly inhale radioactive dust without knowing to what extent is was radioactive. A decontamination area would have been established to allow the astronauts to de-suit prior to entering the confined quarters of the lunar lander.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Scientist also thought radiation levels should be lower in lunar orbit than in cislunar space but was surprised that radiation levels were 30 to 40% higher. It was then that they realized the moon was so radioactive that it elevated orbital radiation above cislunar space.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I am not sure any man has ever entered or passed beyond the Van Allen Belt. If anyone of the Apollo missions are proven false then they all are in my mind. If a thing cannot be then it isn't.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,698
    It seems another post was approved since I last read this thread. Lord Foul, as a note, moderators have to approve early posts by new users as an anti-spam measure so we don’t always see them right away. That should end before too long as you write more posts.

    Anyway, this one raises a number of questions I’d like to see clarified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Thank you for the welcome. Chang'E-4's validate the readings of the LRO. The surface of moon is radioactive and this was unknown by NASA until the LRO was launched in 2009.
    Please clarify what you mean by “The surface of the moon is radioactive” and specifically what evidence you are basing this on. Then please show how you came to a conclusion that NASA was unaware of the Moon’s radiation environment until recently. As I mentioned in an earlier post, essentially everything is to some extent radioactive. You are measurably radioactive. The dirt you or I walk across is measurably radioactive. What matters is how radioactive. You need to show actual numbers to compare to normal background - it’s meaningless and trivial to just say that the lunar surface is radioactive.

    It would not have been possible to have gone to the moon and not be aware. The dosimetry worn by the astronauts would have detected the radiation. The dust filled space suits would have indicated the lunar surface was radioactive. Throughout the Apollo lunar missions, astronauts exposed themselves to lunar dust and ingested it. They noted that it smelled like gun powder. Theses things would not have happened if NASA had been aware the lunar surface was radioactive.
    All of the things you say above appear to be based on the assumption that the lunar surface is far more radioactive than generally understood, and they all are invalid if it is not as radioactive as you seem to think it is. So again, evidence is required. Incidentally, the gun powder smell is due to chemistry, not radioactivity.

    The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.
    Okay, here you are getting into some very specific claims. Please show how you arrived at these numbers. Please show your work here in detail.

    The fact that the actual exposure rate for the mission was .22 mgy/day means that Apollo 11 did not transit the Van Allen Belt and did orbit or land on the moon. That is if we are to believe the published exposure rates
    Or, far more likely, that you’ve made assumptions and mistakes that make your claims invalid.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I think it is important to concentrate on the undeniable fact that the radiation dose of the Apollo 11 is impossible.
    That turns out not to be the case.
    I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation in another Apollo/radiation thread a few years ago, using data available at the time: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...86#post2446986
    I haven't seen anything from Chang'E-4 data to make me change my mind.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,071
    Lord Foul, what would it take to convince you that you're wrong?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The other point I would stress is no one in there right mind would willingly inhale radioactive dust without knowing to what extent is was radioactive. A decontamination area would have been established to allow the astronauts to de-suit prior to entering the confined quarters of the lunar lander.
    The dust was found to be very angular not rounded and tended to cling to the spacesuits not float in the oxygen environment of the LM. You really need to do better research.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Scientist also thought radiation levels should be lower in lunar orbit than in cislunar space but was surprised that radiation levels were 30 to 40% higher. It was then that they realized the moon was so radioactive that it elevated orbital radiation above cislunar space.
    You have this exactly backward radiation both on the Moon and in Lunar orbit is less than cis-lunar trajectory. The Moon shields the astronauts from GCR.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,698
    Lord Foul, it looks like you are responding to specific posts. When you do, could you please use rhe “Reply With Quote” function? It makes the discussion easier to follow.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Scientist also thought radiation levels should be lower in lunar orbit than in cislunar space but was surprised that radiation levels were 30 to 40% higher.
    What scientists made these statements and specifically what did they say?

    It was then that they realized the moon was so radioactive that it elevated orbital radiation above cislunar space.
    Again: Evidence please. I am seeing a number of claims from you, but so far, no evidence to support them.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,939
    One aspect to remember, all the radiation values whether they are derived from Chang'E-4 or any other lander/orbiter is that the values reported are "unshielded".

    ETA: Make sure to read Grant's post.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...86#post2446986

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,698
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    One aspect to remember, all the radiation values whether they are derived from Chang'E-4 or any other lander/orbiter is that the values reported are "unshielded".
    That is certainly one of the issues - the Apollo command service module especially provided a very significant reduction in radiation exposure. Other issues are the amount and types of radiation and the sources of radiation. Lord Foul seems to be arguing for very radioactive lunar regolith, but hasn’t provided any evidence for such. Radiation came from galactic cosmic rays (GCR), solar radiation, and radiation from the regolith. Source and type of radiation would affect exposure and effectiveness of various types of shielding. For instance, breathing in a little lunar dust isn’t relevant to radiation exposure unless it is highly radioactive, more like what one could possibly experience in facilities dealing with high level nuclear waste.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    It seems another post was approved since I last read this thread. Lord Foul, as a note, moderators have to approve early posts by new users as an anti-spam measure so we don’t always see them right away. That should end before too long as you write more posts.

    Anyway, this one raises a number of questions I’d like to see clarified.



    Please clarify what you mean by “The surface of the moon is radioactive” and specifically what evidence you are basing this on. Then please show how you came to a conclusion that NASA was unaware of the Moon’s radiation environment until recently. As I mentioned in an earlier post, essentially everything is to some extent radioactive. You are measurably radioactive. The dirt you or I walk across is measurably radioactive. What matters is how radioactive. You need to show actual numbers to compare to normal background - it’s meaningless and trivial to just say that the lunar surface is radioactive.



    All of the things you say above appear to be based on the assumption that the lunar surface is far more radioactive than generally understood, and they all are invalid if it is not as radioactive as you seem to think it is. So again, evidence is required. Incidentally, the gun powder smell is due to chemistry, not radioactivity.



    Okay, here you are getting into some very specific claims. Please show how you arrived at these numbers. Please show your work here in detail.



    Or, far more likely, that you’ve made assumptions and mistakes that make your claims invalid.
    "Human exploration of the Moon is associated with substantial risks to astronauts from space radiation. On the surface of the Moon, this consists of the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays and sporadic solar particle events. The interaction of this radiation field with the lunar soil leads to a third component that consists of neutral particles, i.e., neutrons and gamma radiation. The Lunar Lander Neutrons and Dosimetry experiment aboard China’s Chang’E 4 lander has made the first ever measurements of the radiation exposure to both charged and neutral particles on the lunar surface. We measured an average total absorbed dose rate in silicon of 13.2 ± 1 μGy/hour and a neutral particle dose rate of 3.1 ± 0.5 μGy/hour." https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/39/eaaz1334

    "In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.

    Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

    Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary — and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

    "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."" https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34470642#.Wrren4jwaUl

    So you can see in 2009 the LRO revealed that the moon was a source of radiation and did not act as a shield as expected.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Lord Foul, what would it take to convince you that you're wrong?
    I am not sure as subsequent missions from the US and China have provided data points that conflict with the information from the Apollo era. Our inability to replicate the feat despite quantum leaps in technology is indicator also. The next 3 years should shed the light of discovery. Remember that my only claim is the radiation values are implausible using current information as a reference.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    So you can see in 2009 the LRO revealed that the moon was a source of radiation and did not act as a shield as expected.
    No, I don’t see that. You provided popular press quotes, but no information that support your claims. It is not new information that cosmic ray impacts produce secondaries. It is not new information that the Moon, like the Earth, is a source of radiation. The issue, still again, is the types and amounts of radiation. You have not shown anything that would contradict the Apollo record. You have not shown any evidence to support your claim that the lunar surface is highly radioactive. You have not shown that the body of the Moon would not block much GCR and solar radiation, significantly reducing radiation exposure compared to cislunar space.

    And in regards to this claim in your prior post:

    The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space. Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.
    I ask for the second time that you show how you arrived at these numbers. Please show your work in detail.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    No, I don’t see that. You provided popular press quotes, but no information that support your claims. It is not new information that cosmic ray impacts produce secondaries. It is not new information that the Moon, like the Earth, is a source of radiation. The issue, still again, is the types and amounts of radiation. You have not shown anything that would contradict the Apollo record. You have not shown any evidence to support your claim that the lunar surface is highly radioactive. You have not shown that the body of the Moon would not block much GCR and solar radiation, significantly reducing radiation exposure compared to cislunar space.

    And in regards to this claim in your prior post:



    I ask for the second time that you show how you arrived at these numbers. Please show your work in detail.
    Background space radiation (GCR) during the Apollo era GCR background radiation was 1 mrad/hr (.24 mgy/day) during the Apollo missions to the moon. Ref. Page 7 under "Cosmic Rays". https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf. CraTer Data Detectors D1 & D2, averaged daily, from June 26, 2009 to March 26 2017 recorded a median Cislunar radiation of .221693 mgy/day and an average radiation of 1.841328 mgy/day.
    http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/cr..._allevents.txt

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,623
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    By the way, if anyone wants to read the remarkably detailed analysis of radiation exposure experienced by the Apollo XI astronauts, try to get hold of a copy of Nuclear Track Recordings of the Astronauts' Radiation Exposure on the First Lunar Landing Mission Apollo XI. (Unfortunately all the copies I'm aware of require some sort of institutional access.)
    We have a lot of detail relating to particle energies and doses, but less information about the time sequence of the exposure.

    Grant Hutchison


    I have a pdf of this paper.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Background space radiation (GCR) during the Apollo era GCR background radiation was 1 mrad/hr (.24 mgy/day) during the Apollo missions to the moon. Ref. Page 7 under "Cosmic Rays". https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf. CraTer Data Detectors D1 & D2, averaged daily, from June 26, 2009 to March 26 2017 recorded a median Cislunar radiation of .221693 mgy/day and an average radiation of 1.841328 mgy/day.
    http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/cr..._allevents.txt
    Grant went through that previously, here linked again:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...86#post2446986

    showing the cislunar dose x time and (also mentioned on page 7 under “cosmic rays”) the lower 0.6 mrad/hour dose on the moon as well as the short time in LEO (also partially protected from GCR) and the quick flight through the outer Van Allen belt, which altogether results in a combined dose in good agreement with what was reported for Apollo 11, unlike your claim.

    But you also claimed that “Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.” I still see no presented evidence for and certainly no detailed explanation for this part of your claim. I ask still again that you show how you arrived at this, in detail, please.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •