It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

page: 27
45
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Not that is matters or that anyone important will read this.

The truth is US did put a man on the moon, and the truth is later missions to moon were staged because of what frightened the NASA on the moon when they got there.

I am just showing off here with this post, who cares, moving on.




posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The radiation even in low Earth orbit causes damage to equipment and humans.

The picture below was taken using an electron microscope of a space helmet after being in space for an extended period. It shows the traces of very high energetic particles that constantly bombard the astronauts and their space equipment - microscopic damage invisible to the naked eye and conventional photography. So energetic particles, in fact, that they go straight through spacecrafts, and can pose a real health threat to biological life after a prolonged exposure.


Electron microscope image of a space helmet

In space, you are constantly bombarded with these particles, which increase the closer you come to the Van Allan Radiation Belt, which protects the Earth and is located between the Moon and Earth.

My question is; if the ISS in low Earth orbit is not adequately shielded for its relatively small dose of space radiation - as my picture prove since we can clearly see radiation damage - then how can you claim that that the Apollo spacecrafts radiation sheilds could have been sufficient? The Apollo spacecraft used 0.020 inch thick aluminum sheets in a honeycomb structure as environment shielding, but the ISS TeSS Polyethylene “Radiation Bricks”[1] that are 1 inch thick(2.5 cm) and is dedicated as radiation shielding in addition to its environment shielding. These particles are so high-energetic that you might need 3 feet (1 meter) of solid lead to stop them penetrating the spaceship equipment and inhabitants.

[1] Radiation Measurements and Shielding Analysis for ISS

In my related ATS thread I explore the idea of using electron microscope images on the returned Apollo Program equipment to prove or disprove any faking.

-MM

edit on 12-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Electron microscope image of a space helmet


so this is the image of high energetic particles on a space helmet.. from LEO i presume?? so the astronaut survived..


The Apollo spacecraft used 0.020 inch thick aluminum sheets in a honeycomb structure as environment shielding,


source??

(i dont really need a source for this, i just find it funny that it was shown to you that your claim of 0.020 inch thick hull for the Apollo command module is actually the hull thickness of the OXYGEN TANK)


TeSS Polyethylene “Radiation Bricks”[1] that are 1 inch thick(2.5 cm) and is dedicated as radiation shielding in addition to its environment shielding. These particles are so high-energetic that you might need 3 feet (1 meter) of solid lead to stop them penetrating the spaceship equipment and inhabitants.


3 feet of lead??

you see that picture you posted at the start of your post?? that shows the damage that you claim an astronaut receives from these high energy particles.. but now you claim that 3 feet of lead might be needed to stop these high energy particles..

the astronaut wearing the helmet survived, so.. was the helmet 3 feet of lead thick??



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert
a reply to: FoosM

Yes but when they are "debunking" the moon landing conspiracies they say this,


4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing hoax' believers? Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days. The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal. Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless.



"According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days."

What this proves is that they never left LEO! Apollo and Gemini dosage readings are the same. How is that possible
if one program stayed in LEO and the other went passed LEO, was hit with solar flares, and exposed to other space radiation hazards?

Gemini 5 176 millirads (7 days) vs
Apollo 11 173 millirads (8 days)

How does that even make sense?



For orbits at 250 - 300 km at 65 degree inclinations to the equator you get about 10 millirads/day. These numbers are from Volume II of the "Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine" NASA SP-374 published in 1975.


That is most likely occurred with Apollo! They must have been in LEO, because:



Passes through the Van Allen radiation belts give you 10 - 20 rads/hour


Apollo missions stayed longer than 1 hour in the belts.

So even if you go with their unverifiable dosimeter readings, they still contradict themselves.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

the Apollo missions most likely occured at 65degree inclination at 250-300km??
if we go by your quote then 0.01 rads/day will get them 0.08 rads for an 8 day mission.. but just before you said Apollo 11 received 0.178rads for its 8 day mission???

if what you say is true then NASA went to a lot of trouble to hoax the moon landing, including faking lunar gravity of ALL objects including dust, faking a dynamic earth and weather with a moving terminator during live TV broadcasts..

they had barely any time to fake video footage of a dynamic earth but they got that perfectly but when they are given a few days to state the radiation figures they get it wrong hmm..

kinda strange, why go to all that trouble faking it and then not fake it properly.. its almost like you are suggesting they are not capable of faking it and keeping it secret for 40+ years..



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

by all means explain how a 7 day mission has more rads than an 8 day mission



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
This video makes an interesting point at about 0:55; it shows the same rocks appearing twize on supposedly different locations according to the Apollo 17 Mission logs. The first shot was taken 0.6 miles (1 km) west of the base, and the second shot was taken 2.5 miles (4 km) to the south of the base a day or so later - the same rocks and hill appears in both shots at different locations 3.1 miles (5 km) apart - how is that possible unless it has been faked?

[video removed, see edit reason]

Another good point made by the video; just imagine how hot it is on Earth on a sunny day and we have our atmosphere to protect us, so how come the Apollo 17 lander and crew could stay on the Moon's surface for three days without getting cooked in the tiny tin box they called the Lunar Lander? The Moon has no atmosphere so they would have recived the direct heat from the Sun for three days. This second video goes into these heat issues in details at 14:45 :



-MM
edit on 12-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on Fri Dec 12 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: removed per this www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

And then you have Wernher von Braun that went to Antarctica a couple of years before Apollo 11 to pick up rocks supposedly from metorites that came from the Moon
What makes you think he went to Antarctica to collect meteorites? It wasn't until 1969 that it became known that it's a really good place to look for them. You think he picked up 850 pounds of lunar meteorites one trip? You think lunar meteorites have the same external characteristics as the returned lunar material?


First of all Von Braun is signed into the South Pole stations guestbook:



Summer 1967-68
Summer visitors include Werner Von Braun who joins the 200 club.
South pole station guestbook

Secondly, there is an article about his trip Antarctica : "Space Man's Look at Antarctica". Popular Science, Vol. 190, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 114–116.

Von Braun all geared up and squinting for the camera

-MM

edit on 12-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Phage

And then you have Wernher von Braun that went to Antarctica a couple of years before Apollo 11 to pick up rocks supposedly from metorites that came from the Moon
What makes you think he went to Antarctica to collect meteorites? It wasn't until 1969 that it became known that it's a really good place to look for them. You think he picked up 850 pounds of lunar meteorites one trip? You think lunar meteorites have the same external characteristics as the returned lunar material?


First of all Von Braun is signed into the South Pole stations guestbook:



Remember, no independent third party has examined all the rocks.
Only very small samples have ever been shared.
And many of those samples are on loan.
Meaning they have to be returned to be shared again.

So yeah, they can claim thousands of pounds of rocks have been taken off the moon and brought to Earth,
but they only let the world examine ounces.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

to do that i would need more info on the Gemini spacecraft, but i can guess that the Apollo command module has more material between the astronauts to the outside of the craft compared with Gemini..

if i use these numbers i can find that Gemini re-entry module was about 1982kg, 3.4m long and 2.3m in diameter, compared with the Apollo command module of 5560kg, 3.5m long and 3.9m diameter; although being about 2x as large the Apollo command module is nearly 3x the weight.. that extra weight comes from somewhere..

add in that Gemini would have received constant exposure and Apollo would receive varying amounts

however, i can tell you how i would NOT explain it and that would be to say that an 8 day Apollo mission would be orbitting at 250-300km at 65 degree inclination where they would receive 0.01rads/day.

but either way to suggest they would make a mistake like this is similar to saying NASA is NOT competent enough to Hoax the moon landing for 40+ years..



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

First of all Von Braun is signed into the South Pole stations guestbook
I didn't say he didn't go to Antarctica. I asked what makes you think he went to Antarctica "to collect meteorites."



Secondly, there is an article about his trip Antarctica
And does it say he went to Antarctica "to collect meteorites?"



edit on 12/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Secondly, there is an article about his trip Antarctica
And does it say he went to Antarctica "to collect meteorites?"


Of course not, that would have made everyone suspicious. His cover story was to test the equipment - like he had to go to Antarctica for that.

AJP092502 - Wernher von Braun walks around a replica of the Apollo 11 moon landing at Atlanta’s Southeastern Fair, 9/25/69.

-MM

edit on 14-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
In other words, you made that part up.
Got it.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
In other words, you made that part up.
Got it.


Not at all:


Wernher von Braun made a trip to Antarctica to recover lunar rocks that had been blasted off the lunar surface by impacts and had fallen to earth as meteorites.
-Bill Kaysing

Wernher von Braun looking at a replica of the Apollo 11 moon landing at Atlanta’s Southeastern Fair, 9/25/69.

-MM

edit on 14-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Oh. Kaysing made it up. That's much better.

Tell me, did Kaysing know how Von Braun knew they were lunar meteorites?

edit on 12/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Oh. Kaysing made it up. That's much better.

Tell me, did Kaysing know how Von Braun knew they were lunar meteorites?


How can I know if Bill Kaysing made it up or not? Perhaps he had sources in NASA that told him so?

-MM

edit on 14-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

How can I know if Bill Kaysing made it up or not?
So, you don't care. You just believe what he said then. Got it. Do you believe everything he said?


Why would Kaysing have sources at NASA who would have told him anything?

edit on 12/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Cannot believe that this topic has gone on for 27 pages so far.

The guy was clearly stating that protection to equipment was needed. The high energy particles would cause havoc with modern day equipment. True though, the van Halen belt is damaging to humans, but the shielding needed to protect us people is a simple light metal composite. Our modern day equipment would need more.

Apollo computers could take a beating and last forever, as most of the things made then could.

It amazes me that so many people will pick one or two 'nut-cases' instead of rely on proven facts and solid science.

Only America put people (Americans) on another heavenly body....yup, we were great once.

Sadly, we lost that greatness...but after reviewing this thread and the rinse/repeat facts to say we didn't land on the moon...I kinda know how.

-CN




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

It seems you think a millirad is more than a rad...the opposite is true.

172 Millirads is 0.172 rads.

For your edification, I am going to use the link I know you got your information from:

Radiation Exposure to Astronauts and Equipment


For orbits at 250 - 300 km at 65 degree inclinations to the equator you get about 10 millirads/day. These numbers are from Volume II of the "Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine" NASA SP-374 published in 1975. Passes through the Van Allen radiation belts give you 10 - 20 rads/hour but most manned flights avoid them, and passages through them last about 10 - 20 minutes.


Van Allen Belts and Space Travel


Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials.


Here you can have an attractive person explain it to you:


edit on 15-12-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

How can I know if Bill Kaysing made it up or not?
So, you don't care. You just believe what he said then. Got it. Do you believe everything he said?


Why do you think that I don't care? Is there any reason for not believing what he said? I don't know everything he ever said, so how could I possibly believe everything he said?


originally posted by: Phage
Why would Kaysing have sources at NASA who would have told him anything?


That would be pure speculation on my part.

-MM



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join