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: 29
45
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

So no matter what, going beyond LEO would increase your exposure to radiation. And before
you bring up shielding from the Apollo craft, bring up the fact that astronauts walked on the moon in space suits and did
deep space space walks. So taking into consideration: VABs, GCRs, SPEs, Solar Flares, being outside the craft on the Moon, in deep Space:

Explain how a 7 day Gemini mission in LEO absorbed a larger dose of ionizing radiation than an 8 day Apollo mission ?



you are assuming that all sources of particle radiation is completely penetrating the Command Modules hull.. until you can understand the concept of how the shielding works you will never be satisfied..


Choos, just answer the question:

Explain how a 7 day Gemini mission in LEO absorbed a larger dose of ionizing radiation than an 8 day Apollo mission ?
If you can't explain it, just say so.



are you willing to admit that the Apollo command modules hull would have stopped/attenuated most of the particles?? i cant explain it to you if you ignore this fact.

its like trying to explain to you why the sky is blue when you dont believe in refraction..
edit on 18-12-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

Yes. They went through a less active portion than Gemini did.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

That has been answered, are you saying you don't find the correct answer satisfactory?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I don't think it really matters how many threads you try to insert this kind of crap into. As was shown in the other threads you've started recently, you're seeing ONLY what you WANT to see in these pictures and links, and you're utterly and completely ignoring EVERYTHING that runs counter to your wildly off-base claims and statements.

Every single time one of your preposterous theories is shot full of holes you ignore it entirely as if it never happened and trot out some other angle, and when THAT one is shot down you ignore IT and move on to still ANOTHER angle.

If your theories weren't so wildly fantastic (and I mean that in the fanciful, remote from reality sense and not the "awesome" sense of the word), it would be maddening to keep seeing the same drivel trotted out in thread after thread.

These "identical pictures" are not at all identical. They have similarities, but they have many, many differences. Ignore it all you want, but "identical" means similar in every single detail. "Identical" doesn't mean "has a few similarities and a lot of differences" or even "has a lot of similarities and some differences." You were actually correct that the boots you posted couldn't have left the footprints that were left on the moon. BUT (and it's a very large but, that's why it's capped), those boots never made contact with the surface of the moon soooo not only did they not leave any prints, it's physically impossible for them to have made the prints, because they were never exposed to the surface of the moon.

Crazy, eh?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

Yes. They went through a less active portion than Gemini did.


There is a less active portion of the SAA?
Please provide sources.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FoosM

That has been answered, are you saying you don't find the correct answer satisfactory?


What has been answered?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

They didn't go anywhere near the SAA. They went through a less active portion of the VAB.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

They didn't go anywhere near the SAA. They went through a less active portion of the VAB.


Where is this proof that Apollo traveled through less active portions of the VAB during those four hours?

And what makes you think the SAA is the more active than other areas of the belt?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

are you willing to admit that the Apollo command modules hull would have stopped/attenuated most of the particles?? i cant explain it to you if you ignore this fact.

its like trying to explain to you why the sky is blue when you dont believe in refraction..


Are you willing to admit that Apollo had no special shielding for radiation?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

Oh let's see, it's been mapped and shows much higher particle levels, satellites going through the heart of the SAA have died resulting in others going through there being shut off prior to going into it....

Apollo went Northeast on launch, heading in the direction of the north pole, not to it but towards that direction. That means it was heading towards the "flatter" portion of the VAB. That portion has shown less activity than thicker areas near the equator.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

The outer shell, honeycomb, fuel, water, and onboard equipment all provided some shielding.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM


And what makes you think the SAA is the more active than other areas of the belt?


Scientific data. I know you don't trust NASA, so here is an explanation from our Russian friends:


На рис 1 приведены линии pавных L и В координат МакИлвайна над всей повехностью земного шаpа для высоты 1000 км. БМА отчетливо выделяется в изоконтурах напряженности магнитного поля. В этой области величина магнитного поля на уровне моря такая, как на высоте 1000 км вне аномалий.
В физике космических лучей БМА играет очень важную роль, влияя на потоки высокоэнергетичных заряженных частиц в околоземном космическом пространстве. Особенно большое влияние испытывают частицы радиационных поясов Земли.
В этой области внутренний радиационный пояс наиболее близко подходит к поверхности Земли. Низковысотные спутники только при пролетвах над БМА задевают отроги радиационного пояса. На рис 2 траектории пролетов спутника SERVIS-1 раскрашены в разные цвета в зависимости от измеренной интенсивности протонов с энергией 1.2 МэВ. Как видно из показанной справа шкалы цветов, интенсивность в аномалии (красный цвет) на четыре порядка выше интенсивности в средних широтах вне аномалии (коричневый цвет).



www.kosmofizika.ru...
edit on 18-12-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

The outer shell, honeycomb, fuel, water, and onboard equipment all provided some shielding.


That is not quantitative. It could have provided some shielding, it could have been of no consequence.
And how do you explain Apollo 13 in the LM?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001




www.kosmofizika.ru...

That answers nothing.
Tell me what you think it possibly answered.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

Oh let's see, it's been mapped and shows much higher particle levels, satellites going through the heart of the SAA have died resulting in others going through there being shut off prior to going into it....



Its been mapped out, well provide the maps.
Show us where the SAA is more energetic than other areas of the VAB that you claim apollo went through.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM


That is not quantitative. It could have provided some shielding, it could have been of no consequence.
And how do you explain Apollo 13 in the LM?


Anything with mass provides shielding. If you want specific figures, you can always refer to this:

Standard Moon Hoax Reference



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM


Its been mapped out, well provide the maps.


Look up! ^



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: DJW001




www.kosmofizika.ru...


That answers nothing.
Tell me what you think it possibly answered.

Your question.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FoosM


Its been mapped out, well provide the maps.


Look up! ^


It answers nothing.
All you are showing is the mapping of the SAA.
We know where its located.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FoosM


That is not quantitative. It could have provided some shielding, it could have been of no consequence.
And how do you explain Apollo 13 in the LM?


Anything with mass provides shielding. If you want specific figures, you can always refer to this:

Standard Moon Hoax Reference



Then why do humans get exposed going through the VABs like at the SAA in any of the spacecraft?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join