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.

 

I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Onebigmonkey is exactly right. Just to add to what he was saying re: the first video, talking about not being able to safely travel through "this region of space." NASA did not "admit" that the moon landings were faked. They said that they need to learn how to fly through "this region" of space traversed by Orion EFT-1, and quite literally the Apollo capsule would not be safe to sit in if sent through the same region as Orion EFT-1 on EFT-1's trajectory. The trajectory taken by Apollo avoided the most intense parts of the Van Allen belts. Orion EFT-1 flew right through it. Here's Apollo's trajectory:

Using SPENVIS, here is the dose expected for an Apollo astronaut sitting inside an Apollo spacecraft with about 7-8 g/cm^2 areal density on the trajectory taken by Apollo to the moon:
h.dropcanvas.com...
That dose isn't dangerous at all.

With that said, you cannot send astronauts on an Apollo command module through the same region on the same trajectory as Orion EFT-1 without risking the astronauts developing mild symptoms of radiation poisoning. Orion EFT-1 took it right through the most intense region of radiation right over the equator.

Here is the expected dose if you were to send Apollo astronauts in an Apollo command module on the same trajectory as Orion EFT-1's final orbit:
h.dropcanvas.com...
Nearly 30 rads of radiation. At that dose you are approaching the threshold at which you may start to exhibit mild symptoms of radiation poisoning according to the CDC:

"Mild symptoms may be observed with doses as low as 0.3 Gy or 30 rads."
www.bt.cdc.gov...

Still won't kill you, but it might just make you sick if you fly Orion EFT-1's trajectory with the older Apollo capsule and normally your mission would just be getting started. The electronics on the Apollo spacecraft were less susceptible to radiation though. Computers were also in charge of a lot less of the Apollo spacecraft, and were built using core memory that generally could not experience a "bit flip" due to radiation the way modern memory chips do.

Orion's missions will likely involve using solar electric propulsion, which is much lower thrust than Apollo, which means more time spent in the belts than Apollo and possibly in less inclined orbits (or with an argument of perigee that puts it over the equator at apogee as the orbit is slowly raised) like Orion EFT-1. That's something you couldn't do with the Apollo capsule safely, but that's not what they did for Apollo.

Orion EFT-1 looked at more severe radiation exposure than Apollo because the missions are going to be longer, the computers are going to be more vulnerable to radiation, and if they go through with their plan to use solar electric propulsion to reach Mars from earth orbit, it will require a lot more time spent passing through the Van Allen belts than Apollo since SEP involves much lower thrust than chemical rockets.


Thanks ngchunter, this seems to answer the question about the Van Allen belts well.




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

Since you're so quick to hand out fallacy badges, here's yours: Ad Hom Merit Badge

Lunaticoutpost is not a primary source of any information, by your own admission. And by my personal experience, it IS a source of misinformation, lies, and ad hominem against me personally along with many others, including those who worked on Apollo.


It's just some poster's blog about studying how the arguments have changed from Wikipedia and he linked the archives.

Wikipedia is edited all the time, the truth has not changed. Apollo's trajectory did not expose the astronauts to a dangerous amount of radiation. Orion EFT-1's trajectory would. My adding on the latter statement to the previous statement based on new claims does not detract from my original statement and analysis of this issue.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You're right, I'll just rely on NASA sources like the one in the OP that states how dangerous travel is through ERBs. And then I'll listen to you spin it and tell me how it's okay that he completely ignores Apollo. Or, you'll post that ridiculous email from a guy who offers nothing but insults to people who question Apollo. He seems legit.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

I believe the burden of proof is on the OP of this thread.

I find these moon landing hoax threads amusing and entertaining. All the "proof" by people who think it's fake is ridiculous websites and such.

The real proof is in the legitimate things like the letter from Dr. Van Allen. Thanks Greathouse for posting that.

The moon landing hoax has been debunked time and again.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

Can you match it professionally to another signature of his? Is he on video claiming he exchanged email with Windley? I'm being serious because this wouldn't work the other way around. You'd demand proof from me if I presented an email with a signature agreeing from JVA claiming we couldn't traverse the belts.

The latter would be an incredible claim since an analysis of the Apollo trajectory reveals it wasn't dangerous and Dr. Van Allen would know that. The former is not an incredible or remarkable claim. It is up to you to prove his signature was faked, it is not up to us to prove a negative. You asked for a signature, there it is.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

c'mon, the space shuttle went up to the ISS, not to the moon, and like was said about the ISS, it's in low earth orbit...so the space shuttle IS NOT a hoax, neither is the ISS. and who said the Orion EFT-1 was a hoax? I didn't see that



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: ngchunter

c'mon, the space shuttle went up to the ISS, not to the moon,

So what? Both the shuttle and Apollo were independently verified, yet conspiracy theorists claim both were faked. If your logic is that the government lies, therefore Apollo is a lie, then you can just as easily claim ISS and the shuttle are lies too and anyone presenting independent evidence verifying them is lying or wrong.


and like was said about the ISS, it's in low earth orbit...

So what?


so the space shuttle IS NOT a hoax, neither is the ISS.

Non-sequitur


and who said the Orion EFT-1 was a hoax? I didn't see that

I said it. It is the logical endpoint of your claim if your logic is government lies, therefore...
Orion EFT-1 was a hoax, or are you saying the government tells you the truth?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

To many, NASA is a source of misinfo as well. Apollo was a production to more and more who can pull of the blinders. It's a sacred cow and if a scientist, with any credibility were to question it, that would be the end of his career. The uptick of people who believe in hoax theory has also produced more and more staunch defenders of Apollo. Coincidence? No, just damage control to keep Apollo morale ingranied in good, little patriots.

But, as we move towards 50 years, since anyone has even left 400km from the surface of the Earth, evidence sways. Science is about replicating results. NOBODY has replicated even a fraction of Apollo. So, it's okay to question it.

Combine that with the silly photos and video of astronauts playing around on the moon like it's a bounce room at a toddler's bday party, like anyone would dare do that on an outerspace mission, knowing that any malfuction to the suit would kill them is absurd. Here, look at this silly clip:

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Radiation is everywhere, it's the degree of exposure, and the amount of that's the most important aspect. An aircraft passenger is exposed, but not long enough to harm them, even on a trip around the globe, cabin crew are more vulnerable though through long-term exposure. Apollo was through the belts in a very short time. Orion is to be used for long duration missions, Asteroids and Mars, it needs to be radiation proof to a high degree and thats what the guy in the video is trying to tell everybody, how anyone can twist that into a 'No Moon' confession is beyond me. Apollo probably was with a certain amount of gung-ho, even the shuttles were risky enough. Nowadays the approach is more measured and leaner, with goals much longer into the future. As for the No Mooners, they are being misled, dishonestly in some quarters, daftly in others...like the second video, which is either way.
edit on 18-5-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Or you could go to the library and read the article on Dr. James Van Allen written in 1959. ( he was on the cover of that addition)
edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

So you can't match that signature? Would Mr. Windley fake that to aid in promoting his claims? These questions need some serious thought and research if I'm to take that email seriously. Because it looks like a desparate attempt to alter what was originally stated by JVA.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The Apollo astronauts only experienced about 13 rads total of radiation from the Van Allen Belts during each trip. They were moving fast through the belts only spending 15 minutes during each traversal. The space craft absorbed most of the radiation during transit. 300 rads is a lethal dose and the astronauts were well under that.

The flag appearing to blow in the wind was caused by the astronaut turning the flag with his hand. In every video of the flag waving, an astronaut has his hand on the flag.

As for viewing the earth through a porthole, so what. Doesn't mean any hoax.

Face it, the USA landed on and traversed the Moons surface. I tire of people posting videos trying to debunk the landings with an argument that hasn't been thoroughly researched. Just trying to get views, I suppose.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I've read it. Why don't you enlighten us on his suggestion for space travel through the belts? Was it a thin aluminum hull?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

To many, NASA is a source of misinfo as well.

Yet time and time again that which you people tell us is misinfo turns out to be the truth.


Apollo was a production to more and more who can pull of the blinders.

No, it was not.


It's a sacred cow and if a scientist, with any credibility were to question it, that would be the end of his career.

It has been questioned and found to be true.


The uptick of people who believe in hoax theory

Argumentum ad populum.


has also produced more and more staunch defenders of Apollo.

Coincidence? No, just damage control to keep Apollo morale ingranied in good, little patriots.

Ad hominem. So now I'm a shill, am I?


But, as we move towards 50 years, since anyone has even left 400km from the surface of the Earth, evidence sways.

It's been 4 years since the US launched a man into space at all. Must not have happened at all. It's 2015 and the US can't launch a man into space? Manned spaceflight must be a hoax. If it were real we should be doing it again by now with all of our 21st century technology.

See the flaw in that logic?


Science is about replicating results. NOBODY has replicated even a fraction of Apollo. So, it's okay to question it.

Nobody has failed to replicate the results of Apollo, which have permeated the scientific literature because scientist after scientist who has examined the samples brought back have found them to be real. Petrified wood from a US ambassador which didn't come from NASA notwithstanding. LRO has verified the existence of all of the Apollo landing sites. It's ok to question; go look, it's real. That is a fact.


Combine that with the silly photos and video of astronauts playing around on the moon like it's a bounce room at a toddler's bday party,

Clearly you have not watched any extended amount of Apollo footage. It's actually quite dry and boring; most of the time they're just going around collecting samples and performing experiments.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

So you can't match that signature? Would Mr. Windley fake that to aid in promoting his claims?

You are implying he faked the signature. Prove your accusation.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

If you read it you would know that he suggested exiting through the poles where they are weakest then transversing the thinnest parts in the least amount of time.

I normally don't stay around these threads because of positions like yours. But this should be fun for a little while!



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse



This is clearly the same signature:
www.historyforsale.com...
Now, please retract your claim that Jay Windley forged his signature.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Nobody has failed to replicate the Apollo missions because nobody has solved traversing the ERBs, you know, to even do any deep space travel. Your misguided views will change as textbooks have begun to leave Apollo narrative out of them. NASA doesn't even reference the data supposedly collected. 50 years later and no lander has visited the landing sites and the gold mine of data that would be there. Nothing but sketchy LRO photos of pixels added to the surface that would be laughed at by your side if that was supposed proof of UFOs. You'd claim photoshop, which would be right.

The fairy tale is falling and the energy needed to contain a lie is withering.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

You sent that post to the wrong person. But I got admit great find in matching up the signatures. Members like you are why I love ATS!!!!!



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

actually, there are plenty of differences.

www.historyforsale.com...


I just faked his signature in 5 seconds. Mine looks better than that one, honestly. Let me load it up...

ETA: i.imgur.com...


edit on 18-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join