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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 125
57
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Thats a good question, but remedial Conspiracy Theory 101 is down the hall... Nobody really knows who arbitrates when and where any particular UFO researcher is discredited, apparently thats the job of the Apollogarchs...





posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

already shown you what it looks like, already shown you they have taken a close up HD image of directly under the descent engine.. you choose to ignore it.. that is your problem.


No, you're ignoring the specific area, same as usual.

You are in denial, and that's the whole problem. So be it, then.


originally posted by: choos
they knew it changed, they just underestimated it.
nothing to support the claim they flew around the most intense areas???


no data use for any studies?? they have tables publish on the intensity of the VAB available on the internet...
nobody knew the VAB was very dynamic? define very dynamic.


They called it 'dynamic', first of all.

They describe it further, so you should read it, yourself.

And this will make it clear for you to grasp the term, just as they meant it.


As for avoiding the worst parts of the VAB, there is nothing at all to support your claim.

It would be completely documented, without a sliver of doubt.

It's not even mentioned at all, to boot...


Apollo-ites invented it, and have gone on and on saying it, trying to excuse the whole problem away.

As you try to, right here.


Perhaps by saying they avoided the worst parts of the VAB over and over, you were not aware that the claim is not valid in any way.

You certainly know it, now, though.


What is claimed has no proof, it is only a belief...


You believe they knew so much about the belts, at the time, while they now realize it is the complete opposite...

You believe an area of disturbed soil around the LM exists, while no surface images show it exists....

You believe they avoided the worst parts of the VAB, while no documents ever mention it....


It is basically a religion, a belief, a blind faith.

A spacecraft mainly of aluminum works in manned moon missions, while they now state aluminum actually intensifies the hazard...


All good, now..



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, you're ignoring the specific area, same as usual.

You are in denial, and that's the whole problem. So be it, then.


so when i show you images of directly under the descent engine its me thats in denial?
when i show the contrast difference of loose soil and compacted soil near the lander its me that in denial?
when you dont understand the concept of gradual change over a large difference its me in denial??

i dont think denial means what you think it means.



They called it 'dynamic', first of all.

They describe it further, so you should read it, yourself.

And this will make it clear for you to grasp the term, just as they meant it.


how dynamic?? does safe areas change from safe-ish to deadly with a few minutes??

does the shape of the inner belt extend to beyond what is known in the matter of minutes??


As for avoiding the worst parts of the VAB, there is nothing at all to support your claim.

It would be completely documented, without a sliver of doubt.

It's not even mentioned at all, to boot...


the fact you can write this and think you are right just shows your ignorance...


Apollo-ites invented it, and have gone on and on saying it, trying to excuse the whole problem away.

As you try to, right here.


"apollo-ites" didnt invent anything.. they regurgitate what is already shown.


Perhaps by saying they avoided the worst parts of the VAB over and over, you were not aware that the claim is not valid in any way.

You certainly know it, now, though.


so what did they do?? fly through the inner belt???


What is claimed has no proof, it is only a belief...


ah yes so inclination means nothing.. good one.


You believe they knew so much about the belts, at the time, while they now realize it is the complete opposite...


they knew enough to know where it would be safe to pass.


You believe an area of disturbed soil around the LM exists, while no surface images show it exists....


shown you already..
you also believe that a gradual change of a large distance should be easily definable.


You believe they avoided the worst parts of the VAB, while no documents ever mention it....


i cant argue ignorance as blatant as this.. go learn about the inclinations they followed.


It is basically a religion, a belief, a blind faith.

A spacecraft mainly of aluminum works in manned moon missions, while they now state aluminum actually intensifies the hazard...

All good, now..



back to aluminium?? remember when you said it was pure aluminium that was the problem and aluminium alloy was a completely different thing??

you should have no issue with this claim anymore since they used aluminium alloy..
edit on 19-3-2017 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

He completely skipped over and ignored my post!


It even showed what a modern shield sat orbiting directly through the inner/strongest VARB receives in a year, which would show what a person going through part of the outer belt for a very brief period of time would receive.

No proof no proof, because we just send our sats up there that costs millions to billions of dollars on the hunch they will survive with luck...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon

you probably dont know him very well, anything that goes against his belief is automatically ignored and he restarts. kind of like a robot hitting an error and restarting.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: choos

He completely skipped over and ignored my post!


It even showed what a modern shield sat orbiting directly through the inner/strongest VARB receives in a year, which would show what a person going through part of the outer belt for a very brief period of time would receive.

No proof no proof, because we just send our sats up there that costs millions to billions of dollars on the hunch they will survive with luck...


The dosage couldn't be known, because it changes all the time, throughout the belts. In a moment..

This is the reality, as they have clearly stated.

Deny the reality all you want, it matters not, anyway.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

back to aluminium?? remember when you said it was pure aluminium that was the problem and aluminium alloy was a completely different thing??

you should have no issue with this claim anymore since they used aluminium alloy..


The papers I showed you referred to aluminum, as I've told you over and over again.

And I have only cited what is in the papers, exactly as written.

Nothing they said in the papers was about pure aluminum, or not.

You made it up as being my claim, which is total bs.

Sad.


Aluminum was used in all of the Apollo spacecraft, like they had always used it in their spacecraft built before Apollo.

They assumed it would protect humans in space, anywhere at all.

Many years later, they found out aluminum is NOT a good material for deep space. Aluminum makes it even worse than it was before, in fact.

Now, when did they realize aluminum was worse than no shield at all?

In all the 'lunar' manned missions, while using their aluminum spacecraft, it was perfectly safe!!

Yikes.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Aluminum was used in all of the Apollo spacecraft, like they had always used it in their spacecraft built before Apollo.

They assumed it would protect humans in space, anywhere at all.


Actually, no -- they did not assume that aluminum was a good shielding against cosmic particle radiation. The aluminum was merely there as a skin with which to physically cover the spacecraft. It was not put there to shield against radiation.

In fact, the Apollo spacecraft designs included no specific radiation shielding whatsoever. The main way they protected the astronauts from cosmic particle radiation was to limit the length of the missions to limit the length of exposure.

The insulation below the aluminum skin did add a certain level of radiation shielding, but the insulation was put there to insulate, not to specifically provide radiation protection. The radiation protection it gave was a fringe benefit.

Like I said, the main method they used to manage the risks from radiation was to keep the missions relatively short (the longest was 12 days), NOT radiation shielding.

edit on 2017/3/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The dosage couldn't be known, because it changes all the time, throughout the belts. In a moment.


True, but they did still have some knowledge of a general dosage, and that range (even if it is variable) is generally lower at the thinner/less dense parts of the VABs that they flew through rather than the denser and wider parts (and the Apollo mission trajectory expanded a lot of extra effort to make sure they flew through those less dense and thinner parts, and flew through quickly).

While it's true that any part of the belt could have varying ranges of radiation, that does NOT mean that everywhere in the belt, the radiation range can reach levels too dangerous to fly a spacecraft through in a finite amount of time.

The less dense parts of the belts (the parts the Apollo spacecraft expanded the extra effort to make sure they flew through, and flew through quickly) could still have changing levels of radiation without ever reaching levels that were dangerous relative to the exposure time.

Saying "The radiation levels in the VABs are constantly changing" is NOT the same as saying "The levels everywhere in the VABs could change to be levels lethal to the amount of time the Apollo astronauts spent in them".


Think of it this way:

Just like it is a fact that radiation levels in any part of the VABs can constantly change, It is also a fact that temperatures at any given part of the Earth can constantly change -- e.g., temperatures at the equator constantly change, and temperatures at the arctic circle constantly change. However temperatures at the equator get higher than temperatures at the arctic circle. Temperatures at the equator could change from warm to dangerously hot, but it is highly unlikely that the changing temperature above the arctic circle will change from cool to dangerously hot.

edit on 2017/3/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: choos

He completely skipped over and ignored my post!


It even showed what a modern shield sat orbiting directly through the inner/strongest VARB receives in a year, which would show what a person going through part of the outer belt for a very brief period of time would receive.

No proof no proof, because we just send our sats up there that costs millions to billions of dollars on the hunch they will survive with luck...


The dosage couldn't be known, because it changes all the time, throughout the belts. In a moment..

This is the reality, as they have clearly stated.

Deny the reality all you want, it matters not, anyway.




What am I suppose to be denying? And what reality am I living in?

They detonated Nuclear weapons in space, created an artificial radiation belt, tested the radiation levels in the belts and had a general idea what the levels were, they also made soldiers crawl through radioactive fallout.

They had a general idea what the risks and radiation level were, they knew there were radiation dangers, they knew that the astronauts were going to be exposed to radiation.

Are you saying just because there was radiation risks they were never going to send people up there because they didn't have ALL the data?

Oh come on! You do not live in reality! They flew a rocket plane to the edge of space which in 2 occasions resulted in the death of the crew - X-15, they test out experimental aircraft that killed many pilots, they crawled through radioactive fallout, they got into Rockets that had a history of EXPLODING on the LAUNCHPAD regularly to be the first men in space.

They didn't need the full data to take the damn risk, they had a good general idea from many test what they were going through, and they had to test data sets from the High Atmospheric Nuclear Test (Space) prior to form there conclusions.

What do you have? Bad logic and a crappy imagination.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

Aluminum was used in all of the Apollo spacecraft, like they had always used it in their spacecraft built before Apollo.

They assumed it would protect humans in space, anywhere at all.


Actually, no -- they did not assume that aluminum was a good shielding against cosmic particle radiation. The aluminum was merely there as a skin with which to physically cover the spacecraft. It was not put there to shield against radiation.

In fact, the Apollo spacecraft designs included no specific radiation shielding whatsoever. The main way they protected the astronauts from cosmic particle radiation was to limit the length of the missions to limit the length of exposure.

The insulation below the aluminum skin did add a certain level of radiation shielding, but the insulation was put there to insulate, not to specifically provide radiation protection. The radiation protection it gave was a fringe benefit.

Like I said, the main method they used to manage the risks from radiation was to keep the missions relatively short (the longest was 12 days), NOT radiation shielding.


It's used because it's very light in weight, yet strong, making it an ideal material for any spacecraft.

The problem is that they DID built the Apollo craft with aluminum. They had always used aluminum before Apollo, so they assumed it would be good for Apollo, too.

When they are saying Apollo had no problems with radiation in deep space, they weren't aware of how aluminum couldn't work as 'skin'. That confirms, once again, that they were faking it, because the craft could never have worked for such missions.

Take a look at these papers..

The issue is how to protect humans against space radiation. For future missions.
They focus on one type of radiation found within deep space.

They are trying to find the materials which are potential shielding materials.

Aluminum doesn't work, and even intensifies it. Not a good thing.

The papers don't mention anything about Apollo being aluminum - why not?

They cannot mention it, because it opposes their facts on aluminum intensifying deep space radiation.

That's the reason it's said to be a study for 'longer' missions, in future. Of course, it would mean ALL future missions will be, must be, only 'longer' missions!! As if...

ALL manned craft going into deep space will not use aluminum as shielding. They state this, in fact.

But you say they don't need shielding for short missions. Wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

They detonated Nuclear weapons in space, created an artificial radiation belt, tested the radiation levels in the belts and had a general idea what the levels were, they also made soldiers crawl through radioactive fallout.

They had a general idea what the risks and radiation level were, they knew there were radiation dangers, they knew that the astronauts were going to be exposed to radiation.


They didn't have a clue. Saying they knew it in 'general' means nothing. You have to support your claim, but cannot support it, at all.

I have support for my claim, that they did NOT know about the VAB, to any degree required for a manned mission going through and back. Let alone 18 times back and forth!.

They didn't know about the very behavior of the VAB!

It means the behavior of the whole environment was not known, at the time.

How do you know anything is 'safe' or not, at this region, or that region? The behavior affects the entire VAB environment, so nobody knows where it is 'safe', or not, since it changes all the time, when they didn't even realize that it constantly changes, back then?

This supports my argument, in every way.

So what supports your argument, besides you saying so, over and over again?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

They detonated Nuclear weapons in space, created an artificial radiation belt, tested the radiation levels in the belts and had a general idea what the levels were, they also made soldiers crawl through radioactive fallout.

They had a general idea what the risks and radiation level were, they knew there were radiation dangers, they knew that the astronauts were going to be exposed to radiation.


They didn't have a clue. Saying they knew it in 'general' means nothing. You have to support your claim, but cannot support it, at all.


They knew enough to take a round-about and inefficient trajectory through the thinnest part of the belt that took them very quickly through the belts. If they didn't know the radiation risk was lowest at through that part of the belt, then why would they bother taking that round-about and inefficient trajectory?



How do you know anything is 'safe' or not, at this region, or that region? The behavior affects the entire VAB environment, so nobody knows where it is 'safe', or not, since it changes all the time, when they didn't even realize that it constantly changes, back then?

The levels could constantly change in this thinnest part of the belt, but since they knew the radiation was generally lowest there, even a constantly changing level may still never get high enough to pose a real danger relative to the exposure time.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that "constantly changing" automatically means "changes to lethal levels". Even if they didn't know the radiation levels change, that doesn't mean that the upper limit of those changing levels at the thinnest part of the belt Is lethal.

Was Apollo risky for the astronauts? Definitely. However, because there were risks, that was the reason test pilots were used for the first several flights. Test piloting was an extremely dangerous and risky profession. Apollo was just the typical level of life risk that those test pilots had already faced many many times in their former job testing other aircraft. And that former job was extremely dangerous; in the late 1950s and 1960s, dozens of test pilots were killed in the U.S. while testing aircraft.


edit on 26/3/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

But you say they don't need shielding for short missions. Wrong.


The Apollo spacecraft had no specific provisions for radiation shielding. As I said, the insulation in the walls of the Command Module (CM) provided a certain level of shielding, but the insulation was put there to insulate -- not to shield from radiation. The Lunar Module (LM) was actually worse when it came to radiation protection, because the walls had no insulation.

It is a fact that the CM and LM could not protect the astronauts from receiving radiation. However, the health risks were managed by limiting the time that they were exposed to that radiation, and that was done by limiting the mission durations.

As someone said above, these were test pilots, and the risks to their health was kept at a manageable level that was not unlike the risks they were accustomed to as test pilots.


edit on 2017/3/26 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Was I talking about some shifting of the Radiation Fields? No, I was not.

I was talking about the Radiation levels and type and the fact that multiple space probes prior to Apollo had mapped the VARB to know the positions and locations of them so they could pick the most optimal inclination to go around the inner and punch through part of the outer.

Them know decades later that the VARB was more Dynamic then it was back in the 60s does not support your argument at all, there are plenty of drugs and chemicals we used to use in the past that gave a hell of a lot of people cancers and diseases and killed many that we only found out about many years after using them.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

So because they did not know about the dynamic structure of the VARB in the 60s, that they could not of gone and done it because we found out that the VARB were more dynamic many years after Apollo...?

Um, something is wrong with your logic.

And I can support my claim - These are 3 that measured the belts radiation levels, there are more.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

And this Site may be a little handy to you -

www.braeunig.us...

It literally shows you the course that they were taking, including through the VARBs.


edit on 26-3-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Added Link



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The papers I showed you referred to aluminum, as I've told you over and over again.

And I have only cited what is in the papers, exactly as written.

Nothing they said in the papers was about pure aluminum, or not.

You made it up as being my claim, which is total bs.

Sad.


you claimed that the papers refer to aluminium only, no mention whatsoever about aluminium alloy. you even admitted that pure aluminium and aluminium alloy are completely different..

you found out months later that Apollo was using an aluminium alloy.. therefore your argument is null and void.


Aluminum was used in all of the Apollo spacecraft, like they had always used it in their spacecraft built before Apollo.


Aluminium Alloy.. remember it is your belief that aluminium and aluminium alloy are completely different.


They assumed it would protect humans in space, anywhere at all.

Many years later, they found out aluminum is NOT a good material for deep space. Aluminum makes it even worse than it was before, in fact.

Now, when did they realize aluminum was worse than no shield at all?

In all the 'lunar' manned missions, while using their aluminum spacecraft, it was perfectly safe!!

Yikes.




again.. according to your argument, aluminium makes particle radiation worse than it was before..

how much worse?? you cant say because you dont know.
so what is the original?? you cant say because you dont know.
what about aluminium alloy which is what they used? its a completely different metal apparently..

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.. even your argument viewed from your own perspective is excessively flawed.
edit on 26-3-2017 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise that the papers are talking about future missions into deep space? Such as missions to Mars, which will mean being in space for months at a time? Different missions require different levels of protection. Freediving to 100ft does not require the same level of equipment as going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise that the papers are talking about future missions into deep space? Such as missions to Mars, which will mean being in space for months at a time? Different missions require different levels of protection. Freediving to 100ft does not require the same level of equipment as going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.



Yes the poster knows, it's been pointed out to him/her hundreds of times. For some reason he/she totally ignores it. Challenge him /her to understand that 12 day short trip is totally different to 18 months long distance trip and turbs will just completely blank it. Almost trolling to me



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: expatwhite

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise that the papers are talking about future missions into deep space? Such as missions to Mars, which will mean being in space for months at a time? Different missions require different levels of protection. Freediving to 100ft does not require the same level of equipment as going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.



Yes the poster knows, it's been pointed out to him/her hundreds of times. For some reason he/she totally ignores it. Challenge him /her to understand that 12 day short trip is totally different to 18 months long distance trip and turbs will just completely blank it. Almost trolling to me


He also doesn't seem to understand that "constantly changing radiation levels" in the belts does not mean that the radiation levels in every part of the belt would suddenly change to be levels lethal to the amount of time Apollo was subjected to them. Granted, we may now have better information that tells us that the radiation levels may have been higher than what they thought they were at the time, but "higher" does not necessarily mean "major health risk" or "lethal".



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

Was I talking about some shifting of the Radiation Fields? No, I was not.

I was talking about the Radiation levels and type and the fact that multiple space probes prior to Apollo had mapped the VARB to know the positions and locations of them so they could pick the most optimal inclination to go around the inner and punch through part of the outer.

Them know decades later that the VARB was more Dynamic then it was back in the 60s does not support your argument at all, there are plenty of drugs and chemicals we used to use in the past that gave a hell of a lot of people cancers and diseases and killed many that we only found out about many years after using them.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

So because they did not know about the dynamic structure of the VARB in the 60s, that they could not of gone and done it because we found out that the VARB were more dynamic many years after Apollo...?



Everything changes in a moment, ignorance is no defence...

All the points show the problem, as a whole.







edit on 1-4-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join