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: 47
57
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Medicator


How the heck do You lose something so important ?


Lose what? Why is it so important?




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   


deep space is anywhere beyond the moon


This begs the question of whether or not the propagandists are attempting to oscillate the goalposts and configure a trajectory that obstructs the reverse overthrust of a previous pseudo-salad.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation



deep space is anywhere beyond the moon


This begs the question of whether or not the propagandists are attempting to oscillate the goalposts and configure a trajectory that obstructs the reverse overthrust of a previous pseudo-salad.


When it comes to word salads, you are the chef de cuisine.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
it's really stupid...these threads...go on and on..without too much substance.

Same old stuff....same questions...same answers.

I honestly dont understand you debunker guys....how do you find the will to do it...all over again. I'm not sure whether I should commend you or scorn you for doing it...



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The documents I've cited don't support your claims - not in any way, or shape, or form.


they do.. you know the part where they show you that even the thinnest sheet of aluminium which makes GCR's worse??

THAT part shows you that the dosage for 2 weeks is WELL UNDER any prescribed limits.


They refer to future missions, and talk about how to protect astronauts for long-term missions in deep space.

Referring to long-term missions is not defined as a specific duration, as a period of time - ie: being a month, or being six months, etc....

They simply say long-term missions would be riskier to astronauts than a short-term mission - which makes perfect sense, for sure!


riskier???????

i thought you believe it was impossible??

if you think that a long term mission is riskier than short term missions regards to GCR's then exactly what are we all arguing about??


They never say a short-term mission is safe, or nearly so, or whatever. They don't exclude them. You assume they do, which is simply not true.


im not suggesting it is 100% safe, there will always be that freak accident.. but you see the point is that 2 weeks of exposure increases their risks marginally to the point where it can be ignored as other factors for spacecraft construction become more valuable.


They state aluminum would be a poor radiation shield for deep space missions, and possibly would make it more hazardous to astronauts than before!!


at very thin instances yes, but that level is still within the safe prescribed limits when you are exposed to it for less than 2 weeks..


You ignore the facts, stated many times in these papers, hopelessly trying to interpret the statements to your own 'version' of it, to fit in the Apollo fantasy-tale.


you are the one ignoring the facts.. you are the one holding the opinion that it makes it impossible for humans to use aluminium..

sure it is risky, and sure it makes it more hazardous BUT you continue to fail to understand that exposure time is the key factor..

with regards to GCR's, 2 weeks in deep space is not a concern that specifically needs to be dealt with there are alot more vital problems with surviving in deep space for 2 weeks they take priority.


They state that NO spacecraft built in future for deep space manned missions will have aluminum shielding. They make no exceptions to this statement, either.

You cannot put words in their mouths, for twisting it into your own 'version', that doesn't even exist in reality!


that doesnt even matter, because you DONT NEED A SHIELD TO PROTECT AGAINST GCR's IF YOU ARE EXPOSED FOR 2 WEEKS.

if they made a shield to protect the astronauts for a 2 week trip that is like wearing a hazmat suit to pick up your dogs droppings, its an excessive waste of resources.


You're also confused by the numbers in the papers...

Those numbers would show it is safe to go into deep space, true....


depends how you define safe??

1Sv if i recall correct translate to about 5% increase in developing cancer in later life.
the limits that they are trying to design to are 0.5 Sv for one year. any more is unacceptable for them.. would you consider that safe?


But they are not actually numbers, they are just 'estimates'.

These estimates were done by taking measurements in LEO, and extrapolating the data for deep space...


no its not.. the limits are in LEO.. the dosage is actual GCR readings.


Do you think it's a bit odd that they ignored the Apollo data, to choose the data from LEO, and extrapolating their 'guesstimates' of deep space radiation?


already told you..
Apollo data would be erroneous for long duration missions.. Apollo data holds accumulated dosage over two weeks or less which includes two traverses through the VAB..

NO long duration mission in the future is going to go through the VAB every two weeks..


Apollo is supposed to have gone to the moon, 9 times, with all the astronauts returning to Earth, safe and sound. With all the radiation measured and recorded on all missions into deep space, going to the moon and back.....

And they don't use it, at all??


and yet again.. you dont know what you are saying..

Apollo missions last 2 weeks the readings that they took were accumulated dosage.. the longest mission was two weeks and included two traverses through the VAB..

can you name me ANY long duration mission that would require traversing the VAB twice every two weeks? any at all??



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


how do you find the will to do it...all over again. I'm not sure whether I should commend you or scorn you for doing it...


I never pass up an opportunity to teach, which is why I enjoy explaining things to people with sincere questions and ignore (or mock) the trolls.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, you don't get it.

The data would have been collected throughout the mission(s), right?

The measurements in the VAB, and beyond it, yes?

And they'd know when they're within the VAB, and when they're beyond it, right?

So they'd know what data came from inside the VAB, and they'd also know what data they'd collected beyond it, true?

Get it now?


yes as ACCUMULATED DOSAGE..

do you know what accumulated means?

and no they wouldnt really know, they could make guesstimates..

but compared to data from say deep space probes which have been collecting GCR readings continuosly for years as opposed to less than 18 weeks worth of data broken up between 3 years..

which do you think that taking a survey of how happy people feel through out the year by the following would be more effective?
3 people on the 31 jan and then 6 people on 10 aug??
or
9 people everyday for a year??


You base that claim on what, exactly?

Is it based on your belief in Apollo doing it, then?

Apollo is the one in question, here, so what else?

They have no actual numbers to show that, just Apollo's fake numbers, which show (big surprise!) Apollo was 'real'.


i am using the expected dose readings that YOUR REPORT gives. couple that with the prescribed limits used in LEO.. as long as the GC dosage is well below the prescribed limits of LEO anyone should be able to see it is safe enough.


The Apollo data must be so great...since nobody has ever 'dared' to try and USE it!

Apollo craft were mainly aluminum, with other materials, too...

Aluminum will never be used in shielding any future spacecraft going into deep space, but nobody knew about that, back in the Apollo-era. Not a clue, from 9 missions into deep space, either.


again Apollo data is erroneous for long duration missions.. if you want to plan for less than 2 or 3 weeks Apollo data is fine albeit small.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

I honestly dont understand you debunker guys....how do you find the will to do it...all over again.


killing boredom can do amazingly mundane things.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Medicator

So, do you have proof that those copies contained data that wasn't on any of the other copies or are you just speculating without any evidence to support your claim? Also, by what "logic" does having one set of copies erased suddenly mean all the other copies are now fake recreations? I've copied home movies from VHS to DVD, does that mean my 10th birthday was fake?



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


They have no actual numbers to show that, just Apollo's fake numbers, which show (big surprise!) Apollo was 'real'.


You can prove they are fake by providing readings from the many other probes that have readings, both from around the time of Apollo and now.

I await your report.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Has anyone some information about the constituents and workings of the battery which powered the cooling for the astronauts space-suits while they were on the moon? Must be powered by magic.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Truthspoon

google is your friend , from page one :

link

this document gives the battery chemistry and voltage

and even shows what components of the PLSS require power

the fact that 2 spare batteries were carried - and can be changed between EVA missions is also noted

PS - not documented in that link is the fact that the apollo rover could provide electric power to the astronauts while they were manning it

now - all this looks like pretty straight forward engineering - silver zinc batteries have exclent energy density

and only the coolant fan and pump - which are only operated intermittently draw any sizable current

so - why do you think its " magic " ?????????????????????



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Truthspoon

Has anyone some information about the constituents and workings of the battery which powered the cooling for the astronauts space-suits while they were on the moon? Must be powered by magic.

It was powered with a silver-oxide battery, not magic.

The battery needed to power the radio plus two small motors -- a fan motor for the air supply, and a water pump motor for circulating water through the heat excahanger/sublimator and cooling undergarment. One battery was used for each EVA, with the used battery swapped out for a new one as part of the process to get the PLSS (portable [or personal] life support system) backpack ready for the next EVA.


Above the three control valves is the PLSS battery. Each battery had sufficient capacity for a single EVA. The first battery, installed before launch, is changed before the second EVA as part of the EVA prep procedure. Spare batteries were stored in the MESA, and a fresh set was brought into the cabin as part of the EVA close-out activities....

....Fully charged PLSSs were loaded onto the LM before launch, which saved considerable time before the first EVA. For subsequent EVAs, the crews retrieved fresh batteries and lithium hydroxide canisters during EVA close-out activities for use the next day. Recharging the PLSS was a six-step process. Usually done as part of the EVA prep, a few crews used spare time at the end of their workday to replenish the PLSS consumables. The process took about 30 minutes for each suit, and each crewmember worked on their own equipment. By staggering tasks, the entire process took less than an hour.
Source:
PLSS Technical Information


Additional information:

Non-rechargeable silver–zinc batteries powered the first Soviet Sputnik satellites as well as US Saturn launch vehicles, the Apollo Lunar Module, lunar rover and life support backpack.
Source:
Wikipedia: Silver-Oxide Battery


Other additional information:

Other than the communications gear, the 279 watt-hours PLSS batteries (this was upgraded to 390 watt-hours for the later J-Missions) were only required to keep two small electronic motors running, one for a pump to circulate the water, the other for a fan to do the same with the air supply. The pump and fan could be individually turned on or off by the astronaut via the PLSS remote control unit on the front of his chest. While some of the consumables in the PLSS (Oxygen and Feedwater) would be restored from the LM supplies, the Battery and LiOH cartridges were simply swapped out for new ones. This whole procedure of recharging the PLSS would take about 30 minutes and was done prior to exiting for an EVA.
Source: apollo-history-and-hoax.com...


CORRECTION/EDIT:
Thanks to ignorant_ape for correcting the battery type for me: It was not, as I had originally posted, LiOH (which isn't even a battery!) but Silver-oxide.


edit on 2/26/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The stream we watched back in the day is only 5% of what was shown and recorded.

It is not fake but its minimalistic of what was found and reported back to earth that day.

Some footage are questionable but we all are arguing on a case that are barely scratched.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Potestas
The stream we watched back in the day is only 5% of what was shown and recorded.


And if someone were to ask you for proof of such an extraordinary claim, you'd be able to provide it, correct?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
yes as ACCUMULATED DOSAGE..

do you know what accumulated means?

and no they wouldnt really know, they could make guesstimates..

but compared to data from say deep space probes which have been collecting GCR readings continuosly for years as opposed to less than 18 weeks worth of data broken up between 3 years..

i am using the expected dose readings that YOUR REPORT gives. couple that with the prescribed limits used in LEO.. as long as the GC dosage is well below the prescribed limits of LEO anyone should be able to see it is safe enough.


again Apollo data is erroneous for long duration missions.. if you want to plan for less than 2 or 3 weeks Apollo data is fine albeit small.



You suggest they have data on radiation from Apollo missions, yet they only measured it once over the entire mission, as an 'accumulated' figure!?!?

No other measurement was recorded, then? No other points were ever measured, in the Apollo missions?

They had no idea when radiation was greater or lesser during an Apollo mission, because it was 'accumulated' over the entire mission, as the total, sum figure....an average was derived for each mission, and they put it in a table.

Measure this among the worst excuses I've ever heard, without any doubt!


Look -

When they measure radiation with their dosimeters, it would be a continuous reading of radiation over time, right?

They would measure radiation levels along the voyage to the moon, and back to Earth.

You suggest they can't measure radiation levels along the way, or back again? For what 'reason'?


Suppose you're driving a car from Miami to NYC, for example...

Your car measures the distance to NYC, and back to Miami...by the car's odometer readings. Miles, or km, in distance.

You can measure the entire distance of the trip, and measure any distance along the way or back, as well..


Get it?


As for the 'data' in the papers...

It is clearly not genuine data.

Show me where they state it is genuine data, if you think I'm wrong about this.

But, in fact, they do NOT state it is genuine data, at all.

The paper states they are only ESTIMATES, and nothing more.


You always try to argue that the data is genuine. Simply because it's in the paper, you act as if it were genuine data!!


You are looking for anything to absolve your glorious Apollo missions from these documents.


The paper refers to long-term missions. You cannot exclude any other missions, which are NOT mentioned.
edit on 27-2-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You're showing your ignorance of the subject.

You can't calculate an average, or a total, without the individual readings. The individual readings were read back to Houston regularly. Read the transcripts.

Still waiting for your data that proves these data to be wrong.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1


They have no actual numbers to show that, just Apollo's fake numbers, which show (big surprise!) Apollo was 'real'.


You can prove they are fake by providing readings from the many other probes that have readings, both from around the time of Apollo and now.

I await your report.


I've already shown you the reports....

The reports state very clearly that no manned spacecraft built for deep space will use aluminum shielding. None. Ever.


How did they find out aluminum was a poor radiation shield in deep space?

Not from Apollo supposedly flying in deep space 9 times. - in an aluminum spacecraft, which is now seen to be most ironic!

Not from the probes, either.


It was from our research right here, on Earth, that we found out the truth about aluminum in deep space...



And now you know it, too...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You suggest they have data on radiation from Apollo missions, yet they only measured it once over the entire mission, as an 'accumulated' figure!?!?

No other measurement was recorded, then? No other points were ever measured, in the Apollo missions?


they were wearing personal dosimeters that was collecting accumulated dosage.


They had no idea when radiation was greater or lesser during an Apollo mission, because it was 'accumulated' over the entire mission, as the total, sum figure....an average was derived for each mission, and they put it in a table.

Measure this among the worst excuses I've ever heard, without any doubt!


im not saying they have no idea when the radiation was greater or lesser, but having an ACCURATE reading of when it was greater or lesser is much much more difficult to find.


Look -

When they measure radiation with their dosimeters, it would be a continuous reading of radiation over time, right?


yea reported like once every hour or more or something.


They would measure radiation levels along the voyage to the moon, and back to Earth.

You suggest they can't measure radiation levels along the way, or back again? For what 'reason'?


that isnt what im suggesting..
im saying that they measure accumulated dosage (at intervals) from LEO (maybe from launch not sure) to the moon and back to earth.

get your story straight..


Suppose you're driving a car from Miami to NYC, for example...

Your car measures the distance to NYC, and back to Miami...by the car's odometer readings. Miles, or km, in distance.

You can measure the entire distance of the trip, and measure any distance along the way or back, as well..


Get it?


obviously you dont get it. you can measure the distance but how are you measuring the speed??

to fit it into your analogy they are working with speed and the vehicle doesnt have a speedometer, only an odometer.
so the only thing you can do is collect distance travelled and the time that distance was recorded.. and you will do this once every hour..

how are you going to work out which section you travelled at 100km/hr and which one at 60km/hr PRECISELY.


As for the 'data' in the papers...

It is clearly not genuine data.

Show me where they state it is genuine data, if you think I'm wrong about this.

But, in fact, they do NOT state it is genuine data, at all.

The paper states they are only ESTIMATES, and nothing more.


the DOSAGE are estimates..

the readings collected are actual data, ie. the GCR readings ARE ACTUAL DATA.. the dose equivalent numbers are the estimates.. get it straight.


You always try to argue that the data is genuine. Simply because it's in the paper, you act as if it were genuine data!!

You are looking for anything to absolve your glorious Apollo missions from these documents.


and yet this is the same method that engineers use to design satellites and deep space probes that are designed to last a certain amount of time..

if the numbers were not correct ie. extremely understated, all probes and satellites would prematurely fail.. but they dont..


The paper refers to long-term missions. You cannot exclude any other missions, which are NOT mentioned.


im not excluding them.
i am saying that the radiation dosage received when exposed to it for two weeks is comparatively INSIGNIFICANT.. there are more important design feature to design for than to specifically design a shield to completely protect against GCR's.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

seriously, learn the difference between Dose Rate and EQUIVALENT Dose Rate before you continue any further.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join