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: 51
57
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
guarantee it would succeed??? so using heritage technology would 100% guarantee success of anything?? like say if i took the wright brothers technology as well as some v-2 heritage rocket technology.. if i slap them together i will guarantee a fighter aircraft better than an F15?? is that your point??


No, you are combining 'heritage' technologies, which is not what I am saying whatsoever.

I'm talking about ONE 'heritage' technology, like Apollo's, nothing else pushed in...

That should have guaranteed a (supposed) 'return' to the moon, because they were told to use the very same Apollo technology which (supposedly) worked 40 years ago.

NASA was trying to push in other technologies, 'more advanced' technologies. Mixing them in with the Apollo technology provided convenient excuses for failing to 'return' to the moon by 2020.


It is idiotic.

Many replicas of the Wright Brothers plane have been built, using the same technology and materials which were used to build the original. Like the original, they are capable of flight, and have flown.

Let's say it was the only plane ever built. Over a century later, we want to build another plane, capable of flight.
We have no other goal, except to build a plane which can fly, just like the Wright Brothers plane did long ago.
The Wright Brothers technology, as 'heritage' technology, was going to be used in building our new plane.

We ask a contractor to build it.

The contractor says he can do it, because we have the same materials, and the same technology, proven to work in 1903.

A few months later, the contractor says there were unforeseen problems, and he needs another 500K to finish building the plane.

Within a few weeks, he comes back and says he needs even more money. We don't give it to him, because he will quickly spend it, and ask us for more money, over and over again.

We ask the contractor why he failed to build the plane, with all that money, and using the exact same materials, and the same proven technology...

The contractor finally admitted to us that he did NOT use all the same technology. He tried to mix in 'more advanced' technologies, with the original technology

NOBODY asked the contractor to try incorporating other materials, or technologies, to build the plane. It doesn't matter how advanced it is over the original, it is not needed to build our plane.


The whole point of using the exact same, original, 'heritage' technology, is that we know it is guaranteed to work again.

There are NO EXCUSES. Adding technologies is an excuse. No technologies were required, other than the original proven technology.


Of course, if you used the exact same technology, and it didn't work, that means it NEVER worked in the first place.

Just like Apollo...



edit on 13-3-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Blah blah blah...

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence, any evidence at all, that:

a) Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a fatal dose of any kind of radiation during any of their missions. You have Soviet, American, Japanese, Indian, European and Chinese data to go at. Asked several times, still waiting.

b) The LM could not have landed on the moon.

Would be good if you could admit you were hopelessly wrong about the LM being untested too.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Blah blah blah...

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence, any evidence at all, that:

a) Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a fatal dose of any kind of radiation during any of their missions. You have Soviet, American, Japanese, Indian, European and Chinese data to go at. Asked several times, still waiting.

b) The LM could not have landed on the moon.

Would be good if you could admit you were hopelessly wrong about the LM being untested too.


It wasn't tested on Earth, where anyone could actually confirm that it could fly, which is odd, considering NASA is now testing developmental lunar landers on Earth, which don't work nearly as well as the LM did over 40 years ago, and didn't need any tests on Earth, unlike the new landers do!!

And when was the LM's ascent engine tested, since it's a little bit important to know it will work properly, right?

Apollo astronauts never left LEO, so they weren't exposed to the extreme radiation beyond LEO.

As for data, they are still gathering it today. Why would that be required if they knew it was safe 40 years ago?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I'll say it again: Apollo 5, Apollo 9, Apollo 10.

Do some reading - ignoring posts that prove you wrong doesn't help you in any way, and you could even answer my simple question: do you have any proof that the LM was incapable of doing the job it was designed for?

The fact is that the engines were tested on the ground during development - see if you find the important words in this article:

www.collectspace.com...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and has even been fired recently:

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You want me to explain your own source, in other words?


no you seem to believe that some magic particle shielding was developed somewhere between apollo era and 2007. when current particle shielding consists of aluminium.

i want to know what that shielding material is.


The main problem is that you've tried to cherry-pick a comment out of the document, because you thought it would support your argument. I simply pointed out that because it refers to "current technology", we can rule out old, Apollo technology.


cherry picking?? says the guy who ignores ALL the radiation dosage data in the article because it shows that 2 weeks exposed to GCR using aluminium shielding is well within prescribed limits.


What is so different about shielding technology today, compared to the Apollo-era?

Take a look through these same documents, which discuss the issue. Shielding technology is ever-changing, and will keep changing, and evolving, for years to come.


yea like how they are still using aluminium on their spacecrafts like the ISS and Orion. imagine that.. during the Apollo era they used aluminium. and for the Orion they used aluminium.


I don't know how many times I have to tell you about the problems with aluminum shielding in deep space. I've cited the documents repeatedly, and quoted the documents over and over. This alone is one of the differences in shielding between the Apollo-era and today.


you have cherry picked quotes that you think support yourself.. whereas the entire article suggests 2 weeks exposed to GCR using aluminium shielding is well within ANY prescribed limits..
and what you are describing isnt the difference between apollo era shielding and today.. thats a cop out excuse which makes zero sense. because Apollo era shielding and today shielding are the same material.

so how many times do i have to repeat that??



This quote is at the very end of the document. The rest of the document needs to be looked at, so we know what they mean by "enabling technology", "current technology", and "revolutionary technology".

In fact, the document never explains what "current technology" means, or what "adequate" means in relation to it.
The paper doesn't discuss it at all.


so what?? what i want to know is why in 2007 they have current technology sufficient for trips to the moon, but they cancelled the constellation program.. according to you that isnt right. they should be going to the moon daily.


We have gone back and forth over the issue of short-term and long-term missions, in deep space.

I've found a quote in the same document, in fact, from the abstract on page one, which confirms what I've told you...

"Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space and/or long duration missions is a critical design constraint and a potential ‘show stopper.’ Thus, protection from the hazards of severe space radiation is of paramount importance to the agency’s vision."


..deep space missions, and/or long duration missions..

Which means ANY and ALL deep space missions, short or long duration. As well as ANY and ALL long duration missions, whether in deep space, or not.

Do you understand this, finally?


i get it perfectly well.. it is you who doesnt get it..

it isnt even just me that is telling you..

YOU DONT NEED TO SHIELD AGAINST GCR's WHEN YOU SPEND 2 WEEKS IN DEEP SPACE. even if you make GCR's worse like aluminium does, IT IS STILL WELL WITHIN PRESCRIBED LIMITS.

show me any data at all that shows aluminium will bring received dose above the lowest prescirbed limit.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, you are combining 'heritage' technologies, which is not what I am saying whatsoever.

I'm talking about ONE 'heritage' technology, like Apollo's, nothing else pushed in...


horse S, Apollo combines lots of technology and combines it into one working craft.


That should have guaranteed a (supposed) 'return' to the moon, because they were told to use the very same Apollo technology which (supposedly) worked 40 years ago.


yea the wright brothers plane flew, the V-2 rocket blasted off also..
if you dont like those two than take the ME262 and an f4 phantom,
put them together and tada a guaranteed 6th gen fighter jet.


NASA was trying to push in other technologies, 'more advanced' technologies. Mixing them in with the Apollo technology provided convenient excuses for failing to 'return' to the moon by 2020.


if you plug in a more advanced technology like say an intel core i7 into old hardware like a commodore 64 its just plug and play right? no need to change any of the architecture.


It is idiotic.


you sure nailed your reasoning.


Many replicas of the Wright Brothers plane have been built, using the same technology and materials which were used to build the original. Like the original, they are capable of flight, and have flown.


but are they on par with say an f15??


Let's say it was the only plane ever built. Over a century later, we want to build another plane, capable of flight.
We have no other goal, except to build a plane which can fly, just like the Wright Brothers plane did long ago.
The Wright Brothers technology, as 'heritage' technology, was going to be used in building our new plane.

We ask a contractor to build it.

The contractor says he can do it, because we have the same materials, and the same technology, proven to work in 1903.

A few months later, the contractor says there were unforeseen problems, and he needs another 500K to finish building the plane.

Within a few weeks, he comes back and says he needs even more money. We don't give it to him, because he will quickly spend it, and ask us for more money, over and over again.

We ask the contractor why he failed to build the plane, with all that money, and using the exact same materials, and the same proven technology...

The contractor finally admitted to us that he did NOT use all the same technology. He tried to mix in 'more advanced' technologies, with the original technology

NOBODY asked the contractor to try incorporating other materials, or technologies, to build the plane. It doesn't matter how advanced it is over the original, it is not needed to build our plane.


yea most people would fire the contractor for negligence.. and your previous post said firing the contractor for this didnt make sense to you. good job shooting your own argument down.


The whole point of using the exact same, original, 'heritage' technology, is that we know it is guaranteed to work again.

There are NO EXCUSES. Adding technologies is an excuse. No technologies were required, other than the original proven technology.


you dont get development.. it is not so that they have working hardware.. it is so they have a basis to START DEVELOPING UPON.


Of course, if you used the exact same technology, and it didn't work, that means it NEVER worked in the first place.

Just like Apollo...


yea that makes perfect sense..
if i had a commodore 64 and go out to buy an intel corei7, GeForce GTX980 plug them all in and it should work perfectly and i can play high end games right??

and ofcourse if it doesnt work it means the commodore 64 was fake all along.
edit on 13-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

As OBM already pointed out you're way out to lunch on your estimation of the moon's mass relative to Earth, you also seem to be under the impression that atmospheric resistance has zero effect on the amount of thrust (and therefore the amount of fuel) needed. You're essentially ignoring the laws of physics in order to present your hypothesis. Do you have any numbers to back up your hypothesis or is it based on your massive overestimation as to the mass of the moon combined with you completely forgetting that wind resistance is a thing that exists?



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


The term 'deep space' refers to anywhere beyond Earth orbit




Do I get to be the one who points out that by every single definition of the term, the Moon is undeniably in Earth orbit?



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: captainpudding

But that would mean deep space would be beyond the moon, thus proving that yet again certain information is wrong.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.


They certainly knew about Bremsstrahlung, or "Breaking Radiation" at the beginning of the Apollo era. It was by no means an unknown concept. They may not have had a lot of in-situ information experience with it until the actual Apollo Program, but they clearly understood the concept that aluminum would create this "Bremsstrahlung".

As I mentioned before, the main protection against radiation for the Apollo astronauts was NOT radiation shielding technology, but instead was simply the fact that the maximum Apollo mission was only 2 weeks (most were even shorter). The amount of radiation that the astronauts would be exposed to in 2 weeks was deemed to be an acceptable health risk.

The spacecraft itself had insulation that provided a little bit of protection from radiation, but its purpose was for insulation...the relatively minor protection it gave against radiation was just an added bonus. Again, the primary way they protected the astronauts was by not having missions lasting more than a couple of weeks.

edit on 3/14/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/14/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

I'll say it again: Apollo 5, Apollo 9, Apollo 10.


Saying it ad nauseum won't change anything, though.

Those missions claim to show 'testing' of the LM, in space, away from independent (or any other) view, to confirm the claim is legit. Without any confirmation of the claim, it is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim.


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Do some reading - ignoring posts that prove you wrong doesn't help you in any way, and you could even answer my simple question: do you have any proof that the LM was incapable of doing the job it was designed for?


First I'd like to see proof it WAS capable of doing such feats....


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The fact is that the engines were tested on the ground during development - see if you find the important words in this article:

www.collectspace.com...

www.hq.nasa.gov...


You seem to believe this proved the engine worked, to NASA's specs....which it doesn't, but if it did, then it proves the engine was built to NASA's specs, which is not proof of the LM..


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
and has even been fired recently:

www.flightglobal.com...



You seriously believe this supports your argument?

They claim the LM engine was fired again, which is not proof it was fired. Let's say there IS proof, for argument's sake..

They can't say how long it fired, that's a secret, for no reason at all, to BE a secret, right?

Telling us that a duration of 1s or less is too short for any valid results, and telling us future tests will require 5s or more to be valid, while telling us that the duration in their own tests must be kept in total secret, with no reason to keep it secret.

A bit obvious, no?

This is yet another example of how Apollo is dealt with, from the authors....

Apollo data is crap, they know it is crap, but they can't actually TELL US it's crap, at the same time.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You denied that the LM was tested, I've shown you it was.

Your refusal to accept that this happened is not my problem, the fact is that the LM was tested, there are photographs and film of it being tested, and those photographs and film can be verified as being genuine even if it is just by simply looking at the clouds in the background.

Here for example,

onebigmonkey.com...

So you see I've proved it. Where's yours?

Have some video of the lunar module flying in Earth orbit:



Have some footage of where they tested it:



Have some footage of the LM development:



I asked you for your evidence that the LM was not capable of the job it was designed for. All you have done is say "I don't believe it". There is no point in your shrill demands for proof if you are going to stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept it when it's given.

I am also still waiting for your evidence that the Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a lethal dose of radiation at any point in their missions.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

cherry picking?? says the guy who ignores ALL the radiation dosage data in the article because it shows that 2 weeks exposed to GCR using aluminium shielding is well within prescribed limits.


yea like how they are still using aluminium on their spacecrafts like the ISS and Orion. imagine that.. during the Apollo era they used aluminium. and for the Orion they used aluminium.


you have cherry picked quotes that you think support yourself.. whereas the entire article suggests 2 weeks exposed to GCR using aluminium shielding is well within ANY prescribed limits..
and what you are describing isnt the difference between apollo era shielding and today.. thats a cop out excuse which makes zero sense. because Apollo era shielding and today shielding are the same material.



Show me proof they considered it to be valid data, anywhere in their reports, since you keep on claiming it is valid, genuine data....

They don't say it, since you'd have posted it long ago.

It's in the report, so it must be valid, genuine data - let's move along, folks!....


Your argument is, if data was put in their reports, it is genuine data, period.


They explain why it is not valid data, you ignore this fact, and insist on spouting this nonsense.


Pretending what you want, despite all reality...



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So you're now saying that this report, which you keep referring to as the one that supports your radiation fallacy, is incorrect?



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You denied that the LM was tested, I've shown you it was.

Your refusal to accept that this happened is not my problem, the fact is that the LM was tested, there are photographs and film of it being tested, and those photographs and film can be verified as being genuine even if it is just by simply looking at the clouds in the background.



Tests are known to be genuine when images and/or film footage show such tests being done, is that right?

Wrong.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So film footage and photographs of an ascent module operating in Earth orbit against a verifiably genuine backdrop of Earth is not proof that the ascent module worked? Footage and photographs taken from the lunar module of the command module against a verifiably genuine Earth backdrop is proof that the lunar module didn't film the command module in Earth orbit?

Two spacecraft tracked separately from the ground by a large number of ships and tracking stations? That supplied data to the ground?

Proof of something happening isn't proof?

Riiiiight.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

So you're now saying that this report, which you keep referring to as the one that supports your radiation fallacy, is incorrect?


No, I'm not saying it is incorrect, whatsoever.

I'm saying it IS correct, you are the one saying it is not correct.

You deny what is said in the report, then make up what they 'meant', never saying it!


Apollo data should have been used in their reports, as it would be held up as the only genuine data measured with actual humans, in actual deep space.

Ignoring the Apollo data, as they did, and extracting an estimate based on LEO data, would only make sense if the Apollo data was NOT genuine. Otherwise, it would be required far above anything else - like with their taking LEO guesstimates instead of the real data.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

So film footage and photographs of an ascent module operating in Earth orbit against a verifiably genuine backdrop of Earth is not proof that the ascent module worked? Footage and photographs taken from the lunar module of the command module against a verifiably genuine Earth backdrop is proof that the lunar module didn't film the command module in Earth orbit?

Two spacecraft tracked separately from the ground by a large number of ships and tracking stations? That supplied data to the ground?

Proof of something happening isn't proof?

Riiiiight.


Images and film footage could never be faked, back then - is that your basic idea??

It seems to be.

The fact is movies were faking manned space flights - years before Apollo ever came along.

Sci-fi films, as we know, are not proof of anything, in the very same way.

Actions show the reality, movies do not - Apollo was largely a grand-scale 'movie'.

So they avoid/ignore/exclude the Apollo missions, and move right along with their latest findings.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

What you're really saying is "I don't care what evidence you show me. I will make up some excuse so I can ignore it and my story will stay the same."

No wonder no one takes you seriously. You flip from one argument to another when you run out of ideas.

You've yet to show any proof that what you say is in any way true. We're all still waiting.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I've never known anyone who wanted NASA to just orbit Earth over and over again, for decades, after (supposedly) landing men on the moon.

It wasn't by choice, that's for sure.



new topics




 
57
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join