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: 53
57
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
so you think they just made up the raw data and estimated the raw data to obtain equivalent dosage then using those estimates based on made up raw data they came up with the idea that aluminium is a bad shield??


Yikes!

It's not an "idea" they "came up with", it's a proven, well-established fact that aluminum is a bad shield in deep space.

I'll explain the 'data' below...


originally posted by: choos
its based on genuine raw data that has been collected over a long period of time.


learn to read articles properly.. they explain that their estimates which is equivalent dosage may be inaccurate.. NOT THE RAW DATA..


This is why it is not genuine data, as I've explained many times to you, already...

They have data, "raw data", on hand...

Their estimates were merely based on the 'raw data'. Which means it is NOT genuine data, right?

You admit they say the estimates 'may be inaccurate', and yet you are still arguing that they are 100% valid figures, at the very same time!!

Incredible...



originally posted by: choos
and you still havent shown me what the difference between apollo aluminium and the magic shielding they had in 2007 of which they happened to lose again in ~2009 when they cancelled constellation.


What are you saying here?

Aluminum doesn't shield humans in deep space - it never has, and it never will.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yikes!

It's not an "idea" they "came up with", it's a proven, well-established fact that aluminum is a bad shield in deep space.

I'll explain the 'data' below...


but if you continue to claim it is not genuine data, then their conclusions that aluminium is a bad shield is based on non genuine data.. ie. data that is made up..

something like making up data that the temperature at sealevel on earth is 2000 degrees celcius therefore i conclude that earth is unlivable. this is equivalent to the tripe you are spewing about non genuine data proving aluminium is lethal in deep space for any length of exposure.



This is why it is not genuine data, as I've explained many times to you, already...

They have data, "raw data", on hand...

Their estimates were merely based on the 'raw data'. Which means it is NOT genuine data, right?


their estimates are based on years of observation from typical radiation sources. the raw data exists and these estimates are calculated from the raw data.

there is pretty much no such thing as actual readable absorbed dose without cutting someone open.


You admit they say the estimates 'may be inaccurate', and yet you are still arguing that they are 100% valid figures, at the very same time!!

Incredible...


yes it is based on years of observation..

but where are your estimates to conclude that aluminium is lethal?? all you have is a conclusion from, as you put it, non genuine data.

have you got any proof of your claims based on genuine data????



What are you saying here?

Aluminum doesn't shield humans in deep space - it never has, and it never will.


never has and never will??

so what technology did they have in 2007?? since they said that current technology is sufficient for single moon missions..

and according to you, constellation was cancelled in 2009 due to purely technological reasons, or more specifically, they didnt have any technology to shield against GCR's.

so what happened between 2007 and 2009??

and while you are at it, what is the level of GCR one should expect to be exposed to over 2 weeks?? where is YOUR genuine raw data that you base your conclusions on? surely you are not guessing?
edit on 26-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

What do think is meant by the term 'raw data'?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The Russian Lunakhod and Luna landers, the Chinese Chang'e 2 Lander and the American Surveyor landers weren't tested as an entire system on Earth, either. However, all of those (including the LM) had their components and engines tested on Earth.

Are you saying that NOBODY (Russia, China, etc) ever landed a craft on the Moon, simply because none of them test-landed their entire moon-ready craft on Earth first? You do realize that test-landing an entire Lunar lander on Earth is really quite pointless, considering the 6X difference in gravity, plus other atmospheric concerns (such as how much reaction control they will need).

They can test the main engines and reaction control thrusters on Earth to see if they work properly and measure their thrust. They can also test all of the navigation equipment and gyroscopes on Earth to make sue they work properly. They can test the structure on Earth to see if it holds up to the theoretical design stresses it might encounter on the mission...

...However, putting it all together and seeing how it works in 6X operational gravity would be pointless, especially since they would not design it to work in 6X operational gravity, probably even considering safety margins.

That's why the LM (as an entire system) was tested in space and near the Lunar surface instead of on Earth.


This is one of the most ridiculous claims of the entire Apollo fantasy, without a doubt.

Assume the LM was tested, as you suggest...

It was tested in space, and it (eventually) worked in all functions, as tested in space.
It was also tested near the lunar surface, and it worked great, just like it did before, whilst in space.


Now.....

They have tested the LM in space, and near the lunar surface, right?

Those tests were done, because....?...

What is the main purpose of testing...?

To see if something really works, perhaps? And, if it fails to work, those tests can help to show you why it failed, and then you can change it, and test it again, to see if it works...


So the LM is tested for some functions. No testing of its descent to the lunar surface done. No testing the upper half of it lifting off the surface, or testing the docking of it in lunar orbit, at extreme speeds, to another craft...

All that's done without any tests, since they did it without any tests. And we couldn't test it anyway, so we didn't test it, and we just did it... perfectly done, but of course, we already know that!!


Do you really believe this crapola ??



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

but if you continue to claim it is not genuine data, then their conclusions that aluminium is a bad shield is based on non genuine data.. ie. data that is made up..



THEY are claiming it is not genuine data, that they are only estimates.

Now, are YOU claiming it IS genuine data, or do you not?

Which of the two is your actual claim, here?


And do you dispute their claims about aluminum being a poor shield in deep space, or not?

Again, which one is your actual claim, on this matter?


I agree with them on both of these points. Now, what about you??



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

but where are your estimates to conclude that aluminium is lethal?? all you have is a conclusion from, as you put it, non genuine data.

have you got any proof of your claims based on genuine data????


First of all, you don't even grasp WHO first brought forth the original claim, that aluminum was a poor shield, because it seems you think I did!!

If you can't grasp such a simple point, how can anything else I discuss ever get through to you?
edit on 26-3-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

So the LM is tested for some functions. No testing of its descent to the lunar surface done.


An engine is an engine, it was tested. Sooner or later the only way you can test a landing on the lunar surface is to land on the surface. The descent engine itself was tested to make sure that it worked the way it was supposed to. Pldease provide your evidence that it wasn't, or that the engine wasn't capable of landing on the surface.



No testing the upper half of it lifting off the surface,


The ascent engine was tested in Earth and lunar orbit. It worked. Again, it worked. Prove it wasn't. Prove that they didn;t test the various mechanisms for separating and launching the ascent module.



or testing the docking of it in lunar orbit, at extreme speeds, to another craft...


Wrong wrong wrong. Apollo 9, Apollo 10.



All that's done without any tests, since they did it without any tests. And we couldn't test it anyway, so we didn't test it, and we just did it... perfectly done, but of course, we already know that!!


See, all you're doing is claiming there were no tests done without actually listening to anyone who tells you that tests were done and providing evidence that tests were done. When you do get the evidence you decide it is unacceptable and move the goalposts. Do yourself a favour and google 'Lunar Test Article', you might learn something.

I'll ask you again: where is your proof - any proof at all - that the LM was not capable of the job for which it was designed?

While I'm here: Where is your evidence that Apollo astronauts should have, and did, receive a lethal radiation dose?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent

Too many people feel there has to be progress is any area.
How many decades did the telephone go without any real progress?
How many decades did the automobile go without any real progress?
Light bulbs
Roofing materials
Pencils
There has to be a need for progress before it will happen.


We still used them, that's the problem with Apollo.

We have had phones, cars, light bulbs, rooing materials, and pencils, etc. since they were first invented, and ever since then.

But not Apollo. They dropped it like it was the plague or something, and buried it away, as if it were a foul disease.

The stench cannot be buried away, no matter how much they try.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

An engine is an engine, it was tested. Sooner or later the only way you can test a landing on the lunar surface is to land on the surface. The descent engine itself was tested to make sure that it worked the way it was supposed to. Pldease provide your evidence that it wasn't, or that the engine wasn't capable of landing on the surface.


The ascent engine was tested in Earth and lunar orbit. It worked. Again, it worked. Prove it wasn't. Prove that they didn;t test the various mechanisms for separating and launching the ascent module.


An engine can work as any engine can work, so what does that prove?

It proves an engine works, and that's it.

It doesn't mean the engine works in the LM, unless the engine is put in the LM, and works in the LM, as it's claimed to work.

There is no proof at all, since it doesn't actually work as claimed.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Why can't we build a lunar lander anymore?

You think we can, it's just that we haven't seen any need to build one in the last 40 years, that's all!!

We tried to, once, but our advanced technology messed it all up!

As usual...



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Except you've been shown evidence of it working as claimed, and obviously have no intention of doing any of the homework you've been given to find out more about any of the LTAs. Your unwillingness to check that what you're saying is factually correct or confront anything that challenges your own belief system is obvious. The bits you ignore from quoted posts is also very telling.

Have some more homework:

onebigmonkey.com...

See how many times you can find the word 'test' on that page listing articles from an in-house magazine.

I'll ask you again: where is your proof - any proof at all - that the LM was not capable of the job for which it was designed?

Where is your evidence that Apollo astronauts should have, and did, receive a lethal radiation dose?

What do you understand by the term 'raw data'?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
They faked the photos (Period)

This is what it really looks like on the surface of the moon

planetary.s3.amazonaws.com...
edit on 26-3-2016 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

THEY are claiming it is not genuine data, that they are only estimates.

Now, are YOU claiming it IS genuine data, or do you not?

Which of the two is your actual claim, here?


bit slow to the party???

the estimates are BASED ON RAW DATA WHICH IS ALL GENUINE, including the estimates..


And do you dispute their claims about aluminum being a poor shield in deep space, or not?

Again, which one is your actual claim, on this matter?


aluminium is a poor shield in deep space no problem there..

but if you want to claim that the reports are all using non genuine data, then obviously all the report are reporting false information. which means your conclusions ARE STILL WRONG.


I agree with them on both of these points. Now, what about you??


if you agree to all your points you are clearly in severe denial..
you called them non genuine data..
if it is all non genuine data the report is non genuine to begin with..
ie. the conclusions you have ended up with is based on non genuine data, meaning your conclusions are false.

so what is it?? are the reports (conclusions and all) based on real or fake data?


First of all, you don't even grasp WHO first brought forth the original claim, that aluminum was a poor shield, because it seems you think I did!!

If you can't grasp such a simple point, how can anything else I discuss ever get through to you?


thats just simply running away..
i guess you realise your booboo??

you are the one that believes any mission in deep space is deadly regardless of exposure time.
you claimed the reports are using "non genuine data"
you came up with such conclusions based on "non genuine data".
all this because the reports "non genuine data" doesnt support your conclusion.

so if the "non genuine data" doesnt support your claim clearly you must have "genuine data" to prove your convictions? when will you show them off?? surely it would help your argument?

ps. you still havent told us what the technology was lost after 2007 that cause the cancellation of constellation program..
edit on 26-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
A real lunar lander cannot be built as they supposedly 'built' the Apollo LM, which didn't work at all.


It starts as an Earth lander, which evolves into a lunar version.

That's what they are NOW trying to develop first - an Earth-bound lander. It makes perfect sense.


Do you know why this is way better than using the 'magical LM' approach?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you are the one that believes any mission in deep space is deadly regardless of exposure time.


Prove it. Quote me.

If you can't prove it, then you are lying.


I will wait for your reply....



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you are the one that believes any mission in deep space is deadly regardless of exposure time.


Prove it. Quote me.

If you can't prove it, then you are lying.


I will wait for your reply....


so its not deadly??

so manned missions to the moon are completely possible?? so then this thread can be closed?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

No they didn't.

Putting 'Period' a the end of a sentence does not automatically make it true.

What makes those Chinese images more genuine than Apollo ones? They show a rock strewn surface, no stars, the video of the landing shows exactly the same sequence of events in terms of surface dust movement as the Apollo landings, the colour is the same, so what's your point exactly?

If you are happy with Chinese data then you will no doubt be happy that their orbital probe shows details that were also photographed by Apollo before they were photographed by anything else. Or will the goalposts get moved again?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
A real lunar lander cannot be built as they supposedly 'built' the Apollo LM, which didn't work at all.


Given that there is a massive amount of documentary, photographic and film evidence that the lunarlander was built and did work your statement is false.



It starts as an Earth lander, which evolves into a lunar version.


Gibberish. It was designed to operate in a zero gravity zero atmosphere environment, an environment in which it was tested and ultimately worked.



That's what they are NOW trying to develop first - an Earth-bound lander. It makes perfect sense.


Do you know why this is way better than using the 'magical LM' approach?


DO you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about?

How's your homework coming along? Any answers yet to these questions?:

Where is your proof - any proof at all - that the LM was not capable of the job for which it was designed?

Where is your evidence that Apollo astronauts should have, and did, receive a lethal radiation dose?

What do you understand by the term 'raw data'?


edit on 26/3/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: tyop



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you are the one that believes any mission in deep space is deadly regardless of exposure time.


Prove it. Quote me.

If you can't prove it, then you are lying.


I will wait for your reply....


so its not deadly??

so manned missions to the moon are completely possible?? so then this thread can be closed?


You make claims with no support, and make other claims to cover for your lies!

This won't work, as you must know..


You should admit your claim is false, so then we can move along here...

If not, the issue cannot go forward...



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Given that there is a massive amount of documentary, photographic and film evidence that the lunarlander was built and did work your statement is false.


Gibberish. It was designed to operate in a zero gravity zero atmosphere environment, an environment in which it was tested and ultimately worked.


Where is your proof - any proof at all - that the LM was not capable of the job for which it was designed?


You have no proof it was capable of the job, nor any proof it DID the job!

The images and film footage is not proof, in any way.

We could prove a 'time machine' works by using the same methods!


It doesn't prove anything, of course.




top topics



 
57
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join