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

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



NASA tried to land a man on the moon by 2020, and failed. The technology that supposedly worked somehow couldn't work for them anymore, which is quite an achievement!

We know today that aluminum is a lousy radiation shield within the deep space environment. That's why any manned craft going to deep space will not be made of aluminum, nothing like the Apollo craft were.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Yes, it is beyond our capability.

There is a huge difference sending a probe into deep space, compared to humans...

Radiation, primarily, among other severe hazards existing within that environment.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


These spacecraft can fly humans within LEO. But, they cannot fly humans safely beyond LEO.
Apollo spacecraft were built of thin aluminum, mainly. This is a good material to use for flying humans into LEO, being light in weight.

However, as I've cited sources on, aluminum is a 'very poor shielding material', for manned spacecraft flying into deep space, beyond LEO. In fact, aluminum makes it WORSE than before for humans. It cannot be more clear than that.

Aluminum spacecraft is only one example of what doesn't work for manned moon missions, there are many others as well.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



The papers state aluminum is a very poor radiation shield within deep space, and makes it even worse than before.
..
Less hazardous doesn't mean aluminum can work, in any way.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Because aluminum would not have shielded this radiation, and made it even worse than before in a spacecraft.

The Apollo craft supposedly detected radiation hitting the outside walls, right? And they detected radiation from inside the craft, true?

If they were in deep space, in an aluminum craft, they would not have any shielding from this radiation, and they'd realize that fact, likely within minutes... without a doubt, it would be known.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Aluminum could not have shielded astronauts going to the moon, which Apollo claimed to do. Not possible.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.

Worse means no aluminum craft will ever fly humans into deep space. None. Ever. Period.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


you are the one trying to get the idea that trips to the moon in an aluminium craft is absolutely 100% impossible.

if that is not your opinion then clarify it immediately.




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.


by ignoring all the evidence out there for the LM, you think your opinion is more prevalent than someone elses opinion?

so you want to push your opinion that the LM didnt work by your mere opinion only??



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Hidinout

The issue, according to the story I read, is the evidence of other visitors suggested they knew nothing about rockets.

The mission was to extract "computer components"

And the recovered computer technology is responsible for the "Quantum Leaps" in teleportation and cloning.

There is a Kevin Spacey movie called Moon where a single man mines the backside of the moon for H3, and the computer systems keep killing him and cloning him again before he ever discovers he was in a loop xD.
edit on 2-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

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



Again, you have to prove they actually did leave Earth's orbit, first of all.

Proof is required for any claim, and the same standards of proof must apply, on any claim, therefore...


What proves your claim about radiation?

Your idea is that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, with no radiation problems at all.

You just assume the moon landings were 'genuine'. And they measured all the radiation during those 'genuine' moon missions.

Not that you have any proof of 'genuine' moon landings, so just assume they really landed on the moon, right?


Wrong.


I've shown research papers looking into how humans can safely go into deep space, in future, and have deliberately ignored all of Apollo's 'genuine' data!!

They ignore the only data of humans flying within deep space, while figuring out just how humans might someday be able to go into deep space!!

You think they are only referring to long-term missions, right?

Think again..

This is about ANY and ALL deep space missions with humans, beyond any doubt.

The problem is - Apollo supposedly sent humans into deep space, over 40 years ago, and they all came back to Earth, safe and sound.

They found a way around the Apollo problem, which is...

Refer to long-term missions, in future.

You assume everything else from that point, to fit with your argument.

That's just what they had in mind, I'm quite sure.

It fools the Apollo-ites into seeing what they want to see, while it is never once said, or ever implied, in their papers.


This was intentionally done to avoid the Apollo problem, and nothing more.


Do they assume that all future missions with humans in deep space to be long-term missions? That would make no sense, right? They would know that any duration is possible for such future missions, of course.

They say a long-term mission would be more hazardous to humans than a shorter mission, which is really just stating the obvious, anyhow..

The obvious is oblivious to some people, however.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you are the one trying to get the idea that trips to the moon in an aluminium craft is absolutely 100% impossible.

if that is not your opinion then clarify it immediately.


It is not my opinion about aluminum being a poor shield in deep space, it is a fact.

This is based on fact, not opinion.

The experts state that aluminum is a poor shield, and will not be used to shield humans in any spacecraft going on deep space missions, for that very reason.

Do you want to show me where they mention how aluminum craft are possible for manned moon missions?

Not what you think they 'meant', btw...



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you are the one trying to get the idea that trips to the moon in an aluminium craft is absolutely 100% impossible.

if that is not your opinion then clarify it immediately.


Do you want to show me where they mention how aluminum craft are possible for manned moon missions?

Not what you think they 'meant', btw...


already have.. they have stated in your own article that current technology allows single trips to the moon..
current technology which includes aluminium as the main component of the hull..
and thats not even mentioning that YOU DO NOT NEED TO SHIELD AGAINST GCR's WHEN EXPOSED TO IT FOR 2 WEEKS..

ETA:

It is not my opinion about aluminum being a poor shield in deep space, it is a fact.

This is based on fact, not opinion.

The experts state that aluminum is a poor shield, and will not be used to shield humans in any spacecraft going on deep space missions, for that very reason.


with this i no longer need to prove to yourself that you are of the opinion that you wish that Aluminum makes manned missions to the moon absolutely impossible, regardless of length.

because not only did you say its NOT your opinion you have claimed it as FACT.
edit on 2-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.


by ignoring all the evidence out there for the LM, you think your opinion is more prevalent than someone elses opinion?

so you want to push your opinion that the LM didnt work by your mere opinion only??


Films and images are not evidence the LM worked as claimed. I haven't ignored any of it.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.


by ignoring all the evidence out there for the LM, you think your opinion is more prevalent than someone elses opinion?

so you want to push your opinion that the LM didnt work by your mere opinion only??


Films and images are not evidence the LM worked as claimed. I haven't ignored any of it.


its not just film and images..

and its still a far cry more than what you have provided.. which is ONLY your opinion.. but for some reason you seem to think your opinion ALONE is more valuable than someone elses who happens to back it up..



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

already have.. they have stated in your own article that current technology allows single trips to the moon..
current technology which includes aluminium as the main component of the hull..
and thats not even mentioning that YOU DO NOT NEED TO SHIELD AGAINST GCR's WHEN EXPOSED TO IT FOR 2 WEEKS..

having poor shielding does not make missions to the moon of the Apollo length impossible.. admit to it.. or prove it wrong.


So by saying current technology, you assume is 1960's, Apollo-era technology??

Who knew??



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

already have.. they have stated in your own article that current technology allows single trips to the moon..
current technology which includes aluminium as the main component of the hull..
and thats not even mentioning that YOU DO NOT NEED TO SHIELD AGAINST GCR's WHEN EXPOSED TO IT FOR 2 WEEKS..

having poor shielding does not make missions to the moon of the Apollo length impossible.. admit to it.. or prove it wrong.


So by saying current technology, you assume is 1960's, Apollo-era technology??

Who knew??


what feasible shielding technology did we have in 2007 that we didnt have in 1960's?? or even 2009 for that matter when they were forced to cancel constellation (according to you)

p.s. this is further proof you think aluminium makes manned missions to the moon of length any greater than 7 days impossible.
which is the same as saying being exposed to GCR's with aluminium as shielding for any greater than 7 days is DEADLY.
edit on 2-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
In current technology, allowing for a single moon mission.

Aluminum craft is not current technology, and they don't mention aluminum at all, but they obviously would have 'meant' it that way!!



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
In current technology, allowing for a single moon mission.

Aluminum craft is not current technology, and they don't mention aluminum at all, but they obviously would have 'meant' it that way!!


thats your twist now??

sorry, but that wont cut it.. because the current shielding technology that they have now is aluminium as evidenced by the construction of Orion's hull using Aluminium.

p.s. and they do mention Aluminium, the entire article was predominantly about aluminum, such denial.
but feel free to show us current technology they had in 2007 that made single missions to the moon possible of which we didnt have in the 60's.. since as you have claimed previously, they just went around the earth for 40 years going backwards with technology which is again contradicting yourself.
edit on 2-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

what feasible shielding technology did we have in 2007 that we didnt have in 1960's?? or even 2009 for that matter when they were forced to cancel constellation (according to you)

p.s. this is further proof you think aluminium makes manned missions to the moon of length any greater than 7 days impossible.
which is the same as saying being exposed to GCR's with aluminium as shielding for any greater than 7 days is DEADLY.


They don't say what "current technology" is, to start with.

If Apollo technology allowed for moon missions 40 years ago, they would simply say something like...

....'long-existing Apollo technology was proven to work in single moon missions, and allows for similar missions, right now, and in the future'.

"Current technology" "allows for" a single moon mission, is vague. A proven technology is very defined. See the difference here?

"Allows for", means it can work. Proven to work, is entirely different.


They would have said that Apollo technology allows for single moon missions, but they didn't.

Think about it....



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

what feasible shielding technology did we have in 2007 that we didnt have in 1960's?? or even 2009 for that matter when they were forced to cancel constellation (according to you)

p.s. this is further proof you think aluminium makes manned missions to the moon of length any greater than 7 days impossible.
which is the same as saying being exposed to GCR's with aluminium as shielding for any greater than 7 days is DEADLY.


They don't say what "current technology" is, to start with.


cool story bro..

now what shielding technology did they have in 2007 that made it possible?

as far as everyone knows they are still using aluminium as the main component of a spacecrafts hull.. you are claiming that such uses of aluminium in deep space will kill anyone when exposed to it for 7 days..

so there shouldnt be ANY aluminium at all but Orion is made predominantly of Aluminium.. Orion was tested in 2014 was using current technology. so what technology did they find in 2007 that was feasible to be used for single lunar missions that they lost in 2009 with the cancellation of constellation?

shows us this technology they had in 2007.
edit on 2-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
In current technology, allowing for a single moon mission.

Aluminum craft is not current technology, and they don't mention aluminum at all, but they obviously would have 'meant' it that way!!


thats your twist now??

sorry, but that wont cut it.. because the current shielding technology that they have now is aluminium as evidenced by the construction of Orion's hull using Aluminium.

p.s. and they do mention Aluminium, the entire article was predominantly about aluminum, such denial.
but feel free to show us current technology they had in 2007 that made single missions to the moon possible of which we didnt have in the 60's.. since as you have claimed previously, they just went around the earth for 40 years going backwards with technology which is again contradicting yourself.


They state aluminum is a poor shield for manned missions in deep space, as I've proven to you.

Therefore, building Orion with aluminum shielding means it will not be able to fly humans (safely, at least) into deep space, as in, beyond LEO.

Until I see Orion fly humans into deep space, you have no claim here..

And why would they say aluminum is a poor shield for humans in deep space, and makes it even worse than before, then built it, anyway? This makes no sense, at all.

Orion is built with aluminum because it's the only option - it will work, but it won't be sending humans into deep space, either.

That's the problem, as always
edit on 2-4-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They state aluminum is a poor shield for manned missions in deep space, as I've proven to you.

Therefore, building Orion with aluminum shielding means it will not be able to fly humans (safely, at least) into deep space, as in, beyond LEO.

Until I see Orion fly humans into deep space, you have no claim here..


so Orion isnt using current technology??

so what you are saying is that, even though they have a new feasible means of completely protecting their astronauts from particle radiation (GCR's, the sun, VAB) they chose NOT to use it on their next gen space craft because Orion will be in LEO going through the VAB every 90 mins exposing the occupants to VAB radiation when this new technology would nearly completely nullify VAB particle radiation.


And why would they say aluminum is a poor shield for humans in deep space, and makes it even worse than before, then built it, anyway? This makes no sense, at all.


because even if it makes it worse than before it is still very low..

now where is this new shielding that they had in 2007 and lost in 2009 and 2014.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The 'current technology' in 1968 allowed us to orbit and return from the moon, and in 1969 the current technology allowed us to land on it and return.

Does turbonium have any kind of evidence whatsoever that the technology in the 1960s and early 1970s was not capable of doing that?

No, he does not - despite repeated requests to provide that evidence it was not capable, none has been provided. The technology to launch objects into space, get to, and return from the moon did exist then because the US and USSR both managed it. The addition of people into the equation is a minor detail and is by far the least complex part of it. Every piece of Apollo equipment was tested, and he has been shown that it was tested, but his goalposts keep moving too fast and his blinkers are too firmly glued in place to accept that.

Turbonium insists that only be seeing Orion fly in deep space will he accept that it is possible for Orion to fly in deep space. He defines 'deep space' (wrongly) as outside LEO. There is a massive amount of overwhelming and undeniable evidence that Apollo flew in what he defines as deep space, including observations from terrestrial telescopes and live TV transmissions that contained extended periods of weightlessness and time and date specific images of Earth. By his own standards then we have proof that Apollo went to the moon.

Turbonium has yet to provide any evidence, despite repeated requests, that the Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a lethal does of radiation.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Turbonium seems not to want to do any research into the questions I asked of him, so I'll help. The following is a quote from my own copy of "Handbook of Soviet Space-Science Research", edited by George Wukelic and published in 1968.

"The Cosmos 110 experiment, launched on February 22 1966 and extended 22 days in orbital flight passing through part of the radiation belt with successful recovery, remains the most significant study to date of cosmic radiation effects. In addition to the two dogs, "Ugolek" and "Veterok", the vehicle contained 300 dosimeters and 10 nuclear emulsions along with biological indicators...At the 17th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation held in Madrid October 9-15 1966, Professor V V Parin of the Soviet Academy of Medical Sciences stated that the radiation dosage received by the dogs was negligible and that no anti-radiation drugs were used."

Take a wild stab as to what construction material was used in the Vostok craft - a design that was also intended for future cosmonaut use.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
so Orion isnt using current technology??


Yes, like there are satellites orbiting Earth, using current technology.

"Current technology" doesn't mean 'Any spacecraft using current technology can fly humans to the moon'...



originally posted by: choos
so what you are saying is that, even though they have a new feasible means of completely protecting their astronauts from particle radiation (GCR's, the sun, VAB) they chose NOT to use it on their next gen space craft because Orion will be in LEO going through the VAB every 90 mins exposing the occupants to VAB radiation when this new technology would nearly completely nullify VAB particle radiation.


They do NOT have any spacecraft capable of "completely protecting" humans from space radiation, first of all.

Orion is not capable of flying beyond LEO with humans, just like Apollo was not capable of it, nor have any other spacecraft been capable of it, ever.

As for "going through the VAB", you mean briefly skimming along the lower fringes of the VAB, while in LEO, right?

That's like saying an airplane flew through a hurricane, because it went along the outer fringes of it. Not exactly the same thing, is it?



originally posted by: choos
because even if it makes it worse than before it is still very low..


No. It DOES make it worse than before..

And I'd like you to prove they say it is "still very low".... when they don't even know HOW much worse it becomes, as yet!!



originally posted by: choos
now where is this new shielding that they had in 2007 and lost in 2009 and 2014.


What are you talking about? I never said anything about shielding they had and/or lost...



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The technology to launch objects into space, get to, and return from the moon did exist then because the US and USSR both managed it. The addition of people into the equation is a minor detail and is by far the least complex part of it.


You can't be serious, right?

You really think adding humans is "a minor detail"?? "By far the least complex part of it"??

Where did you ever come up with such nonsense?

I'd really like to see your sources on that ...



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join