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: 65
57
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

uh-huh

www.clavius.org...




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Make up your mind, was it completely ignored or not? If it was referenced, it wasn't ignored.

Context is key: what were they referring to when you claim they 'ignored' the Apollo data?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Brildenlanch

The only 'survey' misinformation is referring to is the BS in the video, where some idiot has decided in advance that the LM wasn't big enough and then set out to prove it by deliberately ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. There are numerous photographs and plenty of TV footage of astronauts entering and leaving the LM, and just because there were no precise instructions it doesn't mean that they didn't rehearse how to do it.

To answer your other point, the measurements on LRO photographs are entirely consistent with Apollo hardware and EVA acitivity.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

the numbers which say that in order to bring exposure to GCR's down to acceptable ANNUAL limits would require about 40-50g/cm^2 of aluminium.. your own article says that, i just cant remember the exact number.


You don't get it....

What are they saying here?

They are saying that aluminum shielding, 40-50g/cm2 thickness, would protect humans against GCR radiation for one year, within deep space.....right?

Is it their claim, or not?

You think it is their claim, as you cite it for your argument.

If so, then explain why they say aluminum is a poor shielding material within deep space, and may even intensifies the hazard, therefore, no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding?

Didn't they say aluminum would work as a shield, at that specific thickness, in deep space?

You want to explain that?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How about this, just for a laugh and a change of record.

Instead of repeating the same thing over and over again, you start posting some proof?

This "aluminium, radiation, deep space, Apollo fake" argument you've been using, has failed. It's failed for pages.

You still haven't proven that the Apollo 11 mission was a fake.

Stop moving goal posts. This is about the moon landings.

Come on, prove it was fake.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

If so, then explain why they say aluminum is a poor shielding material within deep space, and may even intensifies the hazard, therefore, no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding?

Didn't they say aluminum would work as a shield, at that specific thickness, in deep space?

You want to explain that?


facepalm
the reason they gave of why is in the article..

you think that putting 50g/cm^2 of aluminium spacecraft hull is a simple feat do you?

p.s. you still havent answered me: you previously said that all the data was from LEO, are you suggesting that they have been collecting GCR's data from LEO, like say from the aluminium hulled ISS??


The "wealth of data" was completely ignored, in their own research papers.

Why would they ignore it, then?

Because they know it is NOT 'genuine' data, obviously...


but to this, the wealth of data that OBMonkey was reffering to included data from beyond LEO (not just from Apollo)..
your reply has me thinking that you still believe that getting anything beyond the VAB is impossible?

are you really that far up the creek?
edit on 14-5-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Make up your mind, was it completely ignored or not? If it was referenced, it wasn't ignored.

Context is key: what were they referring to when you claim they 'ignored' the Apollo data?


The data itself was ignored, completely. A footnote of Apollo, yet no data is cited, so it's still being ignored.


How come?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
the reason they gave of why is in the article..

you think that putting 50g/cm^2 of aluminium spacecraft hull is a simple feat do you?



You think aluminum would shield humans in deep space, and only its thickness is the problem?

They say aluminum is a poor shield in deep space, and perhaps worse than before, right?

Where do they say aluminum is also a good shield in deep space? Do they say aluminum is a good shield, when it's a certain thickness?


If aluminum is a poor shield, when does it transform into a good shield?


Show me where they mention a poor shield that is also a good shield if it's thick enough, because I'd love to see it!!



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   
I'd also like to see Apollo's GCR measurements in deep space.

They measured it, right?

So they'd certainly have the GCR data available, right?


I'd really like to see it...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
I'd also like to see Apollo's GCR measurements in deep space.

They measured it, right?

So they'd certainly have the GCR data available, right?


I'd really like to see it...


Hmm. Let me see.

Google it.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You think aluminum would shield humans in deep space, and only its thickness is the problem?

They say aluminum is a poor shield in deep space, and perhaps worse than before, right?

Where do they say aluminum is also a good shield in deep space? Do they say aluminum is a good shield, when it's a certain thickness?


they say its a poor shield in deep space because they need it to be excessively thick for it to satisfactorily protect the occupants.


If aluminum is a poor shield, when does it transform into a good shield?

Show me where they mention a poor shield that is also a good shield if it's thick enough, because I'd love to see it!!


its always been a good enough shield due to its relatively light weight, but when they need to stay in deep space for very long periods of time it no longer is good enough.


I'd also like to see Apollo's GCR measurements in deep space.

They measured it, right?

So they'd certainly have the GCR data available, right?

I'd really like to see it...


look at their personal dosimeters and when they were recorded.

now, is it true that you believe they collected GCR data from LEO inside the aluminium hulled ISS?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Prove it was ignored.

Your interpretation is that it was, but your interpretation is one thing, reality and actual fact are different things entirely.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
They say aluminum could intensify the radiation.

So they don't know how much worse it actually becomes, while claiming to know that it really would work great at a certain thickness, anyhoo!!



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

you also claimed that all radiation data was from LEO..

the ISS which is an Aluminium hulled spacecraft in LEO must be subject to all the radiation that you claimed was taken from LEO which includes GCR's..

therefore you are also claiming that the ISS is fake since it is constantly exposed to GCR's while having aluminium in its hull.

ANYHOO!!
edit on 14-5-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Prove it was ignored.

Your interpretation is that it was, but your interpretation is one thing, reality and actual fact are different things entirely.


They didn't mention it, which means they ignored it.

If you mean deliberately ignored, that is not provable, but it is certainly the only logical conclusion to make.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
They say aluminum could intensify the radiation.


Well known fact. Was Apollo only built from Aluminium? Did they carry personal dosimeters from which readings were obtained on a regular basis or not?



So they don't know how much worse it actually becomes,


Nope, they don't claim that at all. The properties of aluminium were, and are, well k own.



while claiming to know that it really would work great at a certain thickness, anyhoo!!


Yes, because they know its properties.

Provide your sources that show the astronauts should have, and did, receive a lethal dose of radiation. You whine about Apollo data being ignored without presenting any data of your own.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
While the science deniers of the world are busy moving goalposts and ignoring questions, this week I found a new source of weather satellite data in this document

hdl.handle.net...

The document shows satellite images used in the BOMEX research programme, which you can read about here:

www.eol.ucar.edu...

and it allows a more detailed examination of some of the Apollo 10 and 11 photographs.

This Earthrise photograph

www.flickr.com...

from Apollo 10 was taken at around 18:54 on May 23rd, as recorded in the mission transcripts and confirmed by the landmasses and terminator configuration on show. It's one of a sequence of Earthrise photographs on a magazine that also includes shots of the CSM taken from the LM, which also helps to confirm the time.

Here are three images of the Caribbean from the ATS-III satellite taken on that date at 11:41, 16:04, and 17:54 GMT respectively. The times are taken from the BOMEX document.







Here is a close up of the same area of the Caribbean from the Earthrise image:



What we see here is that the nearer the ATS image to the Apollo one in terms of when it was taken the greater the degree of correspondence between the two. We also see that when the Apollo image is taken in conjunction with the ATS ones it represents one of a temporal sequence of images showing the development of weather systems. It also shows that the image was taken exactly when and where it was claimed to be taken: in orbit around the moon.

The data collected for BOMEX was shared amongst many organisations and countries, nor was it secret - you can buy the book linked to above.

More here onebigmonkey.com...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   


its actually in reference to global temperatures and you have deliberately changed

Actually it's NASA thats the one thats deliberately changing global temperatures

- NASA confirmed changing Climate Data to push global warming agenda -




uh-huh

Phone Booth Cramming technology wasn't yet able to get beyond low-earth orbit...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
They repeatedly state aluminum is a poor, even worse, shield in deep space.

No craft will be built with aluminum shielding in future, for deep space manned missions, in fact.


You insist they don't mean ALL missions in deep space, when nobody said it, or implied it, at any time.

Somehow, it MUST be what they meant, but merely forgot to mention it, no big deal, everyone knows that anyway, there's no need to actually 'say' it!


Nice try.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
They repeatedly state aluminum is a poor, even worse, shield in deep space.

No craft will be built with aluminum shielding in future, for deep space manned missions, in fact.


You insist they don't mean ALL missions in deep space, when nobody said it, or implied it, at any time.

Somehow, it MUST be what they meant, but merely forgot to mention it, no big deal, everyone knows that anyway, there's no need to actually 'say' it!


Nice try.


Yet you can't prove what you say

*gasps in shock*

Say it isn't so oh great Apollo denier!



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join