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: 77
57
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well, in the flat earth fantasy land everything we know about the laws of physics is wrong and gravity doesn't exist. I'm assuming in their wing of the asylum the moon is also flat so it's not possible to orbit it and therefore not possible to land on it. Or it's a hologram, I'm not caught up on what flat earth delusion is at the top of the list these days.




posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

you repeatedly announce that all data is from LEO only. which obviously includes GCR data.

the ISS which is an Aluminium hulled spacecraft is in LEO. which would be exposed to GCR since GCR data was obtained in LEO and the ISS is in LEO.

now this is following YOUR arguments..

the longest anyone has ever been on a spacelfight is about 438 days on the ISS which is aluminium hulled..

so according to your beliefs the ISS which should be exposed to GCR's constantly since GCR data was collected in LEO and the ISS is in LEO, this would all mean that you believe either:
1/ GCR are very low and an astronaut can survive upto 438 days exposed to it inside an aluminium hull which includes other radiation sources ie. VAB.
or
2/ the ISS is fake.

given how far up the creek you have travelled id put my money that you believe number 2.


No, that's not what I'm saying...

I'm saying they can fly humans within LEO, but we cannot fly any humans beyond LEO - not yet, nor anytime soon.

GCR radiation is much more severe beyond LEO, compared to in LEO, for one thing.

The experts said we can't use aluminum shielding beyond LEO, as it would actually make it worse than before.

Aluminum craft can work in LEO, since almost no GCR radiation exists in that environment.


Look -

It was always believed that aluminum would shield humans in space. After they saw it worked in LEO, they assumed it would work beyond LEO, in the very same way..

That's why Apollo was built of aluminum, since nobody knew any better, back then...

You think they went to the moon and back 9 times, in aluminum spacecraft, nobody aware how it would only intensify GCR radiation?

A short mission is your excuse for this, but it applies to ALL missions...



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Long term X-rays will also kill you. Short term, not so much of the deadness.

By your logic, a simple X-ray should kill you because long term exposure would.

Logic fail.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, that's not what I'm saying...


it sure was what you were saying. remember how you said the VAB had an impenetrable barrier that anything with electrons could not pass it??

remember how you said ALL the data comes from LEO??

thats means you believe everything known about GCR's is from LEO and only LEO.


I'm saying they can fly humans within LEO, but we cannot fly any humans beyond LEO - not yet, nor anytime soon.


you believe that GCR data, in fact ALL deep space radiation data comes from LEO. you have said this before. heres your quote:

"Instead, they use data from LEO, and extrapolate it for an estimate of the radiation beyond LEO." - Turbonium1


GCR radiation is much more severe beyond LEO, compared to in LEO, for one thing.


how much more?? how do you know since you also believe they have never sent a probe or craft of any kind beyond the VAB?


The experts said we can't use aluminum shielding beyond LEO, as it would actually make it worse than before.


no they didnt, they said they need to find better ways at shielding against GCR's in the deep space environment than using aluminium.


Aluminum craft can work in LEO, since almost no GCR radiation exists in that environment.


contradicting yourself arent you?? you said they used data from LEO and extrapolated it for beyond LEO usage.. since there is almost no GCR's in the LEO environment how did they extrapolate it??

if you want to make this claim please show us how they went about it since you seem to know so much about it.



That's why Apollo was built of aluminum, since nobody knew any better, back then...


incorrect, Aluminium was used NOT to protect against GCR's there was no purpose built shield against GCR's for the Apollo missions.

find me a source that says Aluminium was purposefully used to protect against GCR's for Apollo.


You think they went to the moon and back 9 times, in aluminum spacecraft, nobody aware how it would only intensify GCR radiation?


they were aware, they were also aware that it would intensify the radiation minimally and the levels of GCR's was relatively low to begin with.

they worked out that they were staying for a maximum of a few weeks at maximum, they realised that protecting against GCR's was counterproductive and unnecessary for their mission lengths.


A short mission is your excuse for this, but it applies to ALL missions...


doesnt matter, because the accumulated dosage is still well within the limits. reaching the prescribed limits i think relates to a 5% increased risk of developing from cancer later in life as opposed to normal.

that is 1Sv of exposure, how long of exposure time to GCR's will be needed to receive about 1 SV dosage?? answer this question before you continue any further, failure to understand this much is a failure to your argument.
edit on 20-5-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
You think all the experts support your side, you assume to know what they meant to say but didn't ever say or imply in any way, shape, or form!!

So when they say aluminum would make GCR radiation worse than before, it will intensify the radiation....?

You say this applies to only long-term missions, nobody needs to mention it, in the papers....

They don't exclude any missions, in fact.

As none are excluded, you say that was 'meant', while not said


Desperate, much?



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Desperate, much?

Yes, you certainly appear to be. Not quite as desperate as Mr. Flat Earth, but desperate (and wrong) nonetheless.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

So when they say aluminum would make GCR radiation worse than before, it will intensify the radiation....?

You say this applies to only long-term missions, nobody needs to mention it, in the papers....

They don't exclude any missions, in fact.



how long will it take for a person (male) to receive 1Sv dosage from exposures to GCR's?

until you can answer this simple question your argument cannot move forward.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It was always believed that aluminum would shield humans in space.


No, not true. Show us a source that says this.



After they saw it worked in LEO, they assumed it would work beyond LEO, in the very same way..


You have references saying this right?




That's why Apollo was built of aluminum, since nobody knew any better, back then...


No, not true. Apollo was built of aluminium because it is lightweight. Aluminium was not the only construction material. The way bremsstrahlung works was well known then and there were numerous conferences covering radiation and the Apollo mission whose proceedings are freely available.



You think they went to the moon and back 9 times, in aluminum spacecraft, nobody aware how it would only intensify GCR radiation?


They were well aware of the radiation risks, that's why they gave the crew dosimeters and built dosimeters into the spacecraft. That's why they took biological experiments with them. Both the US and USSR had ample data about radiation in space, what they did was manage and monitor the risk.

Please cite your sources that state that Apollo astronauts would have and did receive a lethal dose of any kind of radiation.



A short mission is your excuse for this, but it applies to ALL missions...


No it doesn't, because shorter missions reduce the amount of time you are exposed to the risk. Duh!
edit on 21/5/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   


how long will it take for a person to receive 1Sv dosage from exposures to GCR's?


the lack of contingent aspect assemblages concerning the particular GCR representations are insufficient to establish an explicitly precise conclusion, ergo, concordantly exposing the propagandists numerical cognitive deficiencies in reference to the perplexities of the radiation hazards...



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Why not save time and just post a link?
www.scifiideas.com...



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

how much more?? how do you know since you also believe they have never sent a probe or craft of any kind beyond the VAB?


The experts said it is more severe, but didn't specify 'how much more'.

So, you would disagree with these experts, right?


originally posted by: choos
no they didnt, they said they need to find better ways at shielding against GCR's in the deep space environment than using aluminium.


Not exactly.

The experts never said, or ever implied, that aluminum will work in shielding humans within the deep space environment.

Clearly, Apollo must have proven to all scientists that aluminum DID work in manned missions within deep space...

Do the experts say we've already proved aluminum works in deep space manned missions, or do they not mention it at all?

They don't mention it at all, of course.

These are experts, who would know if Apollo was genuine, or was faked, and they IGNORE Apollo. It's not hard to figure out...




originally posted by: choos
contradicting yourself arent you?? you said they used data from LEO and extrapolated it for beyond LEO usage.. since there is almost no GCR's in the LEO environment how did they extrapolate it??

if you want to make this claim please show us how they went about it since you seem to know so much about it.


They explain it somewhat, in the paper, so if you want to know more, then you should go and ask them, directly...

It's their work, not mine, - get it?


originally posted by: choos
doesnt matter, because the accumulated dosage is still well within the limits. reaching the prescribed limits i think relates to a 5% increased risk of developing from cancer later in life as opposed to normal.

that is 1Sv of exposure, how long of exposure time to GCR's will be needed to receive about 1 SV dosage?? answer this question before you continue any further, failure to understand this much is a failure to your argument.


You still don't get the problem....


It is not actual data, in the paper. They do not say it is actual data. They are estimates, and nothing more..

This 'accumulated dosage' you refer to so often....

You find something to support your argument, then you take it, out of context, to waffle on how it shows the papers support your crapola....

As if...



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



The experts said it is more severe, but didn't specify 'how much more'.

Are you sure?



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The experts said it is more severe, but didn't specify 'how much more'.


In which case how do you know how much of a problem it is?




So, you would disagree with these experts, right?


BUt you're agreeing with them without axtually knowing what they are saying.




Not exactly.

The experts never said, or ever implied, that aluminum will work in shielding humans within the deep space environment.


Because it wasn't built into the craft with the intention of shielding it.



Clearly, Apollo must have proven to all scientists that aluminum DID work in manned missions within deep space...


Your definition of deep space is at odds with reality. Clearly the construction of the Apollo craft must have satisfied the experts. What qualifies you to disagree with them? What data do you have to support your arm waving goalpost moving cause?



Do the experts say we've already proved aluminum works in deep space manned missions, or do they not mention it at all?


Do they say that its use in the Apollo CSM would have proved lethal to its occupants? Anywhere?



They don't mention it at all, of course.


So you are prepared to draw firm conclusions based on the absence of data?



These are experts, who would know if Apollo was genuine, or was faked, and they IGNORE Apollo. It's not hard to figure out...


The experts do know Apollo was genuine. They don't ignore Apollo. You are misrepresenting the information they present. You know this, but still persist in deliberate misinterpretation of the reports.




if you want to make this claim please show us how they went about it since you seem to know so much about it.


How about you read the links I posted from ESSA World.



This 'accumulated dosage' you refer to so often....

You find something to support your argument, then you take it, out of context, to waffle on how it shows the papers support your crapola....

As if...


Oh the massive sledgehammer in the face irony of this post..

Despite repeated requests you have failed to provide any data whatsoever to support you cause, just knee jerk denialism and hand waving so fast I'm amazed you can stay on the ground.

Post your evidence. Why can't you?

To repeat, again:

What data do you have, from any source, any time, that the Apollo astronauts would have, and did, suffer lethal doses of any kind of radiation?



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

They were well aware of the radiation risks, that's why they gave the crew dosimeters and built dosimeters into the spacecraft. That's why they took biological experiments with them. Both the US and USSR had ample data about radiation in space, what they did was manage and monitor the risk.



Some story, no doubt....

You see, Apollo's thin aluminum shell was shielding them against GCR radiation. The GCR radiation in deep space was accurately measured by their dosimeters, both from outside, and inside, of the spacecraft...and so...

They found GCR radiation did not pass through the aluminum craft, or intensify it, in any way, for they had measured it all very accurately, and so, that's how we came to know that aluminum really works great within deep space, after all!!

The End


Sure!...



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



They found GCR radiation did not pass through the aluminum craft

They did?
Can you provide a source for that?
edit on 5/21/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Your definition of deep space is at odds with reality. Clearly the construction of the Apollo craft must have satisfied the experts. What qualifies you to disagree with them? What data do you have to support your arm waving goalpost moving cause?



You disagree with the experts I've quoted on aluminum, as being worse for humans than no shielding...

You know better than all the experts, right?

Delusions of godhood, no doubt..



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1



They found GCR radiation did not pass through the aluminum craft

They did?
Can you provide a source for that?


It's a story, a fantasy tale.

As Apollo-ites may have said, but certainly not me...

Now, are you claiming GCR radiation was measured in deep space, accurately, by Apollo?

If not, how can you claim they measured all the radiation?

And if you claim they did, it failed, otherwise, the GCR radiation would have been known at the time as being worse than no shield!



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
It is also mentioned in the papers that we always used to believe aluminum was a good radiation shield in space, but we know it is not a good shield against deep space radiation. And even makes it worse for humans, in fact!

We know that now. But we did not know it in the Apollo-era.


Who measured radiation in deep space, with a human crew, and didn't realize how aluminum intensifies radiation, and does not shield it??

Only Apollo, flies in sheer fantasy, and utter ignorance of the cruel reality!
edit on 21-5-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

since you speak with so much conviction.. in order for you to prove your point you need to prove to me you understand the problem.

so ill ask again:

how long will it take for a person (male) to receive 1Sv dosage from exposures to GCR's?

until you can answer this simple question your argument cannot move forward.

failure to provide an answer proves you do not understand the problem.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You haven't actually quoted anyone that says what you claim they said, or provided the answer to the questions I've asked you repeatedly.

Surely you have the information to hand, seeing as you seem so convinced by it? In which case why not provide it?




top topics



 
57
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join