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: 80
57
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

they are not saying humans CANT go into deep space, on short missions also.

only you are



All missions into deep space, without exception.

This means short missions can't be done yet, nor can any others.




Turbo - this is pretty much the line in the sand, isn't it? Either one believes space is safe for the Apollo CM or one does not believe it. Since no parties have ever tried to duplicate Apollo CM beyond LEO there is no chance for science to compare and there we see how NASA has kept a monopoly on manned space travel beyond LEO. (Either by threat, duress or coercion).

JFK tried no less than 4 times to invite the Soviets for a joint moon mission... (twice by secret communications, once by UN speech and once by NS memorandum to the NASA administrator.) Who could be opposed to joint US/USSR cooperation in space? 1. The Pentagon/MIC? 2. Nixon? or 3. LBJ? all of the above?

All manned Apollo moon "mission accomplished" while Richard Nixon was either president-elect or during his first term... nobody else has since or will in the future send humans beyond 300miles into space altitude in an aluminum tin can. The Soviets have been in the manned space game for just as long and refuse to go beyond the Russian Glass Ceiling...

I have recently come upon some source material that proves that incoming president Richard Nixon was in LBJ's office on November 11th, 1968, at the exact moment the letter from Tom Paine* (approving the Apollo 8 moon orbit plan) was delivered to Johnson's desk - just days after the '68 election. This material strongly supports my theory that Nixon & Johnson coordinated on space policy decisions during the transitional period - specifically on that date - and prior to Nixon's inauguration.

*the ACTING administrator Paine who replaced James Webb (33rd degree Mason)... Webb quit his job just a few weeks earlier and told the world newspapers that the Russians had better rockets. *Paine was not sworn in as administrator until March 21, 1969. This date is important because the Apollo 10 mission was under way...

Also, the Apollo 11 crew was announced to the public on Richard Nixon's birthday, January 8, 1969.

Also, there is the very inconvenient fact (the inconvenience is for Apollo Believers) that it was Richard Nixon, not Jack Kennedy, who was first to publicly propose (in October of 1960, in answering a questionairre from an aeronautics periodical) that NASA should send manned missions to the moon with a target date before 1970. In the same questionairre Kennedy was against setting a time table, but later stole the idea (after stealing the 1960 election). The famous Kennedy moon speeches entered him into the Apollo "mythos" as the president who set the Apollo goal -- and whenever there is a documentary or tv show or book about Apollo this "mythos" is heavily portrayed as the correct historical narrative -----> it is not. It is in fact presidential candidate Richard Nixon that spoke first on the Apollo 1970 time table.

Teddy Kennedy was already attacking Nixon in the first 100 days of the Nixon presidency... funny thing that the "coincidental" accident at Chappaquiddick happened on the same weekend as the Apollo 11 moon "landing" tv show. This was a great opportunity for Nixon to squash the Kennedy clan for a third time... for revenge is a dish best served cold.

(But these Apollo Defenders are all well rehearsed on their CIA talking points.... and Mythbusters video #104 LOL... I digress)




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

All you've done there is prove Apollo went to the moon. So thanks.

I've just read a book on the space race by Deborah Cadbury.

Very absorbing read, very well written. Nixon wasn't mentioned once. That's gotta hurt.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Some simple fact corrections:

Apollo 10 was not underway in March 69. It launched in May. Apollo 9 took place in March but had landed by the 13th.

The Apollo 11 crew was not publicly announced on January 8th. The earliest date anyone has for it is the 9th.

LBJ's daily diary records Nixon's visit, but there is no mention of anything space related, nor is there mention of receiving the Apollo 8 decision. The decision to go to the moon with Apollo 8 was formally made on the 11th and made public on the 12th. Paine may have relayed the decision, but the recommendation was made by others.

Discussion about a lunar orbit mission actually began in August, and discussion with LBJ's Science and Technology Advisory committee were held on the 11th of November. In all the histories of the Apollo 8 mission decision, not one mention is made of notifying the President. Pretty much everyone was informed before he was. Nixon's involvement, unless you can prove otherwise, seems pretty minimal.

Webb's resignation was not exactly voluntary. LBJ wanted him out and took the first chance he got to get rid of him.

Nobody here is following 'CIA talking points'. If you're suggesting some external influence or covert motivation for posting then you either need to provide proof of that or go and read the terms and conditions of the forum.

If you have relevant source material it seems a shame not to provide it, no? Especially when it gives such clear evidence of Nixon's support for and involvement with Apollo. Nothing you have posted is a secret or provides any kind of evidence that Apollo did not happen as documented compendiously in the history books.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

but it does mean that THEY WILL BE EXPOSED TO IT LESS!!!

x-rays are deadly, there are many documents detailing the dangers of x-rays.. people go to the doctors to get x-rays done everyday..



mostly none.. because they spent NEGLIBLE TIME EXPOSED TO IT!!!!!! ill say it a million times if i have to..


probably several months being constantly exposed to it (of which no human has ever done), and that is to assume that being exposed to GCR's will have any effect whatsoever..


Where did you get "several months" from?

Are you making it up?

Tell me what source said this, please...


originally posted by: choos
if its too small to measure how do you know they are toast???
you are still trying to say that if someone receives a dose of x-rays over 3 days that is so small that it cannot be measured that guy is toast.


No, you're trying to put words in my mouth, as usual...

I asked you if they measured GCR during the Apollo missions, first of all...

You can answer the question, or not?


You seem to think they didn't measure it, right?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Where did you get "several months" from?

Are you making it up?

Tell me what source said this, please...



NASA has established a three percent increased risk of fatal cancer as an acceptable career limit for its astronauts currently operating in low-Earth orbit. The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to Mars. Only about three percent of the radiation dose was associated with solar particles because of a relatively quiet solar cycle and the shielding provided by the spacecraft.
mars.nasa.gov...


thats assuming GCR's will affect humans at all.

now where is your data that shows they cant survive for a week??



No, you're trying to put words in my mouth, as usual...

I asked you if they measured GCR during the Apollo missions, first of all...

You can answer the question, or not?

You seem to think they didn't measure it, right?


you are the one that said if its too small to measure they are toast..
you are the one that said if they cant measure the hazard what would be considered safe..
if its too small to measure especially since the accumulated dosage is too small to measure OVER 3 DAYS what threat is there that forces them to spend so much money on faking it after they have spent so much money on building real genuine working crafts??

p.s. they did measure it, as accumulated dosage although that includes ALL sources not just GCR's and even then it didnt get close to prescribed limits.

now how about you start answering question asked to you..

in your opinion, how long will it take for an astronaut with or without aluminium shielding to accumulate a lethal dose of GCR's?

any reason why you avoid this question??



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

you are not reading what im writing..

they are NOT saying that humans CANT go into deep space (ie. its 100% impossible), on short missions also.

they are suggesting that it would be best if they didnt STAY there with our current level of technology.

unless you can quote them saying so?? because in your own papers they do say that current technology allows human to survive in deep space for a year using aluminium as thick as ~45g/cm^2.


If something 'allows' for it, this means it is possible using the current technology...

If old technology (Apollo's) has already proved to work, it makes no sense to say that our current technology "allows" for it ...

Here is technology already proven, unique in every way....as a monumental step in human space exploration, nothing compares to it...

Human space exploration, in step-by-step process, which moved us further and further outward, to space....

Exploration of space goes outward, to near-Earth orbit, then out to low-Earth orbit, higher and longer missions along the way, outward.

Imagine what we know about human exploration of space, and did, in step-by-step fashion, suddenly take a leap beyond all steps we've made - combined - to that point....

It has been excuse after excuse, ad nauseum, for nearly 50 years now, and stinks more and more in the passing of time...


A 'lack of money', wrong - they spent a fortune on Shuttles for several decades, just to fly endlessly in LEO!

On and on, hurling out these crapola excuses...

,



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

If something 'allows' for it, this means it is possible using the current technology...

If old technology (Apollo's) has already proved to work, it makes no sense to say that our current technology "allows" for it ...


this argument you just made is just so dumb.

we had the concorde ferrying passengers beyond the speed of sound several years back now. ie super sonic passenger flights have been proven.

we dont have the concorde anymore, but the technology for it still exists, ie current technology allows for it..

whats your point again??


Here is technology already proven, unique in every way....as a monumental step in human space exploration, nothing compares to it...

Human space exploration, in step-by-step process, which moved us further and further outward, to space....


if you think all the technology to live in deep space is available you are wrong.. re-think your position and try again.


A 'lack of money', wrong - they spent a fortune on Shuttles for several decades, just to fly endlessly in LEO!


thats to ignore all the information and data they have gained from LEO..

and whats this about lack of money being wrong?? you think that going beyond the moon would be cheap??



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

blah blah blah...

At what point in the Apollo missions would the astronauts be dead?

End your crapola - tell us when the missions would have been fatal.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

If something 'allows' for it, this means it is possible using the current technology...

If old technology (Apollo's) has already proved to work, it makes no sense to say that our current technology "allows" for it ...


this argument you just made is just so dumb.

we had the concorde ferrying passengers beyond the speed of sound several years back now. ie super sonic passenger flights have been proven.

we dont have the concorde anymore, but the technology for it still exists, ie current technology allows for it..

whats your point again??


Apparently his point is Concorde was obviously just a hoax!



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos



NASA has established a three percent increased risk of fatal cancer as an acceptable career limit for its astronauts currently operating in low-Earth orbit. The RAD data showed the Curiosity rover was exposed to an average of 1.8 milliSieverts of GCR per day on its journey to Mars. Only about three percent of the radiation dose was associated with solar particles because of a relatively quiet solar cycle and the shielding provided by the spacecraft.
mars.nasa.gov...




you are the one that said if its too small to measure they are toast..
you are the one that said if they cant measure the hazard what would be considered safe..
if its too small to measure especially since the accumulated dosage is too small to measure OVER 3 DAYS what threat is there that forces them to spend so much money on faking it after they have spent so much money on building real genuine working crafts??

p.s. they did measure it, as accumulated dosage although that includes ALL sources not just GCR's and even then it didnt get close to prescribed limits.


You claim Apollo measured an "accumulated dosage" of all the radiation as one entire figure...

You also claim Apollo measured GCR radiation, being they had 'accumulated dosage', of all radiation, which would include the GCR radiation, too...

You propose GCR radiation over 3 days, in the "accumulated dosage" , would be much too small to measure as a long-term hazard...



Let's see...

Apollo measured the GCR radiation, because they were measuring all radiation, and GCR would be included, but it was too small an amount over 3 days to detect, as a long-term hazard.

Do you seriously believe all types of radiation were able to be measured by their crude 'dosimeters'?

How do they measure GCR radiation when they can't even measure any specific radiation, to begin with?



originally posted by: choos
in your opinion, how long will it take for an astronaut with or without aluminium shielding to accumulate a lethal dose of GCR's?


Nobody knows, as I've told you many times...

That is the problem they are dealing with in this paper, in fact.


As noted in the paper, little is known about the effect of GCR radiation on humans, because we haven't gone into deep space yet, where GCR is a real hazard to any humans...

We know aluminum makes it a worse hazard, for humans, but how much worse is not yet known..As I've told you, but you don't understand this point at all, no matter how many times I've explained it to you...



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You propose GCR radiation over 3 days, in the "accumulated dosage" , would be much too small to measure as a long-term hazard...


incorrect that was from YOUR argument, ill even quote you since you have some memory issues.


"Assume 3 days in deep space averaged 0.4 units of GCR exposure. If it was too small to measure, Apollo is toast. " - Turbonium1 www.abovetopsecret.com...


get it right.



Let's see...

Apollo measured the GCR radiation, because they were measuring all radiation, and GCR would be included, but it was too small an amount over 3 days to detect, as a long-term hazard.

Do you seriously believe all types of radiation were able to be measured by their crude 'dosimeters'?

How do they measure GCR radiation when they can't even measure any specific radiation, to begin with?


i realise that keeping track of your own web of lies must be difficult, but the argument of 3 days of radiation being too small to detect originally came from you.



Nobody knows, as I've told you many times...

That is the problem they are dealing with in this paper, in fact.


nobody except you??
if nobody know how come you are the only person that claims that a two week mission to the moon is impossible??


As noted in the paper, little is known about the effect of GCR radiation on humans, because we haven't gone into deep space yet, where GCR is a real hazard to any humans...


but you know its absolutely harmful??
you know that even a seconds worth of exposure cannot be allowed until we kill thousands of test subjects by exposure to GCR's. but ofcourse we cant test it on because we first need to test it. duhh

were cigarettes a hoax when they first came out?? no one back then knew about the adverse health affects..


We know aluminum makes it a worse hazard, for humans, but how much worse is not yet known..As I've told you, but you don't understand this point at all, no matter how many times I've explained it to you...



you see its not that no one understands its that YOU chose to ignore everything in your original articles except a few choice words.
it is only you claiming how much worse is unknown..
your own article has the graph showing the slight increase in dose related to thin layers of aluminium, you CHOSE to ignore it.

p.s. what concern should be raised when GCR is at a level of 1.8mSv/day??? the LEO prescribed limits are 0.5Sv/year..
since no one knows the hazards of GCR's why should they be deathly afraid of 1.8mSv/day when exposed to it for 2 weeks maximum??

are cigarettes a hoax also?? when they first came out not many people knew if any people at all knew of the dangers cigarettes held.. but they were still sold.
edit on 11-6-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

we had the concorde ferrying passengers beyond the speed of sound several years back now. ie super sonic passenger flights have been proven.

we dont have the concorde anymore, but the technology for it still exists, ie current technology allows for it..


if you think all the technology to live in deep space is available you are wrong.. re-think your position and try again.


thats to ignore all the information and data they have gained from LEO..

and whats this about lack of money being wrong?? you think that going beyond the moon would be cheap??


They had all the money, and spent it all on Shuttles.... so nice try..

And they asked for all the money to 'return' to the moon, and GOT THE MONEY THEY ASKED FOR...and got even more, too..and it failed miserably...

Your 'lack of money' excuse doesn't wash.


Your Concorde analogy doesn't work, either...

We have proven technology for the Concorde, and it doesn't make sense to say current technology 'allows' for it, without pointing out that we ALREADY HAVE TECHNOLOGY WHICH DOES WORK, AND PROVED TO WORK...

A technology is not ignored if it works, if nothing else has replaced it. It simply 'allows' for it, which is NOT THE SAME as being proven to work.

Do you get the basic distinction here?



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

there is no space.... so ya no moon landings. There's nothing up there or out there. There is no out there out there.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They had all the money, and spent it all on Shuttles.... so nice try..

And they asked for all the money to 'return' to the moon, and GOT THE MONEY THEY ASKED FOR...and got even more, too..and it failed miserably...

Your 'lack of money' excuse doesn't wash.


they did spend it mostly on the shuttle.. are you saying that the ISS serves absolutely no purpose to mankind??


Your Concorde analogy doesn't work, either...

We have proven technology for the Concorde, and it doesn't make sense to say current technology 'allows' for it, without pointing out that we ALREADY HAVE TECHNOLOGY WHICH DOES WORK, AND PROVED TO WORK...


but the concorde did work, and it did ferry 100+ passengers at supersonic speeds. its a bit hard for me to prove it to you now without showing you old concorde videos.

so it was definitely proven to work and since it was proven to work the technology is definitely there.

but in todays world what is missing is an aircraft that can safely ferry 100+ passengers at supersonic speeds.


A technology is not ignored if it works, if nothing else has replaced it. It simply 'allows' for it, which is NOT THE SAME as being proven to work.

Do you get the basic distinction here?


i dont get why you are so against it..
we definitely do have the technology to have an aircraft ferry 100+ passengers at supersonic speeds.. this should be obvious.

what we dont have is an aircraft currently ferrying 100+ passengers at supersonic speeds.

you are claiming such feats is to be labelled a hoax.. im just helping you label the concorde a hoax as per your guidelines.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They had all the money, and spent it all on Shuttles.... so nice try..


They had all the money and spent it getting to the moon. Then they got less money and were told it to be spent on the shuttle. Political decisions, not scientific or engineering ones.



And they asked for all the money to 'return' to the moon, and GOT THE MONEY THEY ASKED FOR...and got even more, too..and it failed miserably...


Nope they didn't.



Your 'lack of money' excuse doesn't wash.


Is NASA getting the same level of budget fundng now compared with the '60s? Yes or no?



Your Concorde analogy doesn't work, either...

We have proven technology for the Concorde, and it doesn't make sense to say current technology 'allows' for it, without pointing out that we ALREADY HAVE TECHNOLOGY WHICH DOES WORK, AND PROVED TO WORK...

A technology is not ignored if it works, if nothing else has replaced it. It simply 'allows' for it, which is NOT THE SAME as being proven to work.

Do you get the basic distinction here?


You clearly don't.

Apollo technology was proven to work. It was proven to work in testing on the ground, in Earth orbit and in lunar orbit. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to all except the hopelessly deluded and woefully under-educated that Apollo technology landed on the moon, with astronauts. Feel free to prove that the technology was not capable of doing that.

So far you are focusing your entire argument on radiation, simultaneously claiming that it would have proved lethal whilst at the same time claiming that no-one knows if it would be lethal or not.

Which is it?

If radiation would have killed them, tell us precisely when.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: lavatrance

You don't exist. I said so. There, that proves it.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
So Apollo measured all the radiation, with no idea how to measure GCR radiation, or any other radiation, who cares about that! It was all measured as "accumulated dosage". Everything was one total amount, and GCR radiation doesn't affect humans any differently than any other types of radiation in deep space, and Apollo lumped them all together, as one thing, which is called "accumulated dosage". 'Great data', so sayeth the proud Apollo-ites!

And how did they later realize that GCR radiation is a hazard for humans in deep space?

Because they figured out how to measure it, which means all radiation is different, and a total lump sum..as Apollo's 'data' - is worthless crapola!



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Apollo-ites insist that aluminum is adequate for short missions in deep space, because Apollo had short missions, and would be excluded as such...

Experts don't exclude ANY manned missions into deep space. They mention long-term missions as more hazardous, a greater concern, compared to shorter missions.

The short missions are not safe, not excluded in any way at all. The short missions are indeed relevant, as a problem, same all others are, just less or more serious, based on the duration.


Not excluded, they point out 'data' in the paper supporting their argument. Which are not actually data, they used LEO data, then extracted to make some guesstimates. I know this only because the paper STATES IT!


Nothing matters to the Apollo-ites, they still make it up, anyway.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

They had all the money and spent it getting to the moon. Then they got less money and were told it to be spent on the shuttle. Political decisions, not scientific or engineering ones.


Nope they didn't.


Is NASA getting the same level of budget fundng now compared with the '60s? Yes or no?



So far you are focusing your entire argument on radiation, simultaneously claiming that it would have proved lethal whilst at the same time claiming that no-one knows if it would be lethal or not.

Which is it?

If radiation would have killed them, tell us precisely when.


Where did I say it was lethal? It is your own idea, it was not said by me.

I don't know if it is lethal, but it's hazardous -so stop putting words in my mouth...


Less money means more time needed to reach the goal, that's all.

If a project needs 500 million over 5 years, and only gets 250 million over the 5 years, then it needs 10 years, to reach the goal, assuming same costs, or adjusted a year or two for inflation.

Money is a lame excuse.

Being told to do the Shuttle? Nobody wanted 40 years of Shuttles, after 'landing' men on the moon! It was done because we DIDN'T go to the moon - they just had no other option.

Who wanted Shuttles for 40 years, after the moon? That's just ludicrous.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Shuttles were our next step, after Gemini, etc.

Why do you think we stayed in orbit for 40 years with Shuttles, after landing on the moon?

Because we never landed on the moon, that's why..


Going beyond LEO with humans has never been done, and cannot be done. The technology doesn't exist yet, nor will it exist anytime soon. It may take many decades, or more, if it ever does.




top topics



 
57
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join