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: 81
57
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.


you need to get it through that dense area of yours..

no one is excluding it, you are making it up, we are just saying that the length of time they are exposed to it is negligible.


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.


yes and being hazardous doesnt make the missions impossible..

it is impossible to have any space mission even to LEO if you want it to be safe.
or do you think strapping yourself onto several hundred thousand pounds of highly explosive fuel is completely safe??

no one ever claimed that going to the moon was not risky. no one ever said going to LEO was not risky neither.


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.


so you are basing your argument that it is UNSAFE to go beyond VAB because you know that you read something in a paper that doesnt use actual data (something made up) to make its conclusions??

oh are we back here again?

its like reading an article that says Lebron James is a woman (something made up) and coming to the conclusion that NBA is not real..

how about you base your premise on actual data??? oh wait you dont even have actual data.. as you said no one knows how GCR will affect humans, but only you know with 100% conviction that sending a person into such an environment is absolutely impossible because everyone has no idea what GCR's will do..

just like when cigarettes were introduced, no one had any idea about the health consequences of cigarettes and therefore cigarettes were a hoax 100%.
edit on 11-6-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.


sorry but your argument has pretty much wittled down to:

GCR effects on humans are unknown, therefore venturing beyond LEO would be unsafe..

so if anything is deemed unsafe it means it absolutely cannot happen.
such as smoking cigarettes, getting to the ISS, speeding in a car etc.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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


So radiation isn't the big deal you've been claiming it is all this time? Astronauts wouldn't have been killed getting to the moon and back?

Gotcha.




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


It's pretty much what you have been implying for many years now. Either it's something that prevents Apollo astronauts getting to the moon or it isn't. You seem to have now decided that it wouldn't.





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.


Nope, it's the only 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.


And? If they had had the money they could have done both. They didn't. Go find NASA's budget and find us the part where it continued growing after the political decision to kill off Apollo and go for the shuttle was taken.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.


No, Apollo was the next stop after Gemini.

Please tell us why the technology for Apollo was not capable of getting to the moon and back with people on board. Which bits were impossible?
edit on 11/6/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: Correction



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   



No, Apollo


inevitably in rejecting the cognitive dissonance apollo lifestyle, there will be a peroid of transition before fully embracing the moon hoax theory alternative...



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Do you ever plan on contributing anything to this thread or are you going to continue spamming it with irrelevant nonsense, lies and taking people's quotes out of context?

Do I need to point out this part of the terms and conditions?



15f.) Relevant Content: You will not Post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums or disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages


In what way is what you posted relevant to what is being discussed? What is an 'apollo lifestyle''?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


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...


They (NASA) had the greatest rocket designer the world has ever produced (von Braun) who was talking about Mars missions in the 1980's using Apollo/Saturn-based technology. NASA shuffled von Braun off to the retirement farm in the 70's and the former Nazi SS officer died of cancer. Some years later the woman (Carol Rosin) claimed to have been told by von Braun about the threat sequence which goes as follows: Communism, Terrorism, Rogue Nations, Asteroids, E.T.

The implication being that there is a threat in space that requires absolute total secrecy.

NASA simply left von Braun's tech to wither and die. The Nixon administration chose shuttles because they were promised very cheap payloads and 25+ lift off's per year. Today in 2016, American aerospace companies are awarded contracts by DoD and NASA and are using Russian made RD-180 rocket engines because American aerospace doesn't have anything comparable to the RD-180 right now (always in the future about 10-20 years...)

We are supposed to believe that American aerospace is so advanced (landed on the moon in '69) yet can't design and manufacture suitable replacements for the Russian engines they are buying by the dozen from Putin. This is all a farce and there is clearly something being hidden in space, e.g., aliens, alien technology.

Regardless what the pro-Apollo cultists have argued they cannot refute the fact that the NASA/Apollo space narratives are full of plot holes and shaky evidence, as seen in this thread and other epic threads.
edit on 6/17/2016 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
they cannot refute the fact that the NASA/Apollo space narratives are full of plot holes and shaky evidence,


Wrong again, those "plot holes" and "shaky evidence" are just some people's very poor understanding of physics, camera's and how things actually work.

But instead of doing some research and learning about those, they prefer to run with silly made up conspiracy theories to hide their ignorance of science etc!



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

no one is excluding it, you are making it up, we are just saying that the length of time they are exposed to it is negligible.


No, they don't say anything is "negligible", for any duration in deep space, at all.

YOU are simply making things up, as usual...


originally posted by: choos
yes and being hazardous doesnt make the missions impossible..

it is impossible to have any space mission even to LEO if you want it to be safe.
or do you think strapping yourself onto several hundred thousand pounds of highly explosive fuel is completely safe??

no one ever claimed that going to the moon was not risky. no one ever said going to LEO was not risky neither.


They don't say it's possible, and that's the main problem here...


originally posted by: choos
so you are basing your argument that it is UNSAFE to go beyond VAB because you know that you read something in a paper that doesnt use actual data (something made up) to make its conclusions??


They said it was unsafe because there is data which proved it, based on their references noted in the paper...


originally posted by: choos
its like reading an article that says Lebron James is a woman (something made up) and coming to the conclusion that NBA is not real..


What the?


originally posted by: choos
how about you base your premise on actual data??? oh wait you dont even have actual data.. as you said no one knows how GCR will affect humans, but only you know with 100% conviction that sending a person into such an environment is absolutely impossible because everyone has no idea what GCR's will do..


It's not safe, that's the point..

They don't know exactly how unsafe - dangerous - deep space is to humans. That is what they are trying to find out, so we can one day go into deep space, with humans...


originally posted by: choos
just like when cigarettes were introduced, no one had any idea about the health consequences of cigarettes and therefore cigarettes were a hoax 100%.


Yikes!

They said it is not safe, that's why I mentioned it to you, as THEY said it was not safe, in their paper...

THEY claimed it. I've pointed that out to you, over and over again, ad nauseum...

But now, trying to compare it to cigarettes, or LeBron James..... seriously??



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
(Carol Rosin) claimed to have been told by von Braun about the threat sequence which goes as follows: Communism, Terrorism, Rogue Nations, Asteroids, E.T.


Something for which there is no corroborating evidence nor context.




The implication being that there is a threat in space that requires absolute total secrecy.


Or it was the morphine addled ravings of a dying man. No proof of anything given the lack of corroboration or contect.



NASA simply left von Braun's tech to wither and die. The Nixon administration chose shuttles because they were promised very cheap payloads and 25+ lift off's per year. Today in 2016, American aerospace companies are awarded contracts by DoD and NASA and are using Russian made RD-180 rocket engines because American aerospace doesn't have anything comparable to the RD-180 right now (always in the future about 10-20 years...)


Delta 4 Heavy.



We are supposed to believe that American aerospace is so advanced (landed on the moon in '69) yet can't design and manufacture suitable replacements for the Russian engines they are buying by the dozen from Putin. This is all a farce and there is clearly something being hidden in space, e.g., aliens, alien technology.


Wow, you went from Nixon fanboy to alien spotting.

Here's the thing: there are no aliens or alien technology here or on the moon or mars or anywhere that we have explore. There is absolutely no credible evidence anywhere, just the ravings of madmen or the dishonesty of fraudsters. If you don't think Apollo technology could get to the moon and back with people on board then do please use your expertise and in-depth knowledge to identify which components did not work.



Regardless what the pro-Apollo cultists have argued they cannot refute the fact that the NASA/Apollo space narratives are full of plot holes and shaky evidence, as seen in this thread and other epic threads.


Apollo happened as described in the history books and not one person has ever come up with a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

GCR effects on humans are unknown, therefore venturing beyond LEO would be unsafe..

so if anything is deemed unsafe it means it absolutely cannot happen.
such as smoking cigarettes, getting to the ISS, speeding in a car etc.


GCR effects ARE unknown...

You ask me how they know it's a hazard to humans, but they don't know the effects of GCR on humans....

Knowing it as a hazard is based on their findings to date, which show it as hazardous to humans....


Now, look closely at what they are stating, in the paper....

They say aluminum may be more hazardous to humans than before, because aluminum actually intensifies the GCR radiation...

"May" be worse?

They didn't know if it was worse, at the time, it "may" be...

Why would they have believed aluminum "may" intensify GCR radiation, if Apollo had 'proved' the exact opposite? That aluminum was good for short-stay missions, at very least.

Apollo's dosimeters were (supposedly) able to measure all forms of radiation in space, as one 'accumulated dosage' of all radiation, over the whole mission...

Not knowing what specific types of radiation exist in deep space, Apollo measures all of the radiation, in one entire lump sum total of all radiation, over an entire mission!

All types of radiation are the same, and lumped together, as one heapin' pile o' radiation! Don't know about this or that type of radiation, and shore 'nuff, we's don't need to know it...seein' how they're all 'bout the same thingamajig, anyhoo!

Right, of course!


Look at how they approached the LEO environment, and compare it to how they approached the so-called 'moon landings'...

LEO was near, and studied for years, and we had animals, etc. test the environment, long before any manned missions went forth.

Beyond LEO, the environment is far more unknown, and hazardous. So manned missions are good to go, no need to test it with animals, or whatever...they just know it's perfectly safe to send humans right away!


Who buys such crap??



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

They (NASA) had the greatest rocket designer the world has ever produced (von Braun) who was talking about Mars missions in the 1980's using Apollo/Saturn-based technology. NASA shuffled von Braun off to the retirement farm in the 70's and the former Nazi SS officer died of cancer. Some years later the woman (Carol Rosin) claimed to have been told by von Braun about the threat sequence which goes as follows: Communism, Terrorism, Rogue Nations, Asteroids, E.T.

The implication being that there is a threat in space that requires absolute total secrecy.

NASA simply left von Braun's tech to wither and die. The Nixon administration chose shuttles because they were promised very cheap payloads and 25+ lift off's per year. Today in 2016, American aerospace companies are awarded contracts by DoD and NASA and are using Russian made RD-180 rocket engines because American aerospace doesn't have anything comparable to the RD-180 right now (always in the future about 10-20 years...)

We are supposed to believe that American aerospace is so advanced (landed on the moon in '69) yet can't design and manufacture suitable replacements for the Russian engines they are buying by the dozen from Putin. This is all a farce and there is clearly something being hidden in space, e.g., aliens, alien technology.

Regardless what the pro-Apollo cultists have argued they cannot refute the fact that the NASA/Apollo space narratives are full of plot holes and shaky evidence, as seen in this thread and other epic threads.


The Apollo-ites want to believe moon landings can be done at any time, but we haven't 'enough money' and/or the 'political will' to do it.

And shuttles spend money for nearly 40 years, just going over and over again, in Earth orbit! It's a total farce!

Apollo-ites claim the public was bored with the moon landings, and it's one reason Apollo ended. No doubt, we weren't ever at all bored with some 40 years of Shuttles going endlessly in LEO, according to the 'unique' logic of Apollo-ites!
edit on 18-6-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




All types of radiation are the same, and lumped together, as one heapin' pile o' radiation!

No. There is electromagnetic radiation and there is particle radiation. Cosmic rays are particle radiation and particle radiation is what was measured on the Apollo missions and unmanned missions (Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter) prior.

edit on 6/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1




All types of radiation are the same, and lumped together, as one heapin' pile o' radiation!

No. There is electromagnetic radiation and there is particle radiation. Cosmic rays are particle radiation and particle radiation is what was measured on the Apollo missions and unmanned missions (Pioneer, Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter) prior.


They just lump it all together? That's absolute nonsense!

They can't measure GCR radiation, so they would have no idea it even exists!

GCR radiation is known today - it poses a very serious hazard for any type of future manned deep space missions.
It's not even known how hazardous it is to humans, as they've repeatedly stated, within their own documents.

GCR radiation wasn't even known to exist in the Apollo-era, since they couldn't measure it at the time. They certainly had no idea it was hazardous to humans, or that aluminum intensified the hazard.

Let's say they measured it - without knowing it existed - or how much GCR was in the lump sum - they STILL don't know it is hazardous to humans, and nobody even knows NOW just how hazardous it is, as yet. That aluminum intensifies the hazard, not known at all! But they measured all of it, and had no problems lumping it all together, in a steaming pile of s&*(!



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

GCR has been known about since 1912, was measured by Apollo 16

www.lpi.usra.edu...

and the interaction between GCR and surface material was measured by Apollo 17 in the Lunar Neutron Probe Experiment.

You don't design experiments to measure something you don't know exists.

Then there are the famous 'light flashes' which were attributed to GCR.

Again, if you're saying you don't know how dangerous it was, or how much of it there was, then you can't say that it would have made the mission impossible. Tell us how you think this would have stopped the Apollo astronauts getting to the moon.

Some reading for you.

scholars.unh.edu...



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Scientists around the world must have no interest in seeing Apollo's landing sites in detail, because none of them have ever mentioned it in nearly 45 years!

It must have no benefits to science, learning about the effects of the lunar environment over a 45 year period, which is not known to scientists. Scientists never would want to study a vastly unknown environment, and its effects, over a period of time!



Sure, of course not!



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Scientists around the world must have no interest in seeing Apollo's landing sites in detail, because none of them have ever mentioned it in nearly 45 years!


Which journals do you subscribe to in order to make this generalization?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
www.airspacemag.com...


about six percent of Americans think it’s a hoax, and that we never went [to the Moon]. That’s supposed to make me outraged, but it doesn’t, it makes me laugh. I’d love to get together with a whole crowd of them in one room, with all these different theories, and listen to them and laugh at them....



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Your sweeping generalisation is hopelessly wrong and presumably has been plucked out of thin air.

If you read the article I just posted it refers to Apollo data. Apollo samples and data are still being analysed today and the results are easy to find.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1


Scientists around the world must have no interest in seeing Apollo's landing sites in detail, because none of them have ever mentioned it in nearly 45 years!


Which journals do you subscribe to in order to make this generalization?








top topics



 
57
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join