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: 83
57
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

ARGH!!!!!!! Yes The World is Flat also!!! Just in case you were wondering.




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

X-rays, not again!!

You don't get the point here, or don't want to, anyway


yes x-rays again, why? because you dont know what exposure time has to do with your argument.

its something you conveniently ignore regularly.


They never exclude anything .
Safer than this or that does NOT mean it IS safe, it means safer by COMPARISON!!


no one is claiming that Apollo was 100% safe, ive said it before and ill repeat it:

BEING UNSAFE DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING A HOAX.

its such a weak argument.. "oh its unsafe it must be a hoax"

oh and its pretty obvious that short missions are safer than long missions.. you know the whole exposure time thing.. i guess its finally starting to set in??


Why don't they ever say that short missions are excluded in this document?


because they are studying long term effects DUH..

hey i got an idea lets study the effects of drowning by studying someone drink one glass of water !!!!!!


They are talking about long missions, as more hazardous than shorter stays, which is hardly stating the obvious, yes?


no they are studying how to better protect humans for long stays in deep space.
they are not comparing it to short stays at all. they are in no way concerned about short stays at all.


This gives you the impression of excluding short stays, when nothing was ever excluded in the least...


and it gives you the impression that somehow 1 hr exposed to GCR's is the same as 1 year exposed to GCR's

no one is excluding short missions.. get it through your skull..


That was the whole point of it, to fool you..and it worked superbly

Look at what they really say, and not what you hope they meant to say, but didn't say at all..


speaking of "not what you hope they meant to say, but didn't say at all" how goes the answering of the question:
at which point during an Apollo missions would the astronauts receive a lethal dose??

or even:

how many seconds/minutes/days/months/years would it take a person to receive a lethal dosage of GCR's??

surely your answer is in the documents??? if it isnt then i guess we can assume that GCR's, although are unsafe, will not critically hinder the Apollo missions.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
there is 3rd party evidence of the apollo missions

the hoaxers always ignore it

any hoaxers want to listen to 100% proof ?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Hoaxers don't want proof, they have unwavering faith in what they've been told to believe, evidence is heresy



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

edit on 27-6-2016 by Ostracized because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

a reply to: turbonium1


They are scientists, any excusions must be known, so required to state...

Please cite the rule which requires it.

They are talking specifically about long term space voyages. That they are talking about the radiation risks involved with long term space voyages is a given.

They are not concerned, in the least, with those who think no man has walked on the Moon. They have no "requirement" to satisfy you. They have far more practical concerns.


Somebody make the italics go away.


They talk about long missions, it is not an exception to anything else.

They say future spacecraft will not use aluminum shielding, for any of our manned missions into deep space.

That is for all of the future missions, without any exceptions!

You can't invent an exception, to fit your argument. They don't say any such thing, and you cannot push it in!

In future, since none of our craft will have aluminum shielding, for such missions, they would be saying that all of our missions will be long, in future.....going by your argument....

And nobody indicates any period of time - 'long' is not once defined as a specific period of time, in their paper.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

no they are studying how to better protect humans for long stays in deep space.
they are not comparing it to short stays at all. they are in no way concerned about short stays at all.



Why do you think they're not concerned with short-stays?

The paper didn't say it, so why do you?


You just made it up, right?


What should that tell you, now?


Scientific documents are not a form of impressionism, abstract, open to revision, etc...

You are treating the paper as if it was open to interpretation - ie: how they really meant this, or that, yet never said it..

An exclusion of short missions, which didn't exist, is 'meant' to be an exclusion..



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Why do you think they're not concerned with short-stays?

The paper didn't say it, so why do you?

You just made it up, right?


you have such a bad memory its almost like a split personality.

some of the papers do say that short missions are completely possible.

an extract from YOUR OWN ARTICLE.


Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual
astronauts. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed
for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision.
ntrs.nasa.gov...


ETA: and to play at it with your own game, if the papers dont say they are not concerned about short stays where do they say that short stays are also a concern??


What should that tell you, now?


it tells me you have a seriously bad memory.. or that you conveniently like to ignore the conclusions from your articles.


Scientific documents are not a form of impressionism, abstract, open to revision, etc...

You are treating the paper as if it was open to interpretation - ie: how they really meant this, or that, yet never said it..


at no point does your papers say that a Apollo type mission lengths are impossible.. that is YOUR INTERPRETATION..

well done with the hypocrisy.

ETA: likewise to your interpretation.. where in your interpretation do they say that short stays in deep space are a concern?


An exclusion of short missions, which didn't exist, is 'meant' to be an exclusion..



no one is excluding short missions.. everyone realises that it is still within the same environment..

the difference here is that for some reason you are INTERPRETING from the article that one year in deep space is the same a one day..

if this interpretation of yours is in any of the articles please quote it for me, otherwise admit that exposure time makes your argument a failure.


They say future spacecraft will not use aluminum shielding, for any of our manned missions into deep space.


apart from oh you know, the already built Orion which is using an aluminium alloy (over 95% of the alloy is aluminium, some aluminium lol) as its main hull..
edit on 1-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
There was a very thorough post over at Apollohoax yesterday that explained in detail that the radiation protection provided was a combination of the aluminium shell, stainless steel hull and the ablative resin heatshield..

I know this has been pointed out before, but it's worth reminding turbonium again. The aluminium skin was not the entirety of the radiation protection.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

BEING UNSAFE DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING A HOAX.

its such a weak argument.. "oh its unsafe it must be a hoax"

oh and its pretty obvious that short missions are safer than long missions.. you know the whole exposure time thing.. i guess its finally starting to set in??



I didn't say that being unsafe makes something a hoax, so it's totally irrelevant..

Much as you saying a short mission is safer than a long mission - is not relevant to point out..

A 'safer' mission is not equivalent to being a safe mission, as I've told you already...

Do you get it?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



A 'safer' mission is not equivalent to being a safe mission, as I've told you already...
Do you get it?

You mean space travel is not safe? There is risk involved?
Well, I'm gobsmacked.
edit on 7/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Did you get any evidence for any of the things |I've asked you about?

Like when an astronaut would die?

Like actual radiation levels in space from the many probes that have collected the data?

Like proof that the Apollo equipment wasn't up to the job?

Did you get that? Or are you just going to continue every weekend with "lalalalalala not listening"?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I didn't say that being unsafe makes something a hoax, so it's totally irrelevant..


its what you have been arguing about for the last few months..

you are claiming that using aluminium in a spacecraft regardless of exposure time to GCR's is unsafe, therefore Apollo is a hoax.
it doesnt matter if an astronaut spends one week in deep space, it doesnt matter if an astronaut spends one year in deep space as long as he is using aluminium as the hull of the spacecraft it is unsafe and therefore is absolutely impossible.

this has been your argument basically..

p.s. and also pointing out that shorter missions is safer than longer missions is actually very relevant.. since you somehow believe that one year in deep space is the same as one day.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
There was a very thorough post over at Apollohoax yesterday that explained in detail that the radiation protection provided was a combination of the aluminium shell, stainless steel hull and the ablative resin heatshield..

I know this has been pointed out before, but it's worth reminding turbonium again. The aluminium skin was not the entirety of the radiation protection.


The Apollo craft had nothing to shield a crew against deep space radiation.

It was mainly aluminum, with other materials...

Aluminum does not shield radiation in deep space, it actually intensifies it.

Resin doesn't shield it, or they'd be using it now as a shield, which is not the case, obviously.


Apollo was a thin shell of aluminum, in layers, there is absolutely no chance it could have shielded a crew against deep space radiation. Resin doesn't help, one bit.


Apollo spacecraft were built at a time when nobody knew aluminum intensified radiation in deep space - it's not exactly a good feature to have in their shields!

They didn't know aluminum was worse than no shield, in deep space.

Everything was known about deep space radiation, before Apollo went ahead, and even 'proved' that they DID know everything about deep space radiation, by their amazing moon landings ... safe and sound, yes indeed...

They surely knew aluminum shielded the radiation in deep space, by proving it to the world, beyond a doubt.

They had no idea aluminum couldn't shield humans in deep space, but they knew everything else about deep space radiation, and they proved it, of course..

If somebody tells you they know everything about computers, and proved it to everyone, you'd buy a computer from him, since he knows everything about computers..

A bit later, you are very surprised to find out there is a problem with the computer he sold you. So you bring it to him, the expert who knows everything about computers...

The expert doesn't know how to fix your computer. He said that he knew everything about computers, and proved it, so that's why you had bought this computer from him.

He insists that he knows everything else about computers, except for this one problem on your computer, which he owned, and later sold it to you..

He apologizes to you. You want a refund, for selling you a defective computer he can't fix.

He says the money is spent, but he can exchange your computer with another one he owns...

Do you want another computer, or would you demand he gives you a refund?

Do you really believe he knows everything about computers, except one thing he should have known, if he was the expert on computers?


And they also knew everything about deep space radiation, except for one tiny detail!!



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I didn't say that being unsafe makes something a hoax, so it's totally irrelevant..


its what you have been arguing about for the last few months..

you are claiming that using aluminium in a spacecraft regardless of exposure time to GCR's is unsafe, therefore Apollo is a hoax.
it doesnt matter if an astronaut spends one week in deep space, it doesnt matter if an astronaut spends one year in deep space as long as he is using aluminium as the hull of the spacecraft it is unsafe and therefore is absolutely impossible.

this has been your argument basically..

p.s. and also pointing out that shorter missions is safer than longer missions is actually very relevant.. since you somehow believe that one year in deep space is the same as one day.


You don't get the point here...

If Apollo was genuine, and in deep space, and proved aluminum shielded humans in deep space...

They would NOT say all future spacecraft will not have aluminum shielding, for manned deep space missions. Because they'd know short missions can use aluminum, as Apollo had proved it ....right?

They don't make any exceptions, for short missions, like Apollo's - and that is your major problem here...


Apollo should have proven short missions can use aluminum shielding in deep space, and future craft would use it, yet it's not the case.


It's ignored, buried away.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And you are still

a) not providing any supporting evidence for your claim that Apollo spacecraft were inadequately shielded

b) mistakenly thinking that the only protection from radiation was the aluminium outer skin

and

c) not providing any evidence at all that the Apollo missions would have proved fatal to astronauts

All you have done is state that Apollo didn't happen and refuse to provide any evidence to support that claim.

Simply making waffly statements of contradictory cherry picked nonsense and saying "do you get that?" at the end of every post does not actually prove your point. Evidence proves it, facts prove it. Provide some. Got that?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Just for once, please say something different! You sound like a broken record. I love Moon Hoax threads when they bring up interesting points to clarify, but you just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Just repeating "aluminum bad" over and over again isn't going to convince anyone of anything, and it's not going to allow those of us who know anything to do some additional research.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   


You mean space travel is not safe?


It never was...



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You don't get the point here...

If Apollo was genuine, and in deep space, and proved aluminum shielded humans in deep space...


ohh im not getting the point??

please show me something that says any shield against GCR's was required for the Apollo missions.
please show me something that says any shielding is required against GCR's for ventures of 2 weeks in deep space or less.


They would NOT say all future spacecraft will not have aluminum shielding, for manned deep space missions. Because they'd know short missions can use aluminum, as Apollo had proved it ....right?

They don't make any exceptions, for short missions, like Apollo's - and that is your major problem here...


so if im to understand your point it would be that all future missions will be of Apollo type mission lengths?
and Orion is not made from aluminium???

and its not my major problem it is yours, i have accepted the fact that GCR's even when made worse by aluminium is still insufficient enough to warrant cancelling lunar missions of one week to two weeks, that is your major problem not mine.

so until you can provide me with proof that shows me that aluminium will make GCR's enough of a concern to warrant cancellation of the shortest beyond VAB Apollo mission, it will remain your major problem.


Apollo should have proven short missions can use aluminum shielding in deep space, and future craft would use it, yet it's not the case.


Apollo proved that its hull was effective enough against particle radiation from the VAB and solar radiation.. there was no specific shielding against GCR's since it wasnt even required. their best shielding against GCR's was to not spend so much time exposed to it, simple as that.

prove to everyone here that shielding against GCR's for missions of 2 weeks or less is absolutely required, until you can provide that you have no argument.
edit on 2-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
They would NOT say all future spacecraft will not have aluminum shielding, for manned deep space missions. Because they'd know short missions can use aluminum, as Apollo had proved it ....right?

As a point of clarification, Apollo didn't use aluminum as shielding; they used aluminum as a skin of the craft. The bulk of the shielding was provided by the fibrous insulation between the outer skin and inner skin of the craft.

The aluminum skin was not intended to be shielding.



new topics




 
57
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join