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: 87
57
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
The document didn't refer to aluminum as pure, and I told you this was the aluminum I cited..

They would know if Apollo was built of aluminum, in whatever form, or forms, used...

Whatever formed the Apollo craft, it worked superbly...or so you claim...


You claim Apollo used an alloy of aluminum, not pure aluminum.

The paper is referring to aluminum, in pure form...they don't say it is pure, you just assume it is, anyway..

Apparently, they are saying aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space, and saying that aluminum won't be used to shield humans in deep space, while completely ignoring the 'fact' we used aluminum as an alloy, not pure aluminum, nor as a radiation shield!!

Good one!!




posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The paper is trying to find materials that will shield humans in deep space.

You say they are only referring to long missions, though..

They would already know how to shield humans in deep space, but only on short missions, then?

At that point, they will know what works, for a short stay, at least..

That is the first step, and everything will follow from there... referred to as 'progress'..

It is not ignored as trash, unless it was just trash in the first place.

As we see, in these papers, sad to say..



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The paper is trying to find materials that will shield humans in deep space.

You say they are only referring to long missions, though..

They would already know how to shield humans in deep space, but only on short missions, then?

At that point, they will know what works, for a short stay, at least..

That is the first step, and everything will follow from there... referred to as 'progress'..

It is not ignored as trash, unless it was just trash in the first place.

As we see, in these papers, sad to say..



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

a reply to: turbonium1
The document didn't refer to aluminum as pure, and I told you this was the aluminum I cited..


but you believe only pure aluminium is bad the alloy is fine because its an alloy its completely different.

"This is an alloy, with some aluminum mixed with lithium....and is not aluminum, like Apollo had." - Turbonium1
www.abovetopsecret.com...



They would know if Apollo was built of aluminum, in whatever form, or forms, used...

Whatever formed the Apollo craft, it worked superbly...or so you claim...


and?? the study or the experts are referring to pure aluminium and I quote:

"which is purely aluminum, and is referred to as 'aluminum', and is referred by experts as 'aluminum' which will not beused as a radiation shield for any manned deep space craft," - Turbonium1
www.abovetopsecret.com...



You claim Apollo used an alloy of aluminum, not pure aluminum.


yea, still waiting for you to prove that Apollo was using pure aluminum.


The paper is referring to aluminum, in pure form...they don't say it is pure, you just assume it is, anyway..


no you assumed it was, you also assumed Apollo was made from pure aluminium and nothing else.
have you got any proof to show me that Apollo was using pure aluminium and nothing else? cause im still waiting.


Apparently, they are saying aluminum intensifies radiation in deep space, and saying that aluminum won't be used to shield humans in deep space, while completely ignoring the 'fact' we used aluminum as an alloy, not pure aluminum, nor as a radiation shield!!

Good one!!


no, according to YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the reports (cause thats all that matters no one else does)
the experts use of the word aluminium is related to pure aluminium. you have clearly stated this for everyone to see, and it is this pure aluminium which shall not be used in future manned spacecrafts.
edit on 23-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
dub post
edit on 23-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The paper is trying to find materials that will shield humans in deep space.

You say they are only referring to long missions, though..


Define 'deep space'.

is this somewhere you can get to quickly?

Still waiting for your answers:

When would the Apollo astronauts have received their fatal dose of radiation?

Why was the Apollo spacecraft not up to the job of landing on the moon and returning?

How is it that any image of Earth, be it live TV, 16mm or still photography, shows exactly what it should do in terms of the configuration of land masses, terminator and weather patterns?

How is that Indian, Chinese, Soviet and Japanese probes all provide images that corroborate those taken by Apollo in terms of the details in them not known prior to Apollo, and in the case of India and Japan evidence of human activity?

And a shiny new question for you to avoid: How did amateur astronomers in the UK capture images of Apollo 8 on its way to the moon?

onebigmonkey.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Turbonium seems to have problems finding radiation data that proves his point.

Maybe this will help.

ia601509.us.archive.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos


but you believe only pure aluminium is bad the alloy is fine because its an alloy its completely different.



according to YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the reports (cause thats all that matters no one else does)
the experts use of the word aluminium is related to pure aluminium. you have clearly stated this for everyone to see, and it is this pure aluminium which shall not be used in future manned spacecrafts.


You don't get it.

If Apollo was built of cardboard, or rice paper, or aluminum alloys, and was not pure aluminum..

It worked, superbly...

You suggest the experts know Apollo worked, with these materials, without pure aluminum, for short stays in deep space...

They have all the materials which work, and proven to work, but prefer to discuss a material will not
work, which we never used, or needed to use anyway, and you see nothing wacky about that??!!

These experts would mention WHAT WORKS, being IT WOULD HAVE PROVEN TO WORK...

And if it didn't actually work, they ignore it, as they did in their paper, and many others have done, too.

Do the experts really support the Apollo missions as genuine, or do they treat them as any other fake would be treated?

That's the point, here.














.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You don't get it.

If Apollo was built of cardboard, or rice paper, or aluminum alloys, and was not pure aluminum..

It worked, superbly...


according to you..


You suggest the experts know Apollo worked, with these materials, without pure aluminum, for short stays in deep space...


yes because there simply was not enough exposure to GCR's for it to be impossible as you want it to be.

unless you want to start showing everyone here how bad the GCR's are beyond the VAB that is contrary to what is published???


They have all the materials which work, and proven to work, but prefer to discuss a material will not
work, which we never used, or needed to use anyway, and you see nothing wacky about that??!!


according to what you believe.

you need to remember here, you are the one who believes/believed that the papers were talking about pure aluminium, you were also the one who believes/believed that the entire Apollo Command Module and Lunar module consisted of pure aluminium ONLY.


These experts would mention WHAT WORKS, being IT WOULD HAVE PROVEN TO WORK...


these experts have proven that Aluminium does work, just not as well as they want for long duration missions. but thats just my interpretation.

your intepretation is somewhere along the lines of pure aluminium cannot at all protect humans from GCR's, and therefore will never be used in future manned deep spacecrafts as well as never be used in past manned deep space crafts.
but aluminium alloy is ok, because its an alloy.


And if it didn't actually work, they ignore it, as they did in their paper, and many others have done, too.


wheres this proof of Apollo not working?? if you want to claim that it didnt work and then say they ignore it surely you have some proof??

or are you relying on scientists who are studying FUTURE crafts whom dont mention Apollo as proof that the Apollo spacecraft didnt work?

much like how lockheed martin while developing their next gen aircraft dont mention the wright brothers plane means that the wright brothers aircraft never worked?


Do the experts really support the Apollo missions as genuine, or do they treat them as any other fake would be treated?

That's the point, here.



so by treating something as fake it would be study a material that is completely different to what was used????

so like if an expert wanted to prove that titanium golf clubs were a hoax they would test golf clubs made from wood only and you would believe to the point that you would argue with people for several years??



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1
The paper is trying to find materials that will shield humans in deep space.

You say they are only referring to long missions, though..


Define 'deep space'.

is this somewhere you can get to quickly?

Still waiting for your answers:

When would the Apollo astronauts have received their fatal dose of radiation?

Why was the Apollo spacecraft not up to the job of landing on the moon and returning?

How is it that any image of Earth, be it live TV, 16mm or still photography, shows exactly what it should do in terms of the configuration of land masses, terminator and weather patterns?

How is that Indian, Chinese, Soviet and Japanese probes all provide images that corroborate those taken by Apollo in terms of the details in them not known prior to Apollo, and in the case of India and Japan evidence of human activity?

And a shiny new question for you to avoid: How did amateur astronomers in the UK capture images of Apollo 8 on its way to the moon?

onebigmonkey.com...
apollo8stars.html


The probes from other countries show the same little dots and blobs as NASA images, which is not proof of any kind.

Indeed, it only goes to support the hoax argument, if
anything..

Our technology shows images from Earth orbit showing details of small objects, and through the atmosphere, unlike for any lunar images.

The first excuse was that we didn't have the technology for close-up detailed images of the landers, or anything else.

When it was shown that we do have the technology for such images, the excuse was that nobody saw it worth doing. All the images we now have are good enough, anyway. No scientific interest, and no scientific benefits to spend so much money on it...

No image shows how the lunar environment has altered the landers, over decades...

There are no scientists who see any benefit from this knowledge, obviously!

As if..



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Our technology shows images from Earth orbit showing details of small objects, and through the atmosphere, unlike for any lunar images.



if you think the details from publicly available satellites can provide such great details of small objects how about i go find a satellite image of a car and you tell me the make and model??



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

yes because there simply was not enough exposure to GCR's for it to be impossible as you want it to be.

unless you want to start showing everyone here how bad the GCR's are beyond the VAB that is contrary to what is published???


you need to remember here, you are the one who believes/believed that the papers were talking about pure aluminium, you were also the one who believes/believed that the entire Apollo Command Module and Lunar module consisted of pure aluminium ONLY.


These experts would mention WHAT WORKS, being IT WOULD HAVE PROVEN TO WORK...


these experts have proven that Aluminium does work, just not as well as they want for long duration missions. but thats just my interpretation.

your intepretation is somewhere along the lines of pure aluminium cannot at all protect humans from GCR's, and therefore will never be used in future manned deep spacecrafts as well as never be used in past manned deep space crafts.
but aluminium alloy is ok, because its an alloy.


so by treating something as fake it would be study a material that is completely different to what was used????

so like if an expert wanted to prove that titanium golf clubs were a hoax they would test golf clubs made from wood only and you would believe to the point that you would argue with people for several years??


A genuine mission would be treated very differently than a faked mission, for sure...

The subject of this paper is how to protect humans against radiation in deep space, for long missions to Mars, etc.

At that point, we might expect they have defined a long mission as a period of time, a minimum duration..

They don't define a long mission, as a period of minimum time, in days, or weeks, or months...

They only say a long mission would be more hazardous than a shorter mission. And they are looking for how to protect humans on such missions..

Now, if we have done short missions, we would know the materials which protected humans..

These materials worked. Nobody ever said they worked only for a week, or so. Not as I can recall, anyway...


And now, there seems to be a time limit of a week, or so, to the Apollo craft..

Apollo data is not even used in the paper..


Many other problems for Apollo, as well..



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

A genuine mission would be treated very differently than a faked mission, for sure...


thanks for your opinion.


The subject of this paper is how to protect humans against radiation in deep space, for long missions to Mars, etc.

At that point, we might expect they have defined a long mission as a period of time, a minimum duration..


they did, they are looking at keeping under the yearly limit.. but you know that already right?? so this point is just mindless rambling.


They don't define a long mission, as a period of minimum time, in days, or weeks, or months...


they are looking at keeping absorbed dose to below acceptable YEARLY levels.


They only say a long mission would be more hazardous than a shorter mission. And they are looking for how to protect humans on such missions..

Now, if we have done short missions, we would know the materials which protected humans..


except you dont need any material to protect against GCR's when you are planning on staying for 2 weeks or less..


These materials worked. Nobody ever said they worked only for a week, or so. Not as I can recall, anyway...


again according to you.
in reality the materials used worked well enough for the Apollo mission. they performed as intended, majority of the danger is from the sun and the VAB not from GCR's.


And now, there seems to be a time limit of a week, or so, to the Apollo craft..


is this your answer to how long it will take an astronaut to survive beyond the VAB??

so one week is when an astronaut will perish beyond the VAB when surrounded by pure aluminium (such as the Apollo spacecraft, according to you ofcourse)

can i see your proof that it will take one week for them to perish, i would like to check your numbers, thankyou.


Apollo data is not even used in the paper..


ofcourse its not used, according to you the papers are all referring to pure aluminium. Apollo was using a completely different material, aluminium alloy.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos


they are looking at keeping absorbed dose to below acceptable YEARLY levels.


except you dont need any material to protect against GCR's when you are planning on staying for 2 weeks or less..


again according to you.
in reality the materials used worked well enough for the Apollo mission. they performed as intended, majority of the danger is from the sun and the VAB not from GCR's


You don't know the reality, nor do I, nor does almost anyone else, either...

We are not there to know the reality, so we have to look to their actions, statements, etc., and compare it to the official Apollo story

So when you claim humans don't need to use radiation shielding in deep space for a 1 or 2 week mission, you are trying to fit in the Apollo story..

You say a week or 2 in deep space is fine, but anything longer is not safe, and that's what they're referring to in the papers.

They don't ever say it's safe for a week or 2, but we all know it goes without saying, of course!!

Knowing what works for a week or 2, they don't say anything about what made it work, for a week or 2, nor say why it wouldn't work for more than 2 weeks..

It is so nice to know what they don't say is 'reality'..



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
You haven't addressed the problems yet...

Papers that seek out materials to protect humans in deep space for only long missions would actually state it in their paper, if they meant it only applies to long missions..

They would exclude short missions in their statements, as well, if they meant to exclude them..

Aluminum was discussed as a poor shield in deep space, while alloys of aluminum were used in Apollo craft, there is no reason to ever mention them..
,



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You don't know the reality, nor do I, nor does almost anyone else, either...


you used to claim everyone that believes man walked on the moon lives in lala land, what happened to that attitude??

also evidence for man walking on the moon trumps evidence for man faking it by sheer volume alone. but ok if you want to ignore it all thats your choice.


We are not there to know the reality, so we have to look to their actions, statements, etc., and compare it to the official Apollo story


no that is called coming to an opinion.. nor is there any psychologists to make judgements on their actions and statements in this thread.


So when you claim humans don't need to use radiation shielding in deep space for a 1 or 2 week mission, you are trying to fit in the Apollo story..


im not trying to fit it into the Apollo story. it has already been fit in, whether you/myself like it or not..


You say a week or 2 in deep space is fine, but anything longer is not safe, and that's what they're referring to in the papers.


incorrect, im saying that upto the prescribed limits worth of radiation dosage per year/month/career whichever is most relevant to mission lengths is considered safe. but nice try.


They don't ever say it's safe for a week or 2, but we all know it goes without saying, of course!!


whats the estimated dosage for 2 weeks exposure??
whats the limit for a single trip to the moon??


Knowing what works for a week or 2, they don't say anything about what made it work, for a week or 2, nor say why it wouldn't work for more than 2 weeks..

It is so nice to know what they don't say is 'reality'..


im sure you think knowing what they dont say is reality is nice.. because that is precisely what you have been doing..

unless you want to show me where they say that 2 weeks in deep space is impossible for a human to survive with a (pure) aluminium shield.

wouldnt want you to sound hipocritical.


You haven't addressed the problems yet...

Papers that seek out materials to protect humans in deep space for only long missions would actually state it in their paper, if they meant it only applies to long missions..


again thankyou for your opinion on what they should write on a report you have no idea about.
however, when they say "mission to mars" it means absolutely nothing to you?
when they are primarily looking at getting YEARLY absorbed doses to below prescribed limits it means absolutely nothing to you??


They would exclude short missions in their statements, as well, if they meant to exclude them..


like when they said current technology allows for short single missions to the moon, understand, thankyou for your opinion.


Aluminum was discussed as a poor shield in deep space, while alloys of aluminum were used in Apollo craft, there is no reason to ever mention them..


dont you get it?? the only reason you think aluminium is an issue for the Apollo story is because you dont know what it is you are reading and making stuff up to fill in the large gaps in your own knowledge with random BS.

by your very own admission they are studying pure aluminium only, and the alloy which is again as understood by you, is completely different, but was used in the command module (again, of which, you thought pure aluminium was the only material). so right off the bat we can see your problem.

at no point in your reports do they say that Apollo length type missions are impossible (this is purely your interpretation)
and you even think the original data they based it on is fake, so their conclusions by your admission is fake to begin with, which in turn makes your conclusions wrong.

you are one mess after another, the worst part is you just keep going with it like nothing is wrong, you are a master troll arent you?
edit on 31-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
They are trying to develop adequate radiation shielding for future deep space manned missions.

Aluminum is cited as a potential shielding material, but they say it actually intensifies the hazard, and can't work as a shield, for that reason...

You suggest they are only concerned with long term missions, and aluminum was not used to shield Apollo craft, and Apollo was only built of an alloy of aluminum, not pure aluminum, which they are referring to in the paper.

They never mention any of your claims, in the paper.

You still say Apollo's missions were all genuine, but short, and didn't need radiation shielding, so they aren't relevant to this paper...


Pure nonsense!!

Assume you are right about short missions, being done by Apollo craft, no shielding required...

It would still not be ignored!!

They will know short missions are proven to work, with specific materials, up to a specific period, at least.

That is the first thing to point out!!

Ignoring it is totally absurd



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1
Apollo used NOTHING specifically as radiation shielding -- although the insulation they used had a secondary benefit of reducing some of the exposure. They used nothing specifically as radiation shielding because they knew from data collected by earlier unmanned probes that (except for solar flares) the radiation dosage would be relatively low and relatively little health risk for the lengths of time that the Apollo missions would take.

There was some increased long-term health risk from the radiation, but compared to other allowable risk levels of the mission as a whole, the increase long-term health effects were deemed to be within acceptable limits. After Apollo, future manned missions that would be of a longer duration would require better protection from cosmic radiation.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
They are trying to develop adequate radiation shielding for future deep space manned missions.


strange todays not the weekend?? im guessing day off due to some sort of weather..
and according to you, they wont be using pure aluminium because the experts said its unsafe.


Aluminum is cited as a potential shielding material, but they say it actually intensifies the hazard, and can't work as a shield, for that reason...


according to you, they refer to pure aluminium. luckily for NASA they are using aluminium-lithium alloy now phew.


You suggest they are only concerned with long term missions, and aluminum was not used to shield Apollo craft, and Apollo was only built of an alloy of aluminum, not pure aluminum, which they are referring to in the paper.

They never mention any of your claims, in the paper.


ahem, apart from the long term missions and pure aluminium not used on the Apollo missions, all the rest are your own claims (and i should add that none of your claims are in the papers also *shock*)


You still say Apollo's missions were all genuine, but short, and didn't need radiation shielding, so they aren't relevant to this paper...


able to prove otherwise? i can prove the longest Apollo mission was for ~2 weeks beyond the VAB.
using your own reports i can also calculate how much would be the expected dose to GCR's if they used pure aluminium ONLY ( lol )
are you able to back up any of your opinions?


Pure nonsense!!


thanks for your opinion. we hope to see you again.


Assume you are right about short missions, being done by Apollo craft, no shielding required...

It would still not be ignored!!


but why are you assuming that a completely different material needs to talk about the Apollo missions??
remember the papers your refer to talk about pure aluminium (according to you) the Apollo missions used aluminium alloy.

according to you the two materials are completely different so then why should they include the Apollo missions if they are studying pure aluminium??
if scientists were studying corrosion resistance of diamonds in deep space, you think they must have an indepth study of the Apollo missions too?


They will know short missions are proven to work, with specific materials, up to a specific period, at least.

That is the first thing to point out!!

Ignoring it is totally absurd



again, thank you for your opinion on a subject of which you have displayed an enormous lack of knowledge in. please come again.
edit on 3-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The probes from other countries show the same little dots and blobs as NASA images, which is not proof of any kind.


Dots and blobs in exactly the same place as the Apollo landers, in the same configuratioj as seen in the TV, 16mm and photographic images. They also show rocks and craters in the same locations. So what those lunar probe images do is corroborate the Apollo evidence.


Indeed, it only goes to support the hoax argument, if anything..


Nope, completely wrong.


Our technology shows images from Earth orbit showing details of small objects, and through the atmosphere, unlike for any lunar images.


The resolution from terrestrial satellites is roughly the same as those of the best lunar probes. You have no point there.



The first excuse was that we didn't have the technology for close-up detailed images of the landers, or anything else


Whose excuse? Where is your evidence that the features in lunar probes are incorrect?



When it was shown that we do have the technology for such images, the excuse was that nobody saw it worth doing.


Find me someone who said that.



All the images we now have are good enough, anyway. No scientific interest, and no scientific benefits to spend so much money on it...


Again, you're babbling - what's your point?



No image shows how the lunar environment has altered the landers, over decades...

There are no scientists who see any benefit from this knowledge, obviously!

As if..



Do tell us how they would have altered and what benefit there would be.

Do the photographs taken by NASA, Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes contain details of teh Apollo missions and rocks and craters that corroborate the Apollo images, yes or no?

Now answer the other questions you dodged.



new topics




 
57
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join