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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 129
29
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I fail to see any mention of diet. I read many years ago that there was a special diet, high in iodine (?), that would give some help to an astronaut. I'm sorry I don't have this information handy, but I'm not at home right now.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I would think that, eventually, a Moderator will be made aware and after a review of your historic postings will tend to agree with the rest of us.



Originally posted by weedwhackerLooks more and more like we're being 'punked' by pre-teens or adolescents who think it's funny. If that is the case, the Moderators should take notice?


Oh good grief get off your childish " I'm gonna call a moderator" posts everytime someone does not agree with you. Its getting old and adds nothing... what is it you want? Just a presentation of 'accepted' science that you can all agree on? Wrong board for that


Personally you should be concerned about posting all this main stream stuff outside the science forums


reply to post by NGC2736

Potassium Iodide Anti-Radiation Pill



"There is no medicine that will effectively prevent nuclear radiations from damaging the human body cells that they strike.However, a salt of the elements potassium and iodine, taken orally even in very small quantities 1/2 hour to 1 day before radioactive iodines are swallowed or inhaled, prevents about 99% of the damage to the thyroid gland that otherwise would result. The thyroid gland readily absorbs both non-radioactive and radioactive iodine, and normally it retains much of this element in either or both forms.


Source

Not sure how that works on space radiation though...

Personally I am going to stick with the electromagnetic shielding that they have on those spacecraft



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks. I recalled something along those lines from 30 years ago, but once you reach a certain age, memory is no more to be trusted than a politician.


I agree that trusting to this would be leaving a lot to chance. But then, you don't become an astronaut without being a risk taker.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   


Personally I am going to stick with the electromagnetic shielding that they have on those spacecraft

hey man that is funny as hell



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMax
 


Duly noted WW, but who's punking whom?
Tell me IG for Dummies didn't make you smile?

Hey, SpaceMax!

Yup, but again, your efforts are lost on the ill-informed. Try writing it up and putting it into a yellow-cover paperback book. On the shelf between 'Inanity for Dummies' and 'Internet for Dummies'...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


OK, Zorgon,

I tried to explain, nay, plead to a particular member that his/her radiation data is incorrect and to explain it in more scientific detail. I was not, as you mentioned, crying for Moderators to shut down someone who disagreed with me!

I simply wish there be a semblance of reason, of REAL science, now and then.

So...you and I, Zorgon, are in agreement that there are permanent human bases on the Moon right now...this is not based on your comments in this thread, but in others, and primarily in the John Lear Forum, where these comments can be verified. Ergo, any claim by a participant in this thread that the Moon is 'radioactive', or that cislunar space is immediately lethal to humans, or even that the VA belts cannot possibly be transversed by manned spacecraft should be challenged to the utmost.

Well, perhaps you have a point...even if a so called 'expert' wants to spout radiation data that makes no sense, they have every right...but doesn't it waste time?

Just my opinion, thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

TJ



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   



OK, Zorgon,

I tried to explain, nay, plead to a particular member that his/her radiation data is incorrect and to explain it in more scientific detail. I was not, as you mentioned, crying for Moderators to shut down someone who disagreed with me!

So...you and I, Zorgon, are in agreement that there are permanent human bases on the Moon right now...this is not based on your comments in this thread, but in others, and primarily in the John Lear Forum, where these comments can be verified. Ergo, any claim by a participant in this thread that the Moon is 'radioactive', or that cislunar space is immediately lethal to humans, or even that the VA belts cannot possibly be transversed by manned spacecraft should be challenged to the utmost.

Well, perhaps you have a point...even if a so called 'expert' wants to spout radiation data that makes no sense, they have every right...but doesn't it waste time?

Just my opinion, thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

TJ

Well I have not see in a long time such a responce that has no cover for anything in it, nothing to back it up.
You are one of those persons that come and say" no it isnt because we said so"
I can't find any scientific evidence in your post, and I'm going to asume that you are trolling.



Ergo, any claim by a participant in this thread that the Moon is 'radioactive'


science.nasa.gov...


Radioactive Moon
9.08.2005

September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list.

Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.

The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.


I guess nasa is just backing my clames


If you got something against my output in this thread then I sugest you post on it with figures and evidence to back up your claim.
Further more if you have anything against my calculations post about it but the statements that you are making are really the lowest iv'e seen on ats in months, simply because you are posing off the subject's thread.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


pepsi --

You're right -- I haven't present any numbers on that minor solar flare of April 17-19, 1972, because it was so inconsequential that I can hardly find any mention of it, let alone the specific amount of 'rems' or 'sieverts' that the astronauts would have received due to the flare.

If you have specific doses of radiation (in 'rems' or 'sieverts') that you say the astronauts would have absorbed if they were actually on the Moon, please post those numbers, and also post the source of the information.

And, by the way, don't say that I never produce numbers to back up my statements, because I usually do (just like in our "acceleration due to gravity" debate we had last week). The only problem is this time, I have no data to give you, since you are talking about a large solar flare that never happened. The flare in question was so small that I'm having a hard time finding data that is relevant to radiation doses received by the astronauts.

If you have this information, please share it with us.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by pepsi78
 



If you have specific doses of radiation (in 'rems' or 'sieverts') that you say the astronauts would have absorbed if they were actually on the Moon, please post those numbers, and also post the source of the information.

The official ones? or what....they don't exist because they never went, in stead they made a chart up of maximum 2 rems per mission.

I told you on april 1972 astronauts should recived 60 rems just for standing on the moon for 20 hours.
You got my post on the other page containing all the aspects that are taken from credible sources.



And, by the way, don't say that I never produce numbers to back up my statements, because I usually do (just like in our "acceleration due to gravity" debate we had last week).

Yes and you won that one, at least I have the power to admit to things and do take in consideration other opinions, unlike other people.
Howeveer you still did not provide a counter argument to astonauts vomiting on the moon, because that is what would of happened.




The only problem is this time, I have no data to give you, since you are talking about a large solar flare that never happened. The flare in question was so small that I'm having a hard time finding data that is relevant to radiation doses received by the astronauts.

I posted information about it, it's not my fault you do not research the links I provide.


If you have this information, please share it with us.

I did just go back and read the previos pages



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
www.ehs.ucsf.edu...


A measure of ionization that is defined for X-rays and gamma-rays up to the energy of 3 MeV. It is about equivalent to 100 ergs per gram of energy deposited in air.


And finaly
www.iem-inc.com...


1 rad = 100 ergs per gram


300 ergs per gram is the equivalent of 9 MeV.
That being said 300 ergs equals 3 rads exposure.

3 rads exposure per hour X 20 hours otside the lem.
That would mean 60 rads just for being on the moon surface.


www.nodoom.com...


25-100 Rads - Typically people with this level of radiation exposure experience a loss of appetite and a small amount of nausea and sickness for the higher end of this dose category. Blood changes are noticeable. Up to 25 percent of persons experiencing this level of exposure will be incapacitated, but none will die. The normal period of convalescence will be about 7 days.


My conclusion, and it is my personal opinion that the apollo moon program is a hoax.





My post.

My source for the solar flare regarding 9-10 mev proton.
adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I am really sorry, Pepsi78, that you resort to character assasination when you reply to what I write instead of trying to further educate me.

What I am incredibly puzzled by is your assertion that someone who disagrees with you is, therefore, wrong. I think you completely ignored my comment earlier where I mentioned there is a secret space program currently underway, multi-national in nature, with resulting permanent bases on the Moon...despite your assurances on this forum that the radiation makes it impossible for humans to survive. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I guess I'm just going to continue to provide evidence that everything is a mig fat lie.
Picture of the day 20 june 2007
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Traveling along the ecliptic plane, the Sun is at its northernmost position in planet Earth's sky, marking the astronomical beginning of summer in the north. Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale (about the angular size of the Full Moon). Open star cluster M35 is to the Sun's left, and the other two bright stars in view are Mu and Eta Geminorum. Digitally superimposed on a nighttime image of the stars, the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26, 1998 by Andreas Gada.


Look at all those stars.
The astro-nots did not see any, as reported in the press confrence, they didint even know what to respond they were so nervos, all that with no stars theory is not valid anymore.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   


I mentioned there is a secret space program currently underway, multi-national in nature, with resulting permanent bases on the Moon...despite your assurances on this forum that the radiation makes it impossible for humans to survive. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

The space shuttle berly makes it in to orbit with out incident and you want secret missions on the moon
but I do see the sense of humor in your post for real

Or who knows maybe you are spreading disinformation, there would seem to be some people around this forum doing just that, it seems it's their job.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 



Well...your true colors are revealed, so to speak...

The giveaway term you used, "astro-nots", is directly pulled off of YouTube and is commonly used by people who deny truth, and proclaim ignorance instead!



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Just to follow up, for those who are reading along...if you care to check at YouTube you will find a user there, '1plus8', who I think is also ATS 'member' pepsi78.

Of course, it's just my opinion, and if I am wrong, my apologies. However, in IMHO the comments and the gist of the conversation, not to mention the obsession with incorrect data regarding radiation, lead me to believe what I believe.

Thanks for your posts.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have read along. While what you say may be true, there is nothing wrong with someone from You Tube fame coming here to post.

I think you have done what you intended by answering each post with your own position on the matter. I think that other posters, on both sides of the matter have done the same. (Though some have resorted to such childishness that most of us pay them no attention.)

This is what these threads are for, so that both sides can bring to the table their best reasons for thinking as they do. Many people view these threads and never comment, but they do read and see what is said, and draw their own conclusions on who is right and who is wrong. As long as we all remain civil in our exchanges, the community as a whole profits.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


..as an estimative thought, I think everyone that thinks the moon missions are a fraud have used the astro-not term at least once.
I do not know any one on yoou tube, I did not even know they had a forum , I knew of the comment box that users used to quote the movie clips they just looked at.



[edit on 12-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Thank you, pepsi.

I will continue to try to understand your point of view, thanks for your contribution. Sorry for the misunderstanding...I've been misunderstood many times before!!

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I just wish they could take that orbiter from japan and zoom over the area to end this story, at least people will know and those who were the ones that were wrong will have to accept the fact that it did happen or it did not happen.
If there is a lunar lander there , the bottom of it, because it was left on the moon, then I would have to accept it.
I don't trust nasa doing it, it would have to be another nation if some one does that, it's the only solution to put an end to this story.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


You know, as a student of history, I'm reminded of the 1849-1850 gold rush. There were so many people in the East that wanted to believe that nuggets could be picked up off the ground, and that riches were just a matter of going to California. Even more thought the whole thing was just hype and hogwash, that only death and starvation was to be found on that far off shore.

We hear more about the ones that went, but there were more that never gave in to the urge. And yet, both sides were right, and both were wrong. The truth was somewhere in the middle, as it often is. Those that went found hard work and few riches, and those that stayed home didn't participate in one of the great events in the history of this nation.

The point is, the truth is likely somewhere between the two extreme positions of this thread. That is the way it is. And just as people in New York might argue over the California gold fields in 1850, so we argue over a land we haven't seen. So to, we are likely all partly wrong and partly right. And which part is which will take time to tell.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join