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: 55
29
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Census
So...He knows nothing cause...ahhh....you said so? Well that clears things up!! Thanks bud...I guess I owe you one then.


No, he knows nothing because if you know the slightest of physics and astronomy then you can say that.



jra

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Don't just watch the little snippets showing each astronaut, watch the whole unedited version, you know the one showing the astronaut putting a transparent slide over the window to simulate that they were closer to the moon than they really were.


I watched it and I did not see anyone do anything of the sort. The Narrator just says that's what happens. You don't actually see anyone remove anything. There were many times were you see the Earth disappear behind the window frame. A slide on the window isn't going to do that.


Oh, and listen to CNN's little snipet on the Van Allen belt's effects being worse than previously thought.


I'd like to see an official transcript of what CNN said. You did notice that it was just the narrator with a different effect over her voice and not an actual soundclip from a CNN broadcast right? I'm not saying that means it must be fake, but I'd just like to make sure. Sibrel has made up facts before.


Who cares what Bart Sibrel thinks?
Watch the WHOLE video. It has nothing to do with Bart Sibrel. Let's leave that loser out of it.


We are talking about "A Funny thing happened on the way to the Moon" right? If so, then it has everything to do with Bart Sibrel as he is the writer, director and producer of that film.


Oh, and can someone lead me to which page in this massive thread where that video has been debunked, or was it debunked because Bart Sibrel is such a "jackass"?. This oughta be a real hoot.


There is no single page that dubunks his video. There are many similar claims that throughout this whole thread that are the same ones brought up in this video. The people who believe we never went there tend to use the info they get from Sibrel and others like him. So the questions are always the same, like "why are their no blast craters under the LM?" etc. If you have any questions on anything in that video that you have not seen answered just ask.


You're telling me that you didn't see the astronaut pull the slide off the window? Agent, if you can't plainly see that without my having to spoonfeed you then I can't help you.


AgentSmith was just asking for a time index so that he could double check. This is not a difficult request. AgentSmith, go to 39:00 and start from there. Again, you don't really see anyone taking off a slide, only the narrator claims this happens and we are left to assume this is true. All that really happens is that the windowframe and something else in the foreground blocks the view for a moment, then they adjust the exposure of the camera and the inside of the capsule becomes bright and the view outisde the window even brighter.

To simulate this effect, take a photo inside your house with the exposure set for a good indoor exposure and make sure you have a window with a view of the outside in the frame. Take the shot and you'll see the room nicely exposed, but the window will be very bright. Just like it was at the end of that clip in the capsule.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by jra]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Well, all I can tell you is we've been to the Moon. I work with astronauts, I've worked with real and simulant Lunar soil. There are big differences. We've been to the Moon - 'nuff said.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Oh I did see it then, well not a transparancy being removed of course, but the 'anomoly'. I thought it was some sort of joke, that's the smoking gun footage?
ROFL!

I saw a crappy version of it once but I couldn't see anything then either, I'm glad I've got to see a clearer version.
I take it Buzz has arms growing out of his back, funny I didn't see them when I met him, because he's not even facing the window when 'it' happens. You'd think the first thing in people's heads would be that everything they say fits in with what is going on, there is no hint of any foul play.
It's amazing what some people will choose to believe... really amazing..



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
There is no connection between the Moon landings and any real Spaceflight. Real Spaceflight is full of immense challenges. There has been vast progress in the past 40 years yet real space missions are nowhere near as complex as the Moon landings. In real Spaceflight they have been doing the same missions for the past 40 years and they have made immense progress from the early days when just being in space was an accomplishment. The Moon landing technology has completely disappeared unless you count the Mars Rover and Star wars. The problem is since the believers have never been to the Moon they have no idea what its like there or what would be involved in really going there. Thus they are free to believe whatever they are told with no chance of being contradicted by the facts on the ground since they can't actually fly to the Moon, now or 35 years ago.
All the while the real space program is going on over your head, have you noticed nothing ever happens, they spend years in Space and it's all maintenance, one EVA every few months. Peaceful and quiet, thats the way they like it, no problems. They were fooled by bunch of Lunar meteorites and movie special effects. The Saturn rocket was real, but the Lunar lander went to the Moon with no people aboard while the Command module stayed in Low Earth Orbit. Thats as high as they can fly even now, Gemini went up a thousand miles and they have never been back. They dont appreciate how primitive technology was back then, actually it was a whole different technology, analog. No matter how hard they insist that it's real, in reality they cant get anywhere near the Moon so its about time they wake up because the real world isnt going away unlike these vain fantasies about some far away place, which dispite their supposed importance have faded into nothingness. Thats the problem, whatever happened to Moon landings and all the promise space had? Real Space is nothing like that, its a long hard haul , just look at whats all been happening all the while this debate has been raging in real Space, and the early days of Space were far worse.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Looter
The Saturn rocket was real, but the Lunar lander went to the Moon with no people aboard while the Command module stayed in Low Earth Orbit.


Firstly, have you even bothered to read this entire thread? If not, maybe you should.


Secondly, about what I quoted from your comments... If the Command Module stayed in LEO, why wasn't it reported by the other worldly nations? They would have spotted it, tracked it, and ID'd it. Don't you think the Russians would have loved to have said "The Americans are pulling a fast one!!"

Also, what about the reflective plates that were placed on the Moon that people still bounce lasers off of to this day? How did those get there? How were they placed so perfectly?



They dont appreciate how primitive technology was back then, actually it was a whole different technology, analog.


So the technology is what limited us? Well, the Space Shuttles run off of computers with 386 processors. Does that mean they don't work today since we have much better technology? When Columbus landed in the Carribbean he was sailing with wooden sail boats. Now that we have huge ocean going ships and it's an every day occurance, did that mean that Columbus couldn't do it back then because he was lacking today's technology?

[edit on 6/3/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
it never hapend , they would of been baked on the moon.
I just proved it in my last posts, you want them to go to the moon
they cant even get off the gorund and reenter safely/


jra

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Looter
The problem is since the believers have never been to the Moon they have no idea what its like there or what would be involved in really going there. Thus they are free to believe whatever they are told with no chance of being contradicted by the facts on the ground since they can't actually fly to the Moon, now or 35 years ago.


Nor have you been to the Moon, so you can't claim to know what's what about it either. The fact is that numerous probes sent by many different countries have gone into space and to the moon and collected data and they are all consistant with one another. There is no reason for me to disbelieve the data that has been presented over the last 40 years.


All the while the real space program is going on over your head, have you noticed nothing ever happens, they spend years in Space and it's all maintenance, one EVA every few months. Peaceful and quiet, thats the way they like it, no problems.


I assume you're referring to the Shuttle and the ISS? What would you like it to be like? Noisy with lots of explosions? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at. And you're damn right that NASA would like to have it being peaceful and no problems what so ever. Wouldn't anyone prefer that?


They were fooled by bunch of Lunar meteorites and movie special effects.


Who's 'they'? and how were 'they' fooled by Lunar meteorites? Also, please give examples of equal or better special effects in movies at the same time as the Apollo missions.


The Saturn rocket was real, but the Lunar lander went to the Moon with no people aboard while the Command module stayed in Low Earth Orbit.


So you believe the Lunar Modual was able to go to the moon by itself? Why not with people onboard then? What problems are caused when you have people inside it, compaired to when you don't? Also, radio communication would have worked a lot differently if the Command Module only stayed in LEO. So that means everyone in mission control would have had to been 'in-the-know' That's a couple hundred people right there, plus the people working at the radio dishes, like the one in Australia, would have noticed that the dish wasn't pointing at the moon. So that's more people that would have had to been in on the secret. Do you seriously think hundreds of people can all keep a secret? There were 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo program. There is no way to keep that many people quiet. There would also be little to know communications delay when in LEO.


Thats as high as they can fly even now, Gemini went up a thousand miles and they have never been back.


They can only fly that high now, because the Shuttle is only designed to be an orbiter. The U-2 spy plane can fly up to around 80,000 feet, but a brand new business jet can not. Does that mean the U-2 is fake? Or how about the YF-12/A-12/SR-71 that could fly higher and is also still the worlds fastest manned aircraft. It was flying long before the Apollo missions, yet to this day no aircraft flies as fast. Does that mean it too was a fake? With your line of reasoning it would be. So how come you don't believe those planes are fakes?


They dont appreciate how primitive technology was back then, actually it was a whole different technology, analog.


Perhaps it's you that underestimates the technology from back then. People were capable of doing amazing things without computers or even calculators.


Thats the problem, whatever happened to Moon landings and all the promise space had?


It's simply due to a lack of money and political will. NASA had plans, really big plans post Apollo, but they didn't happen due to lack of interest by politicians. They just wanted to beat the USSR, after that they moved on.

The thing is, if they moon landings were fake, why wouldn't they continue to fake them? Why didn't the USSR ever try to fake them? Surely if it's as simple as the hoax believers claim there should be no problem in continuing the hoax. Yet they don't, why? Maybe because it's a lot harder to fake something like that then you think.


Originally posted by pepsi78
it never hapend , they would of been baked on the moon.


How?

[edit on 3-6-2006 by jra]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   



quote: They dont appreciate how primitive technology was back then, actually it was a whole different technology, analog.


Perhaps it's you that underestimates the technology from back then. People were capable of doing amazing things without computers or even calculators.


quote: Thats the problem, whatever happened to Moon landings and all the promise space had?


The Apollo module had hundreds of switches that those genius flyboys had to master in sequence to be effective. Apollo Astronauts were no slackers.

Those promises are frozen by lack of funding !

The Moon could provide all our energy needs not just for the US , but for the whole world many times over.

The Moon could provide resources for solar satelites and Mars missions, but w/o commitment there will be no progress.

The US is trying now to get private companies involved in the low-orbit game and it would allow them to do anything else they want to if they sign on to providing LEO and space station support(ie: space tourism and Moon tourism).

www.space.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
it never hapend , they would of been baked on the moon.


How?


Read the posts that are in this thread and you will see, I dont want to go over it again, take a telescope that you can see gamma radiation with and look with it on the moon.
Now change it's position and look with it to the sun and see the difference.
I've been over this, I dont want to go over it again.
There is lethal radiation on the moon, coming from 2 directions, the surface of the moon is radioactive it's self.
Aluminium tin foil is very weak against gamma radiation, plus when they got out of the craft, nasa is asking them selfs how they can build a base on the moon when the radiation level is highly dangeros, it seams they cant see how it would work out and you wanted them to go on the moon with a saturn rocket, seriosly it never hapend.
With gamma rays turning in to neutron partycles but also gamma radiation when it hits the surface it will produce a spray, now think, how old is the moon?
with no atmosfer the moon is on constant bombardment from cosmic rays, which relise gamma radiation on impact with the body of the moon, because the proccess has been going for milion of years the moon surface it's self is radioactive.
They would of been tosted, ever seen a toster how it toasts bread?
And they played golf up there, you got to be joking me
I must say this is the most sarcastic hoax pulled by the US goverment.



[edit on 4-6-2006 by pepsi78]


jra

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Read the posts that are in this thread and you will see, I dont want to go over it again, take a telescope that you can see gamma radiation with and look with it on the moon. Now change it's position and look with it to the sun and see the difference.


Have you done that personally? There are no telescopes near me that can see Gamma rays, as far as I know. But I do seem to recall an image being posted here (or another forum) that showed an image of the moon and the Gamma radiation coming from it. I also seem to recall the image not saying how strong the radiation was.


There is lethal radiation on the moon, coming from 2 directions, the surface of the moon is radioactive it's self.


What makes you say it's lethal? Just because it's gamma radiation? Do you have any numbers of the amount of radiation the astronauts recieved on the moon? If not, then it sounds like you just assume it was lethal and you know what they say about assumption.


Aluminium tin foil is very weak against gamma radiation,


Firstly there is no such thing as Aluminium Tin foil. There is Aluminium foil and Tin foil, but there is no mix of the two, as far as I know. Secondly. There was no Aluminium or Tin foil or really any foil of any kind used as shielding, (that shiny gold stuff isn't really a foil). So why do you bring that up?


plus when they got out of the craft, nasa is asking them selfs how they can build a base on the moon when the radiation level is highly dangeros, it seams they cant see how it would work out and you wanted them to go on the moon with a saturn rocket, seriosly it never hapend.


Wait... "they got out of the craft", so now you're saying they went to the moon. And then you say, "you wanted them to go on the moon with a saturn rocket, seriosly it never hapend." So which is it? Do you think they went or not?



With gamma rays turning in to neutron partycles but also gamma radiation when it hits the surface it will produce a spray


Perhaps some one can correct me if i'm wrong. I'm not an expert when it comes to radiation and particles and all that stuff, but I don't think gamma rays can turn into neutron particles. Also gamma rays can't really turn into gamma radiation. Gamma is a wavelength of light that we cannot see with the naked eye. And light itself is radiation. Therefore gamma rays can't turn into gamma radiation, because it's the same thing. And you're not giving any numbers on the amount still.


now think, how old is the moon?
with no atmosfer the moon is on constant bombardment from cosmic rays, which relise gamma radiation on impact with the body of the moon, because the proccess has been going for milion of years the moon surface it's self is radioactive.


Still not seeing any numbers here. You're still assuming that it's instantly lethal.


They would of been tosted, ever seen a toster how it toasts bread? And they played golf up there, you got to be joking me
I must say this is the most sarcastic hoax pulled by the US goverment.


Yeah the millions of scientists all over the world for the last 50 years we're fooled by the US Government and there "sarcastic moon hoax", but you the simple layman was not. Riiiiiiiiiight...



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   



Have you done that personally? There are no telescopes near me that can see Gamma rays, as far as I know. But I do seem to recall an image being posted here (or another forum) that showed an image of the moon and the Gamma radiation coming from it. I also seem to recall the image not saying how strong the radiation was.

And yes if you recal the moon is brighter in gamma rays than the sun which indicates there is high radiation on the moon.

what would you expect, it's a proces of milion of years, gamma radiation go's away very hard, when it ads up it will only increase it's rads , the only way that it would decrese would be for the procces to stop, there is nothing protectiong the moon, with a proces of milions of years I would think so, the moon is a generator of radiation.



What makes you say it's lethal? Just because it's gamma radiation? Do you have any numbers of the amount of radiation the astronauts recieved on the moon? If not, then it sounds like you just assume it was lethal and you know what they say about assumption.

Take an x-ray machine for example that produces x-rays, the particles that are generating the x-rays are similar to the cosmic rays but the difference is that they travel at an amount of speed no where compared to the original cosmic ray, to say it more easyer the particles in the x-ray machine are far more lame than the original ones and yet when you do an x-ray they put a big shield on you.
how the x-ray machine works , the particles bombard a surface causing x-rays to emarge, the same process happens on the moon, cosmic rays hit the moon and gamma rays emerge, only the proccess is far more violent, scientists have tried to replicate the original cosmic ray but came no where close to it's caracteristics, in stead they came up with particles at lower speeds"fotons"



Wait... "they got out of the craft", so now you're saying they went to the moon. And then you say, "you wanted them to go on the moon with a saturn rocket, seriosly it never hapend." So which is it? Do you think they went or not?

be realistic with your self please, no of course , they didint go,, why would I contradict science.




Perhaps some one can correct me if i'm wrong. I'm not an expert when it comes to radiation and particles and all that stuff, but I don't think gamma rays can turn into neutron particles. Also gamma rays can't really turn into gamma radiation.

oh realy what is gamma radiation?
What if gamma rays were absorved in to the dust?
Scientific sites specify very clear that it creates a spray of gamma radiation on impact.
I will come with a link any way to prove to you that the moon is radioactive.



Gamma is a wavelength of light that we cannot see with the naked eye. And light itself is radiation. Therefore gamma rays can't turn into gamma radiation, because it's the same thing. And you're not giving any numbers on the amount still.

yes they can , when gamma rays were out it turns to static radioactive radiation.



Still not seeing any numbers here. You're still assuming that it's instantly lethal.

No but I told you to compare machines here on earth with the original thing out there

Dont belive me, here
Soruce :nasa
science.nasa.gov...


When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!

What hapens as a result of nuclear explosion? radioactive radiation in the form of gamma radiation is relised.


[edit on 4-6-2006 by pepsi78]


jra

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well look what I came across. It looks like you've had this same argument on another forum. And those people gave you some very good replies about Gamma radiation and the moon and all that, but it looks like it's 6 pages of you not listening to what they were saying. apollohoax.proboards21.com...

I'm not going to waste my time repeating what others already explained to you. You clearly arn't going to listen, so why bother.

and...


Originally posted by pepsi78


Wait... "they got out of the craft", so now you're saying they went to the moon. And then you say, "you wanted them to go on the moon with a saturn rocket, seriosly it never hapend." So which is it? Do you think they went or not?

be realistic with your self please, no of course , they didint go,, why would I contradict science.


You did contradict yourself. Why did you say, "when they got out of the craft" then? If it's not the LM or the astronauts that you were talking about, then what?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
1 that was a while ago, plus no one won in that argument plus I was not aware that nuclear reactions were persent on the moon surface.
We are talking of nuclear reactions on the surface of the moon, and of course the moon history that go back milions of years of constant bombardment.
I would say that nuclear reactions+milions of years= very bad news for the apolo mision.

What I was also not aware.
is the folowing factors.
www.windows.ucar.edu...


Cosmic rays are mainly nucleons of Hydrogen through Uranium (protons and neutrons of an atom are together called nucleons). It's estimated that only 1% of cosmic rays are electrons and positrons. Cosmic rays can have extremely high energies (up to 1020 eV or 10 Joules for a single particle).

So only 1 procent of them can produce x-rays, the rest of them are a mix of hidrogen and uranium.
1 particle=10 jules
let's see now.
www.unc.edu...


kilorad (krad)
a common unit of radiation dose equal to 1000 rads, 10 grays, or 10 joules of energy per kilogram of mass


www.iit.edu...


100 rads = 1 Joule/kg

so, 1000 rads=10 joules

Now let's see.
www.solarstorms.org...


0-50 rads - No obvious short-term effects

80-120 rads - You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days

130 -170 rads - You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms

180-220 rads - You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects

270-330 rads - 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.

400-500 rads - 50% chance of death

550-750 rads - Nausia within a few hours ; no survivors

> 1000 rads - immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.


So it would of been imposible for them to go to the moon, while you can protect your self from particles with aluminium it's imposible to protect when it turns in to radioactive gamma radiation, I'm happy to put an end to the moon subject

Man never walked on the moon.

Is the moon constantly bombarded by cosmic rays ? YES

www.phy.mtu.edu...


High energy charged particles from the cosmos, known as cosmic rays, constantly bombard the unprotected lunar surface generating gamma rays



Take a good look at this picture cause this is what it is.


Thanks for reminding me of the apolohoax site, I will go and make the corections there also.




[edit on 4-6-2006 by pepsi78]


jra

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
1 that was a while ago, plus no one won in that argument plus I was not aware that nuclear reactions were persent on the moon surface.


But you talk about neclear reactions right there in your first post on the first page? What do you mean you were not aware?


What I was also not aware.
is the folowing factors.
www.windows.ucar.edu...


Cosmic rays are mainly nucleons of Hydrogen through Uranium (protons and neutrons of an atom are together called nucleons). It's estimated that only 1% of cosmic rays are electrons and positrons. Cosmic rays can have extremely high energies (up to 1020 eV or 10 Joules for a single particle).

So only 1 procent of them can produce x-rays, the rest of them are a mix of hidrogen and uranium.
1 particle=10 jules
let's see now.
www.unc.edu...


kilorad (krad)
a common unit of radiation dose equal to 1000 rads, 10 grays, or 10 joules of energy per kilogram of mass


Lets stop right there. The first link says 10 Joule for a single particle. The second link mentions 10 Joule/kg... 10 Joules and 10 Joules/kg are not the same. You are getting things mixed up. That makes the rest of your post meaningless.


Take a good look at this picture cause this is what it is.



This picture tells me nothing. It gives no values or any information at all.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
the joules mejure to Kg, that's how they mejure, you wont find any data converting joules in to rads with out killograms, it will only be done in kg, that is how the mejurment is done, because rads mejure the radiation on living tesue.
when they made the chart of apolo chart they made it by part, feet,legs, chest, head.
So the rads will mejure by area, you can ceck any site , any of them will give you the same examples.
1000rads= 10 joules per kilogram.
That is what 1000 rads are in joules, so on a killogram you got 1000 rads.
I'm not even going to talk about the density of the cosmic ray, it's so abundant, it's like one per qubic centimiter.
I'm sorry to say but you dont know how to accept defeat of the apolo mision.
What I was talking about and what I didint know was how much energy did it relise on impact when it caused nuclear reaction, I didint have any numbers.
I did talk about nuclear reactions but I had no idea of any acurate numbers, I did think that particle rays from space are far more stonger than the ones build here in machines on earth.
I dont know how you dont belive it since one particle can produce on impact above 1000 electron volts, it's just the facts, if you try to deny them that is your busines.
sorry for my sucky english, when I am tierd I lose concetration .

it says what I say, 1000 rads,10 grays,or 10 joules energy per kikogram of mass.
www.unc.edu...


a common unit of radiation dose equal to 1000 rads, 10 grays, or 10 joules of energy per kilogram of mass.

so it's 1000 rads per kilogram
It's more than enough to kill you .
So it's simple in 1 kilogram of living tisue you got 1000 rads.



[edit on 4-6-2006 by pepsi78]


jra

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
the joules mejure to Kg, that's how they mejure, you wont find any data converting joules in to rads with out killograms, it will only be done in kg, that is how the mejurment is done, because rads mejure the radiation on living tesue.


You missed my point. Joules and Joules/kg are different. You got the info of 10 Joules from one site, and then magicly all of a sudden you have 10 Joules/kg. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.


I'm sorry to say but you dont know how to accept defeat of the apolo mision.


I would believe the moon landing were fake if solid, factual information was provided. No one has come close yet, no not even you.


I dont know how you dont belive it since one particle can produce on impact above 1000 electron volts, it's just the facts, if you try to deny them that is your busines.


Where is this 1000 eV coming from now?


sorry for my sucky english, when I am tierd I lose concetration .


I understand that english isn't your first language, but perhaps you could type your posts up in MSword or something like it? Use some sort of spell check? It would make it a bit easier to read your posts. And hey, english is my first language and I always need a spellcheck.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   


You missed my point. Joules and Joules/kg are different. You got the info of 10 Joules from one site, and then magicly all of a sudden you have 10 Joules/kg. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Aha I see, I see you say it's different , but I dont see any explenation of what differnece there is?


1 joule of deposited energy per kilogram of tissue. Thus one gray is equal to 100 rad

joules can not be converted in radiation if you dont add mass to it, so 10 juels would aftect an area of a square meeter or a kilogram on a 1000 rad .
10 joules simply means just energy, you add mass to it if you want to convert it in to radiation.



I would believe the moon landing were fake if solid, factual information was provided. No one has come close yet, no not even you.

this is solid proof, it makes sence, what did you think that the moon was a walk in the park, I dont see how it does not make sence, if it does not then debunk it, but this are lite words and do not disprove any of what I said at all.
the chart would be
1 joule/kilogram = 100 rad
1 joule/gram = 100000 rad
1 joule/centigram = 10000000 rad

the same amount of energy, the more condensed it is the more radiation you have.
1 joule will afect 1 kilogram with 100 rad, it will afect a smaller area even more.

That is why they made the chart for each component of the body with different dosage.

It's stong where it hits , has it spreads it gets weaker.per gram/kilogram, 1 kilogram is enough to affect you organs, any way they would of been toasted, cosmic rays are dense on the moon, so you can expect one falling near the other.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

JRA wrote: (that shiny gold stuff isn't really a foil)


Yes, it is not a foil, but it is a thin film of real gold.



Some links on radiation threats in space exploration:

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

space.com...


jra

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


You missed my point. Joules and Joules/kg are different. You got the info of 10 Joules from one site, and then magicly all of a sudden you have 10 Joules/kg. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Aha I see, I see you say it's different , but I dont see any explenation of what differnece there is?


A Joule is a measure of kinetic energy. A Joule/kg is a measure of energy absorbed. Very different things.




I would believe the moon landing were fake if solid, factual information was provided. No one has come close yet, no not even you.

this is solid proof, it makes sence, what did you think that the moon was a walk in the park, I dont see how it does not make sence, if it does not then debunk it, but this are lite words and do not disprove any of what I said at all.
the chart would be


I never believed nor said going to the moon was a 'walk in the park' nor was it an easy thing to do. It was a big, risky challenge for sure. But your math is still very wrong and it does not make sense at all. And you know what makes this all extra funny? The pages that you used for reference all support the belief that the moon landings did indeed happen. That should be a sign to you, that you are the one in error.

Also some one on the apollohoax forums asked you this:


Let's say a 1 kg pickle jar falls 1 meter to the floor. What is its energy?


Now I suck at math, but the answer I got was 10 Joules of energy, so with your line of thinking that would mean... OMG RADIOACTIVE PICKLES!!!!1!, but clearly that's not the case and thank goodness it's not. I worked at a warehouse for a little while where cases of pickle jars (and other things) would sometimes fall off peoples pallets. Or even whole pallets would tip over. With all that energy we should all be dead and then some, according to your 'calculations'.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by jra]



new topics




 
29
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join