It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 56
29
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:35 PM

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.

thats how joules are converted per kilogram/gram/milgram .
You cant convert joules in to rad other way.
You take the ten joule and you see how would 10 joules would afect per gram, per kilogram, and so on.
You cant convert simple joules in to radiation with out defining an area an amount.
It's 10 joules=area/amount
hat is how it's done.
10 joules will afect 1 kilogram by
10 joules will afect 1 gram by
and so on,it's the same 10 joules.

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

Kinetic energy=mass in motion converted to an absortion amount= radiation exposure , if you understand how the x-ray machine works ,you can understand how conversion is done, it's the same thing, caluclating the the speed that electrons hit you get the kinetic energy level, the you convert the kinetic energy per kilogram and you get the dosage of the x-rays.
On humans they are calculated per kilogram.

If you think else try to calculate 10 joules with out adding kilograms,it's imposible, there is no such thing, conversion will only be done with grams miliggrams kilograms.
Why houles are converted in kilograms?
Because 10 joules have the power to lift a kilogram.

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.

That is because the pickles are not radioactive, the 10 joules that are calculated from the cosmic rays are converted to radiation because of the content of the cosmic ray, pickels are not radioactive, proton particles are.
By your theory the x-ray machine would stop existing.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 6-6-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by pepsi78
thats how joules are converted per kilogram/gram/milgram .
You cant convert joules in to rad other way.
You take the ten joule and you see how would 10 joules would afect per gram, per kilogram, and so on.
You cant convert simple joules in to radiation with out defining an area an amount.
It's 10 joules=area/amount
hat is how it's done.
10 joules will afect 1 kilogram by
10 joules will afect 1 gram by
and so on,it's the same 10 joules.

Then how come no unit conversion program will convert Joules into Joules/kg? Because it can't be done like that. It's like saying 10km = 10km/s. It doesn't make sense. You are simply wrong.

Kinetic energy=mass in motion converted to an absortion amount= radiation exposure

So here you are saying kinetic energy converts directly to radiation exposure. Then those pickles that fell 1m should be radioactive according to you.

That is because the pickles are not radioactive, the 10 joules that are calculated from the cosmic rays are converted to radiation because of the content of the cosmic ray, pickels are not radioactive, proton particles are.

But you just said that kinetic energy converts directly to radiation exposure. And now you're saying that the kinetic energy of the pickle doesn't matter now? You're saying it has to be radioactive, in otherwords, the kinetic energy of the particle doesn't really matter. So now Joules of kinetic energy does not equal Joules per kilogram of radiation absorbed.

Glad we finally agree that Joules do not equal Joules per kilogram.

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:48 AM
Why don't you contact Dr. Pinsky Lawrence: pinsky@uh.edu

and ask him a clear question and post the reply back here.

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:39 AM
Former NASA flight director Chris Kraft

This is an interview which gives some idea of what the early days of space were like.

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:51 AM
This may be a stupid question but...I keep seeing things about the "dark side of the moon" does the moon not rotate like the earth?

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:52 AM
The moon rotates, but it rotates around its own axis at the same speed it rotates around the Earth, so we're seeing the same side of the moon as it goes around us.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:33 AM
Sorry, I didn't notice this thread.

grin.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

To the guy that said I'm not looking hard enough, I'm looking mighty hard and I don't see the Astronaughts shadow.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:46 AM
So what exactly are those two long dark patches, each starting from a leg and extending away from the light source.

Mineral deposits?

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:20 PM
I'm talking about the first photo not the second.

In the first photo you don't see the Astronaughts shadow.

In the second photo you don't see the flags shadow.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:13 PM
Opps I feel stupid now, I see Youngs shadow, hes jumping in the air so its not attached to his body.

Damn... oh well.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:48 PM
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I was just thinking -

How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy, so they faked them on Earth to make nice 'Time' magazine covers, postcards etc etc?

That could explain the obvious inconsistencies in the footage and photography

[edit on 25/6/2006 by alienanderson]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:54 PM
I've heard that mentioned several times before, but as far as I know no one has been able to prove if it did or didn't happen.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 06:08 PM
How can you people be so naive? We never got anywhere near the moon. The computer system in the Apollo space craft was no more sophisticated than a pocket calculator. In fact, that's why Apollo 13 managed to get back to aerth, because they were in high earth orbit, and no where near the moon.

Oddly, in the years since, even though our technology has become much more sophisiticated, we haven't gone to the moon. The space shuttle only flies in low orbit. For one thing, it's a know scientific fact that you can't fly past the Van Allen belt, without getting fried alive by cosmic rays.

Area 51 is in fact where NASA, in co operation with the CIA, and the NSC, faked the moon launch, as an early "Star Wars/SDI" proto type. The idea was to freak out the commies, by making them beleive that our side had the ultimate strategic advantage! Ever see a film called "Capricorn 1"?

[edit on 25-6-2006 by GrandCourtJester]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 06:30 PM
I can see you didn't bother reading the thread. The Van Allen Belt myth has been talked about many times. You CAN get through the belt. It's NOT as lethal as everyone claims it is.

The Earth actually has two radiation belts of different origins. The inner belt, the one discovered by Van Allen's Geiger counter, occupies a COMPACT REGION ABOVE THE EQUATOR (see drawing, which also includes the trajectories of two space probes) and is a by-product of cosmic radiation. It is populated by protons of energies in the 10-100 Mev range, which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts. Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region.

The outer radiation belt is nowadays seen as part of the plasma trapped in the magnetosphere. The name "radiation belt" is usually applied to the more energetic part of that plasma population, e.g. ions of about 1 Mev of energy (see energy units). The more numerous lower-energy particles are known as the "ring current", since they carry the current responsible for magnetic storms. Most of the ring current energy resides in the ions (typically, with 0.05 MeV) but energetic electrons can also be found.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There's a diagram of the belts on that page as well.

Edit: Emphasis mine

[edit on 6/25/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by alienanderson
How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy

How were the photos crappy? Crappy compaired to what? I think the photos are amazingly good and of very high quality.

That could explain the obvious inconsistencies in the footage and photography

Could you point out the inconsistencies please? Thank you.

GrandCourtJester
How can you people be so naive? We never got anywhere near the moon. The computer system in the Apollo space craft was no more sophisticated than a pocket calculator.

Let me ask you this. What would the Apollo need a super powerful computer for exactly?

Oddly, in the years since, even though our technology has become much more sophisiticated, we haven't gone to the moon. The space shuttle only flies in low orbit. For one thing, it's a know scientific fact that you can't fly past the Van Allen belt, without getting fried alive by cosmic rays.

Perhaps you should recheck your so called "scientific facts".. seeing as how science shows that would not happen.

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Area 51 is in fact where NASA, in co operation with the CIA, and the NSC, faked the moon launch, as an early "Star Wars/SDI" proto type. The idea was to freak out the commies, by making them beleive that our side had the ultimate strategic advantage! Ever see a film called "Capricorn 1"?

How did they fake it then? In detail please. Explain how they faked the transmissions coming from the moon that fooled people in mission control, the Russians, amature radio astronomers etc. Explain how the astronauts were able to bounce around in there heavy space suits. Explain to me how they got hundreds of pounds of lunar samples that can not be gotten anywhere else. Explain to me how NASA could fool 400,000 scientists and engineers into believing what they were working on was real. If you think they were all in on it, then please explain to me how NASA can keep them all quiet and that in the past 30+ years none of them have made any confessions before dying of old age. Explain to me why the USSR didn't go and fake there own moon landing as well. Surely there spies could have figured out what the US was up to, if they were indeed faking it. The Apollo program was an open program worked on by many different companies. It would be hard, if not impossible to keep secrets (not that they needed to either).

Also please explain how one can make a big enough sound stage that covers at least several KM in size.

Yes i've seen "Capricorn 1". And?

[edit on 25-6-2006 by jra]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:04 PM

GrandCourtJester
How can you people be so naive? We never got anywhere near the moon. The computer system in the Apollo space craft was no more sophisticated than a pocket calculator.

Let me ask you this. What would the Apollo need a super powerful computer for exactly?

The astronauts were highly skilled pilots "the best of the best". They spent years memorizing switches and their switching procedures. That is how we got to the Moon and back. The way they did their jobs should stand-out as heroic as any hero story in antiquity, but the world is filled with yobs an' ne'er-do-wells who speak from their lack of ability to muck the deeds of the great achievers.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:13 AM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by alienanderson
How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy

How were the photos crappy? Crappy compaired to what? I think the photos are amazingly good and of very high quality.

That's exactly what I mean. The photos we SEE are amazingly high quality, considering the adverse conditions under which they were taken.

I am saying what if the photos taken on the moon were no good?

Could you point out the inconsistencies please? Thank you.

No I'm sorry but I don't have time now. I am sure they have been discussed here already. My only point of reference for this statement is the book 'Dark Moon' which I read some years ago.

Many people point to inconsistencies in the photos as evidence the moon landing were fake, and what I am saying is, even if you prove the photos are faked, it doesn't automatically follow that the missions were fake.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by alienanderson
How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy, so they faked them on Earth to make nice 'Time' magazine covers, postcards etc etc?

please look at the ALSJ - The apollo lunar surface journal :

ALSJ_wbsite

yes there are SOME crappy photoes -- thats to be expected given the equipment and conditions -- but also some very good ones -- take a look

the main point of looking at that site is that it is a COMPLETE record -- warts and all , and taken as a whole -- it go=ives a full and complete record of appolo operations .

That could explain the obvious inconsistencies in the footage and photography

once you have looked at the ALSJ site , please point out which pictures -- by NASA reference number have these " obvious inconsistencies " because they are far from obvious to me or the many profesional scientists and engineers who have studied them

but before you do , may i sugest you peruse these sites :

bad astronomy.com -- run by Dr Phil Plait

and the dedicated clavius.org

and of course ATS has a slew of threads relevant to apollo and moon hoaxes -- juse the search f/n

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by GrandCourtJester
In fact, that's why Apollo 13 managed to get back to aerth, because they were in high earth orbit, and no where near the moon.

pardon ??????? have managed to avoid reading ANYTHING about apollo 13 or are you just making " facts " up to support you spurious claims ?

this is NASA photograph AS13-61-8727 , taken from lunar orbit

here is a direct linkst to the entire A13 mission

further to quote from the mission report :

1.0 Summary

The Apollo 13 mission , planned as a lunar landing in the Fra Mauro area , was aborted because of an abrupt loss of service module cryogenic oxygen associated with a fire in one of the two tanks at approximately 56 hours . The lunar module provided the necessary support to sustain a minimum operational condition for a safe return to earth . A circumlunar profile was executed as the most efficient means of earth return , with the lunar module providing power and life support until transfer to the command module just prior to entry . Although the mission was unsuccessful as planned a lunar flyby and several scientific experiments were completed.

this was taken from this link :

mission report

page 19 of 168 .

deny ignorance .

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 02:42 AM

Originally posted by alienanderson
That's exactly what I mean. The photos we SEE are amazingly high quality, considering the adverse conditions under which they were taken.

the photograps we see reproduced in books . magazines etc are carefully selected because they ARE the best availiable - further -- the most common reproductions are cropped and touched up to be visually appealling

no one " wastes " space in magazines and coffee table books with pictures like :

[ AS11-44-6598 ] as it poorly framed , baddly exposed and focused , contains spurious intrusions and sundogs .

as i said -- what we see - has veen selected BECAUSE they are the best . see how your argument is circular ?

lastly , the ENTIRE archive -- UNEDITED and availiable to anyone , is accesible at the ALSJ site .

and for a service and handling charge you can order hi quality prints direct from nasa which are developed from second generation negatives

top topics

29