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.

 

Please debunk this fake moon-landing theory

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Can anyone refute this man's argument that the moon landings never happened?

(I'm posting this topic here because the article is discussing a massive political conspiracy. If there is a more appropriate forum, feel free to move this thread.)

www.hourofthetime.com...

If you scroll down just past the halfway mark, he goes into great detail as to why the Apollo moon landings never could have taken place... with a detailed scientific analysis.

He discusses among other things:

- Van Allen belt
- Astronauts would have roasted in their space suits on the lunar surface while directly exposed to the sun.
- If the space suits were pressurized as NASA claims, the gloves would have been unusable... experiments have proven that one would not be able to bend ones wrist or fingers...

Here is an interesting quote from the article:



The Soviet Union planned only one manned moon mission. Soviet cosmonauts related to me that their astronauts were literally COOKED by the extreme radiation in space when sent into high orbit through the Van Allen Belt. The USSR never again attempted to send men into or above the Van Allen Belt. If man could not survive the extreme radiation of the Van Allen Belt how could they put a man on the Moon? The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program.


It's an interesting read, and I would love to hear why you agree/disagree with what the article says, particularily on the topic of the fake moon landing.

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.
Posting work written by others. **All Members Read**



[edit on 29-6-2006 by sanctum]




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Any website that has this type of crap:

"Watch "StarTrek" from the beginning episodes up to the present, and you will begin to realize that it was an indoctrination into the concepts of socialism through subliminal initiation of the youth of the nation. The Captains James T. Kirk (JTK = K(nights) (of the) T(emple) (of) J(erusalem) and Christopher Pike are symbolic salutes to the Order of the Templars, and to the Brotherhoods greatest philosopher and probably its most prolific writer the Christed General Albert Pike. The Enterprise represents their great work or plan which if navigated properly will lead them to the realization of their dream of a united socialist utopian world."

Isnt worth reading much further.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well for the Van Allen belt see what Dr. Van Allen had to say on the subject
Dr. Van Allen himself made it very clear the Van Allen belt would not have prevented the Moon missions. He was only concerned about the LONG TERM effects of cosmic radiation outside the Van Allen belt and really didnt see short trips through the belt as any issue.

This is the guy that discovered the belt and its named after.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well for the Van Allen belt see what Dr. Van Allen had to say on the subject
Dr. Van Allen himself made it very clear the Van Allen belt would not have prevented the Moon missions.


Ok, but what about this statement?




NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.

NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.



How do you explain that point?

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.
Posting work written by others. **All Members Read**

[edit on 29-6-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Argh... there is so much wrong with that article.

Im not going to go in ever aspect but heres something to get you started there is NO such thing as a perfect insulator even the vacuum of space. Contrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a true vacuum. It contains hydorgen atoms, something on the order of 1 atom every 6 cubic inches not much but its still there making even space not a true vaccum. There are also quantum tunnelling effects that prevent a perfect insulator.

I leave you to find the other flaws in this person thinking.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Despite his claims of what would have happened, he fails to mention why and how. This gentleman reminds me of an uncle I had who said the same exact things.

I do not have the patience to read any of the jibberish, but from the quotes you gave, I see a real lack of numbers.

And the 'scientific analysis' is jibberish: everyone and their mom scientifically analyses one thing or another, whether it is the newest 'male enhancement pill' or 'nano-engineered lipstick'. If in fact the gentleman did go about his research in defined and ordered manner, and produced evidence suggesting that beyond a reasonable doubt that the mooning landings did not occur, why does he not publish his findings?! That is the obvious indications that he (in all likelyhood) has no idea what he is talking about.


jra

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
openfire: Have you taken a look through the thread at the top of this forum titled An End To The Moon Conspiracy!. It's 57 pages long, so I wouldn't expect you to read through all of it of course. But all this stuff has been covered before and then some. Needless to say, the Van Allen belts are not a big problem as some try to make you believe. I also highly recommend this site: www.clavius.org...



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Oh dear god. Excuse me while I go off somewhere to stop laughing.


The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new.

www.hourofthetime.com...

As far as the Van Allen Belt goes, the most intense portion of the belt is a SMALL portion over the equator. NASA even keeps unmanned probes out of that region due to the effects. The rest of the belt is safe for short exposures.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Allow me to start over.

Please debunk only the following:

www.mt.net...

[edit on 29-6-2006 by openfire]


jra

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by openfire
Allow me to start over.

Please debunk only the following:

www.mt.net...


Wow that's horrible. Did you go to that Clavius site I posted? If not, please do. It's very clear this William Cooper knows absolutely nothing about science at all what so ever. A few examples of such non sense.


If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum. NASA tells us the moon has no atmosphere and that the astronauts were surrounded by the vacuum of space.


Why does he think the suits would be absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat? That makes no sense. The suits were white, they reflected about 80% of the solar energy that hits it. The material used wasn't a good conductor of heat and there are many layers of insulation. Plus only half of the suit is exposed to direct sunlight at any given time.

The astronauts were cooled by liquid cooling with tubes of cold water running all over there body. The tubes of cold water absorb the body heat. Those go into the PLSS and the water is chilled by sublimating ice. Very simple and very efficient and works great in a vacuum.


The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle traveling through space. NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space... an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return.


That's absolutely ridiculous. Slowly rotating the spacecraft allows it to radiate the heat and it radiates the energy as fast as it absorbed it. Why do you think it's gets cold at night here on Earth? A hotdog on a rotating spit heats up because it's surrounded by hot air.


That's all I'm going to get into for now. I really suggest you learn more about how Apollo worked insted of reading this guys garbage, openfire.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by jra]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   


A hotdog on a rotating spit heats up because it's surrounded by hot air.


I disagree.

If you were to take a hotdog on a rotating spit, and place the entire mechanism inside of a vacuum, would the hotdog not heat up?





[edit on 29-6-2006 by openfire]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by openfire]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by openfire]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by openfire


A hotdog on a rotating spit heats up because it's surrounded by hot air.


I disagree.

If you were to take a hotdog on a rotating spit, and place the entire mechanism inside of a vacuum, would the hotdog not heat up?






jra

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Are those hotdogs in a vacuum? No they are not. They are surrounded by hot air rising from the thing. They are not able to radiate the heat. If they were in a vacuum they would.

mod edit: removed quote from previous post

[edit on 29-6-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
quote:
Are those hotdogs in a vacuum? No they are not. They are surrounded by hot air rising from the thing.



Correct. But they are touching the heat-source. If the entire thing was placed in a vacuum, they would still be touching the heat source and heat would therefore be transfered from the hot metal rods to the hotdogs, thereby heating the hotogs while rotating.


quote:
They are not able to radiate the heat. If they were in a vacuum they would.



Wrong.

In this example, if they were in a vacuum, the hotdogs would not be able to radiate the heat other than back to the metal rods, and vice versa.

The heat from the hotdogs/rods could not be radiated away from the hotdogs/rods into the empty space of the vacuum due to the lack of matter surrounding the hotdogs/rods.


[edit on 29-6-2006 by openfire]


jra

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by openfire
Correct. But they are touching the heat-source. If the entire thing was placed in a vacuum, they would still be touching the heat source and heat would therefore be transfered from the hot metal rods to the hotdogs, thereby heating the hotogs while rotating.


Is it the metal rods themselves that generate the heat? I figured it was something further inside that generated the heat. I figured it would have been something like this in there. If it's the metal rods themselves, it still makes no difference. The hotdogs would still radiate the heat as fast as they absorbed it.


"they"?

please clarify what you mean by "they are not able to radiate heat"...


By 'they' I ment the hotdogs. They (the hotdogs) would not be able to radiate there absorbed heat when surrounded by hot air.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by jra]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
You replied to my question as I was editing it. My appolgies.

Refresh your browser...



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   
BTW, I was assuming that the metal rods were in fact the heat source.


jra

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by openfire


They are not able to radiate the heat. If they were in a vacuum they would.


Wrong.

In this example, if they were in a vacuum, the hotdogs would not be able to radiate the heat other than back to the metal rods, and vice versa.

The heat from the hotdogs/rods could not be radiated away from the hotdogs/rods into the empty space of the vacuum due to the lack of matter surrounding the hotdogs/rods.


Using hotdogs and a hot metal rod isn't a very good comparrison in the first place since the Apollo spacecraft wasn't touching its heat source (the Sun) obviously. We should be using a heat lamp or something like that as an example. But still, a hot metal rod or hotdog will radiate it's heat in a vacuum.

You'd be correct if you said the spacecraft couldn't convect or conduct it's heat into the surrounding vacuum, but it can radiate its heat. If heat couldn't transfer into the vacuum of space, then how does the Sun heat the Earth? How does Earth (or any planet/moon) cool off at night? By radiating heat thats how.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by jra]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Using hotdogs and a hot metal rod isn't a very good comparrison in the first place since the Apollo spacecraft wasn't touching its heat source (the Sun) obviously. We should be using a heat lamp or something like that as an example.

Yes I agree that it wasn't a the best comparison.


Originally posted by jra
But still, a hot metal rod or hotdog will radiate it's heat in a vacuum.

OK, but at what rate? In other words, would the hotdog radaite it's heat into space as fast as it absorbs the radiant heat from the "sun", (Let's assume it's the sun heating the hotdog) so that there would be a zero net temperature increase?


Originally posted by jra
You'd be correct if you said the spacecraft couldn't convect or conduct it's heat into the surrounding vacuum, but it can radiate its heat. If heat couldn't transfer into the vacuum of space, then how does the Sun heat the Earth? How does Earth (or any planet/moon) cool off at night? By radiating heat thats how.


OK, but if the earth was radiating heat at the same rate that it was being absorbed by the sun, wouldn't we approach absolute zero at night?


jra

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by openfire

Originally posted by jra
But still, a hot metal rod or hotdog will radiate it's heat in a vacuum.

OK, but at what rate? In other words, would the hotdog radaite it's heat into space as fast as it absorbs the radiant heat from the "sun", (Let's assume it's the sun heating the hotdog) so that there would be a zero net temperature increase?


If it's just a hotdog or a spacecraft or whatever and it's constantly rotating it shouldn't fry. I don't know for sure if the Apollo spacecraft had a total zero net temperature increase, but being highly recflective it didn't gain in teperature too much.



Originally posted by jra
You'd be correct if you said the spacecraft couldn't convect or conduct it's heat into the surrounding vacuum, but it can radiate its heat. If heat couldn't transfer into the vacuum of space, then how does the Sun heat the Earth? How does Earth (or any planet/moon) cool off at night? By radiating heat thats how.


OK, but if the earth was radiating heat at the same rate that it was being absorbed by the sun, wouldn't we approach absolute zero at night?


Well planets that have an atmosphere don't loose the energy as fast, but they still loose some. For example the planet Mercury which is the closest planet to the Sun which has bairly any atmosphere. It's surface temp will go from about 700K in the day to as low as 90K at night. The next closest planet, Venus, which has a very very thick atmosphere, has little surface temperature change at all.

Needless to say, the Apollo spacecraft would not roast the people inside or become super hot itself.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join