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.

 

Mythbusters to Tackle Moon Hoax

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Azrael75
 


Hehe, Im watching it now, Ill get back to you after I finish and have a think about it.




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
and on topic, did the mythbusters cover how 1/8th inch thick aluminum managed to keep the astronauts from cooking in the van allen belts?


How much radiation were the astronaut during their 4hr flight thru the Van Allen Belt @ 25000 Mph? I think I posted a link with the data about this early in in the thread. Do you have any data to provide, other than heresay? Also, all of the Apollo modules were equipped with radiation sensors, and of course they knew of the potential expose risks. The early astronauts were chomping at the bit for an opportunity to go to the moon regardless of the risks (as many would). Nobody was cooked during any of the Apollo missions.

Apollo 15 Landing Site as documented by Clementine images. See that dot there...



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
reply to post by Kryties
 


you need to explain that to the shuttle astronauts who complain of the radiations effects in their safely sheilded shuttle well below the belts. and i would not trust that fox special any more than the mythbusters.

p.s. you did not acutally answer my question. the radiation is too strong for them to get anywhere near it. to assume that they were only in it a little while so it was ok is completely insane.


What shuttle astronauts specifically? The ISS Astronauts stay for 6 months at a time... I have never heard of them complaining about radiation. Do you have a source that you can cite here? Something to perhaps back up what you are saying?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Ill start by clarifying my position on the 'moon hoax'. I believe SOMETHING went to the moon but I'm not convinced it happened the way NASA says it happened. Some of the 'moon hoax' supposed conspiracies I don't believe to be true and yet I do see other bits that just don't add up.

One of the theories I believe to be incorrect is the Van Allen radiation theory, supposedly frying astronauts. I think the scientific basis behind it being safe is sound.

From www.absoluteastronomy.com...



Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, now deceased , dismissed these ideas. In practice, Project Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer Cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.


I thought a little about your comment on the Aluminum used to provide shielding. I came across this interesting piece of information...

From www.clavius.org...



While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.


It goes on to say..


Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.


So basically what I think is that with the combining the effects of spending minimal amount of time in the belt coupled with the use of shielding and the fact that no evidence I have yet seen can back the theory that the radiation is strong enough to cook someone, it is very viable to travel through the belt safely, suffering minimal to zero after-effects.




[edit on 30/8/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


ok, so dont take this as hostile ok. just a question. you are saying that you believe nasa did fake some stuff but they did still go to the moon?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mapsurfer_
 


two posts in a row and neither one addresses the video eh? nice to skip over what you dont like and attack what you do. well i guess i will use the same method in answering back. you can have this answer whenever i decide that suits me. what a fun game.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Most astronauts on Apollo, Skylab, and MIR reported ‘flashes of light’ occurring in different shapes and apparently moving across the visual field, in the absence of auditory, somatosensory, or olfactory abnormal percepts. A temporal correlation with heavy nuclei or protons has been documented in space and comparable phosphenes were observed by volunteers whose eyes were exposed to accelerated heavy ions at intensities below the threshold for Cerenkov visible radiation.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 



id happily take your point about them being able to get through the belts if you could explain to me why nasa is having such a hard time figuring out how to get us safely back through them.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
reply to post by Kryties
 


ok, so dont take this as hostile ok. just a question. you are saying that you believe nasa did fake some stuff but they did still go to the moon?


In a sense yes. I do not believe the official version of the story as I think it has way too many holes in it. I do however believe we went to the moon, just not the way we think it happened.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
reply to post by Kryties
 



id happily take your point about them being able to get through the belts if you could explain to me why nasa is having such a hard time figuring out how to get us safely back through them.


I didn't know they were having a hard time
I shall look into this. Perhaps you could provide some links?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 



i did not know they were ready? why is it still 10 years out with little detail as to how they will accomplish it, could you provide some links?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
and is there a reason we are all completely skipping over that footage?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
and is there a reason we are all completely skipping over that footage?


/sigh

The footage looks to me to be rather open to interpretation. Yes, some of it looks suspicious but the youtube clarity is rather awful and its impossible to make out a lot of what is being claimed is happening.

Now that we have discussed your footage, perhaps you could go and watch the Mythbusters episode being the title and topic of this thread and then we can get this thread back on track



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


so you are tellig me that you can interpret the shot of the earth at a distance, then the obvious change of lighting but NOT camera movement, and next thing you know, the window is full of light? the sun is on the camera side of the craft so what is completely filling that window with light?

maybe the reason noone is discussing the episode is because it has been thouroughly covered that they barely even tried and at best could have proven nothing. as was stated, trying to fake something to prove that it was NOT faked?? what scientific method employs that line of logic????? what do you want to discuss? the stupid zero-g plane thing that proves nothing? them debunking shadows that never bothered anyone serious? i have started watching the episode and so far am even less impressed than i thought i would be.
look, i am not stopping anyone from talking about it am i?
i have not shut anyone up or out.
what is left to discuss about it?
it seems more like a copout to get out of answering my claims.
mythbusters was gonna prove we went to the moon and then proceeded to do a terrible job of 'debunking' myths that were straw man arguments anyway. so what discussion is there to have? or do you mean we should all just write posts in praise of the OP for posting a thread about the show? I will gladly discuss anything about the episode you like. that is no problem. maybe to pass the time though, you could tell me what is filling the window with light at the end of that video.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
look, i am not stopping anyone from talking about it am i?
i have not shut anyone up or out.
what is left to discuss about it?


You have admitted not watching the Mythbusters episode and then proceeded to attack people about subjects you would have no idea were covered in the show because you did not watch it.

You then proceeded to fill the next few pages with one and two line posts baiting others into responding to your claims, not responding to the claims the show made.

This thread is about the Mythbusters episode, not your own claims.





it seems more like a copout to get out of answering my claims.


No, a simple heads up that we were way off topic.

EDIT: I will not discuss your youtube video any further, as 1. It is not the topic of this thread, and 2. I made it clear in my last post that I thought the video wasn't of clear enough quality to make much out at all, so therefore I cannot make a judgement based soley on that.


[edit on 30/8/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Of course we went to the moon. There is no sane, rational reason to think we didn't. All the doubts are coming from armchair astronomers with incredibly limited understanding, just aching to find a perceived inconsistency.

It's pathetic.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
So whilst their tests did confirm that the moon landing is supposed to be authentic, it also confirmed that these simulations could be performed on earth, which in turn confirms the possibility of a hoax on earth.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75
reply to post by mapsurfer_
 


two posts in a row and neither one addresses the video eh? nice to skip over what you dont like and attack what you do. well i guess i will use the same method in answering back. you can have this answer whenever i decide that suits me. what a fun game.


Yah, I'll comment on this video.. First off, These days there are far more people on the internet pulling of hoaxes/hoax theory than anytime in history. Like the bigfoot in the freezer, eh? The narrator is the video say something like... they obtained secret footage never before released to the public. This is highly suspect right off the bat. If the mission were a hoax to begin with, then it would be most doubtful that film would be leaked in any form, at any time "by mistake".. The 3rd party narration along with the audio in the clip are heavily edited to suit their purpose, therefore if would be beneficial and more conclusive to evaluate the bootleg footage if it exists. I have never heard of any other reference to bootleg video obtained from NASA by mistake. This makes the whole video highly suspect from the start.

Because the video is so heavily edited, you cannot determine any real reference to time, or even the correlation between the audio and the video. Obviously the narrator is suggesting one thing, and showing you a picture and leading you to believe something which may or not be the case. The whole premise is based on some 2 seconds of clip where you see light in the window. IMO not a very compelling case, and since you cannot authenticate when/where Apollo was at that moment in time, and you really cannot see anything but light reflection in the windows for that brief 2 seconds of the clip. So, if there is anything to this at all, lets take a look at the raw footage ourselves. I just did not see anything in this video, such as masking in the windows, or anything the narrator is suggesting.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by -0mega-
 


No, they didn't. There is continuous footage of the astronauts on the surface of the moon, much longer than the 30-odd seconds of 1/6th gravity they experienced on the Zero-G plane. Not to mention there is no possible way they could have made a sound stage that large, AND got it to fly in the correct curved flight path to create the 1/6th gravity. Not to mention the impossibility of making a sound stage as large as would be needed in a vacuum on earth. It would be easier to send people to the moon. Which they did.

Please pay attention
It's guesswork like yours that keeps this rubbish alive.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by -0mega-
 


No, they didn't. There is continuous footage of the astronauts on the surface of the moon, much longer than the 30-odd seconds of 1/6th gravity they experienced on the Zero-G plane. Not to mention there is no possible way they could have made a sound stage that large, AND got it to fly in the correct curved flight path to create the 1/6th gravity. Not to mention the impossibility of making a sound stage as large as would be needed in a vacuum on earth. It would be easier to send people to the moon. Which they did.

Please pay attention
It's guesswork like yours that keeps this rubbish alive.


If you think the only way / easiest way to create such footage is to mimic a giant soundstage of ''that'' size that flies in a path that simulates 1/6th gravity, well, I could say all kinds of things but I'll just keep it at:

"I will think that you are wrong."

It would be easier to send people to the moon, perhaps. But it being impossible to hoax footage? I think not.

Of course this is just based on my knowledge of certain publicly known or not publicly known ''tools'' that are available today, not on my knowledge on what they had ''back in the days''.

And please, if you are planning to respond to this, do not assume that I am talking about video manipulation photoshop / CGI style, because I am not.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join