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.

 

china to expose americas moon walk

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 




# The lunar module did not hover for long over the landing site. There was no need for an enormous amount of thrust to be used due to the reduced gravity on the Moon, and the exhaust gasses were quickly dispersed into the vacuum; they could not cause disturbance of air molecules around them as they would on Earth.

# "Moon dust" is not the same as dust or sand on Earth. There is no weathering on the Moon and the particles are jagged in nature; when compressed they stick together. Any particles that were ejected from the lunar surface, by direct contact with exhaust gasses, would have simply have dropped back to the surface. Large clouds of dust cannot form on the Moon as there is no atmosphere in which to suspend the particles.

# There is evidence that where the module landed, most of the lunar dust was blown away by direct contact with exhaust gasses, revealing the rock below:


Source

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]

Mod Edit: Inserted link to large external graphic.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by maria_stardust]

Sorry. This better?

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.


I think you mean something like this but instead of a flashlight, it's sunlight.
external image

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]



Mod Edit: Inserted link to large external graphic.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by maria_stardust]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 




# The lunar module did not hover for long over the landing site. There was no need for an enormous amount of thrust to be used due to the reduced gravity on the Moon, and the exhaust gasses were quickly dispersed into the vacuum; they could not cause disturbance of air molecules around them as they would on Earth.

# "Moon dust" is not the same as dust or sand on Earth. There is no weathering on the Moon and the particles are jagged in nature; when compressed they stick together. Any particles that were ejected from the lunar surface, by direct contact with exhaust gasses, would have simply have dropped back to the surface. Large clouds of dust cannot form on the Moon as there is no atmosphere in which to suspend the particles.

# There is evidence that where the module landed, most of the lunar dust was blown away by direct contact with exhaust gasses, revealing the rock below:

external image

Source

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Phage]


Thanks Phage for the input and your spot on, it just asumed there would be more of a blast area.


Mod Edit: Inserted link to large external graphic.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by maria_stardust]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Morningstar and bob down under

We have addressed several of your points from shadow divergence (a matter of perspective) to the Van Allen belt (which is safe to pass through quickly).

Can anyone address the LLRE? Anyone at all? You can't debunk THIS

Data received that is used in the following



Data from this station as well as 30-40 similar satellite-capable systems and one other regularly contributing lunar-capable system around the world are used for a variety of scientific pursuits including study of the earth's gravitational field, plate tectonics, earth's orientation in space, high precision time transfer, relativity, lunar and solar system dynamics, and providing high precision orbits for GPS and ocean top mapping missions.


From HERE


Nothing else you say, no other point you bring up, no video in the world declaring hoax matters until you prove that all of these scientist around the world have been in on the hoax since 1969. Including scientists born after the Apollo mission! Debunk this.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit
Morningstar and bob down under

We have addressed several of your points from shadow divergence (a matter of perspective) to the Van Allen belt (which is safe to pass through quickly).



I never asked about shadow divergence, nor did anyone actually debunk it.

A quote from fox news with no science to back it up is not debunking. Shall I debunk Fox news for you?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit
Morningstar and bob down under

We have addressed several of your points from shadow divergence (a matter of perspective) to the Van Allen belt (which is safe to pass through quickly).

Can anyone address the LLRE? Anyone at all? You can't debunk THIS

Data received that is used in the following



Data from this station as well as 30-40 similar satellite-capable systems and one other regularly contributing lunar-capable system around the world are used for a variety of scientific pursuits including study of the earth's gravitational field, plate tectonics, earth's orientation in space, high precision time transfer, relativity, lunar and solar system dynamics, and providing high precision orbits for GPS and ocean top mapping missions.


From HERE


Nothing else you say, no other point you bring up, no video in the world declaring hoax matters until you prove that all of these scientist around the world have been in on the hoax since 1969. Including scientists born after the Apollo mission! Debunk this.


I am not here to debunk anything?

I just wondered about the lack of rocket blast on the surface and Phage answered my question very well.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by dragonridr
 


As far as the film maker falsifying information...fine, let's say that invalidates the entire film. Like I said, I have more. I never said this one was the word of God but this was the one that was posted here and it was one of the ones that I still feel puts an awful lot of holes in the story. What about the footage of them faking the distance from the earth? This has been asked over and over. It has been called debunked over and over. It has not been debunked. You can call the film maker whatever you like but he did not make this footage did he? Nope, he just managed to be one of many that got to use it. Care to debunk that?


As far as the distances from the earth i still believe were talking about the video again? Ok here goes with the live broadcast what you dont know is he edited out part of the NASA live broadcast. He only showed you what he wanted to see.
follow this link Apollo 11 tv broadcasts


edit to add: Now that I have watched your videos. I take it back. They do not invalidate anything. I can watch any one of these movies without the audio altogether and I can still see fakery. What does removed audio prove? It proves he is a sneaky editor but not that he actually faked any footage. It also does not prove we went to the moon. Neither video debunks any of the things that bother me.


Now this is different if he purposely re cut scenes and changed the audio with completely different audio segments you dont think he lied? If i was to take 2 different presidential speeches and swap audio its no longer true is it? Its called editing and you can make anything seem real. But if an individual is caught doing this to make money you dont think thats fakery? Your standards are obviously different than most people.


Now at this point ive shown you proof how what you thought was correct is indeed wrong. Being wrong is not a bad thing as long as you learn something along the way.


One last thing and ill give you this one the apollo missions were quickly thrown together without the same concerns for safety we would have today,and they did a lot adhoc but they still managed to pull it off. Which in itself is quite impressive considering it was truly a monumental feat. now if after this you still believe it was faked its your turn prove it. How did the retroreflectors get on the moon if the astronauts didnt put them there?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by Biscuit
Morningstar and bob down under

We have addressed several of your points from shadow divergence (a matter of perspective) to the Van Allen belt (which is safe to pass through quickly).



I never asked about shadow divergence, nor did anyone actually debunk it.

A quote from fox news with no science to back it up is not debunking. Shall I debunk Fox news for you?


Yes it was debunked you just don't like to accept it, thats your choice.

By your logic if someone went on fox news and declared the Apollo missions a hoax you would no longer believe it was a hoax and would declare that man actually went to the moon?

Why will you not address the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment? It proves we went to the moon with the apollo missions.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 


Wow, people are dense here.

First of all, I could care less who showed the video. The video I specifically speaking of is one continuous shot, uncut, unchanged, as seen in SEVERAL OTHER DOCUMENTARIES. Go ahead and worry about this guy all you want. You fail to address the footage I am speaking of so apparently you do not understand English.

As to the logic question here. If someone goes on Fox news and says ANYTHING, I expect them to back it up with...something. Anything. Just saying they would be safe without offering the measurements of the radiation they would receive, without discussing how long they would be exposed and at what varying intensities, blah blah. An empty statement on any channel is empty. On Fox news, I just expect lies so I need more actual facts.

Pay attention people, you are starting to sound like John Titor fans.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit


Why will you not address the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment? It proves we went to the moon with the apollo missions.


Because no one is addressing what I asked about long before I was asked anything. Sorry but you do not get to throw a cheap quote from Fox around and move on. Google the word 'proof'. I know people do not use dictionaries anymore.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by Biscuit


Why will you not address the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment? It proves we went to the moon with the apollo missions.


Because no one is addressing what I asked about long before I was asked anything. Sorry but you do not get to throw a cheap quote from Fox around and move on. Google the word 'proof'. I know people do not use dictionaries anymore.


I never used fox as a source and ive answered each question You put forward and additional even showed you the radiation levels explained shadows discussed gravity and the distance issue so whats left? Might i suggest re asking the question for i fear theres not much left to disprove.

saw the latin thought you might like this.
Obesa cantavit.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by Biscuit


Why will you not address the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment? It proves we went to the moon with the apollo missions.


Because no one is addressing what I asked about long before I was asked anything. Sorry but you do not get to throw a cheap quote from Fox around and move on. Google the word 'proof'. I know people do not use dictionaries anymore.


Since when did he quote Fox News? He certainly doesn't get to "throw a cheap quote from Fox around and move on.", but you certainly don't get to spread lies to foster false guilt by association as a blanket dismissal.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


The only answer I have read about the Van Allen belt was the quote from fox news.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by mdiinican
 


The only answer I have read about the Van Allen belt was the quote from fox news.


Ok here we go again. The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.. In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 50 rads (X-ray equivalent) to blood forming organs. After a dose of 200 rads and higher, patients may develop nausea/vomiting, 1000 rads causes death in a few hours or days.

Radiation doses on the Apollo mission ranged from a minimum on Apollo 7 of about 0.40 rem to a maximum on Apollo 14 of about 2.85 rem.The radiation in the belts is particle radiation, and the best shield for it happens to be light metals like aluminum, or plastics, both of which were in abundant supply in the construction of the spacecraft. So even thought radiation was higher in space the craft did an effective job. Now as I stated earlier a full coronal ejection might have killed them since there plan was basically put the fuel tank between them and the sun. Luckily they didn’t have to test that theory.

Now you can test this your self! European scientists have developed the most accurate method yet for predicting the doses of radiation for astronauts in space. The new software package accurately simulates the physics of radiation particles passing through spacecraft walls and human bodies. This WWW interface is used to model the space environment and its effects, including the natural radiation belts, solar energetic particles, cosmic rays, plasmas, gases, and micro-particles.And fun to play with I might add heres a link:

Space Environment Information System

Now you can believe scientists or People trying to make money choice is yours yours.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yeah that does absolutely nothing to explain the radiation experienced by the shuttle astronauts. So at a much lower, safer orbit, through much more effective and abundant shielding, the radiation is much stronger than it is in an aluminum can drifting through the belts?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yeah that does absolutely nothing to explain the radiation experienced by the shuttle astronauts. So at a much lower, safer orbit, through much more effective and abundant shielding, the radiation is much stronger than it is in an aluminum can drifting through the belts?


As was already explained to you the Shuttle and space stations sit in the belt for extended periods while the Apollo missions spent apx 8 hours each, 4 on the ay out and 4 on the way in. Also the apollo missions flew through the belt when the sun was to their back and the solar winds caused the belt to be less dense as they passed through thus limiting their time in the most radioactive portion to no more than an hour. Also the light metals used in the apollo programs where ideal for blocking that radiation they encountered for such short periods. Also the apollo missions did not 'drift' through the van allen belt. They were on a direct and deliberate course to the moon traveling at mach 32.4 when breaking earths gravitational hold.

Here is some more information regarding current space missions and radiation

Now I think we are quite capable of talking about two aspects of the apollo missions at once. Should you have any more radiation questions or actual evidence that the astronauts couldn't pass through the VAB then please ask and present away.

In the meantime I am certain you could provide an explanation for the Lunar Laser ranging program. You see I keep pushing this because all other theories and supposed evidence for a hoax are put to bed by the existence of this program. Once you study this program you will know that the apollo missions went to the moon and that all the hoax theories have to be wrong.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
THIS has some interesting information regarding NASA's concerns about radiation. It seems that low orbits or quick transits are safe.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Also people seem to be under the impression that they passed through the VAB in THIS. When in actuality they were in THIS


Really it was an amazing series of components each designed for a specific purpose.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biscuit
Also people seem to be under the impression that they passed through the VAB in THIS. When in actuality they were in THIS


Really it was an amazing series of components each designed for a specific purpose.


Yah, your right, but what about on the way home? Did the lunar module crawl back into the space ship for the journey back through the belt?

And I dunno who said it up there, but they made some reference to there being no atmosphere - now im definitely no moon pro or anything, but I coulda sworn many times on this forum people have claimed that there actually is some atmosphere, just not as much as on earth.

Just my 2 cents!

EDIT: It was phage who quoted external content under the "Moon Dust" section, they claim no atmosphere.. thats what im talking bout in my post


[edit on 11-10-2008 by king9072]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 



OK to explain this to you we need some background :

The Van Allen Belt radiation consists mainly of high speed hydrogen nuclei, or solar wind. That is not too difficult to block, and they did. "Radiation" is a very broad term and it can mean anything from neutrinos, which can pass through the earth, gamma rays, which are very high energy photons and will damage a cell if it gets stopped by one, x-rays, which are moderately high energy photons, which again are not healthy in large quantities, but useful in lower ones, beta rays, which are electrons spat out by the nucleus and these won't get past your skin, and alpha particles, these are helium nuclei that are kicked out of a nucleus and can be stopped by something as light as a piece of paper. So 1st not all the radiation is lethal.

What Explorer 1 discovered were the van Allen radiation belts. These sub atomic particles are moving at high speed and when these slam into the metal walls of a satellite they are decelerated. This process produces X-rays (called Bremsstrahlung radiation — German for "braking" — radiation), and that’s what the Explorer 1 detector detected. Moon hoaxers get terribly confused about this, saying there are deadly X-rays in space(in fact so was Van Allen until the realized the case they used was causing a higher reading). These X-rays are a by-product of the subatomic particles screeching to a halt inside metal. Unless the Sun is flaring, there is very little X-radiation in near-Earth orbit. It’s the subatomic particles that are dangerous, but they can be stopped by various substances like glass and insulation without creating X-rays. Now the reason I mentioned glass is are you familiar with how the Apollo module was built?

Lets go into that real quick. The Command Module has a double structure, comprised of the cabin and the outer wall. For heat shielding, the outer wall is made of stainless steel brazed honeycomb between steel alloy face sheets. It protects the inside of the ship from the heat of the sun and the heat from atmospheric friction during re-entry. The thickness of this outer wall varies from 0.5-inch (1.27cm) to 2.5-inch (6.35cm). The cabin is built with a honeycomb structure of aluminum mated with an aluminum alloy. The thickness of the wall of tthe Command Module varies from 0.25-inch (6.35mm) to 1.5-inch (3.81cm). Insulating fiber is placed between the outer wall and the cabin. Phenolic, a synthetic material made by applying heat and pressure to layers of glass cloth impregnated with synthetic resin, coats the surface of the Command Module. It shields the CM from frictional heat by melting during re-entry. The thickness of this coating is 0.5-inch (1.27cm) all around, except for the bottom, which is 2-inch (5.08cm). This brings the CMs weight to 3000lb (1362kg). Thermal coating made of silver Mylar is applied on top of this. This gives the CM the appearance of being wrapped in aluminum foil, giving the CM its reflective look. This is hardly the tin can its made out to be huh.

OK enough background now as I was stating earlier energized particles have a hard time passing through glass. Now the insulation I mentioned in the command module is glass resin, And what is the best insulation to break sub atomic particles without producing x rays? Amazing its almost like they planned that huh.

So The walls of the space craft were indeed enough to handle normal radiation levels or at least keep them within expectable limits. Will refer you back to my previous post of astronauts exposure levels.

Read this on recommendations for shielding Bremsstrahlung radiation. ExposureSafety Manual – XI. Minimize

Now again its your turn how did the retroreflectors get on the moon if the astronauts didnt put them there?


[edit on 10/11/08 by dragonridr]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join