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.

 

A must watch Evil Atomic Experiment!!!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
So much was the Space race important during the Cold War.

Soldiers here are seen marching towards certain death for scientists to see how radiation will effect the astronauts once in space.



They have to explain the following until then I will still believe moon landing was a hoax :

How the pictures taken weren't effected by radiation ?

How were the astronauts protected against the radiation?..in the tin foil of the Lunar lander?

How come no blast of any fuel burning is visible in the departure of the Lunar Lander from the moon ?

here is the vid....this is amazing...the lunar module fly on its own without any visible flames or anything...infront of our eyes such a big LIE...




dont you think we need the truth?




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


In regards to the first video, yes, that is quite ridiculous. It is a real shame those solders were conned into such an experiment. They exploited their ignorance about the subject and probably caused them health issues if not death.

In regards to the second video, I am ignorant of the methods used by NASA to shield astronauts from radiation while not protected by earth magnetic field. Look into how they would shield the spacecraft and maybe you can find some answers.

The second video does look fake. How did they get that video footage? Should we be able to see it? Many questions.

EDIT: Looking up space propulsion, I now realize my question is answered.
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 13-12-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The first video was NOT an atomic explosion. Just a big bomb.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The first video was NOT an atomic explosion. Just a big bomb.



How do you know that? Looks pretty legit to me.

Here is a wikimedia video with soldiers in it. Granted, this bomb is probably many tons larger.

upload.wikimedia.org...


Here is another rendition of the same video as in the OP (or similar).

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


In rersponse to your second question, these have been covered to death on here but here goes again.
Not all radiation requires thick shielding. In fact in some cases thick shielding, or lead is a BAD thing. Radiation reacts to the material of the shielding, and when some forms of radiation, such as that in space, hits lead it becomes much worse and more lethal. I used to work on airport x-ray systems and the only lead we had was to channel the beam. Two inches off the side panels the radiation dropped to background levels.
As to the no fire on lift-off, what does fire need again to burn? Remember your fire triangle....Heat source, got that in the engine. Fuel, got that in the lander. Oxygen, whoops. No oxygen on the moon, no fire.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
that is actual nasa footage..the departure...also regarding the bomb its obvious is atomic no


six

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



As to the no fire on lift-off, what does fire need again to burn? Remember your fire triangle....Heat source, got that in the engine. Fuel, got that in the lander. Oxygen, whoops. No oxygen on the moon, no fire.


Thank you. Well said. I think that too many people are relying off of what they see come out of hollywood.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The first video was NOT an atomic explosion. Just a big bomb.


The video is of a test firing of a low-yield, tactical atomic round fired from a cannon. It has circulated around for decades. . .

That was an atomic explosion!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Exactly. The second part of the OP is a great example of what's currently killing ATS: Someone sees a video, doesn't understand the physics involved, and then proclaims it to be a hoax, instead of admitting they are ignorant of the science behind what they're looking at.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Theres no oxygen on the moon. Maybe thats got something to do with the lack of flames. I'm sure the moon has a magnetic field that could protect from cosmic radiation and perhaps the spacecraft was shielded in some way (that i dont know of lol).



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

How the pictures taken weren't effected by radiation ?

Are you saying that this is not an atomic test, or that atomic tests do not produce radiation?

How on Earth can you make a connection with that video and a Moon landing hoax? The test shown in the video was in the early 1950's. Long before the manned space program began.


[edit on 12/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


The moon thing has been asked and answered many times.
As for the atomic explosion, it is indeed 'evil' if you apply todays standards in revisionist judgement. In the 40's, 50's and 60's, long term effects of radiation were not well understood. I remember the utopian atomic future promised by "harnassing the atom". We were going to have electricity so cheap it wouldn't even be measured, atomic cars, planes, ships and you name it. The lack of understanding of long term effects can also be seen in asbestos, benzine and a long list of toxic stuff. Waste was simply buried, people just didn't have the knowledge. Kind of ironic that science now considers long term effects, but is accused of conspiracy when they do. See global warming.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


photos i was refering to the pictures taken on the moon..

now how the video is related...

i just showed you how important was for the US to go on to the moon 1st and before the russians and before the end of the sixties...

whilst for oxygen needed for fuel to be seen its not true...the fuel used was not common it just lit upon mixture of the main components and thus yet it must have produced a flame and also a crater...none are seen ...

also...sheeple beat this..

THE CROSSES IN THE PICTURE CAN NEVER BE BEHINDS OBJECTS...is it that hard to figure this out???...i might be harder to explain these :







also...during landing to you think at least that dust shall be blown and than resettle...how come there is no dust on the lunar module landing legs??




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 

I don't see the connection between an atomic test in the early 1950's and the Apollo program in the mid to late 60's.

You don't you just save us all a lot of trouble and go here:
www.clavius.org...


[edit on 12/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The first video is undoubtedly an atomic explosion.

Judging from the presence of "grunts", their uniforms & the antiquity of some of the equipment I'd say that the footage is from the Buster-Jangle series of weapons tests, Oct-Nov 1951.

But I might be wrong


[edit on 13-12-2009 by Ulala]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities
 


How do I know the bomb is not atomic?..

I believe this because of the dummies who were in the path of the blast. they do not have the properties of destruction that we see in known atomic blast videos.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
My question is who was controlling the camera during take off. Those things dont just move on their own and I dont think they had robotics advanced enough back then for a remote controlled camera, but if that is the case then please excuse my ignorance on the matter.
PEACE,
JC



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i dont need your googling experience...instead of posting links as usual answer the pictures posted yourself



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by consciencious observer
 


i asked that myself



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 
Do you even know what the fuel used was? Not all fuels produce a flame, and it certainly woiuldn`t in a low/no oxygen environment.
Again, with the dust you are showing that you don`t know or aren`t interested in the physics behind it. Have you ever seen an AV-8B Harrier make a vertical landing? Do you seriously think that they land like that with the engine at full power? The LEM was THROTTLING DOWN as they descended. At touchdown they were at something like 10% throttle. With the thrust that would put out it would barely mess your hair up, let alone leave a crater. And if you look at some pics there WAS dust disturbance.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join