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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 104
377
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


So it took 20 flights before they launched 6 manned missions that culminated basically in 1 day stay in space. Far from anything like a moon trip.


Mercury was the first step in manned space flight. The building blocks for all future manned missions.

You now criticise that it took 20 missions before a manned flight. Yet you previously claimed that a manned mission to the moon developed too quickly. So which is it?




So it took six failures before they managed to get three to work?


Yes...what is your point? Again, you've previuosly claimed that the moon program developed too quickly. Now you criticise that there were too many failures (which is how you learn on a new frontier, by the way...if there were no failures you'd be criticising the missions as being "too perfect"). So again, what exactly is your position? Or are you happy just to keep contradicting yourself?



One trip where they where they stayed 14 days in space.
No biology sent to the moon to test space environment or the moon.
Where are the tests for radiation?
The craft and rocket were not the same as Apollo's'
No test landing, orbiting, on or around the moon.
Most astronauts only spent 3 or less days in orbit.

I dont see how this program was anything close to preparing for Apollo.
And how many missions did they have 10? No, this is all just basic stuff here.


Again, you dont seem to be able to comprehend what i am presenting. I am showing you a complete step-by-step program that built NASA capability for a manned moon mission. It is irrelevent that the craft was not the same as Apollo. What is relevant is that the program leading to the Apollo missions was in place.

As for orbiting the moon, thats where Apollo came in. Did you not read my complete post?

Why would the gemini mission send "biology" to the moon?

You can find tons of radiation and other data from NASA missions on NASA's Technical Reports Server ( ntrs.nasa.gov... ). A lot of the documents are online as PDF's. Otherwise it can be ordered from NASA. There is everything from research papers to JPL's summaries of missions (basically progress reports published every couple of months by JPL). You can even find Russian documents on there that were translated for NASA.

Again, one of the main issues with the hoax argument is the sheer volume of data that exists from NASA programs. How did they fake all of it?



So so far they are only rudimentarily getting used to orbiting the Earth, and they managed to crash land probes on the moon.



*yawn*

So once again, they are going too slowly for you. I'm sure one of these days you are going to make a point that doesnt contradict your previous statements, but I may be a very old man before i see it...

BTW i forgot to include the Pioneer, Explorer and Mariner missions. There were about 40 of those which were largely to map out the radiation around Earth and ensure that astronauts would have a somewhat safe passage to the moon. But i figured that the radiation issue had been done to death. I guess not.

Since you wont let that one die, present us with hard data for the radiation in the van Allen belts (you know what numbers are, right), in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface. Here's a fairly comprehensive paper dealing with van Allen belt radiation, why dont you start here and tell us why this data makes it impossible for humans to reach the moon:

I know its all been asked before, but hey i'm an optimist.




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
zvezdar, it's nice to see you and others here know their space exploration history, unlike FoosM. And you have segued into my next radiation post very nicely - thanks!

I'll be back again in a few hours to begin expanding upon the Van Allen belts in a GREAT deal of detail, starting with their discovery and a history of the investigation that followed. By the way, trivia check - there is an interesting little Australian twist to the discovery - does anyone know what that was? Don't spoil my fun - just name the person involved if you know.



Anyway, Walther/PPK55, when are you coming back to discuss the slow-motion issue?

Have you worked out the required slow motion factor yet?

Applied it to the original, correct speed videos and examined the results?

How do those results tie in with your theory that it was all filmed on earth?

Do you wish to revise that theory?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MacAnkka
 


Yeeeah.. you can stop with the' Since we dont' know anything about the belts" crap..., but you might want to listen to the data Van Allen already did.. and yes.. we've KNOWN about them for 50years.. .. derp !! welcome to the matrix

and IF these aren't enough for you ..there's always Wikiepedia

yea.. and Wiki even agrees !!!

The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and are moderately dangerous for human beings, but are difficult and expensive to shield against
(from source above)


















posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

www.ingentaconnect.com...;jsessionid=1ayxgdtu23xyp.alexandra?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fasma%2fasem%2f2006%2f00000077%2f00000004%2fart00 012&mimetype=text%2fhtml

search phosphenes

[edit on 9-6-2010 by FoosM]


What a moron you are. Here is the study:

Phosp henes in Low Earth Orbit

No wonder you were trying to hide it. It says exactly what we've been saying about these LMs. They vary greatly from person to person and nobody is sure what causes them. So the fact that two Apollo astronauts saw something different is PROVEN IN THIS ARTICLE to be of no importance.


Introduction: It has long been known that many people in space experience sudden phosphenes, or light flashes. Although it is clear that they are related to high-energy particles in the space radiation environment, many details about them are still unknown. In an effort to gain more knowledge about the light flashes, a study was initiated to collect information from people who have recently flown in space. Method: A survey conducted by anonymous questionnaire was performed among astronauts regarding their experience of sudden light flashes in space. In all, 98 surveys were distributed to current NASA and ESA astronauts. Results: Among the 59 respondents, 47 noticed them sometime during spaceflight. Most often they were noted before sleep, and several people even thought the light flashes disturbed their sleep. The light flashes predominantly appear white, have elongated shapes, and most interestingly, often come with a sense of motion. The motion is described as sideways, diagonal, or in-out, but never in the vertical direction. Discussion: Comparisons with earlier studies of light flashes in space and several ground-based studies during the 1970s are made. One interesting observation from this is that it seems that a small fraction of the light flashes is caused by Cherenkov radiation, while the majority is probably caused by some kind of direct interaction with elements in the retina.


The really sad thing is that you aren't even smart enough to realize you're being made a fool of...


Mod's : plz remove this post for violation of T&C.. do to the quote below thx!




What a moron you are. Here is the study



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
It's alright Komodo if ATS need a new Moderator you'll be asked
I think they can do their job just fine without your help. Anyway what's wrong with stating facts?

Dr Van Allen stated himself that the idea the belt's would have been a danger to the astronauts on Apollo was laughable. But you lot choose to ignore that bit...


Not only that the radiation problems are cumalative and for a relatively short exposure as experienced by the Apollo astranauts it's a non issue. If people like JW actually had attended class instead of manufacturing his fictional videos then he might actually have learnt something.
Some kid with average intelligence wastes his school time making some videos and people like you are sat there lapping it up like he's the world's greatest intellect but you choose to ignore people with actual knowledge and an education? *shakes head* what IS the world coming to.
What can you expect from a generation of people who's hero's are reality TV stars and YouTube nobody's I guess.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 


And how do you render the CSM invisible to optical telescopes and Soviet radar while it's in orbit? A Romulan cloaking device?


[edit on 10-6-2010 by DJW001]


and and you got a source for that ??

2nd ..



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


A source for what the cloaking device?

You're clearly a waste of time to try and educate, I was about to find the calculations for the radiation exposure but I don't think I'll bother. Have a nice Sunday, I'm off out to enjoy the Sun.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky


Pure delta-wings fell out of favour somewhat due to their undesirable characteristics, notably flow separation at high angles of attack (swept wings have similar problems), and high drag at low altitudes. This limited them primarily to high-speed, high-altitude interceptor roles.


And you try to tell me that they just kinda used them for big non intercepting passenger aircraft? Allow me to
Next thing you will tell me is that they use the same rockets to shoot different satelites into space....

Also:



The High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT), also known as High-speed Research (HSR),[1] was a NASA project to design a supersonic transport. It was to be a future Supersonic Passenger Aircraft, able to fly Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound. The project started in 1990 and ended during 1999. The goal was to employ up-to-date technologies. It was intended to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean in half the time of a non-supersonic aircraft. It was to be fuel efficient, carry 300 passengers, and it would have allowed customers to buy tickets at a much lower price than that of a ticket on a Concorde. The goal for its maiden flight was within 20 years.


Direct proof that the Concorde is impossible. Nasa tried for 10 years to replicate one, They figured it would take them 20 years before they get even a prototype! Then they gave up. I wonder why?

And why didnt the russians get their tupolev 144 to fly?




Early flights in scheduled service indicated the Tu-144S was extremely unreliable. During 102 flights and 181 hours of scheduled freight and passenger flight time, the Tu-144S suffered at least 226 failures, 80 of them in flight. (The list was included in the Tu-144 service record provided by the USSR to BAC-Aérospatiale in late 1978, when requesting Western technological aid with the Tu-144, and is probably incomplete.[26]). A total of 80 of these failures were serious enough to cancel or delay the flight.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by debunky]


that's great and all .. but

Where's are your sources..



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conqueror of Seth
Gee, it's too bad people like moon hoax believers can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that we left mirrors on the moon's surface during the apollo missions so that we could accurately measure the distance between the moon and earth using lasers.

some people will believe anything, no matter how asinine the belief itself is.


Gee, it's too bad that people that haven't decided to do their research a bit more instead of listening to to proproganist about there being a 'mirror' on the moon to 'measure' the distance..

WOW.. how pathetic..

it took all about 30secs to find this data.. sheeseh .. and you're still gonna believe that 'mirror' lie .. ?? and yes...some people will believe anything, no matter how asinine the belief itself is. ]



Now, by making observations of Venus in the sky, one can determine the point of greatest elongation. One can also measure the angle between the Sun and Venus in the sky at the point of greatest elongation. In the diagram, this angle will be the Sun-Earth-Venus angle marked as "e" in the right angled triangle. Now, using the trigonometry, one can determine the distance between Earth and Venus in terms of the Earth-Sun distance:

distance between Earth and Venus = a * cosine(e).

Now, the distance to Venus can be measured by radar measurements, where a radio wave is transmitted from Earth and is received when it bounces off Venus and comes back to Earth. By measuring the time taken for the pulse to come back, the distance can be calculated as radio waves travel at the speed of light. Once this is known, the distance between Earth and Sun can be calculated.

Historically, the first person to do this measurement was Aristarchus (310-230 BC). He measured the angular separation of the Sun and the Moon when its phase was first or third quarter to derive the distance between Earth and Sun in terms of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) also measured the distance between Earth and Sun as 804,000,000 stadia. The first scientific measurement of the Earth-Sun distance was made by Cassini in 1672 by parallax measurements of Mars (he observed Mars from two places simultaneously).

As you have indicated, once the distance between Earth and Sun is known, one can calculate all the other parameters. We know that the Sun subtends an angle of 0.5 degrees. Again, using trigonometry, the radius/diameter of the Sun can be calculated from the distance between Earth and Sun, d, as Rsun = tan(0.5 degrees) * d. Also, since we know the time taken by the Earth to go once around the Sun (P = 1 year), and the distance traveled by the Earth in this process (2*pi*a), we can calculate the average orbital speed of Earth as v = P/(2*pi*a).

Anyway, the relevant numbers are:

Earth-Sun distance, d = roughly 150 million km (defined as 1 Astronomical Unit)
Radius of the Sun, Rsun = roughly 700,000 km
Orbital speed of Earth, v = roughly 30 km/s
source



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
.... you know that jokes get a lot less funny if you have to explain them?

BTW: Did you know that due to friction the concorde would have needed a cooling system for its skin? The russians knew that, and theirs was so loud that you couldn't talk inside a TU144 when it was going mach 2. Now how do you fly a jet if you cant talk to your co pilot or navigator?

Also the friction would have caused thermal expansion (You know, the thing undiscovered before WTC7) Some guys have calculated that the concorde would have expanded by 14 cm! Yeah sure, everything getting out of shape and still flying. (Not to mention that we didn't know about Thermal expansion before 2009)

And where is the explanation from BEC? Nowhere!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
It's alright Komodo if ATS need a new Moderator you'll be asked
I think they can do their job just fine without your help. Anyway what's wrong with stating facts?

Dr Van Allen stated himself that the idea the belt's would have been a danger to the astronauts on Apollo was laughable. But you lot choose to ignore that bit...


Not only that the radiation problems are cumalative and for a relatively short exposure as experienced by the Apollo astranauts it's a non issue. If people like JW actually had attended class instead of manufacturing his fictional videos then he might actually have learnt something.
Some kid with average intelligence wastes his school time making some videos and people like you are sat there lapping it up like he's the world's greatest intellect but you choose to ignore people with actual knowledge and an education? *shakes head* what IS the world coming to.
What can you expect from a generation of people who's hero's are reality TV stars and YouTube nobody's I guess.


nothing is worng in stating the facts.. as long as it's the truth and not distorted LOL.. and the facts i.e. sources, that JW IS presenting ISN"T fact?? !!!!!! and so you DON't believe Van Allen and think some how he's out to decieve us?? wow.. and even Wiki posts this work !!!!

better go back to the black board bub.. and no, I wouldn't take the job of Mod even if they paid me.. LOL but Thx for putting me in for it!!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   


"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


jra

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I came across this Russian site that talks about how the Russians tracked the Apollo missions. They were able to get the telemetry, audio and video (albeit in poor quality)

Here's the page translated in google:
We "see" Americans landed on the moon



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Guess it's about time to continue with the radiation 'thesis'.. Before looking closely at where the Apollo spacecraft actually went, in relation to the belts, let's look at the belts in detail, right from the beginning.

I'll start with a little story to set the scene for what follows...

The Van Allen Belts

A Story of Discovery - Part One


(cue dreamy swirly music..)

Our story begins way back, a long long time ago...



It is March (or April - the exact date is unrecorded) of 1950, and there was an informal gathering of scientists at James Van Allen's residence. They were good friends and frequent collaborators, and the discussions were related to how technology could improve our understanding of 'geophysics'.

Topics included new scientific techniques and instruments, radar, computers, rockets and the possibility of space travel and satellites, precision mapping... they were discussing just how all these new techniques and opportunities might be taken advantage of in the future. These men (who included James Van Allen, Lloyd Berkner, Harry Vestine, Sydney Chapman, S F Singer, Wally Joyce and others) were free-thinkers and well ahead of their time. Their specialist areas included:
  • meteorology
  • oceanography
  • seismology
  • solar activity
  • geomagnetics, aurora, ionospheric physics
  • cosmic radiation
and much more.

At that meeting, either Berkner or Van Allen suggested the time was ripe for an International Geophysical Year (IGY), to focus people's attention on these topics.. Harry Chapman suggested that 1958 would be ideal for such a thing as it was predicted as a period of solar maxima, and extra studies would be supported (and better funded!) if there was more public attention. Van Allen, Chapman and Berkner were instrumental in the development of the highly successful IGY concept. Why, the IGY even gained popularity in the comic press...



(to be continued... in Part Two, learn how the radiation belts were actually 'discovered' as early as 1953 (but only because of... orange juice!) and how Sputnik 2 *almost* got lots of credit - except for Soviet secrecy backfiring on them...!)


Note - The text above is mine, but citations proving the content are available on request. Don't bother asking unless you have a point to make - I will be more than happy to point out time-wasting tactics.

I *will* be citing the more directly relevant sections and the facts and figures that will come later in the discussion.


[edit on 13-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 13-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

and IF these aren't enough for you ..there's always Wikiepedia

yea.. and Wiki even agrees !!!

The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and are moderately dangerous for human beings, but are difficult and expensive to shield against
(from source above)



Calling someone a "moron" is against terms, but spamming with FIFTEEN youtube videos isn't???

Anyway, if the VA belts are so dangerous to satellites, how is it that we have literally hundreds of satellites (from many countries) happily residing in them for decades without trouble?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
oops got my dates wrong please ignore




[edit on 13-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Komodo....I noticed your signature....

Ummm....if THAT is the basis of your "reality"...then, I can only say...I fear for your grip on reality.

NOT intended as a 'personal' attack, please don't see it in that way.....

THIS is a generalized comment, to describe the overall "mindset" that tends to inhabit within the brains of the true, true "conspiracy theorist" that is initially drawn to these Boards....

A LOT of 'venting' goes on, here...BUT.....I would hope, once some levelhead rationality is introduced, the ever "casual" reader (aka 'lurker') will come way with some improved awareness....and a better perpective to be able to sort the "crap" from the chaff....



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


ppk55, with all DUE respect, could you please inform the readers so that they can follow the logic in this statement?


Originally posted by ppk5

Would you mind providing a source for this, Because James Van Allen died in 2006.

If you are talking about the special 'Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'. That first aired in 2001. So I doubt he saw it.


IF, as you implied Dr. Van Allen died in year 2006 (easily verifed)....then WHY would you 'doubt' he saw a "mockumentary" (the FOX idiocy) that was aired in 2001??!!??

Do you just throw crap at the wall, and hope on one will notice????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

edit = 'DTS'....'dyslexic typing syndrome'.....

[edit on 13 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



Gee, it's too bad that people that haven't decided to do their research a bit more instead of listening to to proproganist about there being a 'mirror' on the moon to 'measure' the distance..

WOW.. how pathetic..

it took all about 30secs to find this data.. sheeseh .. and you're still gonna believe that 'mirror' lie .. ?? and yes...some people will believe anything, no matter how asinine the belief itself is. ]


How does this prove that there are no mirrors on the Moon? Just because I can measure a distance by trigonometry, does that prove yardsticks don't exist?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo
 



Gee, it's too bad that people that haven't decided to do their research a bit more instead of listening to to proproganist about there being a 'mirror' on the moon to 'measure' the distance..

WOW.. how pathetic..

it took all about 30secs to find this data.. sheeseh .. and you're still gonna believe that 'mirror' lie .. ?? and yes...some people will believe anything, no matter how asinine the belief itself is. ]


How does this prove that there are no mirrors on the Moon? Just because I can measure a distance by trigonometry, does that prove yardsticks don't exist?


No, I think it proves GPS doesnt exist. Because who would shoot satelites into space, if you can just as well just count your steps.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join