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: 198
377
<< 195  196  197    199  200  201 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

No, I didn't watch Jarrah's crap all the way but I did watch Blakely's lecture (which you obviously did not). She is talking about galactic cosmic rays and she is talking about long term exposure.

She said:

The problem is particles undergo a process called fragmentation

What exactly do you think she is talking about? 10Mev protons? 30MeV protons? No, not hardly. She is talking about energy levels of hundreds of MeV up to GeV. She is talking about cosmic rays. Shielding against other forms of radiation is not a problem. Cosmic rays are a problem...in the long term.

Fragmentation is what occurs when cosmic rays (high energy critters that they are) strike something. That is what the problem is. In the long term.

For example:
fragmentation

Face it, your hero is wrong. Wrong about radiation and wrong about everything else.


edit on 9/20/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The problem that wont just go away:




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Stars again? Seriously?

Maybe you can explain just exactly what point that idiotic video is trying to make. I don't see one.
Armstrong said he didn't see stars. That makes sense, his eyes were adapted to the bright lunar surface. I thought this had all been covered before.



edit on 9/20/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Blakely has commented and been involved in studies on radiation and astronauts. Full article here: www.medscape.com...


The study of cataract in astronauts is of interest largely because these workers are exposed to higher doses and different patterns of radiation than other more Earth-bound populations — and increased radiation exposure is linked to increased risk of cataract. The study included all 215 astronauts from the US astronaut program, and it includes those who have flown only in low-inclination (still partially in Earth's atmosphere) as well as those who have walked on the moon.


Seems a bit pointless studying astronauts who have been to the moon if they hadn't actually gone no? They would have had to volunteer to be exposed to radiation to keep up the story. I wouldn't volunteer for that.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Stars again? Seriously?

Maybe you can explain just exactly what point that idiotic video is trying to make. I don't see one.
Armstrong said he didn't see stars. That makes sense, his eyes were adapted to the bright lunar surface. I thought this had all been covered before.



edit on 9/20/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Explain how Collins could go around the dark side of the moon and not see stars.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Blakely has commented and been involved in studies on radiation and astronauts. Full article here: www.medscape.com...


The study of cataract in astronauts is of interest largely because these workers are exposed to higher doses and different patterns of radiation than other more Earth-bound populations — and increased radiation exposure is linked to increased risk of cataract. The study included all 215 astronauts from the US astronaut program, and it includes those who have flown only in low-inclination (still partially in Earth's atmosphere) as well as those who have walked on the moon.


Seems a bit pointless studying astronauts who have been to the moon if they hadn't actually gone no? They would have had to volunteer to be exposed to radiation to keep up the story. I wouldn't volunteer for that.





LEO.


Should I point it out again?

Apollo 11 0.18 rads 08 days (moon landing)
Apollo 8 0.16 rads 08 days (circling the moon)
Apollo 7 0.16 rads 10 days (LEO)
Gemini 7 0.16 rads 13 days (LEO)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

He did see stars.

COLLINS: Day 4 has a decidedly different feel to it. Instead of nine hours' sleep, I get seven -- and fitful ones at that. Despite our concentrated effort to conserve our energy on the way to the Moon, the pressure is overtaking us (or me at least), and I feel that all of us are aware that the honeymoon is over and we are about to lay our little pink bodies on the line. Our first shock comes as we stop our spinning motion and swing ourselves around so as to bring the Moon into view. We have not been able to see the Moon for nearly a day now, and the change is electrifying. The Moon I have known all my life, that two- dimensional small yellow disk in the sky, has gone away somewhere, to be replaced by the most awesome sphere I have ever seen. To begin with it is huge, completely filling our window. Second, it is three-dimensional. The belly of it bulges out toward us in such a pronounced fashion that I almost feel I can reach out and touch it. To add to the dramatic effect, we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the Moon now, and the elusive stars have reappeared.

( Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, edited by Edgar M. Cortright,
NASA SP; 350, Washington, DC, 1975 )



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



LEO.


Should I point it out again?

Apollo 11 0.18 rads 08 days (moon landing)
Apollo 8 0.16 rads 08 days (circling the moon)
Apollo 7 0.16 rads 10 days (LEO)
Gemini 7 0.16 rads 13 days (LEO)


Should I point it out at all? South Atlantic Anomaly. The Gemini astronauts passed through it repeatedly. Other Apollo missions received higher doses. Background radiation exposure is always a crap shoot. The solar winds vary continuously and hard radiation from galactic cosmic rays is completely random.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Oooh. Shiney numbers.
You skipped some.
Apollo IX .2 rads
Apollo X .48 rads
Apollo XII .58 rads
Apollo XIII .24 rads
Apollo XIV 1.1 rads
Apollo XV .30 rads
Apollo XVI .51 rads
Apollo XVII .55 rads

Yes, it varies.





edit on 9/20/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   


ppk55
It doesn't matter who claimed to have a reflector .. the mythbusters have been well . um .. been busted.
It seems anyone can bounce a beam off the moon and get a reading.


haha, it's like u purposely miss the point entirely.

- Yes as you found before we were able to actually get to the moon, we were able to get signals back. But, as you saw in the mythbuster video they still are getting a signal back nowadays from the mirrors. I know you trying to say because we were able to get signals back from the moon in 1966 then it's possible the signals we're getting back now are just the same.

Dude it doesn't work like that - we get constant feed back from the mirrors all the time - "they can pinpoint the distance to the moon with an accuracy of around a millimetre – a measurement so precise that it has the potential to reveal problems with general relativity" If you can prove that we can do that without mirrors then you'll have something to say.

Also - If you read later in the article you would have found that -
www.newscientist.com...


But now Tom Murphy from the University of California, San Diego, who leads one of the teams at the Apache Point Observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico, thinks the mirrors have become coated in moon dust. "The lunar reflectors are not as good as they used to be by a factor of 10," he says.


It goes on to say the mirrors have been covered in dust -

He suspects that moon dust is either coating the surface of the mirrors or has scratched them.
This is actual evidence that the very tools that scientists use routinely - monthly, are being damaged. You think they're making this up? funny.


edit on 20-9-2010 by andre18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

FoosM
So how did the Soviets get those mirrors on the moon if they claimed they never landed a man up there


It's funny you put the puz there because you've just unintentionally said (i don't know because icbf doing the research)


You think the Soviets lied about landing people on the moon? You think the US&USSR have been busy colonizing the moon without us knowing about it?

Please explain!!!!


kk i will.

news.softpedia.com... in this article that took an entire 1 second to find on google it says -


Using data collected by a NASA spacecraft, experts were finally able to rediscover a long-lost, Soviet-built reflecting device on the surface of the Moon. The exact location of the scientific payload has remained a mystery since September 14, 1971. At that date, the Soviet Union lost contact with its Lunokhod 1 rover, which was carrying the mirrors. Nearly 40 years later, American physicists were able to identify the instrument using lasers beamed to the Moon all the way from Earth, Space reports.

.....it landed on the natural satellite on November 17, 1970, aboard the lander segment of the Lunokhod 1 mission. The rover was then deployed, and began its trek across the lunar surface. Eventually, in September the following year, contact with the small exploration robot was lost, and its location became a mystery. “No one had seen the reflector since 1971,”


It's really simple, the Soviets sent a robot and the Americans sent dudes......Is it really that hard to grasp?


jra

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
It doesn't matter who claimed to have a reflector .. the mythbusters have been well . um .. been busted.
It seems anyone can bounce a beam off the moon and get a reading.


I guess you missed this post of mine.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the Moon now, and the elusive stars have reappeared.
( Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, edited by Edgar M. Cortright,
NASA SP; 350, Washington, DC, 1975 )



Oh great now you have revealed all three astronauts as liars.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

According to you, all of the Apollo astronauts are liars.
I don't know about anything else they may have said, but they didn't lie about going to the Moon and back.



edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



LEO.


Should I point it out again?

Apollo 11 0.18 rads 08 days (moon landing)
Apollo 8 0.16 rads 08 days (circling the moon)
Apollo 7 0.16 rads 10 days (LEO)
Gemini 7 0.16 rads 13 days (LEO)


Should I point it out at all? South Atlantic Anomaly. The Gemini astronauts passed through it repeatedly. Other Apollo missions received higher doses. Background radiation exposure is always a crap shoot. The solar winds vary continuously and hard radiation from galactic cosmic rays is completely random.


Great, you just gave a possible explanation for the higher doses on the other Apollo missions which are all within exposures for LEO. But other than that, you cant provide any evidence of correlation.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

It's really simple, the Soviets sent a robot and the Americans sent dudes......Is it really that hard to grasp?


Great, you just contradicted your earlier statement that mirrors must have been placed by people.
You have just revealed that you can do it with machines too. Thanks

So guess what? You know what "real simple" is? Americans sent robots too, is that hard to grasp?

Now combine that with your dirty mirrors reveal, and you might start seeing a pattern of deception.

Think about it, what happened when the LM supposedly ascended from the moon?
Thats right, mirrors should have been damaged/dirty from day one.

When did those scientist begin getting clean signals back from the mirrors?
And, how could they if they didnt know where the Apollo craft landed?
As a matter of fact, how can you really get a clean signal from a device no larger than a laptop over 200.000 thousand miles away while both it and you on this planet are moving?




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

According to you, all of the Apollo astronauts are liars.
I don't know about anything else they may have said, but they didn't lie about going to the Moon and back.



edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Well they would have to be lying if they didnt go, now wouldn't they?
They were all military men. And would be likely to tell you and their wives
any story that their superiors told them to tell. Or you think soldiers always tell
the truth about their missions?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

First you say:

Explain how Collins could go around the dark side of the moon and not see stars.

Nice little corner you worked yourself into (add it to the list). So what do you do? Call him a liar for saying he did see stars. Cute. But stupid.

And they are lying because...you say they are. Light adapted human eyes cannot see stars.

Apollo 8:

00 09 19 09 CMP Also, I've been occasionally looking out to see if I could see stars at various sun angles and at this particular altitude, it's very difficult. In the scanning telescope the sun is very bright and the earth is very bright. And if I looked at the earth and try to look for stars, I lose my dark adaptation very quickly.



00 10 09 16 CDR Houston, this is Apollo 8. Be advised that we doubted that it would be possible to use the stars to get our backup alignment. We haven't been able to ate my stars through the scanning telescope yet.



03 13 50 22 LMP The sky up here is also rather forbidding, foreboding expanse of blackness, with no stars visible when we're flying over the moon in daylight


Now about that major SPE...tick tock tick tock.


edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


LOL

Phil plait is the bad astronomer.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
reply to post by FoosM
 

They were all military men. And would be likely to tell you and their wives
any story that their superiors told them to tell. Or you think soldiers always tell
the truth about their missions?



Yeah, but THE Apollo astronauts are different...

...They WOULD never lie.

And even If you THINK you caught them lying, it was just a mistake on YOUR part. And so what if they sometimes contradict themselves and EACH other, you cannot EXPECT them to remember something that happened so LONG ago.


Who do I remind you of with the random capitalization of words?




top topics



 
377
<< 195  196  197    199  200  201 >>

log in

join