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: 199
377
<< 196  197  198    200  201  202 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.


Here is her response to my email ... (kudos to Eleanor, she responded in 1 hour)


email from Dr. Eleanor Blakely
I was referring to the fact that when individual high atomic number particles fragment in shielding materials they can (depending on the material of the shielding) produce a shower of lower atomic number particles that presents a potential risk inside the shielding (depending on their atomic number and energy). Please advise if I am clear that this is a function of charged particle radiation types, not general X-ray or gamma-ray radiations. Best to you, and thanks for asking. Sincerely, Ellie Blakely


So I'm gathering that solar flares produce these charged particles. Therefore the Aluminium skin of the Apollo spacecraft would 'produce a shower of lower atomic number particles that presents a potential risk inside the shielding (depending on their atomic number and energy).' Should it venture through these particles.

Now I know there is a lot of discussion about when these flares occurred and how strong they were.

However based on the below info from www.unisci.com...

"What we found, which I think nobody really expected, is the widespread distribution of particles accelerated following a single solar flare basically all the way through the heliosphere,"

"The energetic particles following a flare can sometimes increase the radiation intensity in space to harmful levels, and increased radiation can linger in the vicinity of Earth in the inner heliosophere for days, weeks, or even as much as a month after a large flare," McKibben explained.


Does this not mean that the Apollo spacecraft would have been affected by 'harmful levels' of charged particles even months after a solar event?

And given that the spacecraft's aluminum skin would produce 'a shower of lower atomic number particles that presents a potential risk inside the shielding'

Where could the Astronauts hide to avoid this problem?
It would seem even if they had a warning, the Aluminum skin would not have provided any protection, in fact it would have worsened the situation.



edit on 21-9-2010 by ppk55 because: another quote




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Why not ask her the question in context PPK?

This was posted earlier in the thread, but it seems you missed it. Appears to explain some of the confusion you have regarding the shielding.


Dr Blakely reports increased frequency of cataracts among the 600-odd
astronauts studied, consistent with increased exposure to radiation
during space travel.

She does not say that aluminum shielding makes the situation worse.
She says it can increase the fluence of particles within the shielded
enclosure. Fluence is the number of particles per unit time crossing a
given area within the enclosure. Fluence says nothing about the energy
of the particles, hence nothing about their ability to cause damage.

Conservation of energy implies that when an energetic particle strikes
the outside of the shield causing a cascade of particles inside, the
total energy of all the inside particles must be less than the energy
of the single outside particle. The outside particle has to overcome
the energy binding the internal particles to the aluminum in the first
place.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are inside an enclosure. A bullet
strikes the outside and sets off a cascade of ping-pong balls on the
inside. Which would you rather have hit you, the bullet, or the ping-
pong balls?

Another ignorant misreading.


I'd suggest asking the Doctor in context for the question. Otherwise all we're doing is quote mining her for specific answers. Really you would want to ask if the shielding was appropriate and the results expected.




edit on 21-9-2010 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


So they can't remember the most important day of their lives even at an old age? That is hogwash. My grandfather was able to remember things and events when he went to world war I and II. He got drafted late in world war I. That was his biggest event that happened to him in his life.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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


No worries lol but i haven't contradicted anything. Your major problem is that you choose to reject the mainstream when it makes no sense rationally too - yes it was scientifically possible at the time to send probes to the moon instead of people but in such cases it's simply accepting it or not.

I'm not a buff on this stuff but ill ask this, which i think might help - to your knowledge where there any missions that went to the moon during the 1969-72 manned moon missions that NASA could have used to send the probes with mirrors to the moon? If your answer is no, then frankly the only way those mirrors could have gotten there is by the maned missions to the moon.


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


Then when?


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


What deception? It's a confirmed fact that scientists use the mirrors on a monthly bases. DUDE, are you telling me scientists from around the world are still trying to cover it up? Scientists from all over the world are in on it? You sound like a paranoid quack. And that's being polite.



When did those scientist begin getting clean signals back from the mirrors?


LOl have no idea but i don't think it matters too much by the very fact we have the mirrors there in the first place. How do you suppose we have (for decades now) been able to get the precise measurements that we've been getting if not from the mirrors?


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?


Dude with the spending of billions i'm sure they found a way.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


Please explain, in detail. Provide all the relevant data.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Why not ask her the question in context PPK?

This was posted earlier in the thread, but it seems you missed it. Appears to explain some of the confusion you have regarding the shielding.


Dr Blakely reports increased frequency of cataracts among the 600-odd
astronauts studied, consistent with increased exposure to radiation
during space travel.

She does not say that aluminum shielding makes the situation worse.
She says it can increase the fluence of particles within the shielded
enclosure. Fluence is the number of particles per unit time crossing a
given area within the enclosure. Fluence says nothing about the energy
of the particles, hence nothing about their ability to cause damage.

Conservation of energy implies that when an energetic particle strikes
the outside of the shield causing a cascade of particles inside, the
total energy of all the inside particles must be less than the energy
of the single outside particle. The outside particle has to overcome
the energy binding the internal particles to the aluminum in the first
place.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are inside an enclosure. A bullet
strikes the outside and sets off a cascade of ping-pong balls on the
inside. Which would you rather have hit you, the bullet, or the ping-
pong balls?

Another ignorant misreading.


I'd suggest asking the Doctor in context for the question. Otherwise all we're doing is quote mining her for specific answers. Really you would want to ask if the shielding was appropriate and the results expected.


Pinke, I did ask her, and here is my initial email and her answer. Will you now retract your ping pong ball analogy?


my email to Dr. Blakely

Dear Dr. Blakely,

Thank you so much for your reply. I didn't really expect one as I know how busy you would be. I've read your CV. So I am extremely grateful to put it mildly to receive a reply from such a prominent and respected individual.
Also, I should point out I am not a Doctor, rather a very interested amateur researcher in this area.

The reason I was asking is because of a dispute going on in a forum trying to answer whether aluminum shielding would be adequate to protect astronauts in space.
Below is what's being suggested. I wonder if at some point in the next month or so if you happen to get a couple of minutes free you might be able to address.

>>>>>
"Dr Blakely reports increased frequency of cataracts among the 600-odd
astronauts studied, consistent with increased exposure to radiation
during space travel.

She does not say that aluminum shielding makes the situation worse.
She says it can increase the fluence of particles within the shielded
enclosure. Fluence is the number of particles per unit time crossing a
given area within the enclosure. Fluence says nothing about the energy
of the particles, hence nothing about their ability to cause damage.

Conservation of energy implies that when an energetic particle strikes
the outside of the shield causing a cascade of particles inside, the
total energy of all the inside particles must be less than the energy
of the single outside particle. The outside particle has to overcome
the energy binding the internal particles to the aluminum in the first
place.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are inside an enclosure. A bullet
strikes the outside and sets off a cascade of ping-pong balls on the
inside. Which would you rather have hit you, the bullet, or the ping-
pong balls?

Another ignorant misreading."



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Good to see some actual investigation in this thread, even though it all doesn't seem very relevant to Apollo being a hoax or not. The conclusion is that particles with lower energies will cause less damage as results of shielding, and particles with higher energies will do more damage. If you want to make this relevant to Apollo, you will need to know the break-even point at which energy level a particle would do equal damage with and without shielding, and after that you will need to determine how many of each category were present during Apollo, and how much the contribution to total radiation damage was. I suspect that the high energy particles are so rare that they only have a minor contribution to total radiation damage. Maybe you should ask this to Dr. Blakely. And of course, you will have to accept this answer as credible too.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
ppk, how can you use a scientist who believes the Apollo Landings are real to prove they are a hoax?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

I'm not a buff on this stuff but ill ask this, which i think might help - to your knowledge where there any missions that went to the moon during the 1969-72 manned moon missions that NASA could have used to send the probes with mirrors to the moon? If your answer is no, then frankly the only way those mirrors could have gotten there is by the maned missions to the moon.


Imagine these possibilities Andre18:

1. There were no astronauts in the Saturn, what was sent was a machine.
2. The mirrors were placed on the moon prior to Apollo:


The National Science Foundation (NSF) last week wrote to scientists working at the McDonald Laser ranging station at Fort Davis in Texas to tell them the annual $125,000 funding for their research project was going be terminated following a review of its scientific merits.



The decision means that four decades of continuous lunar laser research at the McDonald Observatory, run by the University of Texas at Austin, will be halted by the end of this year. Among the project's unlikely achievements has been the discovery that the moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of two-and-a-half inches a year.



The mirror's existence, and the fact that astronomers can bounce lasers off it and detect the returning beam, has also provided Nasa and other scientists with compelling evidence to refute the claims of moon-landing deniers who claim the Apollo lunar mission were hoaxes filmed in an Earth-based studio.



The mirror left by Aldrin and Armstrong after they landed on the Sea of Tranquillity on 21 July 1969, was one of five known as "corner mirrors" or "retro-reflector arrays" that were taken to the moon in the later Sixties and early Seventies. Two other corner mirrors were brought to the moon by astronauts on later manned lunar flights, on the Apollo 14 and the Apollo 15 missions. In addition, a second pair were built by French scientists and flown to the moon by the Soviet Union on their robot Luna probes.



I know, your asking yourself, so what?


For the first lunar landing, Mare Tranquilitatis was the site chosen because it is a relatively smooth and level area. It does, however, have a high density of craters and in the last seconds before landing, the LM had to be manually piloted by Neil Armstrong to avoid a sharp-rimmed ray crater measuring some 180 meters across and 30 meters deep known as West. The LM landed safely some 6 km from the originally intended landing site.


Now check this out:


The landing site is 41.5 km north-northeast of the western promontory of the Kant Plateau, which is the nearest highland region. The Surveyor 5 spacecraft is approximately 25 km north-northwest of the Apollo 11 landing site, and the impact crater formed by Ranger 8 is 69 km northeast of the landing site.




Surveyor 5
Launched 08 September 1967
Landed 11 September 1967, 00:46:44 UT
Latitude 1.41 N, Longitude 23.18 E - Mare Tranquillitatus (Sea of Tranquility)


In other words, who is to say that what they are hitting with their lasers are not the Surveyors?



The impossible locating of the little reflectors

The reflectors are said to have been set up "on the moon" to measure better the distance between Earth and moon. But the reflectors are not more than good "rear reflectors". And when there would really set up these little reflectors on the moon so it would not be possible to locate them, because on a distance of 380,000 km a laser beam is 7 km large, and after the reflexion on the moon surface the laser beam is 20 km large.



First the distance between moon and Earth has not been determined until now as a stable distance. Every institution which is busy with this subject indicates other numbers. This is because the moon is moving and has no stable connection to the Earth.



Secondly I mean that the laser mirror of e.g. Apollo 11 is (comparing fotos) not adjusted to the Earth.



Thirdly there is no laser mirror needed to measure the distance with a laser. The normal bright reflecting lunar surface is absolutely enough



It would be logic to think that the laser reflectors could be found where the "moon astronauts" would have set them up during the "moon landings" (Wisnewski, p.221). An investigation of space flight historian Michael Stenneken has given an other result. He wanted to buy land "on the moon" near a "moon landing" place and wanted to have the precise coordinates. But he found out that there are no standardized coordinates of the "moon landings":



The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even
when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually
hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging.
At the moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide.
Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to
hit a moving dime two miles away.




Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging
observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification
equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be
seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing
conditions, only one photon--the fundamental particle of light--will
be received every few seconds.



So what was the point of the reflectors?






Dude with the spending of billions i'm sure they found a way.


Yeah they found a way to fake it real good.



nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.nasm.si.edu...
www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...
www2.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yeah they found a way to fake it real good.


As your own source says:


This is NO conspiracy theory, stupid Wikipedia, but these are facts. You don't believe? The facts remain.


Stupid Wikipedia. I guess you'll just have to stop quoting it now.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

Solar flares produce protons mostly, with a few helium nuclei thrown in. A proton is a hydrogen ion with an atomic number of 1. A helium ion has an atomic number of 2. These are not high atomic numbers. GCRs are composed of heavy ions, like iron. Ions with high atomic numbers. Again, if you watched the video you would see that is what she was talking about.

You also are ignoring the energy levels involved. Yes, a powerful SPE can produce high energy particles, high enough to be dangerous. That is why they are of concern. But there were no such events during any of the Apollo missions.

You are ignoring flux levels. Yes, some high energy particles can persist for a while after a flare but the flux level is slight. The data is readily available. McKibben says:"increased radiation can linger". He does not say harmful levels linger. You are ignoring flux levels.



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



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Amazing that all this silliness has always ignored the human element. The thousands of engineers, scientists, and of course astronauts who would all have to be in on the lie, since it would be impossible to hide it from those people.

It was simply a huge scientific achievement, and of all the whacky conspiracy theories you could come up with, this one invariably makes the least sense to me.

We went and came back - multiple times, deal with it.

Ok, now go back to arguing about why a quark couldn't possibly have penetrated Aldrin's helmet outside of a spatial time vortex.


edit on 21-9-2010 by Retseh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


Quark?? Did you say "Quark"?

I found one....don't know whether he went along, nor whether he "penetrated" Aldrin's helmet....but, a time vortex might have made that a bit easier, I 'spose........






posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


[But the problem of an impossible radio communication over a distance of 380,000 km and of an impossible landing of the Luna probes by an impossible radio communication is never mentioned...]

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...
Right, radios won't work between Earth and the Moon. Too far away. Impossible even for the Russians. Great source there, he says even robots couldn't have placed the reflectors. I like the part about the reflectors not being aimed at Earth too. He doesn't realize that the Earth moves in the sky of the Moon. Brilliant.

We know where exactly where each of the landers are.
For example:


How's that proof of a major SPE coming along?



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




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



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Amazing that all this silliness has always ignored the human element. The thousands of engineers, scientists, and of course astronauts who would all have to be in on the lie, since it would be impossible to hide it from those people.




Im glad you brought that up
How many PRIVATE companies were involved in Apollo?
And how many people did they hire?


Funding was not the only critical component for Project Apollo. To realize the goal of Apollo under the strict time constraints mandated by the president, personnel had to be mobilized. This took two forms. First, by 1966 the agency's civil service rolls had grown to 36,000 people from the 10,000 employed at NASA in 1960. Additionally, NASA's leaders made an early decision that they would have to rely upon outside researchers and technicians to complete Apollo, and contractor employees working on the program increased by a factor of 10, from 36,500 in 1960 to 376,700 in 1965. Private industry, research institutions, and universities, therefore, provided the majority of personnel working on Apollo.



See that?
It wasn't some monolithic government agency that made Apollo happen, they went outside, involved many third parties. And you know what that means? Thats right, it means that one company is only going to share 'need to know' information to another. It means that NASA could easily compartmentalize the whole shebang. The right hand didnt know what the left hand was doing.

God Apollo is so easy to rip apart.

history.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
i'm not sure if this has been posted, and i'm just spitballin' here, but...

what if the moon landings were real, as in, they did happen, but the footage was faked?

this would explain a hell of a lot, and the more i think about it, the more it makes sense...

thoughts??



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


BS!!! So far away from reality, it is staggering.....


Thats right, it means that one company is only going to share 'need to know' information to another...


But, just keep it up, the amusement potential is incredible.

However, if you'd actually take the time to LEARN**, then how's about any of the dozens of books that have already been suggested? **(Then, you see, no one will be able to mock such ignorance anymore.)

There are so many to choose from....but, to fall in with your terrible understanding of how ALL components are inter-related, you shoulc read about Harrison Storms ("Stormy", as his nickname went) of North American Aviation. He was lead manager on the Apollo project for his corporation.


"Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon"

Check your local library.....


IN this lively and engaging book, Mike Gray views the Apollo program through the prism of the aerospace industry. Harrison Storms, the protagonist, was president of the aerospace division of North American Aviation, which developed the Apollo command module and the second stage of the Saturn launch vehicle. For six years he oversaw a string of remarkable successes, from winning the Apollo contract in the first place to pioneering the successful development of a rocket fueled by liquid hydrogen.

Then came the fire. On Jan. 27, 1967, the astronauts Roger Chaffee, Gus Grissom and Ed White were killed by a flash fire in the command module of their Apollo 1 spacecraft during a preflight test on the ground at Cape Kennedy.


NYTimes review, October 18, 1992. "Stormy" died that July, and this is his biography by Mike Gray.


See that, up above there? The SECOND STAGE of Saturn. Know what that means??? They had to FIT, at both ends, perfectly with the OTHER stages, being built by OTHER companies.....it's all in the book. Not only that, various systems all had to interact together....

Really, before you run out of those smily emoticons, just LOOK at a modern-day example....BOEING!!!!! Parts, components, various contractors who all MAKE the passenger jets you might one day ride in.......



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by FoosM



Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging
observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification
equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be
seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing
conditions, only one photon--the fundamental particle of light--will
be received every few seconds.




So what was the point of the reflectors?


But if the scientists use that method and it works then who are you to say it's fabricated??? If its one particle of light every few seconds then it's one particle of light every few seconds - what does it matter - it's apparently what scientists use so end of discussion the mirrors have a very weak signal but it's there. I don't actually see what you're trying to even imply.

But besides all this - again you keep a blind eye to the pink elephant in the room - that it's all a conspiracy. To say scientists that are just now coming into the field wouldn't know better? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous, you're implying you know better then experts. The Australian guy is equally out of his mind, i mean it's perfectly healthy to question things but when you say the mirrors were put there by machines instead of people implies such a lack of knowledge and understanding for the scientists in their field, it is amazing you have the balls to come on to any forum and say you know better.

It is akin to saying i don't think evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because i don't believe it. You imply you have greater knowledge then experts. You simply can't say that. Period.


Yeah they found a way to fake it real good.





edit on 21-9-2010 by andre18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



God Apollo is so easy to rip apart.


A typical FoosM decision tree:

If the NASA were a huge, monolithic bureaucracy, then it's easier to close ranks and keep secrets, therefore Apollo is a hoax.

If NASA requires countless contractors and sub-contractors. it's easier to "compartmentalize," and therefore "Apollo was a hoax".

Another example:

If the Apollo astronauts did not instantly burst into flames and die of radiation poisoning, "Apollo was a hoax."

If the Apollo astronauts suffer from a radiation related illness, say cataracts, that other astronauts and high altitude aviators also suffer from, then it proves that "Apollo was a hoax."

If, in coming years, it turns out that the Apollo astronauts have a higher mortality rate from cancer than other non-smokers, it proves that NASA is assassinating them to conceal the "truth," and, yup, therefore "Apollo was a hoax."

Brilliant. You obviously don't work in management. (Marketing, perhaps?)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

You forgot this one:
"The astronauts didn't go to the Moon because they didn't say they saw stars on the nightside of the moon."
"The astronauts are liars because they say they saw stars on the nightside of the moon."


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



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 196  197  198    200  201  202 >>

log in

join