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: 222
377
<< 219  220  221    223  224  225 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


As the Moon landings are an established and proven fact (contrary what some of the intellectually challenged seem to think) you have obviously spent many days using your in depth knowledge of physics and keen mathematical skills to come to the conclusion they couldn't go?
Please, share with us your workings to demonstrate how it was impossible. The data is available and the standard laws of physics apply, which of course you must know as you used them both to come to the conclusion that everyone else is wrong.
Don't be worried that it will be beyond our level of understanding, please publish all of mathematical workings and conclusions in the thread so we can look at it together, rather than keep repeating in a poor representation of English some gibberish that doesn't even make sense.
Luckily mathematics is a universal language, so hopefully this way you can escape any further ridicule and we can finally see what you are trying to say and how you came to your conclusions.

Please note that unless you can show your mathematical workings for why they could not have had enough fuel to get to the Moon, your argument will be automatically null and void on the grounds that it is proven wrong by the known laws of physics and the data provided and merely your uneducated opinion.




posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You vain attempts at derision and mocking are an incredible FAIL yet again.

The LEC is obviously working, as described earlier. SO what the guy on the surface is out of the frame??? You can see the conveyor working, and the slope of it...he HAS to be certain distance away, due to the shallow angle, and therefore the length of the thing.

But, here your "incredulity" knows no bounds.....:


About a minute later the camera tilts back down to reveal the astronaut on the ground near the camera!


Did you watch with the sound off, or something? The camera got stuck, when they panned up to see the Earth. The Astronaut (Dave Scott, I believe) went over to un-stick it. You can hear CapCom say it went "belly up" for a while. You understand that idiomatic expression, yes???



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


AGAIN... numbers, facts and sources we can check. Your own biased opinion doesn't matter.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


There are no facts and figures and that is my point
What NASA has put out is not validated
They are merely numbers pertaining to what we are told was used

No one proved that it was correct
So I suppose that we are at a stalemate

As far as the radiation goes
The surface of the moon is radioactive
Please read this article

And understand the "gravity" LOL
of what I am saying

Remember
The sources that I cite are YOUR type of sources
They are people who support YOUR stance
And yet I still show you the improbabilities of the moon landing

EVERYTHING that we both say is SPECULATION
So then let's turn to the scientific method to validate or invalidate the hypothesis that we went to the moon

In fact let's use the null hypothesis aspect of the method

1)We went to the moon
Proof:
-Pictures
-Official accounts

That is all

2)We did not go the the moon
Proof:
-We are JUST NOW finding out that the surface of the moon is radioactive
-The only other information concerning radioactivity came from the space flights themselves
-This piece of information is important to consider
-The original footage of the first moon walk was lost or misplaced for some 30 plus years
-That invalidates the idea of pictures as supportive evidence due to a lack of chain of command
-I know that I have said it before but the "Dutch Moon Rock" seriously calls into question the credibility of NASA
-This invalidates the idea of official accounts
-If we just now realized exactly how much deadly radiation is on the surface of the moon then the information gathered from the official accounts is invalid

Unless of course we got that %$#@ right every single time
But hey we may kill people just trying to get into low earth orbit
But the moon
Sheesh piece of cake
I mean we are America
We never lose

Conclusion:
-There is nothing but anecdotal disinformation saying that we went to the surface of the moon

The idea that we did not go is much more VALID than the idea that we did go

Thank you for your time

Cheers



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


I like the idea that it takes now 5 of you to prove me wrong
This is entertaining to watch

You folks dig deeper holes each time

"He who employs emotion is unable to employ reason"
-Cicero

Cheers



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Don't you bother to actually READ your own sources????



"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year.


See? From the source, in your above post.

The FACTS of Apollo are abundant, they are easy to find online (even BETTER in the many, many books written about the project). Corroborating NUMBERS, and calculations and physics. Yes, from sources OTHER than NASA. Even RUSSIAN sources. They got whipped, and they KNOW it is fact.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I also read the part where it said that


Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.


link to source

So my point is that we
without having one iota where we were about to put our "best boys"
We got it right anyway BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICA
But yet we have this horrible record when it comes to killing people
Just getting them into low earth orbit

Cherry pick all you would care
The truth is there for those that wish to see

edit on 10/17/2010 by Josephus23 because: clearing up misconceptions



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


DO YOU NOT GET IT

The Russians were never our mortal enemies (we gave them the plans for the bomb)
Neither was Saddam (we armed him)
Neither is Al-qaeda (we created them; Charlie Wilson's War anyone)

The Russians created the N-1 rocket to fail purposefully
So as to make the trip to the moon look like an impossibility
Only Americans can do it
And no one else can
Not even with out 1960's tech
(And most of that was computing power; Moore's Law of acceleration anyone)

It's like waking up and black is white and up is down

I know it is tough to swallow but one day you will see
We are seeing it in the housing crash currently happening

Please read for more information

I get no personal gain from this and mostly ridicule
I am only trying to wake you up my brother

Cheers



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



Sorry, but now you're just ranting, in a wildly scatter-shot manner? I see no relevance to all these inane ramblings....


The Russians were never our mortal enemies (we gave them the plans for the bomb)


Revisionist history? You have some queer notions...quaint, lacking in substance and fact.


The Russians created the N-1 rocket to fail purposefully


Oh, brother!!!
You told you that whopper??


So as to make the trip to the moon look like an impossibility
Only Americans can do it


Rubbish. Doesn't even make any logical sense. I'd try re-reading what you wrote, to see how it fails, in logic.


(And most of that was computing power; Moore's Law of acceleration anyone)


"Moore's Law" is irrelevant. The computers of the era WERE sufficient....this has all been discussed many, many times....HBs who still try to use this flawed "argument" have been left behind....

...and, speaking of being "left behind", the wheels are coming off your bus, here:


We are seeing it in the housing crash currently happening


What in blue blazes does THAT have to do, at all, with Apollo??


At least some of the others (other HBs) occasionally present cogent points....wrong on all counts, but at least focused on the subject.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


All that I have typed has been validated for those that wish to see

You are so heavily entrenched in your beliefs that you do not know that what you espouse is propaganda
NIxon was a fan of Brezhnev and they spent much time discussing politics

This is so much bigger than this little moon distraction

Gorbachev and Reagan

What about the Francis Powers U2 incident
We were never going to war for conquest
But to generate fear and have a common enemy
Krushchev was a PHENOMENAL actor

Bless you my brother
May your shield of ignorance keep you safe and allow you to sleep well at night

Cheers



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


I like the idea that it takes now 5 of you to prove me wrong
This is entertaining to watch

You folks dig deeper holes each time

"He who employs emotion is unable to employ reason"
-Cicero

Cheers


We're still waiting for you to offer any evidence that the TLI burn was not sufficient to get the Apollo spacecraft to Lunar orbit.

Numbers please. Not nonsensical rantings.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


The numbers do not exist
NASA only put out the specs of what was used
Not if they were sufficient

You are trying to make me prove a negative
When you yourself cannot prove that the PHYSICS behind it is possible

Let me add number 6 to the people trying to refute me on this board



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Now, let me turn my attention to DJ's other analysis of my original Rock and Roll post.
I had not forgotten.


Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 

Finally, you quote some numbers. Sadly, they are expressed in "sandbags," which seems to be a bit misleading. In order to get a better idea of the samples, let's use a different measurement: a "shoebox." The average shoebox will have a volume of about 6,750 cubic centimeters. (30x15x15 cm) Assuming that lunar rock has the same density as basalt, 3g/cm3, each "shoebox" can contain 20.25 kilograms of rock.

Using your own table:

Apollo 11, 22 kilograms = 1 shoebox
Apollo 12, 34 kilograms = 1.7 shoeboxes
Apollo 14, 42 kilograms = 2.1 shoeboxes
Apollo 15, 77 kilograms = 3.8 shoeboxes
Apollo 16, 96 kilograms = 4.74 shoeboxes
Apollo 17, 111 kilograms = 5.48 shoeboxes

Now tell me FoosM, do you think it might be possible to store six shoe boxes under an average sized bed? How about a "triple wide," as they would be stored in the CM?


Only two boxes were available for the Rocks and Sand for the return trip to Earth.
So this:



do you think it might be possible to store six shoe boxes under an average sized bed? How about a "triple wide," as they would be stored in the CM?


has no relevance.

Lets continue.
There is a fundamental issue with your calculations.

Big Muley!

You see, a fifty pound sandbag is made from sand. Not rocks.
Considering the material is the same, 50 pounds of rocks will take up more space than 50 pounds of sand.

Take a look at Big Muley, for example.


It by itself can fill up a shoebox and yet it only weighs around 25 pounds.

But I think you realized all that.
Maybe this is why you made a new post giving the dimensions of the rock box:


Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


By the way, since you yourself mention that each mission brought two ALSRCs, let's look at the specifications:



Dimensions:
Overall: 8 in. tall x 1 ft. 7 in. wide x 11 3/4 in. deep, 19.4 lb. (20.3 x 48.3 x 29.8cm, 8.8kg)


Somewhat larger than an actual shoe box. More like an overnight bag. You could easily stow it in the over. luggage compartment of a commercial jet. What is the volume of each? 20.3x48.3x29.8 = 29,218 cm3. Multiply that by 3g/cm3 and you can see that each overnight bag can hold 87.654 kilograms of rock, for a potential total of 175.3 kilos per mission. Of course, they probably wasted a lot of space on baggies and aluminum tubes, which is why even Apollo 17 could only bring back 111 kilos. Seriously now, FoosM, do you see anything here that doesn't check out... perfectly?


Again, lets take a look at this Rock Box


See that, there is an aluminum mesh ?


An aluminum mesh liner helped absorb impacts.


This also restricts the actual size of what the box could hold.
Again, you stated the overall dimensions, not how much the rock box could actually hold.
And you went from 22 kilos to 87 kilos.
Thats a big difference there DJ.

This rock box has just been unsealed.




How many rocks do you see?
I count about 10.





But you know DJ.
We can speculate all we want on how much those boxes can hold.
At the end of the day we have no choice but to defer to NASA's own numbers.
Would you agree?
Thats the problem, all we have is NASA as a source of information.
So what does NASA say about these Rock Boxes?



Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container. Made of aluminum, this box is used to return lunar samples to Earth.
It is about the size of a small suitcase but is many times stronger.
The ALSRC has changed very little since it was first used on Apollo 11



They changed very little between the missions.
Thats an important point.



After a sample is bagged, the thin aluminum strip is folded to close the bag and prevent the samples from becoming mixed with others.
The bags are finally placed in the sample return containers...for return to Earth.

The Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container (ALSRC) is about the size of a small suitcase.
It is made of aluminum and holds 20 to 40 lbs. of samples.
You will likely hear it called the rock box.


wow
Just to make sure, cause I cant believe what I just read.
Let me just double check what "lbs" means.
Because maybe Im in Reverso world and lbs means kilos.


The pound or pound-mass (abbreviation: lb, lbm, #) is a unit of mass used in the imperial, United States customary and other systems of measurement.


Yep... its stated as pounds.


20 to 40 pounds DJ.
Thats less than my 50 pound sandbag, I over estimated, LOL
How was your math?
Well the first time your math was pretty close, you estimated 44 for the shoebox.
But then you decided to make an overnight bag out of it and came up with an astounding 87 kilos. Which, if true would have conveniently helped to solve your many shoeboxes problem. Because if a shoebox = rock box. And each mission had two rock boxes, then you could only use two shoeboxes to hold all the samples. And clearly:




Apollo 17, 111 kilograms = 5.48 shoeboxes


Would be a problem.


So now, lets
RECAP
or summarize this isse for our readers.

Rock Boxes were used to hold lunar samples of rocks, dirt, dust (regolith).
2 Rock Boxes were available per mission.
Each Rock Box could hold up to 40 pounds of lunar material.
Therefore, 2 x 40 = 80 pounds of material can be brought back in the CM.


Apollo 11 22 kilograms 50 rocks - 48.50 < 80 OK
Apollo 12 34 kilograms 45 rocks - 74.95 < 80 OK

After this, it goes from OK to UH OH Over.

A14 42 kilograms - 92.59 > 80 over 12.59 pounds
A15 77 kilograms 370 samples - 169.75 > 80 over 89.75 pounds (more than Apollo 12)
A16 96 kilograms 731 samples - 211.64 > 80 over 131.64 pounds (brought back a woman)
A17 111 kilograms 741 samples - 244.71 > 80 over 164.71 pounds (brought back a man)

Houston, we got a problem.

Seems like to me after Apollo 11, NASA couldn't believe that the world bought their scam.
So they simply kept on with the ruse, becoming increasingly more blatant and comical
with their stated accomplishments.

I can see it now,
"I cant believe these poor saps believed we have landed men on the moon, a sucker is truly born every minute."
Is that what they were saying to each other?

But I will keep my mind open, if these additional samples were not stored in the rock boxes, where were they stored instead, and how did they transfer them from moon to LM, from LM to CM, from CM to NASA? And furthermore, how did they keep the materials from getting contaminated? And if the samples could not be free from contamination, why bring more samples than they could actually keep contamination free? You see, anyway you twist it the story falls apart.


www.nasm.si.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...(mass)
history.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


The numbers do not exist
NASA only put out the specs of what was used
Not if they were sufficient


No, you don't need any numbers from NASA. The specifics (i.e. mass of the Earth and Moon, etc) are well known. So using simple physics, you can prove to us that the TLI burns for the Apollo missions were no sufficient to impart the necessary delta-v to get to the moon.

Since you are the one jumping up and down stating with extreme certainty that we didn't have enough fuel to get to the moon, one would think you would already know those numbers. Otherwise, how could you make a definitive statement?


You are trying to make me prove a negative


No, you merely show what the necessary acceleration for lunar insertion would be, and compare that to the known fuel loads and show it is insufficient. That is most certainly a doable proof.


When you yourself cannot prove that the PHYSICS behind it is possible


What, specifically, are we to prove?



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
hey guys im no way near as smart as yous but from what ive seen the bloke climbing the lm lader looked very hard to me an i cant see how they would be able to do that with one hand over an over again . very entertaining an ive learnt alot thanks



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I also read the part where it said that


Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.


What dose was 'originally expected'? 30-40 percent higher radiation in relation to what precisely? And I do mean precisely, as in an actual measurement. What are the latest measurements in comparison with those from your source? Do the numbers pan out? Is it in fact 30-40%? Are the numbers correct?


Originally posted by Josephus23
www.abovetopsecret.com...


2)We did not go the the moon
Proof:


2)We did not go the the moon
Proof:
-We are JUST NOW finding out that the surface of the moon is radioactive
-The only other information concerning radioactivity came from the space flights themselves
-This piece of information is important to consider
-The original footage of the first moon walk was lost or misplaced for some 30 plus years
-That invalidates the idea of pictures as supportive evidence due to a lack of chain of command
-I know that I have said it before but the "Dutch Moon Rock" seriously calls into question the credibility of NASA
-This invalidates the idea of official accounts
-If we just now realized exactly how much deadly radiation is on the surface of the moon then the information gathered from the official accounts is invalid



You say: We are JUST NOW finding out that the surface of the moon is radioactive

Wrong. There were extensive surveys of the moon and the vab prior to Apollo missions on the Moon. www.encyclopedia4u.com...

You say: The only other information concerning radioactivity came from the space flights themselves.

Wrong again. See above and a zillion other sources. …and how else do you get data about space, other than going into it somehow?

You say: The original footage of the first moon walk was lost or misplaced for some 30 plus years

Wrong. This has been debunked. You really should search the thread and find that part. In fact it might save you some embarrassment later on - like when you said:

-That invalidates the idea of pictures as supportive evidence due to a lack of chain of command

Well, even if you were correct in asserting that NASA somehow lost of misplaced these pictures, I don't see how that invalidates everything else.

You say:
-If we just now realized exactly how much deadly radiation is on the surface of the moon then the information gathered from the official accounts is invalid

So if your brilliant lunar radiation calculations are incorrect, does that mean you will concede you were wrong and admit the Moon landings were real?


Patiently holding my breath in anticipation of your answer...
edit on 17-10-2010 by Smack because: tags



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You see, a fifty pound sandbag is made from sand. Not rocks.
Considering the material is the same, 50 pounds of rocks will take up more space than 50 pounds of sand.


Uh, no. Sand, being made up of many fine particles, has a lot of empty space left between the grains.

As you can see:



A 50-pound bag of sand is about a half cubic foot. That gives sand a density of about 1.6 g/cm^3. Basalt has a density of about 3 g/cm^3. In other words, a bag of sand, if filled with a solid bit of basalt, would weight nearly twice as much.

Edit: Here's the inventory of all the Apollo 17 samples collected: Page 1, Page 2. More information on all the sample containers and tools used can be found here.
edit on 17-10-2010 by nataylor because: Tags



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


I am surprised that you linked information with no empirical data concerning the ACTUAL radiation mapped on the surface of the moon

the only thing that your article refers to is that it mapped radiation

THAT IS ALL

not where and not how much and not how deadly

you will not find this information anywhere because we have not discovered it as of yet

that is the purpose of the LRO

your patience has paid off

try finding something with a bit more scientific meat in it next time



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
And so it begins again ...

Persons requesting reality to be broken down for them in bite sized chunks and moving the goal posts again.

You originally stated the figures for the amount of fuel used wouldn't be found. It was found. Now you want persons to explain to you physically how fuel works so you can prove your point ... then you're welcome to disagree with whatever formulas you use because they're from NASA ...

The only way you're going to learn this factually for your satisfaction is to run the numbers yourself and possibly get the liquid component and run an experiment. You'll prove unequivocally that the numbers are wrong and be a global hero putting to rest the hoax debate once and for all. That's if you're really sure of your conclusions.

You have to understand that calculating all the stages of Apollo is time consuming and we all expect the numbers to work out. So why would we waste time? Possibly several hours of time.

The majority of the planet doesn't agree with you, yet you're asking the majority of the planet to waste their time.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


You say: We are JUST NOW finding out that the surface of the moon is radioactive

Wrong. There were extensive surveys of the moon and the vab prior to Apollo missions on the Moon. www.encyclopedia4u.com

Your statement was shown to be false. No part of your statement required any proof, other than, for me to show you, that experiments were done and that scientists were aware of the fact that radiation was present on the moon.

You were WRONG.
edit on 17-10-2010 by Smack because: readability



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 219  220  221    223  224  225 >>

log in

join