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.
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Exuberant1
The truly sorry part of this whole thread, is that most Apollo deniers have the wits of moldy tapioca.
There is very little original thought, and a lot of regurgitated material from decades ago, now long since debunked, or a rash of videos, sans a methodical, logical, HONEST approach to resolve the issues.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
KtK, may i say it's a pleasure to see a considered, polite post! I'm not DJW, and he'll no doubt have his own take, but if I may...
Eg, did World War II happen? Well, it's not very likely to be repeated. How about the Concorde? So is repeatability a useful tool for historic events or breakthroughs that were driven by the historical conditions?
Nope. Firstly, plenty of humans and animals have been subjected to the same levels of radiation and more, both in space and here on earth. The type and amount and duration of the radiation is pretty well understood. Not perfect, but pretty close. All the later tests and probes and the knowledge we gained during Apollo and then ISS to name just two, have all refined our understanding, and have simply shown that the numbers and assumptions used during Apollo were quite appropriate. The amount of radiation that has since been found to exist in the VA belts and beyond using much more accurate testing methods, is pretty much exactly what was expected and identified by NASA before Apollo. They took precautions that were reasonable. BTW, I have a LOT of new information that pertains to the radiation question, and I really will eventually be finishing it all off and posting the concluding parts to the 'treatise' I began earlier... Maybe I'll even do it before Christmas!
Nothing can ever be conclusive. But if you come up with a theory that has all the holes that the apollo denial has, then it needs to be better than the 'accepted' theory, that we just sort of...went.
Given that independent organisations across the globe were using those reflectors immediately after they were deployed, then they must have been deployed at the time of Apollo...
I'm sorry but.. WHAT????? The lunar samples are NOTHING like earth materials, and they are immediately recognisable (and have been recognised by 100's of independent geologists across the globe) as having characteristics that are not only vastly different to earth materials, but those characteristics simply cannot be faked. This has been covered at length here and is pretty much beyond dispute except by those without any relevant understanding of how lunar conditions affect the soil and rocks - by all means Google it.
Where do we find the independently verified, conclusive evidence that has not originated from NASA?
1. Well over 400,000 people, many of whom were NOT directly employed by NASA, and all of the organisations and countries that employed them, the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek operators in Australia. I've personally met at least a dozen of those people.
2. Many hundreds of enthusiasts who observed multiple aspects of the missions using telescopes and radio equipment.
3. Every geologist who has examined those lunar samples (and the huge amount of samples brought back)
4. Jaxa Selene Kaguya
5. Chandrayaan
6. Every space agency
7. Every government
8. Every recognised science institution
9. Thousands of science and engineering journals who have reported in great length on every aspect of the missions
10. Every recognised scientist and engineer (ie MILLIONS of them) except a few (and those few are easy to prove as liars and charlatans, who not only post lies, but also lie about their background)
So, instead of the non-specifics, tell us - what is the most convincing piece of evidence that you have seen, and are you familiar with the science/engineering/photographics.. fields involved? In what way do you question the debunking in this thread?
The Earth provides two types of radiation shielding critical for life: atmospheric mass and magnetic field. The Moon has neither type. On the Moon, our architecture must provide all our shielding, see Architecture List. Any lunar settlement design that does not address the radiation problem should simply be rejected as unsafe.
The first shield is simply the mass of the atmosphere which simply blocks radiation. The Earth's atmosphere has a mass equivalent to about 32 feet of water. A blanket of two meters of regolith provides the protection needed against the background lunar radiation but more is needed for the occasional major radiation events
The second shield is the Earth's magnetic field. This field diverts most of the radiation coming from the Sun into the Van Allen belts. The Moon has no such field a
Prof Mike Hapgood, the head of the Laboratory’s Space Environment Group, who led the study, told The Daily Telegraph that a person flying from London to the US West Coast would receive extra radiation levels to that given from an chest x-ray, which is fairly low.
But Prof Hapgood, who will give evidence to MPs next week, said that during a big solar storm radiation levels would sharply spike, with a passenger on a long haul flight being exposed to the equivalent of dozens of x-rays at once.
“Radiation from space can reach the Earth’s atmosphere and create extra radiation exposure for people travelling on aircraft at typical cruise altitudes (40,000 feet).
The Moon itself is a source of several types of radiation:
[edit] KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.
The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
That was kind of convincing, thanks. Do you have any images of the lander showing, not neccessarily a blast crater, but just the dispersion of material from the landing process, like disturbed dust, lines of rocks which would have shot away, that kind of thing? From what I understand the images show nothing of the sort, and of course we know that probes made it there, and landed.. with cameras in tow.
Originally posted by Kailassa
Originally posted by FoosM
. . .
though the difference is the book was admittedly used to convince Kennedy to fund Apollo . . .
Kennedy did not take much convincing. Are you aware just how important beating Russia in the space race was considered to be?
America was lagging behind Russia badly in obvious achievements, and the leaders of the time felt that loss of face deeply. The cold war, despite Krushchev's plea for unilateral disarmament in his 1959 address to the U.N., was a time of fear for both sides. School-kids across both nations were continually rehearsed in "duck and cover", and drilled in reaching the closest underground bunker as fast as possible. We were taught (brainwashed?) to fear, distrust and hate "the Red Menace", and they were taught to reciprocate.
It was believed control of space was essential to keep the country safe, and both sides were determined to gain that control. Gary Power's spy plane, supposedly doing weather reconnaissance, was somehow downed over Russia, and now the US administration wanted "weather satellites" instead.
Perhaps the strongest indication that Kennedy was having doubts about Apollo, though, came in the fall of 1963, when he made a bold proposal for “a joint expedition to the Moon” during an address before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations.
The day after Kennedy’s speech, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Independent Offices, congressman Albert Thomas, wrote Kennedy asking if he had changed his position on the need for a strong US space program. Kennedy replied in a letter that the United States could only cooperate in space from a position of strength.
There is one other bit of data to add to the few others that we have. Shortly before his death, Kennedy asked his Bureau of the Budget to prepare a report on the NASA budget for him. That report was never completed in final form, and only a draft produced after Kennedy’s assassination exists. However, that draft evaluated the question of “backing off from the manned lunar landing goal”—presumably this was what Kennedy had asked them to consider. The report’s conclusion was that “in the absence of clear changes in the present technical or international situations, the only basis for backing off from the Manned Lunar Landing objective at this time would be an overriding fiscal decision.”
The Apollo program was the centerpiece of this ambition. FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which provided electricity and fertilizer to a major part of the impoverished South, and later provided explosives, conventional and nuclear, for the war effort, was the political model. He saw NASA as a new TVA that would bring education, jobs, and development to parts of the country like Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Virginia, California, and Ohio that were (with the exception of California and Ohio) reliably Democratic.
25 August 1965 - President Johnson announced approval for the Department of Defense's $1.5-billion Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL).. At a White House news conference, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced approval for the Department of Defense's development of the $1.5-billion Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). Such a program, the President said, would bring 'new knowledge about what man is able to do in space.' Further, MOL 'will enable us to relate that ability to the defense of America.'
The term “soft power” had not yet been invented, but Johnson knew that the Moon program would, if properly handled, be a great and enduring positive contribution to America’s image in the world. He had seen the way the Soviets had been able to translate their space achievements into political prestige, and knew that given the chance America could do even better. However, both JFK and Johnson hoped that they would be able to leverage the program to help improve overall relations with Moscow. In early 1964 NASA Administrator James Webb wrote to LBJ, “On balance the most realistic and constructive group of proposals which might be advanced to the Soviet Union with due regard for the uncertainties and limitations… relates to a joint program of unmanned flight projects to support a manned lunar landing.” The joint program never happened, it would not be until the Nixon-Brezhnev summit of 1972 that a serious joint space project was agreed to.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[62] It was Johnson who began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam; in 1967 and 1968 they were being killed at the rate of over 1,000 a month.
4 December 1968 - Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success.
Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
I think you're getting confused about the radiation shielding requirements of a long-term base and a short expedition, like the Apollo missions. If I'm out camping, a little tent is good enough to keep the rain and wind out for a few days. If I'm going to be living somewhere for a long time, I want a house for shelter. That doesn't mean I need to build a house when I go camping.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You can see it for yourself here:
That was kind of convincing, thanks. Do you have any images of the lander showing, not neccessarily a blast crater, but just the dispersion of material from the landing process, like disturbed dust, lines of rocks which would have shot away, that kind of thing? From what I understand the images show nothing of the sort, and of course we know that probes made it there, and landed.. with cameras in tow.
So all that dust was displaced but in the film it didn't change the surface.
Originally posted by FoosM
Hold the phone... did Beck just state he doesn't anymore believe in
the moon landings
are we being prepared for... *gasp* full Disclosure?
Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
But the repetition of the event was not carried out by an independent agency. And usually one off historic events are witnessed by many people from different countries or organisations who are independent of each other.
I've no doubt that unmanned vehicles traverse the VAB without a problem, but the point I was questioning was that only NASA has sent humans through the belt. No other independent agency has verified that humans can penetrate it without harm.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Originally posted by Pervius
Tom, that's a very bad picture that doesn't show anything.
We have satellites over Earth that can read the date on a dime but yet Japan, India, and NASA all have had satellites flying around the moon and not one of them has a photo of anything we supposedly left up there.
That isn't the point. Foos has now said the ISRO doesn't trust NASA, so by extension we can believe the Indians.
Oh Tom, lying smacks of desperation.
And you have been lying for quite some time now.
I said "maybe" ISRO doesn't trust NASA.
And it could be a reason why Obama is making that
200 million dollar a day visit to India this week.
We'll see what comes out of that.
Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.
Geller first started to perform in theatres, public halls, auditoriums, military bases and universities in Israel.[9] By the 1970s, Geller had become known in the United States and Europe. He also received attention from the scientific community, whose members were interested in examining his reported psychic abilities. At the peak of his career in the 1970s, he worked full-time, performing for television audiences worldwide.
As I understand the scientific method a hypothesis or experiment is only proven as fact if it can be or is repeated successfully by independent researchers using the same methods.
Aron Ranen not only exposed NASA's fraud, but also the likes of Peter Popoff:
Aron Ranen is an Award winning documentary filmmaker who has received two fellowships from the National Endowment for the arts ...
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
Where did they store the rock boxes in the LM?
According to the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Checklist, the SRCs went in the Left Hand Mid Section Stowage. The OPS (Oxygen Purge Systems) were stored in that location during decent and between the EVAs. You can see that it mentions they are in adapters, because the SRCs had a mechanism on them to lock into these locations.
The purge unit weighs 35.1 pounds;
The red arrow is pointing right to the area where the OPS/SRCs would go in this aft view:
Once the SRCs were onboard and locked in, the OPS were stowed secured to the floor.
Here are the OPS units as installed on the Eagle. This is where the SRCs would go.
edit on 30-10-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)