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: 242
377
<< 239  240  241    243  244  245 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

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.



Don't disparage yourself so.

Afterall ,it is you who is losing this debate to Foosm, so what does that say about your wits?




posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

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...


Thanks Dude!


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?


Yes but WWII was witnessed and experienced directly by over 100 million people from many different countries and organisations.


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!


Cool, I'll look out for it!


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.


Fair enough.


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...


Yes but this does not emlinate the possibility that the reflector could have been placed there previously, or in fact the craft that was tracked by everyone all around the world could have been unmanned and placed it there remotely if the hoax theory is to be believed..


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.


Yes, I said in a previous post, that I thought this was a very bold claim to make and would probably be easily dealt with.


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)


Yes but all the source data and physical evidence for Apollo still originated from NASA.


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?


I don't question any of the debunking here in fact I did not even mention it.

I'm merely trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and extinguish all remaining doubts.

Thanks for the reply though CHRLZ



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

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


Which *ahem* did occur during Apollo missions.


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


Ok... but consider this,


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.


Wow, and I thought we were protected!


“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).


So even with the magnetic field, atmosphere, and an airplane, space radiation from the Sun penetrates.
Yet somehow, aluminum, glass or few layers of cloth has more stopping power.



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.



Ummm... didnt astronauts have major dust issues in Apollo?
Didnt some of them handle lunar rocks unprotected?




www.lunarpedia.org...
www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
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.

The Apollo astronauts certainly were exposed to higher levels of radiation than the average person. Here are the estimates:



A typical chest x-ray runs about .03 rads. So the Apollo 14 crew got the equivalent of about 38 chest x-rays. I'm sure that increased their statistical chance of developing cancer. But it's certainly not enough to kill them for certain.

As for the radon, it wouldn't be an issue. The long half-life of uranium means that little to none would be generated in the spacecraft on the way back. It's only a long-term problem you'd have in a lunar base.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, Foos 'The Singularity' strikes again! I see you're memory's still giving you problems Foos as we went through all of this several times now and you were proven to be wrong, something you should be familiar with now.
What 'major solar event' occurred during the Apollo missions Foos? No 'major' event occurred at all, which you have already been shown.

Yes the atmosphere provides shielding from gamma rays and x-rays, but if the lack of atmosphere was critical in preventing manned space flight, how do you explain the astronauts and cosmonauts on the ISS orbiting our planet all day every day?

The magnetic field does provide protection against radiation in the form of protons and electrons, well done Foos, but if this is such an issue then once again - how do the ISS crew manage to survive traveling through the VAB several times a day, every day in the form of the South Atlantic Anomaly?

I even provided you with actual data from NON-US spacecraft showing the radiation levels in the VA belts and in deep space even during SPEs - and the data showed no substantial threat!

You use a excerpt talking about air travel as some sort of evidence... of what? The acceptable dose for civilians is lower than for personnel working in areas where they are likely to be subject to radiation. It's called health and safety Foos and it's usually excessively cautious.

The radiation problem is cumulative exposure Foos as you have been told a dozen times. Anyway, why are you trying to argue with people qualified in Physics when you can't even get the terminology correct half the time? :shk:



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   



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.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

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.


Sure, take a look at AS11-40-5921 (click for a bigger version):



You can see some radial striations centered under the engine.

Or AS12-46-6780, which shows striations from the engine found a few meters from the final landing spot of Apollo 12 (click the image to view the whole thing, the striations are most noticeable on the right and are getting cut off in this forum):


edit on 7-11-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

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.


You are right, its all about public perception.
This is why Apollo was a public stunt, not a self defense initiative.
This is why it could not go wrong.
If men died going to the moon, how would the US public feel then after Soviet successes?
At all costs it had to work, even if it was impossible.
Which leads to the plausible scenario: if you cant make it, fake it.

The real person behind NASA and Apollo was not actually Kennedy but his Veep.
Kennedy wanted to use space exploration as a bridge to working with the Soviets.


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.”




Exit Kennedy, Enter Johnson


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.


Johnson was no stranger to lying to the public and putting lives on the line to support that lie:


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.


Johnson could lie about Vietnam, he could lie about Apollo, especially if it meant protecting his and American's image.

You said it yourself. Think about it, the US were very behind in space exploration.
The idea in 1961 to land man on the moon would be the same as saying we can land and return men on Mars safely within a decade today. I would even go so far as saying the moon!

Even though the Soviets were ahead in many respects to NASA, they weren't thinking of such ambitious goals!
Not till like late into the century


4 December 1968 - Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success.


This is why Disney, von Braun and others put forth so many movies, articles and books to "implant" into the public psyche that it was even possible.




www.thespacereview.com...
www.vietnampix.com...
www.thespacereview.com...
www.astronautix.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

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.



No, that is not the issue.
Would you go camping in the same gear during summer vs winter even if the amount of time you spent camping would be the same?

You see the issue is, Apollo occurred during the Solar Maximum. This increased the chances for just one solar storm to kill them. And in fact, during the dates of Apollo there was a major SPE and several X-class flares erupted. Yet radiation levels for the astronauts were no worse than long Gemini missions in LEO.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   


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.


Look at the video again NAM, you will notice that the before and after shot the surface looks the same. So all that dust was displaced but in the film it didn't change the surface.
And you can see this in all the videos.

edit on 7-11-2010 by FoosM because: fix quote



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So all that dust was displaced but in the film it didn't change the surface.


Looks like someone's potential new signature. Not sure which is the best example of the most ridiculous claims in this thread --- the one above, or the one about the Van Allen Belt "ten million volt electric fence"

Quite a toss-up, eh?



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

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?



Just to contrast:

I believe it was 2006



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

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.


First, many historic events were never repeated. The descent to the Challenger Deep by the Trieste is one example. Second, there were many astronomers that observed the spacecraft during certain portions of the trip, like TLI and water dumps. In addition, many Ham radio operators received transmissions from the spacecraft on the way there, while on the suface, and on the way back.


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.


By sending probes and satellites both through and into the VABs, every organization and country has had to measure the radiation levels within the VABs. Therefore, they would know without a doubt if the radiation levels were too high for a human to withstand. You can't fake those numbers.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

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.





Foos, I am still waiting for you to either prove that I "have been lying for quite some time now", or retract the statement.

I don't like to be called a liar.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Aron Ranen not only exposed NASA's fraud, but also the likes of Peter Popoff:


The Scientific Method has been raised several times now in this thread.



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.

-Ibn al-Haytham

We use it is to help us separate real scientific discoveries from hoaxes and their charlatans.
Why? Because the general public is easily swayed by claims especially from people in authoritative positions.


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.


How many people were swayed by his tricks?


And lets not forget about James Hydrick's confession


He wanted to see how dumb Americans really were.

When people like James Randi and Aron Ranen press for proof,
proof seems to disappear like wisps of smoke.

Just like claims of psychic powers,
NASA's Apollo program does not hold up well to the scientific method.
It is aptly named after a myth.




en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh this is rich! It's like listening to a Vulture pontificating on the virtues of vegetarianism. I realize now that there is an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality at work here, and that no amount of applied common sense will be effective.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 



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.


As both CHRLZ and Tomblvd have eloquently pointed out, science and history are two different disciplines and therefore have different methodologies and standards of proof.

History is the study and interpretation of past events. Historians study documents and physical artifacts to achieve a general consensus as to conditions in the past and a sequence of events. Experimentation is sometimes used to test the possibility of certain claims, eg; can a shaft from a longbow penetrate plate armor? Nevertheless, there is no general expectation of repeatability. There was either a huge earthquake in Madrid on a certain day or not. It was reported all over the world, influenced the literature of the time and there is evidence of damage in the older parts of town. QED. Historians generally agree on the facts, they differ in their interpretation. Was Napoleon an insecure madman who wished to impose despotism on Europe, or was he an enlightened savior who ended the chaos of the Terror and would have brought liberty and justice to the decadent monarchies of the world? You can use the established facts to support either interpretation.

The scientific method uses observation and experimentation, and its conclusions are reviewed for soundness. Experiments need to be repeatable in principle; anyone with the same equipment performing the same experiment should receive the same results. Obviously, some equipment, such as the CERN super-collider, is so complex and expensive that its results are sometimes unique. Scientists accept these results because they have reviewed the protocols of the experiment and find them sound. CERN would not risk their reputation by fabricating data that may later be proven false by a newer facility.

As a scientific experiment, the Apollo program was very complicated and expensive. The protocols were reviewed extensively by specialists in a wide variety of fields and were found sound. No scientist or engineer then or now has been able to find a flaw in the design. It is also repeatable in principle. Anyone with a few hundred billion dollars to spare can repeat the experiment with the same results. Just as CERN would not risk its reputation by publishing data that may later be proven false by future technologies, so neither NASA or the soviet space agency would risk their reputations by committing fraud. In fact, their rivalry guaranteed that they play it straight; they each knew the other would call "foul."

Because the events of the Apollo program all took place in the past, they are subject to the methodology of history. We have ample documentation, artifacts, even living eyewitnesses. The consensus is overwhelming: Apollo successfully landed men on the Moon. There is no debate.

What is going on in this thread if there is no debate? Excellent question. There is a very small group of people who are amusing themselves by playing rhetorical tricks. First they claim it is a "scientific" debate, and present statements by scientists that have been taken out of context. When the scientific facts are placed into context and explained, they refuse to challenge them but rather switch to the stance that this is an "historical" debate. They then present random facts and interpret them in an arbitrary fashion. When it is pointed out that they cannot provide any evidence that actually supports their interpretation, they proclaim it a "scientific" debate and start all over again.

Here's a perfect example: FoosM stated that he was going to present a geological argument. Geology is a science, and therefore should be subject to scientific standards of evidence. His first ploy was to claim that the astronauts could not have brought back all the samples because they were too bulky. Mathematics proved him wrong. He instantly switched to historical methodology and found a document that suggested that the Rock Boxes could not hold more than "20 or 40 pounds" of rocks. Funny thing about history, documents aren't always accurate. Mathematics (and logical analysis of the text) proved it did not support his original claim.

FoosM then commits a howling error of historical practice: he demands to know where the Rock Boxes were stored, implying that if a source cannot be found that documents this crucial aspect of the mission, the entire mission must be a fabrication. This is a terrible fallacy: "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." Let us look at an analogous argument. Sir Edmund Hillary claimed to have scaled Mount Everest, but we only have the word of himself and the others in his party that he did so. After pouring through all the memoirs, newspaper articles, etc, it turns out that he never mentions where he bought his woolen socks AHA! Without at least one pair of woolen socks, he would have gotten frostbite, maybe even died. Since there is no evidence that he ever bought woolen socks, he cannot have climbed Mt Everest. QED.

One of the problems with historical research is that people generally record what they consider to be important. Small details are left out. Sometimes, from the perspective of the future, the small details are the most interesting. How, exactly, did the Sumerians bake their bread? How did medieval women keep their wimples on without hair pins? Or did they have hair pins? Just because Sir Edmund didn't think to mention his socks doesn't mean he didn't climb Mt Everest. Similarly, failing to find some minute detail in any historical record does not undermine the rest of the documentation.

Notice that once I started a scientific exploration of lunar geology and its implications for the artifacts supporting Apollo's history, FoosM quickly changed the subject to interpretations of historical facts. When challenged on that, he decided the argument was about science, and brought up radiation again.

I will return to geology presently, whatever else FoosM has in mind.



edit on 7-11-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct numerous typos.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Aron Ranen not only exposed NASA's fraud, but also the likes of Peter Popoff:


Aron Ranen, eh?


Aron Ranen is an Award winning documentary filmmaker who has received two fellowships from the National Endowment for the arts ...

Tainted! Why would the United States government give Ranen money? Is he a paid disnfo agent? Why would you believe anyone who receives money from the US? Or are your standards of evidence flexible?
edit on 7-11-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

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.


Alright, I can buy that. I do recall one of the missions where the mechanism to lock one of the boxes did not work. And they had to use duck tape.



The purge unit weighs 35.1 pounds;


So as I understand it, In order to balance the LM for take-off, I can see why they would limit the rock boxes to 40 pounds each. They would be replacing the OPS.






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.


So they stowed the OPS on the floor. Where, how and why? Are you sure they didnt dump them overboard before the ascent? And what about in between EVAs? If the OPS were stored there, where did they put the SRCs?





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)



OPS is 18.4 x 10 x 8
vs
SRC is 19 x 11 x 8

Would an extra inch or two cause problems for what appears to be a snug fit for the OPS?

Lets move on
When they docked the LM with the CM.
Did they open the overhead-hatch first,
or did they first take the rock boxes and other materials they wanted to transfer out?

Because it appears in this diagram that the door would block access to the boxes when opened:


(see first figure)
&
www.flickr.com...

Im also still waiting for someone to provide information where the samples that were not
stowed in the SRCs were placed in the CM. And, do we have any videos/photos showing these
samples being taken out of the CM after splashdown?



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Still waiting Foos.

Put up or retract your allegation.




top topics



 
377
<< 239  240  241    243  244  245 >>

log in

join