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.

 

moon landing hoax

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
great diversionary tactic -creating a sacrificial lamb that can be sacrificed over and over again-oxo is clearly not a rational oponent for the hoax camp and is clearly a tool used by poor debaters and intellectually deficient to throw stones at whenever someone with a rational theory comes forward-the BOTTOM LINE is that the whole issue lies in the scientific establishments claim that beyond the van allen radiation belt the cosmic radiation can be endured by the type of craft that was used in apollo--the two camps can be divided into one of either groups--1-those that believe the establishments claim of nonlethal radiation beyond the VARB and are convinced we went to the moon and everything is legitamate--2-those that feel the military machine strong armed the scientific establishment into misinforming the public because of national security and everything has been faked------------THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO VENTURE BEYOND THE BELTS AGAIN--something that in my opinion cannot be done




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
do I even need to say it... nahhh

I'll leave this one alone...


someone else, wanna step in ...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Please check out -
badastronomy.com...
and
spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

Here the Van Allen Belt myth is destroyed


jra

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Actually Sunofone was reffering to radiation outside of the Van Allen belts. I found a section on clavius about the radiation outside the belts. Perhaps you will find some good information that could answer some of your questions about cosmic radiation and clear some things up. www.clavius.org...

I do agree with the last statement you make Sunofone. I think the only way ro resolve it is to go back. Though i'm sure some people will still not believe it. I think it can be done and that it was done back in the 60's.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Conspiracy theorists can throw around all the pseudo science and technical assumptions they like. Most people aren't astrophysicists so can't prove you wrong in that score...So that means you must be right, right?

wrong.

We went to the moon. The pictures and videos prove it.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
OK, Sonofone I have a few questions for you. Answer them and then we will talk



  1. What is the average distance from the Earth of the inner van allen belt?

  2. What types of radiation are present in the inner belt?

  3. What is the outer belt?

  4. What types of radiation are in the outer belt?

  5. What type of shielding is necessary to stop an alpha particle?

  6. What was the orbital distance for the four skylab missions?

  7. What was the orbital distance of the any of the soviet space station missions?



    Until you can produce accurate answers for the above questions, you are full of nothing and your theories are full of nothing.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
urm, how come you can see lunar rover with a plain optical telescope if we didnt land on the moon?

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
urm, how come you can see lunar rover with a plain optical telescope if we didnt land on the moon?

-koji K.



The Shapeshifting replilian jewish bankers sent it up there via ufo to fool use into believing it happened



I didnt know you could see it with a telescope, can you ?



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
urm, how come you can see lunar rover with a plain optical telescope if we didnt land on the moon?

-koji K.


Actually, I don't think you can see any of the lunar landing site with an ordinary telescope, maybe with the Mt. Palomar scope, but I am pretty sure that the astronomers will not let you waste valuable time looking for what they know is there.

Check out this site www.boulder.swri.edu...

Look at the apollo 17 site.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by koji_K
urm, how come you can see lunar rover with a plain optical telescope if we didnt land on the moon?

-koji K.



The Shapeshifting replilian jewish bankers sent it up there via ufo to fool use into believing it happened



I didnt know you could see it with a telescope, can you ?


apparently you can. i have a friend who was an astronomy/"space-science" major who says it's common knowledge that you can among telescope enthusiasts, and he's seen it a lot himself. don't know if he was right, but he didn't have any reason to lie about it.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
He did lie nonetheless, even hubble isn't powerful enough to resolve something that tiny on the moon.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano
He did lie nonetheless, even hubble isn't powerful enough to resolve something that tiny on the moon.


hrm.. guess he was wrong. i can't help but find that surprising though, given how strong i thought telescopes were.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

-koji K.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
OK, Sonofone I have a few questions for you. Answer them and then we will talk



  1. What is the average distance from the Earth of the inner van allen belt?

  2. What types of radiation are present in the inner belt?

  3. What is the outer belt?

  4. What types of radiation are in the outer belt?

  5. What type of shielding is necessary to stop an alpha particle?

  6. What was the orbital distance for the four skylab missions?

  7. What was the orbital distance of the any of the soviet space station missions?



    Until you can produce accurate answers for the above questions, you are full of nothing and your theories are full of nothing.




the answers to those questions will prove nothing towards the question of whether of not the scientific community has misinformed the public-your opinion is not valued-there is no need to talk



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Actually Sunofone was reffering to radiation outside of the Van Allen belts. I found a section on clavius about the radiation outside the belts. Perhaps you will find some good information that could answer some of your questions about cosmic radiation and clear some things up. www.clavius.org...

I do agree with the last statement you make Sunofone. I think the only way ro resolve it is to go back. Though i'm sure some people will still not believe it. I think it can be done and that it was done back in the 60's.


hey jra-if it was to be done today there are many more public radioscopes available to confirm it- if it was as easy as they made it look there cannot be any rational doubt that we would have mantained a sustained campaign
-surely we would have colonized and established an industrial or scientific endeavour or both and have many underground facilities by now-the video from the a funny thing happened on the way to the moon video speaks volumes-we cannot ignore this altogether can we?



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone
the answers to those questions will prove nothing towards the question of whether of not the scientific community has misinformed the public-your opinion is not valued-there is no need to talk


SunofOne,

I actually disagree with you. The above questions would show a basic understanding of astrophysics etc. The Moon hoax group go on an on particularly about radiation and other aspects of the journey there. Having a basic understanding of the fundamental aspects of the physics involved. Very germain to the point you are trying to make IMHO.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone

Originally posted by HowardRoark
OK, Sonofone I have a few questions for you. Answer them and then we will talk



  1. What is the average distance from the Earth of the inner van allen belt?

  2. What types of radiation are present in the inner belt?

  3. What is the outer belt?

  4. What types of radiation are in the outer belt?

  5. What type of shielding is necessary to stop an alpha particle?

  6. What was the orbital distance for the four skylab missions?

  7. What was the orbital distance of the any of the soviet space station missions?



    Until you can produce accurate answers for the above questions, you are full of nothing and your theories are full of nothing.




the answers to those questions will prove nothing towards the question of whether of not the scientific community has misinformed the public-your opinion is not valued-there is no need to talk


Likewise, Sunofone, your opinion is not valued (at least by me), so (to use your own words) there is no need for you to talk.
Read, research the facts, facts based upon provable scientific method. Get rid of your pseudo-science, get rid of your reliance upon paranoid conspiracies. Check out the actual *science* behind what you are talking about, and you will see that the cosmic radiation beyond the VAB isnt that big of a deal when proper measures are taken.

When talking about the moon landings (notice the plural, for there was more than one), opinions matter not, speculation matters not.

Proven science is the only thing that matters, for the rest is pure unfounded easily dismissed rhetoric and opinion.
And no, opinion does not constitute a provable theory.

Im not trying to flame here, only trying to point you in the right direction. The Provable direction.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 04:42 AM
link   

[

Likewise, Sunofone, your opinion is not valued (at least by me), so (to use your own words) there is no need for you to talk.
Read, research the facts, facts based upon provable scientific method. Get rid of your pseudo-science, get rid of your reliance upon paranoid conspiracies. Check out the actual *science* behind what you are talking about, and you will see that the cosmic radiation beyond the VAB isnt that big of a deal when proper measures are taken.

When talking about the moon landings (notice the plural, for there was more than one), opinions matter not, speculation matters not.

Proven science is the only thing that matters, for the rest is pure unfounded easily dismissed rhetoric and opinion.
And no, opinion does not constitute a provable theory.

Im not trying to flame here, only trying to point you in the right direction. The Provable direction.



the BOTTOM LINE is that the whole issue lies in the scientific establishments claim that beyond the van allen radiation belt the cosmic radiation can be endured by the type of craft that was used in apollo--the two camps can be divided into one of either 2 groups--1-those that believe the establishments claim of nonlethal radiation beyond the VARB and are convinced we went to the moon and everything is legitamate--2-those that feel the military machine strong armed the scientific establishment into misinforming the public because of national security and everything has been faked------------THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO VENTURE BEYOND THE BELTS AGAIN--

how many years are we going to have to wait before we go again?40-50yrs--100yrs-why???????????????????????????????????????????????????...
slate.msn.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone

the BOTTOM LINE is that the whole issue lies in the scientific establishments claim that beyond the van allen radiation belt the cosmic radiation can be endured by the type of craft that was used in apollo--the two camps can be divided into one of either 2 groups--1-those that believe the establishments claim of nonlethal radiation beyond the VARB and are convinced we went to the moon and everything is legitamate--2-those that feel the military machine strong armed the scientific establishment into misinforming the public because of national security and everything has been faked------------THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO VENTURE BEYOND THE BELTS AGAIN--

how many years are we going to have to wait before we go again?40-50yrs--100yrs-why???????????????????????????????????????????????????...
slate.msn.com...


First of all, the article you posted shows *no* conclusive evidence, except for the one quote-
"The union cites Federal Aviation Administration figures that estimate that 27,000 hours of flight timea reasonable amount of time in the career of a flight attendantcan lead to a 1 percent increase in the odds of dying from cancer."
Thats really nothing, statistically speaking. Smoking causes a MUCH higher incidence of cancer than this statistic. And keep in mind that this number (27,000 hours) equates to nearly 9 YEARS of flight time (27000 hours/8= 3375 days= 9.24 years...if my math is wrong please correct me)

Another brief quote- "A precise correlation between GCR exposure and cancer has yet to be established, but NASA was worried enough to hold back Thomas, who has spent 43 days in space on four previous missions."
43 DAYS? Heck, Id be more worried about his muscle atrophy than his risk of cancer.
The fact of the matter is, Cosmic Radiation *may* cause cancer, it *may* cause health concerns, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY of any reputable claim has stated that it will KILL an astronaut. (and quite frankly, back in 1969, they had bigger concerns than the "cancer threat" to a few astronauts)

43 days. 1 percent.

You are blowing things WAY out of context, and thus, still only spouting opinion.

By the way-
"THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO VENTURE BEYOND THE BELTS AGAIN--"
No its not
No matter if this happened TOMORROW, there will be paranoid conspiracy theorists that will say "IT NEVER HAPPENED"
Why?
Well, IF the 1969 lunar landing was faked (and I dont believe it was) convincingly, then how much MORE convincing could a 2004-2005 hoax be made, considering the HUGE strides we've made in CGI?
Nowadays (as opposed to 1969) ANYTHING can be faked to a degree that the mass population would be fooled.
The mass public likes to think it is more intelligent than the audiences of 1969, but are they? As a mass, are they really any more intelligent?
So the counter-argument would then be "well, modern day audiences are MORE succeptible to mass marketing auto suggestion (due to hours and DAYS spent in front of the TV), so therefore they are even MORE succeptible to a hoax than they were in 1969"
In other words, a modern day trip to the moon could be seen as a fake (by conspiracy theorists at least) and there is NOTHING the scientific community could say that would convince them otherwise, due to their own idiotic circular (and self confirming) logic.

One more point-
"how many years are we going to have to wait before we go again?40-50yrs--100yrs-why???????????????????????????????????????????????????..."

Perhaps 10 years, perhaps 50 years, perhaps 100 years.

Why? Money and public interest.
If the money aint there to do it, it isnt going to happen.
If the public interest isnt there, it isnt going to happen.

GWB has made an attempt at generating public interest (to his credit) but he has failed (to his or the publics discredit)
(Dont anyone flame me for being a pro or anti Bush person...my political opinion is irrelevant....I only state what he has tried to do and the public's general reaction)


Done with rant for now



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Sunafone,

the evidence that proves we went to the moon won't go away just because you choose to ignore it.

The images! the videos! are you blind?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
In response to my questions Sunofone posted:


Originally posted by Sunofone
the answers to those questions will prove nothing towards the question of whether of not the scientific community has misinformed the public-your opinion is not valued-there is no need to talk


No, the answers to those questions prove or disprove your theory regarding human space travel beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. If you can not, (or as it appears, will not) answer the questions, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

To what advantage would it be to the scientific community to mis inform the public?

Who are you including in this all encompassing term "scientific community?"

There are literaly hundreds and hundreds of thousands of seintists and engineeres who have been involved in the space program, or who have studied the data collected by the space program just in the U.S. alone. There are hundreds of thousands more in the former Soviet Union, the Euorpean Space Agency, Japan, China, etc. Are you saying that all of these people from all of these different backgrounds, with all of those different political ideologies and religeous beliefs are decieving the public?

What about the telecommunications companies that maintain satellites in orbits? Those satellites are possible because of the data gathered by NASA. What about all of the people that have satellite TV receivers? Are they fooling the public also? No, wait, they are the public! (O.K. this last example is a bit silly, but it serves to illustrate a point. The data gathered from manned space exploration is used in our everyday lives, from T.V. to GPS, to medical advances to materials engineering. You can not deny that by saying that the scientific community is involved in a deception of the public.)


Back to my original questions. Unless you can answer these questions, no one will pay any attention to you. So lets give them another shot shall we:



  1. What is the average distance from the Earth of the inner Van Allen belt?

  2. What types of radiation are present in the inner belt?

  3. What is the outer belt?

  4. What types of radiation are in the outer belt?

  5. What type of shielding is necessary to stop an alpha particle?

  6. What was the orbital distance for the four skylab missions?

  7. What was the orbital distance of the any of the Soviet space station missions?




    (p.s. Please learn how to use BBS tags and the quote reply function properly in your posts. Your posts will be easier to follow. Thanks.
    )

    [edit on 3-8-2004 by HowardRoark]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join