Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 106 times


reply posted on 5-9-2011 @ 11:38 PM by OccamAssassin
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

You don't know anything at all about radiation of any sort, do you?
The radiation in the Van Allen belts consists of high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't have a frequency. (now you're going to tell me everything has "frequencies").



did you know that an electromagnet uses alternating current to generate a field around a coil? do you think that alternating current isn't a frequency? does 60 hz sound familiar?


Doesn't an electromagnet usually use a DC ?

Otherwise wouldn't the poles switch with every half oscillation?


reply posted on 5-9-2011 @ 11:38 PM by godWhisperer
Originally posted by Frira
Originally posted by godWhisperer
reply to post by patternfinder


i have watched that guy's videos and he makes some great points. i wish there was a capable person debunking the stuff he says. even with the internet, it's difficult for a layman to authoritatively say what is possible and what wasn't.

one interesting thing the aussie kid made me aware of was werner von braun's book 'conquest of the moon' which outlines what von braun thought...


Perhaps putting that little publication in context can be helpful, starting with the publication date.


yup, 1953 so clearly we would have had the time to refine the process to what we were told happened.


reply posted on 5-9-2011 @ 11:40 PM by patternfinder
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

I didn't say can't. I said doesn't.




listen, radiation period has the ability to cook....radiation is vibration, that's why radiation messes up cells, because it is not harmonious to normal cell radiation......this non harmony, depending on how much pressure (wattage=volts x current) is applied to this non harmonious movement that causes friction, which in turn causes heat.....it's not too hard to understand..........



reply posted on 5-9-2011 @ 11:50 PM by DerekJR321
You know, I never understood all these "we didn't land on the moon" theories.

If the US was going to "fake it", to beat the Russians... why do it more than once? I could see if they faked it once, so as to "beat" the Soviets to the chase. But the Apollo program was HUGE.

So your telling me that NASA faked Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17? Then they also faked Apollo 8, and 10, and the 13 disaster? Then that must mean that the Soviets also faked Luna 20 and 24. All the moon rock samples must have been fake as well. Every single picture of the surface of the moon must also be fake. And if NASA had to fake the Apollo missions, that would mean they were incapable of doing their jobs. Which would lead me to HAVE to believe that every mission since was a fraud too. Everyone between NASA and the Soviet program must have been in on it, or were "faked out" by a select few. We spent billions upon billions of dollars sending satellites and rockets into orbit simply to fake it?

I understand the debate about radiation, the Van Allen belt, etc etc etc. I'm sure that they were aware of how to avoid, or at least minimize the exposure to high-energy protons. Otherwise, we wouldn't have accomplished a single maned orbit of earth.

So if you feel the moon landings were faked, why then would they do it so many times?

(PS- I haven't had the chance to go through the "Young Aussie" post as it is over 400 pages and contains mostly bickering between a select few).


reply posted on 5-9-2011 @ 11:55 PM by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

No.

The atoms are not ionized, they remain neutral. The electrons in an electrical current are being "traded" from atom to atom. Each atom gets an electron and gives one up. That's why there has to be a circuit, without it there is no exchange.

As a technician, maybe you should ask an electrical engineer about it.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 5-9-2011 @ 11:57 PM by patternfinder
Originally posted by DerekJR321
You know, I never understood all these "we didn't land on the moon" theories.

If the US was going to "fake it", to beat the Russians... why do it more than once? I could see if they faked it once, so as to "beat" the Soviets to the chase. But the Apollo program was HUGE.

So your telling me that NASA faked Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17? Then they also faked Apollo 8, and 10, and the 13 disaster? Then that must mean that the Soviets also faked Luna 20 and 24. All the moon rock samples must have been fake as well. Every single picture of the surface of the moon must also be fake. And if NASA had to fake the Apollo missions, that would mean they were incapable of doing their jobs. Which would lead me to HAVE to believe that every mission since was a fraud too. Everyone between NASA and the Soviet program must have been in on it, or were "faked out" by a select few. We spent billions upon billions of dollars sending satellites and rockets into orbit simply to fake it?

I understand the debate about radiation, the Van Allen belt, etc etc etc. I'm sure that they were aware of how to avoid, or at least minimize the exposure to high-energy protons. Otherwise, we wouldn't have accomplished a single maned orbit of earth.

So if you feel the moon landings were faked, why then would they do it so many times?

(PS- I haven't had the chance to go through the "Young Aussie" post as it is over 400 pages and contains mostly bickering between a select few).






funding....you can go to youtube and watch his videos, there's quite a few of them.......


reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:00 AM by patternfinder
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

No.

The atoms are not ionized, they remain neutral. The electrons in an electrical current are being "traded" from atom to atom. Each atom gets an electron and gives one up. That's why there has to be a circuit, without it there is no exchange.

As a technician, maybe you should ask an electrical engineer about it.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



so, when you provide a substrate into an atmosphere of radiation that is effected by this radiation, you aren't essentially providing it a circuit?


reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:01 AM by Saltarello
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Videot

There isn't really any temperature on the Moon but the cameras were finished to reflect sunlight. Perhaps if they were left for an extended period in either sunlight or shade there may have been a problem, but they weren't. There is such a thing as thermal "inertia". It takes a while for something to heat up and cool down.

The body of the cameras provided shielding from radiation. In addition the film magazines themselves had additional shielding.



edit on 9/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


First post here. I seem to recall a hasselblad guy explaining how the cameras had no special shielding-insulation, thermal or any other. I have read a bit from you around here, normally spot on, this must be the first time you miss a shot, or are you going to tell us that the poor old man was lying?

Edot to add: I also have fond memories of christmas and santa claus, just FYI.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Saltarello because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:01 AM by Videot
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

How about you tell me what the "frequency" of 5MeV electrons is.
How about 40MeV protons?


I kinda hate to get in the middle of this(!), but doesn't the theory of wave/particle duality imply that all particles do indeed have a frequency? I vaguely remember an equation from college physics that relates the two, though not the details.

And of course, if string theory is correct (decidedly undecided at this time) everything is made up of oscillations.



reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:02 AM by patternfinder
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

You don't know anything at all about radiation of any sort, do you?
The radiation in the Van Allen belts consists of high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't have a frequency. (now you're going to tell me everything has "frequencies").



did you know that an electromagnet uses alternating current to generate a field around a coil? do you think that alternating current isn't a frequency? does 60 hz sound familiar?


Doesn't an electromagnet usually use a DC ?

Otherwise wouldn't the poles switch with every half oscillation?


ha ha, i almost didn't see this post....i was wondering if phage was going to pick that up, but you did.....well done


reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:03 AM by DerekJR321
reply to post by patternfinder


Could you clarify your post a little? Are you saying they faked 6 moon landings because they got money for it? Or are you referring to a specific youtube poster?

If your saying that they faked the moon due to them getting money... well sorry I just don't buy that. No pun intended.

Every single argument trying to prove the moon landings a hoax can be refuted. So now it seems people are arguing over radiation levels. But I take little value in armchair physicists hypothesis.


reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:05 AM by patternfinder
Originally posted by Videot
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

How about you tell me what the "frequency" of 5MeV electrons is.
How about 40MeV protons?


I kinda hate to get in the middle of this(!), but doesn't the theory of wave/particle duality imply that all particles do indeed have a frequency? I vaguely remember an equation from college physics that relates the two, though not the details.

And of course, if string theory is correct (decidedly undecided at this time) everything is made up of oscillations.



well, phage is relying on the idea that a particle isn't a wave.....i am of the idea that a particle is made up of waves......that's where we are butting heads....


reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:07 AM by Videot
Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by patternfinder


Could you clarify your post a little? Are you saying they faked 6 moon landings because they got money for it? Or are you referring to a specific youtube poster?

If your saying that they faked the moon due to them getting money... well sorry I just don't buy that. No pun intended.

Every single argument trying to prove the moon landings a hoax can be refuted. So now it seems people are arguing over radiation levels. But I take little value in armchair physicists hypothesis.



I believe the main reason that any "hoaxer" would give is that it was done to maintain an appearance of technical superiority over the USSR. It was a time of Cold War, and the Russians were getting ahead in leaps and bounds at the time. The Space Race was the main public battlefront.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Videot because: Wording



reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:13 AM by patternfinder
Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by patternfinder


Could you clarify your post a little? Are you saying they faked 6 moon landings because they got money for it? Or are you referring to a specific youtube poster?

If your saying that they faked the moon due to them getting money... well sorry I just don't buy that. No pun intended.

Every single argument trying to prove the moon landings a hoax can be refuted. So now it seems people are arguing over radiation levels. But I take little value in armchair physicists hypothesis.



sorry, yes, they did it for funding.....remember, john f kennedy put some pressure on them too......i've seen them do way more for way less.......


reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:22 AM by Videot
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Videot
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

How about you tell me what the "frequency" of 5MeV electrons is.
How about 40MeV protons?


I kinda hate to get in the middle of this(!), but doesn't the theory of wave/particle duality imply that all particles do indeed have a frequency? I vaguely remember an equation from college physics that relates the two, though not the details.

And of course, if string theory is correct (decidedly undecided at this time) everything is made up of oscillations.



well, phage is relying on the idea that a particle isn't a wave.....i am of the idea that a particle is made up of waves......that's where we are butting heads....


If I remember correctly, the very issue that Phage brought up, that electrons can exist at different energy levels, is all about the vibrational energy they possess, hence their associated frequency. Don't quote me on that though!

PS I have to take that back - electron volts is all about kinetic energy apparently (straight line momentum, I guess). I had to look it up!
edit on 6-9-2011 by Videot because: PS


PPS BUT, particles do have wavelength, so they do have frequency. The equation is Wavelength = Planck's Constant divided by Momentum (or in the case of electrons, electron volts).
edit on 6-9-2011 by Videot because: Second Correction



reply posted on 6-9-2011 @ 12:42 AM by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder

You're correct. That's why I asked for the frequency of a 10MeV electron. Its wavelength can be calculated but it doesn't really mean much unless the particle is being considered as a wave.

In any case the point I was attempting to make was that there is a great deal of difference between particle radiation (ionizing) and electromagnetic radiation (ionizing and otherwise) and their effects. Comparing the effects of microwaves to the effects of high energy particles is meaningless.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^