Moon and Rover fakery - Shocking PROOF like never before seen!!!

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


A question...so apparently no shielding is needed to pass thorough the belt? Ok. Since we are not sure about the belt, I'm willing to let that go. But what about lethal space radiation, as you said high frequency EM ?

We were told that if the earth didn't have it's magnetic shielding, we would all burn up here...right ? So how come a couple of guys can sit in a tin can a go to the moon, walk around the moon (without the protective magnetic shielding) and travel back, without ever having to feel any unpleasant consequences of that trip ? I thought that without the earth's protective magnetic shield we would fry?

Should we, in case of our atmosphere having been destroyed, just buy sh** loads of aluminum foil and make hats?




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


No, you are using shielding. You aren't using shielding as people think of it from movies, and news. Depending on the type of particle you are talking about, "normal" shielding is a bad idea. The denser the shielding, the more radiation it's going to give off more radiation on the inside of the shielding from particles that are given off by the particles hitting it.

High energy particles, and "normal" radiation are slightly different beasts. It has to do with the interaction of the particles and the shielding. When you have a high energy particle that impacts a shielding material, it decelerates by bouncing off other atoms in the material. This displaces that particular atom, which hits another one, which hits another one, etc. If you have lead, which is very dense, then you have more atoms to be displaced, which means more electromagnetic radiation inside the shielded object.

This creates radiation with a short wavelength, which can penetrate farther. The longer the wave length, the less it can penetrate. So you use things like plexiglass, and fiberglass, and softer materials to shield you. This causes a much longer wavelength, because the slowing of the particles is much slower than with lead or a denser object. Lead and other dense shielding materials tend to basically slam the particles to a stop, which gives them an extremely short wavelength.

I've kind of simplified things somewhat, but this is basic idea behind why Apollo didn't carry large amounts of lead shielding, and why it would be a very bad idea to when you're in space.

As for the length of time they were in space, they weren't there long enough to be exposed to a fatal dose. Interestingly though, after about 10 years a number of astronauts began to develop cataracts. Radiation in space is dangerous, but it's not the instantly fatal event that people try to make it out to be. It takes time for it to build up in your system. As long as there isn't something to cause a jump in levels, you can travel through space for several days, as they did, and not be exposed to a fatal dose.
edit on 10/1/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





No, you are using shielding. You aren't using shielding as people think of it from movies, and news. Depending on the type of particle you are talking about, "normal" shielding is a bad idea. The denser the shielding, the more radiation it's going to give off more radiation on the inside of the shielding from particles that are given off by the particles hitting it.


Following this logic...it seems that the less shielding you have (talking about the Apollo route) the better ?? Isn't the sun a big nuclear reactor? Than why in the hell do we have thick concrete walls for the nuclear shelters below buildings ? By your logic...those would than turn in to death traps for all that take shelter during the blast.

I'm sure your chemistry is right...it just doesn't make sense...either Apollo shielding or today's shielding.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


No, they wouldn't turn into death traps. You are comparing regular particles, to high energy particles. The radiation in space comprises almost exclusively high energy particles. The radiation from an atomic blast, or a nuclear reactor are low energy particles. Lead shielding works wonderfully against low energy particles. But when it comes to designing shielding, even though you are talking about the same types of radiation, you are talking about apples and oranges.

It's not one or the other, because different types of radiation require different types of shielding. In the post where I quoted all that, there is a link to a radiation primer. If you're truly interested in understanding radiation, I suggest you start there, and you'll see why one works in one situation, but not in the other.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 





This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo only about an hour to pass through the worst part of the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered on Earth's magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts, greatly reducing the exposure.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface. reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 




Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but the radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Although low-intensity solar flares are common, they posed no real threat to the astronauts. High-intensity solar flares could have endangered the astronauts' health, but these large eruptions are infrequent. Furthermore, there are statistical methods for determining the likelihood of a major flare during a given time interval. If NASA found an unacceptably high probability for a solar flare event during a scheduled flight, the mission would have been postponed. No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts was very low.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
All I see here is claims that have been debunked time and time again.

Take the alleged "wire" for instance. IT is an antenna that sticks out of the back of the suit that has ALWAYS been there. Its not a damn wire.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by 46ACE
 

LOL. Yah, it seems its all a distraction designed to pull your mind from the more important issues before the world.

Filters on.

And by the way... (snicker) the launches and assembly building were holograms, tee hee hee.


"Humor" correct?
"Holograms" (in 1969?) Weren't all that advanced



The development of the laser enabled the first practical optical holograms that recorded 3D objects to be made in 1962 by Yuri Denisyuk in the Soviet Union[5] and by Emmett Leith and Juris Upatnieks at the University of Michigan, USA.[6] Early holograms used silver halide photographic emulsions as the recording medium. They were not very efficient as the grating produced absorbed much of the incident light. Various methods of converting the variation in transmission to a variation in refractive index (known as "bleaching") were developed which enabled much more efficient holograms to be produced


en.wikipedia.org...
Besides: It's still there.and you can stand on multiple floors. You can't stand on a laser beam no matter how much star trek you watch.


I can't seem to keep from logging on here and reading this ridiculous purely speculative crap.


Houston we've achieved "Pss."("Poster separation status.")!

I see its Time for another "sabbatical": to restore faith in my fellow "man"..I'm going to "logout" and delete my password from my system for my own sanity.

Read something educational; While I'm gone for "christ sakes"


You guys have fun;making sh*t up out of thin air now...
edit on 1-10-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
All I see here is claims that have been debunked time and time again.

Take the alleged "wire" for instance. IT is an antenna that sticks out of the back of the suit that has ALWAYS been there. Its not a damn wire.
The thing is some guy got so angry thinking they were wires
i explained it to him showed him vids, diagrams he felt cheated as he had been following charlatans
half his life believing in the wire fiasco..

All it takes is tap - tap on the keyboard to find out...



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Here is what they are selling us:

I don't know what this is, I didn't do research at all, but I think it looks like ______ and that is proof the moon landing was fake.

Its embarrassing.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


"Humor" correct?
"Holograms" (in 1969?) Weren't all that advanced

Yah, humor. It seemed you needed some. Did it work?



I see its Time for another "sabbatical": to restore faith in my fellow "man"..I'm going to "logout" and delete my password from my system for my own sanity.




You guys have fun;making sh*t up out of thin air now...

Ok. Bob Lazar told me (personally) they had lasers since Roswell. So stick tongue between lips and blow. They been faking us out ever since. And you can't Wiki me one more time. That guy got arrested for lying.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dayve
 


He did do it. Go back and look. You really should try to keep up if your gonna post.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The moon hoax conspiracy is probably the most unimportant theory there is.


I don't see it as unimportant that the US Government lies to it's citizens. Maybe you don't live here but I do. It's my tax money being spent. I as well as all Americans deserve to be told the truth by our own government.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethertek
While my post is only tangential to the thread I mean for it to be on topic.

Mods...we can flag & star threads & posts, we can even unflag a thread, why can't we down flag a useless thread such as this.

Give us an option to down vote or down flag a thread to keep such nonsense off the main page.
While such a useless thread may still be created it will be relegated to the section where some may find it interesting while not wasting bandwidth for the rest of us.

TIA


If this thread is so useless why did you take the time to reply to it? Makes no sense at all. If you can't comment on the subject at hand why bother with this sensless outburst? You kind sir have just wasted my time.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The National Enquirer on ATS?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.


That's some story sir/mam but a story nether the less... must try harder.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


That is some testimonial from close up observers of the Moon Walkers.
Thanks very much a view of a side of the coin we are not allowed to see.
The whole NASA science consortium can't stand up to first space scientist Tesla.
Space and Earth, Tesla knew inside and out.
NASA satellites are still measuring radiation that Tesla found hundreds of times
over and told everyone the results. From what I read from Tesla there is no doubt
a conspiracy of silents and con games.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperlux
I don't get it. Why would NASA fake the moon landings? Although I can't personally start a space program, it doesn't seem like it's difficult to do, just expensive as hell. So expensive that the US are the only ones that could afford to do it many times.

I just don't see the point of why NASA would fake it.


I often wonder why the alternative was to evade the mission.
Hoaxers give no good reason and I could give a lot better ones.
Perhaps most are countered but lets face it the counters are not that
good when we do not know the facts.

Do we honestly know the radiation in outer space and on the Moon.
From what I read, no we do not.
NASA holds the data and would not give damaging reports.
And if outer space is to be avoided both US and Russia have to avoid
going to the Moon forever.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Yeah, you need a large dish and monitor in X band but even some amateur ham operators have made a connection to unmanned planetary explorers without a government sponsor.




Radio hams pick up Mars rover Curiosity's signals German enthusiasts collaborate with NASA www.theregister.co.uk...


You can't keep the whole world quiet. Besides some people scoff at death threats instead o cowering under the bed.





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum