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: Misinformation
a reply to: choos
perhaps you understood why and can explain it to me?
how can you even consider yourself in any kind of position to defend the apollo manned landings when you choose to only accept evidence that is based upon a source that would of been a party to the hoax itself.
originally posted by: seabhac-rua
originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: choos
perhaps you understood why and can explain it to me?
how can you even consider yourself in any kind of position to defend the apollo manned landings when you choose to only accept evidence that is based upon a source that would of been a party to the hoax itself.
And you choose to accept 'evidence' that is based upon sources that are credible?? Smoke another one.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, moon hoax theorists motives are narcissistic in nature, the actual truth has little or no value to them.
originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: dragonridr
There's a whole other thread on this foolishness.
By the way, Jarrah's claimed radiation dose for the Apollo crew is equivalent to standing directly underneath one Hiroshima bomb every four minutes. And this apparently didn't lead him to think he might have made a boo-boo.
originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: dragonridr
Thats why i usually just try to point out when the make a mistake its not about changing their minds wont happen.
I agree. We should always let the readers decide.
\
I don't come here to change your mind Dragonridr! I simplly don't care what you believe. What I'm really interested in is giving information to the reader so that the reader can come to their own conclusions. I hope that the reader has better analytical faculties than either you or I.
originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: dragonridr
The moon hoax theory fits in neatly with the growing "the government are liars", "chemtrails", "false flag" etc worldview.
I think that's it is a mistake to assume that a lot of people, esp here on ATS, are going to judge this subject rationally.
The problem, IMO, is that people inherently look for information that supports their stance.
Subjects like the moon hoax(and others) separate the wheat from the chaff as far as I'm concerned, the material is there to be studied, if a person takes the time they will come to a rational conclusion, but the misanthrope in me knows that most won't.
originally posted by: dragonridr
oddly the internet is helping this phenomenon.
originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: onebigmonkey
I dont think you can fully judge Moon hoax theorist without looking at their positive qualities ..
they have a long tradition of existence in the community
& are sensible individuals,,,since a hoax is the only reasonable explanation.......
The Hoax cannot be undone by any craft that the propagandists possess.
Man must be taken towards the lunar expanse and cast upon the surface from whence it nefariously claimed,,Only there can it be unmade.
The problem, IMO, is that people inherently look for information that supports their stance.
Subjects like the moon hoax(and others) separate the wheat from the chaff as far as I'm concerned, the material is there to be studied, if a person takes the time they will come to a rational conclusion, but the misanthrope in me knows that most won't.
originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: seabhac-rua
The problem, IMO, is that people inherently look for information that supports their stance.
Subjects like the moon hoax(and others) separate the wheat from the chaff as far as I'm concerned, the material is there to be studied, if a person takes the time they will come to a rational conclusion, but the misanthrope in me knows that most won't.
You are too judgmental.
The Russian Glass Ceiling is at 475km altitude. Fact. Nothing you can do to change that. The CEO of space adventure says he can take a Soyuz on a circumlunar flight.
If Putin could send a Soyuz around the moon don't you think he'd send Pussy Riot to the moon?? He'd love to get rid of them What a publicity stunt! First women to orbit the moon... would be Russians...
Reasons: It would embarrass Obama/USA. The SLS is at least 3 years away...
Reasons: It would escalate the moon race with Russian "presence" in lunar vicinity.
Reasons: It would enhance Putin's image as "Conqueror" and we know Putin is obsessed with his legacy, like Nixon was.
originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Russian Glass Ceiling is at 475km altitude. Fact. Nothing you can do to change that. The CEO of space adventure says he can take a Soyuz on a circumlunar flight.
originally posted by: onebigmonkey
originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
The Russian Glass Ceiling is at 475km altitude. Fact. Nothing you can do to change that. The CEO of space adventure says he can take a Soyuz on a circumlunar flight.
Not a fact. No such thing. You've made it up. If it was a fact the CEO would not be saying he could take a Soyuz on a circumlunar flight.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: choos
I think he is playing with semantics and saying that GCR may not be a major concern for short missions, but is still a concern
However, obviously any increase in radiation exposure risk (even when that risk is minimal) should still be a concern. People who are involved in space physiology would not be doing their jobs if they said there is no concern at all, because that would be false. But having said that, a minor increase in risk may be lead to a minor enough concern, but still fall within the acceptable risk assessment levels.
What I'm saying is that the astronauts and NASA knew that the astronauts would experience a slightly high risk of damage due to radiation, but that risk would be minimal because of shortened exposure times. The astronaut (most of them who previously held the even more dangerous job of test pilot) were willing to accept that minor radiation risk.