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 Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
No, it doesn't. It increased the amount on the ship. It doesn't do anything with the amount I'm space. You're claiming it's not only letting every bit of radiation through, it's actually increasing it, which isn't anywhere near the truth. The aluminum stops alot of the radiation, but when the particles enter the aluminum some of them hit the particles I'm the aluminum. This stops the incoming particle, but shoots the particle that was hit off into others. These particles are now radioactive, and enter the ship, increasing the radiation levels. It's known as "braking radiation". THAT is the increase in question, NOT an increase in overall radiation.
Originally posted by choos
Originally posted by StrawMandelbrot
if the panorame was taken over 1km to the west why is there imagery showin the LEM at this very location.
can you show us what you mean or referring to? because i dont really understand what you are saying here.
"Distances are deceiving. When we looked at this fairly large boulder field off to the right, it didn’t look very far away at all, before we went out (side). Of course, once we got out, we wandered as far out as seemed appropriate; (and), of course, we never came close to this particular field. What really impressed me. was the difference in distances. After we were back in (side) again, looking out at the flag, the television, and the experiments, they looked as though they were right outside the window. In fact, on the surface, we had moved them a reasonable distance away. So I think distance judgment is not too good on first setting down. The tendency is to think that things are a good bit closer than they actually are. This says they (meaning the boulders) are probably a good bit larger than what we might have initially estimated"
www.hq.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by StrawMandelbrot
... My point was; if this panorama was taken over 1km to the west it would not be possible to view an identical perspective of a mountain (minus the LEM). I know this personally as i lived near a large hill for most of my life and know what a difference a short distance can make in perspective. Again i should emphasise, this is not about proving whether or not man walked on the moon, nor is it really about proving whether or not the imagery is fake; this is about exploring the prevalence of various theories about the Moon, but also to try to understand why people have reached these conclusions...
Originally posted by StrawMandelbrot
...Whether deliberate or accidental the fact is that several "keen eyed" individuals have spotted anomalies and NASA, and the scientific community has failed to address many of these issues convincingly. If they had been then the theories would not persist...
For example, below is a comparison of two cropped images of the North Massif (the same mountain discussed in the video).
Originally posted by choos
p.s. should we also dismiss all the data that NASA has collected beyond LEO also?
Originally posted by turbonium1
There's only one possible reason they always disregard the Apollo radiation data in their research - because it isn't valid data.
.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by turbonium1
We're not taking about toasters though. We're talking about equipment so sensitive that it had to be shut down IN EARTH ORBIT, where radiation levels are supposed to be safe enough for people with minimal shielding. And yet they can fly in deep space where levels are so dangerous with very few problems.
Originally posted by turbonium1
As we know, the Apollo 'data' has already been dismissed by the experts for several years now, and will continue to be ignored in the future.
There's only one possible reason they always disregard the Apollo radiation data in their research - because it isn't valid data.
.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Originally posted by turbonium1
There's only one possible reason they always disregard the Apollo radiation data in their research - because it isn't valid data.
.
Has anybody really seen the empirical PRD data or just summary tables published by NASA contractors in the 1970's?
Originally posted by choos
i see.. so then, these reports of yours that say aluminium is an inadequate shield.. what kind of substance do they hold considering they also use data collected by NASA.
Originally posted by choos
and can you please post up some backup to your claims that the radiation will be magnified to a level that should make someone sick in less than 12 days.
Originally posted by choos
right now we have NASA saying they can get to the moon and return in less than 12 days without much harm and we have you claiming that its impossible.