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.

 

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 51
62
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

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.


It increases the radiation hazard. It is more intense, so making it worse for humans.

This is not a good thing, clearly.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


It also doesn't mean people can't survive it short term. Out increases the POTENTIAL for problems related to radiation, it doesn't guarantee them.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Another issue is the Apollo radiation data...

Here we have all this data, and it's ignored completely in those reports.

Why?

No reason at all, unless it's fake data.

Nine missions go beyond LEO. yet all their data means absolute squat to the experts??

Well. one comment about how it's just uncertain data,

Nice to see how valuable the Apollo radiation data is!!



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Didn't Apollo measure radiation both outside and inside the spacecraft?

Aluminum spacecraft?

And what did they discover about their aluminum craft when it flew beyond LEO?

Nothing.


Nice little story, yes it was.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Then there's Alan Bean, who had no clue about the VA Belts.

That's not fishy at all, I'm sure...



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

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.


Correct me if I'm wrong but after the panorama from the book is shown it then fades into TV footage (6:00) showing the LEM with the essentially the same background, then multiple instances are shown where the background is the same but the foreground is different. 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. In the case of the Moon Hoax theory the statistics suggest its something like 40%+ think Apollo was a hoax, is it really fair to marginalise these people? it is really moronic to question something so entrenched in established history when presented with certain anomalies? No, the problem arises when people arrive at conclusions. The fact that NASA are less than forthcoming with answers, coupled with their apparent disregard for the scientific and historical evidence that would put such Hoax claims to rest, has only fueled this fire. It is better to question and be proven wrong than not to question at all



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Hi again, my previous response to the another post addresses some of your points i think, in reference to the mosaic it was included to illustrate the subtle ways in which the lunar landscape has perhaps been misrepresented. 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. Whether or not the people presenting these anomalies are willfully spreading dis-information, or simply presenting their curious findings is open to debate i suppose, however as with any research it is important to be your own filter, many researchers (like Richard C. Hoagland) have conducted thorough and worthwhile research whilst simultaneously spouting spurious nonsense. The latter should not detract from the former.

Thanks for the link re:the little gem, very interesting; it has definitely raised some questions and will investigate further, i think Jarrah White has done some thorough work in this area, i don't know how contactable he is (I attempted to contact him through YouTube while compiling this series, he did not respond) but i would be interested to see what he makes of your link.I still however think the astronauts response helped fuel this one, it would have been simple for any one of them to offer a sensible explanation (or swear on a f**king Bible), the fact that many of them acted so suspiciously coupled with Armstrong's reclusive nature and enigmatic comments on the 25th anniversary of Apollo were unhelpful to advocates of the orthodox. Again to re-emphasise, the series is about understanding the prevalence of theories, not to prove or disprove them. The second episode expands on this idea in a different way but further illustrates the point.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by StrawMandelbrot
 


those mountains are not nearby to either the LM nor the Camelot crater.. they are several miles away, perhaps 10 or so im unsure.

neil and buzz noted something when they were on the moon, they said that things appeared a lot closer than what they really were.


"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...



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

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...


I'm not sure why you say that the perspectives of the mountains in those images are identical. They are similar, but not identical. Have you ever done a side-by-side comparison of some of the landscape features visible in those images of the very same mountain in the video (the "North Massif")? If you did, you would see that the perspectives are not identical.

For example, below is a comparison of two cropped images of the North Massif (the same mountain discussed in the video). These images were cropped from two different images -- AS17-141-21598 and AS17-145-22163. In this comparison, please note the differences in the relative locations of the dark patches, small crater, and bright hill (these features were mentioned in the video). Also, please note that in the crop of image AS17-141-21598, a hill can be seen directly beyond the sloping left side of the mountain, but in the crop of image AS17-145-22163, there is no hill directly beyond that left slope (perhaps the hills farhet to the left may be them, but I can't be sure -- but those hills are in a different location anyway:




Here is another comparison. The top image is again a crop of AS17-141-21598. This time I'm comparing it to a cropped portion of image AS17-146-22381. In this comaprison, the relationship between the bright hill and the dark patches seen in the other caparison is a bit closer -- but there are still differences. However, if you look to the far right, you can see that there is a small hill beyond, and the relationship of that small hill to a second set of dark patches is easily seen:

image sources:
AS17-141-21598
AS17-145-22163
AS17-146-22381


The bottom line is that there certainly are differences in the perspective of these mountains in the background, differences created by the the different locations of the camera. The differences in perspective may be slight, and not readily noticeable (unless you do a side-by-side comparison), but the differences still exist.

One reason the differences are slight is because the North Massif is relatively far away from the camera in all of these shots. It should be noted that those mountains in the background are farther away than they may seem -- 4 km and more away from the camera. They may seem closer because the lack of atmosphere also means a lack of haze in the air. On Earth, we use that haze to help us determine distance. The lack of haze confuses that sense of distance, so the North Massif looks closer than it is in those images.
[by the way, ATS member 'choos' says in the post above that they may be 10 miles away, but that is an overestimate.]




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...

I really can't respond to your blanket claim that there are still anomalous images that have still not been addressed convincingly. Could you please specify which of those images you mean?

By the way, I'm not convinced that these hoax claims would not still persist in the minds of some people even after an anomalous image has been convincingly addressed. I have seen hoax believers discount perfectly reasonable explanations for some of these issues, such as the explanation for why some shadows are not parallel (and for that matter, people still discount explanations similar to the one I gave above regarding the perspective of images of the North Massif). Some hoax believers seem closed-minded, and it seems that no amount of explanation could ever convince them that there are explanations for what they perceive to be anomalies in images.



edit on 6/8/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




For example, below is a comparison of two cropped images of the North Massif (the same mountain discussed in the video).

I like doing it this way. It makes it clear that the images were taken from entirely different locations with the resulting changes in perspective.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes. Thanks for that. I have also overlaid a transparency of one on top of the other in the past.

The point being presented here is that these are real mountains in the distance (hence the change in perspective), and not just painted studio backdrops. The moon-hoax people who say that the perspective of these distant hills doesn't change is just not looking closely enough.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

p.s. should we also dismiss all the data that NASA has collected beyond LEO also?



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.
.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

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.


Yes! A piece of equipment can be "shut down". It can then be powered up again, and will function as usual.

Unfortunately we humans cannot 'shut down'.

But hey, that would sure solve some major problems for manned missions beyond LEO, wouldn't it?. . .



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   

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.
.


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.

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.

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.
NASA has given their proof whether you want to believe it or not. however you have given nothing but conjecture and speculation.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


You don't see it do you? Or you're being deliberately obtuse.

According to you're argument, radiation levels beyond LEO are very high, and aluminum shielding is not only like having no shield, out intensifies radiation levels. Now, also according to you man can only attain LEO because of radiation levels. In orbit we have satellites that have to be shut down at times because if radiation levels.

But out well beyond LEO similar satellites, with aluminum shielding have been operating for almost forty years! So in earth orbit where man can orbit with minimal shielding, we have satellites being turned off, and out where radiation levels are supposed to be magnitudes higher, they function just fine, with aluminum shielding.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   

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?


I've only seen the summary tables, such as....

TABLE I. - AVERAGE RADIATION DOSES OF THE FLIGHT CREWS FOR THE APOLLO MISSIONS

(page 3 of this docment)...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

In the same document on page 7, we find this.....

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well-shielded command module, even the largest solar-particle event on record (November 12, 1960) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely.


Yes indeed, even massive SPE's were nothing to fear, in their "heavy, well-shielded command module"!!

You probaby didn't know that, now did you??


Hilarious...



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 


And you yet again show you have little or no understanding of radiation. There was quite a bit of secondary shielding in the CM due to the equipment and various other things in there.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

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.


First of all, because it's also been corroborated by non-NASA sources.

Second, the reports are contradicting the Apollo story, so why would they do that if it wasn't legitimate data?.



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.


The experts state that aluminum is an inadewuate shield beyond LEO, and will increase the radiation hazard beyond LEO. That's not my opinion of it, they STATE it.

They say aluminum is a poor shield beyond LEO, which means it is not adequate for ANY period of time within that environment. It is a blanket statement. It does not specify any time period within that statement.

They don't say it's adequate shielding for 12 days or less. YOU do. So YOU are the one who has to back up that claim.

It's not up to me to back up the reverse.


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.



What is your source for this?

Let me guess - another Apollo document?




top topics



 
62
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join