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 DelMarvel
A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.
It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.
Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.
Originally posted by turbonium1
I'm asking you for current experts who support your claim (about no shield being required). So what do you have?
Originally posted by turbonium1
I didn't expect you to try the same old nonsense yet again. Apollo data does not mean squat. That is the data being questioned in the first place!
I'm asking you for current experts who support your claim (about no shield being required). So what do you have?
radiation? so are you also denying these reports?
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
No, I do not deny those summary reports. But they are only summaries and tables; they are most assuredly NOT individual Apollo astronaut PRD data.
If you had the individual Apollo astronaut PRD data you would know that at least 3 Apollo astronauts had defective PRD's. All together it does not seem like a big deal. But your tables are based on that data....
.... so your tables are not based on reliable data and there are NO FOOTNOTES about the defective Apollo PRD's.
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by DelMarvel
A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.
It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.
Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
The vast majority would have no idea about what really happened. Just because they played a part in the program doesn't mean they would know everything about it. No way.
However, if you can support your claim with some specific case examples, please go right ahead.....
read the references...
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
read the references...
Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!
What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".
The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
read the references...
Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!
What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".
The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.
Originally posted by choos
These reports that you rely on for your theory that no man can survive or will get very sick in less than 12 days, support my claim that gcr's are low enough to cause very low to no harm in 12 days that protecting against gcr's is not required for less than 12 days. You only need to look at the numbers.
Originally posted by choos
My question to you. Why do you rely on these reports to support your claim?? But don't rely on these reports to support my claim?? Why do other expert corroborate your claims but not mine??
Originally posted by choos
Twisting what experts say only when it suits you ignoring the data they used to come to their conclusion when it suits you.. "Oh the experts say they can't survive a trip to the moon in less than 12 days but don't look at the data because the data the experts used and published with the reports are wrong"
Originally posted by choos
P.s. stating that the experts are using false data. Perhaps you know where the true data is?? Or perhaps the all the experts in the world are in on the hoax?? That's suddenly a hell of alot of more people who need to be controlled.. Do you honestly believe NASA's ability to keep millions of people quiet for 40+ years really extend to this extent?edit on 5-7-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by choos
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by DelMarvel
A hoax would have required the cooperation of thousands, probably many thousands.
It would have been humanly impossible to keep that secret for a half a century.
Too many girlfriends, wives, children and drunken companions.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
The vast majority would have no idea about what really happened. Just because they played a part in the program doesn't mean they would know everything about it. No way.
However, if you can support your claim with some specific case examples, please go right ahead.....
given that you claim that NASA has published false data every scientist/engineer have been using this data.. so in the last 40+ years and counting, more and more scientist/engineers etc.. will need to be included into the moon landing hoax, because well you know, they do afterall have the true data and the "fake" data from NASA.
Originally posted by dragonridr
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
read the references...
Why should I read any of those references? They are not based on space data of actual human beings outside of the Earth Radiation Belts!
What a joke! You have been fooled by your own trust in scientific "data".
The only proof needed is to send a man or a monkey outside LEO and do a loop around the moon. That's how real science works choos. Real science does not rely on papers full of summaries and summary tables.
why send a monkey what does that prove exactly? and real science does indeed rely on charts and figures what planet do you live on? In chemistry they rely on the periodic table for example. When studying radiation and exposure you look at charts. How did they get this information its called instruments and something called testing. Really science doesnt use charts wow do you even think before you type??
What numbers?
They say aluminum is a poor shielding material, of course.
And could even make it more hazardous.
It 'could'. It's 'possible'.
What would be the 'numbers' you refer to, then?
Aluminum increases the hazards of GCR radiation. Except for Apollo, on its nine miraculous missions!!
From the results in figures 4 and 7, it is clear that aluminum is marginally useful as a shield material for reduci ng adverse astronaut health risks.
I'm simply quoting them, and nothing else. All the twisting and spinning is coming from your side. .
Van Allen's original data was replaced with fake data to fit the Apollo story later on. That data alone would show it was a hoax.
But Apollo data 'confirmed' the fake data, so that was it. Until now.
Apollo is barely a footnote, or totally ignored, by experts today. Which speaks volumes on Apollo's veracity, or lack thereof... .
Originally posted by turbonium1
Of course. That's the problem NASA has now. And it's why the Apollo story will eventually unravel, too..
The experts know it, that's why the Apollo data is largely ignored. Real data would be like gold to them. You see anything like that? No chance.
Originally posted by turbonium1
Animal tests were done many times in LEO. We knew far less about deep space, so it's utterly ridiculous to claim they don't need a single animal test! It's just a few years later on, we had no magical futuristic instruments. We still don't..
We have probes in the VA Belts right now. Any reason for that?