Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Egyptia
I personally never understood how they got anything through the Van Allen Radiation Belt.


Why do you think they would have been a problem?

All these silly hoax claims have been debunked here and elsewhere many times before, why have yet another thread on it?

Do you somehow think be reposting hoaxes they will suddenly become true?
edit on 27-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by VoidHawk
You can easily tell it was a hoax by the number of threads invented to debunk the people who believe it was a hoax.

Dont listen to ANYONE in these threads, do your OWN research.
edit on 27-11-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)


Scepticism equals proof now?

Wow...

I guess the tooth fairy is coming to leave money under my pillow...


Haha jeez dude, is your ability to recognize obvious facetiousness that far off?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Oh for Crisake...

The Cameraman stayed in the same exact spot only the hills and LEM were obviously moved.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Egyptia
 


The Van Allen belt isn't a continuous circle around the earth. It has thicker and thinner spots all throughout it. It's also not as dangerous as it's made out to be. If you stayed in it for a long time (months) then you would be exposed to a large dose of radiation. The Apollo mission went through in a few hours.


Depends on who's expert you listen to. Some say even a few minutes in the Van Allen belts at it's thinner areas would kill a human in the poorly shielded tin can those guys used. You say we went through quickly.. How quickly? Do you have this data?

We know the space suits were not designed for radiation protection nor was the tin can they used. ( I have read os these things.. I can look them up for specs on these things if you need sources) NASA would not even let anyone outside of NASA test the suits to prove their effectiveness after the Moon landings.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Depends on who's expert you listen to. Some say even a few minutes in the Van Allen belts at it's thinner areas would kill a human in the poorly shielded tin can those guys used.


please list the experts and their qualifications that claim a few minutes exposure would have killed a human.



NASA would not even let anyone outside of NASA test the suits to prove their effectiveness after the Moon landings.


??? What a stupid statement, why would NASA need anyone else to test a spacesuit to test its effectiveness just after they were just successfully used. Do you ever stop to consider what nonsense you are spewing here?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
After the LEM landed on the Moon it should not have been possible to take essentially the same picture without the LEM being in the shot


Except it was not the same picture, it is obvious they moved. Have you found out how far away the mountains were? Oh, if you actually did that it would destroy your theory!


I asked YOU the same question in the other thread.. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com... you didn't reply. You stated that those mountains were 30 + km away. I asked you how you KNEW this.. still waiting for an answer.

We don't know the size of those structures, if they were mountains far away or close hills or the distance from the cameraman they were. So, I had to take my stance relative scale and size by comparison of features of the structures.

It doesn't matter now anyway because the video evidence to me from Severin's work is compelling to at least make one think yes, there was some tampering done. You know they didn't move the LEM then go take another shot or take the picture before the LEM laded.. LOL.. Slayer.. cracks me up.
edit on 27-11-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



The Cameraman stayed in the same exact spot only the hills and LEM were obviously moved.


Please expand upon this.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Depends on who's expert you listen to. Some say even a few minutes in the Van Allen belts at it's thinner areas would kill a human in the poorly shielded tin can those guys used. You say we went through quickly.. How quickly? Do you have this data?


I think I'll listen to the man that discovered them, and said they weren't as dangerous as they were made out to be. He probably has a better grasp of them than most people do.

The Van Allen belt only covers about 40 degrees above and below the equator (20 on either side). The Apollo mission trajectory was set up so that 1.) they went through the edges (about 30 degrees or so), and 2.) they went through quickly.


Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

www.clavius.org...

Passage through the Van Allen Belts took between half an hour and an hour and a half at most. That's nowhere near enough time to even come close to a fatal dose, even going through the South Atlantic Anomaly.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
We don't know the size of those structures, if they were mountains far away or close hills or the distance from the cameraman they were.


So how about you do some research and find out - you are the one making the claim, how about you backing that claim up.... that is how things work in the real world.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
We don't know the size of those structures, if they were mountains far away or close hills or the distance from the cameraman they were.


So how about you do some research and find out - you are the one making the claim, how about you backing that claim up.... that is how things work in the real world.


You cop out. You claimed they were 30 + km away first. I'll wait on you. Show me your real world example of your claim. It's on you to debunk my/Severin's findings. I had the idea to find out by superimposition and Severin did the work. Thats good enough for me until you come up with your hard facts.You claim that theory is wrong, fine, I might buy it if you actually give me data to explain the anomaly.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 



You can easily tell it was a hoax by the number of threads invented to debunk the people who believe it was a hoax.


as threads claiming the moon landings were a hoax far outnumber all other threads on the apollo program then by your " logic " :

you can easily tell that it [ the apollo landings ] were true by the number of threads that claim it was a hoax

as you claim that "number of threads " is an inverse representation of veracity

PS - may i reccomend a foundation course in formal logic ? - your critical thinking skills have fallen to a dangerous low



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Depends on who's expert you listen to. Some say even a few minutes in the Van Allen belts at it's thinner areas would kill a human in the poorly shielded tin can those guys used. You say we went through quickly.. How quickly? Do you have this data?


I think I'll listen to the man that discovered them, and said they weren't as dangerous as they were made out to be. He probably has a better grasp of them than most people do.

Passage through the Van Allen Belts took between half an hour and an hour and a half at most. That's nowhere near enough time to even come close to a fatal dose, even going through the South Atlantic Anomaly.


Seems Clavius likes to contradict himself. he agrees with Mary on the 4 hour time period of travel through the belts.


The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]...

The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary.

www.clavius.org...


Yeah, I know that post is all about debunking the "we cant survive a trip through the Van Allen belt" thing but he never gives concrete answers and it's loaded with spin.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


That would be why I went to other sites to get the time frame, and I didn't quote from him. Regardless, every single hard number site out there agrees that the Apollo astronauts were exposed to the rough equivalent of a dental x-ray while going through the Van Allen Belts.

Clavius was right on the shape of the belts though. You can find a ton of information out there that shows their shape, and the thickness of them in various areas.


Earth's magnetic field interacts with highly energized particles from space, and with some particles actually formed within the magnetic field. Particles from the solar wind, on the other hand, are deflected by Earth's magnetic field. The solar wind compacts the part of the torus-shaped magnetic field facing the Sun. The part opposite the Sun is elongated. An inner belt, elevation about 2,000 to 5,000 km, contains protons and atoms stripped of their electrons. The outer radiation belt (about 13,000 to 19,000 km) is rich in electrons coming from the magnetic tail of Earth’s magnetosphere. The particle-rich portion of the magnetic field is from about 20 degrees below to 20 degrees above the geomagnetic equator.



There has been controversy in connection with radiation and the Van Allen Belts. Have astronauts been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation during space flights? The feeling is they have been exposed to a higher level than is considered acceptable for the general population, but not to anything near a life-threatening level. Low Earth orbit exposes astronauts to only a small radiation bombardment, however the Moon-bound Apollo astronauts received higher exposure, since they passed through the regions containing high-energy particles. Future astronauts to deep space will have to deal with hazardous levels of radiation but can expect better radiation exposure management. A much larger problem caused by interaction of the Van Allen belt with the electronics of satellites and space stations.

www.brighthub.com...


As you know, the Van Allen radiation belts are doughnut-shaped regions encircling Earth and containing high-energy electrons and ions trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. Explorer I, launched by NASA in 1958, discovered these two regions of intense radiation surrounding the Earth. They are referred to as the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts, after James Van Allen who designed Explorer I. The inner region is centered at about 3000 km above Earth and has a thickness of about 5000 km. The outer region is centered at about 15,000 -- 20,000 km above the surface of the Earth and has a thickness of 6,000 -- 10,000 km.
Typically, manned space flight (such as the Shuttle) stays well below the altitude of the van Allen radiation belts. Safe flight can occur below altitudes of 400 km or so.

SO ...what do we do when we have to fly through the radiation belts -- like when we went to the Moon or send probes to other planets?

In the 1960s, NASA asked Oak Ridge National Laboratory to predict how astronauts and other materials would be affected by exposure to both the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts and the Sun's radiation. Oak Ridge biologists sent bacteria and blood samples into space and exposed small animals to radiation. They concluded that proper shielding would be key to successful flight not only for living organisms, but for electronic instrumentation as well. To develop shielding for the Apollo crews, Oak Ridge researchers recycled the Lab's Tower Shielding Facility, which had hoisted shielding experiments aloft for the 1950's nuclear-plane project.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Why can't it be a combination of both; man did land on the moon and it was filmed but the footage that you see was faked.

Maybe the original was un-useable?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Honestly, anyone who has researched this like most here have, know 2 things:

1. There is enough proof to conclude we went to the moon.

2. There is enough proof to conclude things are being covered up and/or lied about.

I agree with the 'do your own research' idea and have a hard time taking anyone seriously that comes forth, after everything that has already been hashed out, and claims it was all a hoax. The same goes for those who deny anything but the official report. Something happened, somethings went down we are not being told, but we indeed went.
edit on 27-11-2012 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I dont get why people HAVE to proove the Moon Landing was faked. It doesnt really matter anymore does it? Neil Armstrong NASA is pretty much finshed thanks to Obama. So If we really Landed on the Moon or not Does it really matter now?
edit on 27-11-2012 by knightrider078 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I would like to submit into evidence:
front screen projection
radiation
more radiation



Thank you.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


And the Van Allen Belts can be safely traveled through, as has been shown repeatedly. And cosmic rays can be shielded against, actually pretty easily. The Apollo astronauts had a slightly increased risk of cancer, but not a hugely increased, and certainly weren't in any danger of dying quickly from the radiation.

Gemini proved that you could even travel through the South Atlantic Anomaly safely, as they did it several times in one flight. That's one of the most intense sections of the VAB.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


And the Van Allen Belts can be safely traveled through, as has been shown repeatedly. And cosmic rays can be shielded against, actually pretty easily. The Apollo astronauts had a slightly increased risk of cancer, but not a hugely increased, and certainly weren't in any danger of dying quickly from the radiation.

Gemini proved that you could even travel through the South Atlantic Anomaly safely, as they did it several times in one flight. That's one of the most intense sections of the VAB.


I am in no way an expert on the subject. I have no idea if the South Atlantic Anomaly is actually stronger than the parts of the VAB that astronauts traveled through to get to the moon, nor do I know if the Gemini missions have done what you say, but I do know that there is no such thing as proof undeniable evidence.

With that said, my above post was not meant to be one of debate, I was just suppling possible evidence to the contrary of moonlandings, as to humor the op.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foundryman
Do we really need another one of these?



Originally posted by DJW001
Here's the challenge: please present your best, incontrovertible evidence that the lunar landings were a hoax. Documentation. Eyewitness accounts. Physical evidence. Try your best to persuade the space enthusiasts of ATS that everything they know is wrong.


I have agree sort of ... Most of these things get out of control or very much persons hurl things at the wall constantly and its never ending repetition.

Perhaps if we're going to do one of these again DJ, talk to the moderators and see about getting the ability to have a contents page? Am not sure ATS staff will allow it since ATS isn't meant to be a wiki exactly ... buuuuuuut ... at least every five or ten pages can we have someone post topic updates?

Maybe liiiike ...

Van Allen Belt Radiation Argument

{Post Link} {Summary = X person raises Y argument}
{Post Link} {Summary = X person refutes Y argument}
{Post Link} {Summary = X person raises Y argument}

Sources:

{Link} {Summary of source}
{Link} {Summary of source}
{Link} {Summary of source}

Front Screen Projection

{Post Link} {Summary = X person raises Y argument}
{Post Link} {Summary = X person refutes Y argument}
{Post Link} {Summary = X person raises Y argument}

I'd be happyish to contribute if we were doing something productive like that.

Sources:

{Link} {Summary of source}
{Link} {Summary of source}
{Link} {Summary of source}

edit on 28-11-2012 by Pinke because: Examples and typos






top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join