why didn't we go back to the moon.?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


1.5T of dynamite is relatively small..

The smallest nukes are in the order of 1,000's of tons of dynamite.




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by donniered
Did NASA fake the Moon missions on a sound stage? At area 51. The Van Allen radiation belts are doughnut shaped regions of space in the Earth's magnetic field that trap very high energy protons and electrons. As a result, i wonder how astronauts could have passed through the belts without being killed by the radiation. We had the technology to send a rocket to the moon. But what about the radiation.? Once going through And passed the Van Allen belt the belt how did the Astronaut's survive the radiation.? No maned spacecraft has ever since gone through the belt.? The space shuttle orbit height. Is well under the belt's and protect from the harmful radiation. Ok people will say why go back. What's on the moon. Same as the north poll. We still did and set up a base there. Fact if man wanted to passed the Van Allen and into real space. The craft would need 6 tp 12 feet of led around it to stop the radiation. that would make the craft very heavy. And launching into space from the Earth would be very hard. Could NASA have made some kind of special light material that know no one still know's about what could of stoped the radiation.?


Much of the information you are saying in this post in incorrect.

Perhaps some reading up on how radiation works will help you understand how it is possible to travel through the Van Allen belt.

You do not instantly die from radiation exposure. In fact, humans are exposed to radiation all day everyday!

Radiation exposure from the Van Allen belt would indeed be fatal if a human stays within the van allen belt for weeks at a time. Passing through it in a matter of days has zero effect on a human.

Remember that you are being exposed to radiation right now! Every second of your entire life you have been bombarded by radiation!



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gingerlee
 


And they don't have to be hyperaccurate to get to the moon. In the case of the moon, close really does count. They were using the moon gravity to pull them in after they passed the halfway point. As long as they could see the moon, and they could get star shots then they could get to the moon.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


1.5T of dynamite is relatively small..

The smallest nukes are in the order of 1,000's of tons of dynamite.


I see that my statement regarding the bombing of the moon has lost all credibilty
in regards to the first part of my post - explaining the implications of what a Nation
would face had they been caught hoaxing Lunar missions.

..so be it - lesson learned.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 12/27/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Another factoid about the Van Allen belts:

They are limited to about 20 degrees plus and minus the equator. Apollo flew around the heaviest portions.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


you lost me. when on the near side of the moon they track the ships to within tens of feet of where they really are. or so this was the claim as I understand it. now were the missions genuine you would keep these records. when you read that starry night blurb you get the impression not that the data was lost but that they never had it. this is quite profound such an admission. even my son is beginning to suspect hoax based on this and he had been a go get em nasa boy before. if Apollo was real they would be under orders to keep the most meticulous records with regard to tracking both on board and from the ground bases. probably be a good thread on its own. it's technical enough to sink nasa and something everyone can understand at the same time
edit on 27-12-2012 by gingerlee because: spelling
edit on 27-12-2012 by gingerlee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Didn't we throw enough money at the moon already? Funny it isn't green.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by gingerlee
 


When they are in orbit, or they are landing, then precision is required. When getting TO the moon, they don't require hyperaccuracy.

A good example is the old INS unit that aircraft used to use. It would drift over a long flight, and sometimes it would be 70+ miles off, but it was close enough to get there. You can get to the moon without hyperaccuracy, and then get the accuracy when you get close, and you are able to get better visual clues from the lander.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
why aren't we looking for new trade routes to the new world ?


wait for it........



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


In one of his many publications Tesla takes a sea level and a higher elevation reading
and with some math available to NASA and anyone in Tesla's time to come to the same
conclusion. Earth is our outer space probe we are just not told enough to sift through
the silent lies because the data is not released. So just about any one might come to
the 3' of lead conclusion, don't you think. We only get van Allen belt blurbs but where
do you think they come from. Not only that 5x, 500X and much greater than the speed
of light particles exist as Tesla also related.

Here is a good one. X-Rays need to be up close in the dentist office as the tube is placed
close to the tooth and film. Tesla's tube works 40 feet away. Tesla sent Roentgen his
pictures and Roentgen replied If you would only be so kind as to disclose the manner
in which you obtained them. Looks like Tesla was not so kind or we have another
secret Tesla circuit dating back before 1943.

This reminded me of some kid seeing my train set and said if I ever wanted to get
rid of it let me know, Tesla did not donate a thing to us and may have unexpectedly
died without proper disclosure of his work. Any one who has the remaining works
of Tesla not given back to his homeland can give it to us.

edit on 12/27/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



In one of his many publications Tesla takes a sea level and a higher elevation reading
and with some math available to NASA and anyone in Tesla's time to come to the same
conclusion.


Let me rephrase my question: In which of his many publications did Tesla reach that conclusion? By the way, you do realize that Tesla's power transmitters were basically huge open air X-ray machines, don't you?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



In one of his many publications Tesla takes a sea level and a higher elevation reading
and with some math available to NASA and anyone in Tesla's time to come to the same
conclusion.


Let me rephrase my question: In which of his many publications did Tesla reach that conclusion? By the way, you do realize that Tesla's power transmitters were basically huge open air X-ray machines, don't you?


No they were mechanical sound wave machines.
Sorry do not have that publication for you.
Did I relate the X-Ray story or not.
At 45Mev they might be gamma ray machines shaking atoms apart with sound waves.
But many applications should not take so high a voltage.
Tesla just made the statement and did not go into any more details than I already said.
I think we should contact a scientific authority instead.
The whole process seems simple enough.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



In one of his many publications Tesla takes a sea level and a higher elevation reading
and with some math available to NASA and anyone in Tesla's time to come to the same
conclusion.


Let me rephrase my question: In which of his many publications did Tesla reach that conclusion? By the way, you do realize that Tesla's power transmitters were basically huge open air X-ray machines, don't you?


Found it:
1932-02-06: Dr. Tesla Writes of Various Phases of His Discovery
www.tesla.hu...




The latter is not very penetrative and is partly absorbed by the atmosphere. According to my determinations its intensity beyond the atmosphere is about 50 per cent greater than at sea level. The whole atmosphere being equivalent to about 36 inches of lead, it is easy to determine the intensity of this radiation by making a measurement of the penetration at any known altitude. This theory is borne out strikingly in experiments with my vacuum tubes, but even if I did not have such proofs I would consider it plausible.


I did not find any more related at this time but there might be more elsewhere.
Ed:
looking further



sun.... emit rays of great energy consisting of small particles with velocities vastly exceeding that of light


There rays cause a


constant intensity, day and night, and pouring upon the earth equally from all directions


Which we say is the big bang residual radiation but Tesla says all the suns cause right
now so no big bang and undoubtedly we can't listen to Tesla.
edit on 12/28/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, so that nobody could properly examine it.


By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.?
The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the , but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
edit on 29-12-2012 by donniered because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 





No i'm not Cause you UAS gov.


And that statement right there is what is wrong with ATS nowadays



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 



TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, so that nobody could properly examine it.


NASA did provide a direct link up. Of course, the original signal was very faint and used a special slow scan video system that had to be converted to VHS standard in real time. This is one of the reasons the video quality for the first mission was so poor. By Apollo 17, the systems were much improved:





By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.?


A common misconception. Most people have only seen the very best photographs, selected precisely because of their high quality. Many of the photos look like this:



AS11-40-5904


The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.


Short answer: the cameras were strapped to their chests and therefore would be aimed roughly in the direction the astronauts were facing. Only three standard shutter speeds were used, and were easy to set. The film was contained in easily handled cassettes. Long answer:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the , but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.


David Persey is having you on. Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows. All of the shadows are single and sharp.


The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.


Does this look brightly lit to you?



AS11-40-5850


Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.


Why should they match? They were taken by two different cameras in two different locations? The film camera was stuck in the LM window and the still cameras were moving around on the surface.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by donniered
 




By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.?

You are flat out wrong. Go to NASA's site. ALL the pictures are there and some are pure crap. They just don't publish them in glossy magazines.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join