Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Me thinks the leadership of this site is way too touchy about this particular subject. I fail to see why this thread is HOAXbinned...after 40 pages. The OP presented his interpretation of what was said in the video. By that logic, any alternate view of practically anything today should be considered a hoax.

Also...there is a question mark at the end of the title...meaning...the OP is asking for opinions.

Anyway...

edit:

correction...20 pages

Agreed, but it is their forum and they an do whatever their want - so what can one do. The thread may have violated one of the ATS end-user rules, but I'm not sure. However, I will still continue to converse in this thread even though its been hoaxbinned for those interested. If you have any complaints against ATS regarding such aforementioned issues then the Board Q&A forums are the right place to direct them.

-MM

a reply to: Pauligirl

I posted this about two pages back. It was ignored.

er..? very nice?
Don't wanna be rude.. But.. give it to someone who cares..?
I'm pretty sure your intelligent enough to see that has no bearing to what I am saying..

Thanx anyway..

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Dear mam,

You seem to draw a imaginary connection between a computer's performance statistics and its need for shielding against space radiation, but it is just that; imaginary. Please post any scientific sources for such a purposed connection in this thread, please.

-MM

and you seem to ignore that Orion has up-to-date technology..

micro-processors are much more susceptible to particle radiation than the old Apollo electronics.. the VAB has lots of moving charged electrons.. these electrons can and will affect micro-processors and circuitry.. if these circuitry/electronics are affected on Orion it has potential to be deadly for its occupants.. understand yet why Orion needs testing before it can be considered 'human-rated'??

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Dear mam,

You seem to draw a imaginary connection between a computer's performance statistics and its need for shielding against space radiation, but it is just that; imaginary. Please post any scientific sources for such a purposed connection in this thread, please.

-MM

I think it's quite clear where the imaginary connections have been made in this thread.

Is a rotary phone susceptible to all the same threats as a cordless model? Both have the same function, both use the same plug in your wall...

a reply to: WanderingSage

you were exposed to an atomic flash?????

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You realize that computers are so different then verses now, we may as well call a 1950s era computer a rock... in fact this new laptop i just got probably is so different from the computer you are typing in this same forum on they can not be equally compared... Technology today moves so fast, and is incredibly different than the technology we were sending to the moon in the 50s through 60s... There is no comparison aside from the men themselves.

a reply to: choos

micro-processors are much more susceptible to particle radiation

but but but....the scotch tape and some tin foil...surely...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You just flat refuse to believe anything that goes against you don't you.

Aluminum worked fine, for Apollo, which lasted about 10 days total. Orion missions will last longer and go places Apollo didn't. Shielding that worked for short missions won't work for long missions.

The duration of the mission should not even matter, according to this,

4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing hoax' believers? Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days. The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal. Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless.

spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov...

It doesn't matter wether you are exposed to harmless levels of rads per hour for one week, or for one year.

And why is this thread put in HOAX after 20 pages?

Without explanation?

So I should just figure out what the hoax is exactly?

The question the op asked is a hoax? After 20 pages?

Makes you think it was the direction the thread took.

Pathetic stuff.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You keep asking why the Orion would have to go through a thicker area, and the answer is that they don't know until it get's closer to the time for launch.

And how do they know when that time has come?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: johnb

The Belts aren't uniform. They're thicker in some places and thinner in others. Some areas are so dangerous satellites going through them are shut off first.

The route Apollo took was through a thinner portion.

Does NASA have a map that would allow them to plot a safe course through the "thinner portions"?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Nikita Khrushchev admitting the Americans made it to the moon isn't enough?

Maybe there is a secret reality that even the Russians don't want out in the open, even if it means playing along with the American hoax.

a reply to: choos

oh thats nice, you want ME to prove man landed on the moon.. but when it comes to me asking you to prove its impossible you dont have to do anything?
second time in this thread a hoax believer has this double standards..

LMAO!!!
Who are you "trying" to impress son?

You are the one with double standards..
This is at least the third time you have made a false & misleading statement (or just plain lied) about what I have said.

Let me set the record straight..

First.. I have NEVER asked you to "prove" anything..
asking you what "proof" you have.. may be similar..
But not the same as asking you to "prove" your theory of landing on the moon.

Frankly I really don't care that much about your "status quo theory."

As you have clearly proven you have just as much PROOF as I do.. Hyperthetical Theory.

The ONLY SOLID EVIDENCE that would have proven "without a doubt"
(without "CLOSE UP" pictures.. not the crud nasa has on-line)
HAS BEEN TAPED OVER BY NASA.
(cos it's standard procedure to tape over historic evidence)
You "say" there are others, but you forget..
IT WAS ONLY the first 9minutes before the broadcast was switched to AUSTRALIA.

I have been open and honest with you..
Yet you resort to obfuscation & misleading statements..

Page 22 is where you first entered, interupting a debate between myself & skepticoverlord..
So if you want to make factual statements about our discussions.. I suggest "again" that you refresh your memory and get your FACTS Straight.

As I have said.. I do not believe that the apollo even went outside of L.E.O.. full stop.

AND THAT THE "ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.
That as of 2010.. The cost is estimated to be over $150 BILLION."

If they had been to the moon over 45yrs ago..
Why have they wasted that kind of money floating around like an OVERSIZED satellite in Lower Earth Orbit..?

I will not say anymore to you on this.. and I would appreciate it if you could refrain from any more cheap shots to draw me into this thread..
thankyou choo

a reply to: cheery1

The ONLY SOLID EVIDENCE that would have proven "without a doubt"
(without "CLOSE UP" pictures.. not the crud nasa has on-line)
HAS BEEN TAPED OVER BY NASA.

And if those tapes ever surface, they will suddenly cease to be "evidence" because they may have been "faked." Please stop wasting your time pretending you have an argument. You don't.

a reply to: DJW001

How are they going to turn up, when nasa has taped over them?!
Very insightful.. aren't you..

Cheers for your astute wisdom

originally posted by: cheery1

LMAO!!!
Who are you "trying" to impress son?

You are the one with double standards..
This is at least the third time you have made a false & misleading statement (or just plain lied) about what I have said.

Let me set the record straight..

First.. I have NEVER asked you to "prove" anything..
asking you what "proof" you have.. may be similar..
But not the same as asking you to "prove" your theory of landing on the moon.

so what proof do you have that the VAB is impossible to pass??

Frankly I really don't care that much about your "status quo theory."

As you have clearly proven you have just as much PROOF as I do.. Hyperthetical Theory.

backed up with maths and science.. when you finally get around to showing me your proof that passing the VAB is indeed impossible, will it be backed up with maths and science or the ramblings of a hoax theorist??

The ONLY SOLID EVIDENCE that would have proven "without a doubt"
(without "CLOSE UP" pictures.. not the crud nasa has on-line)
HAS BEEN TAPED OVER BY NASA.
(cos it's standard procedure to tape over historic evidence)
You "say" there are others, but you forget..
IT WAS ONLY the first 9minutes before the broadcast was switched to AUSTRALIA.

you mean the video footage of apollo 11?? the footage that exists still to today as copies??

you are still focused on these "missing" tapes.. you havent even told me what you believe was recorded on these telemetry tapes.. why dont you tell me what is supposed to be on these telemetry tapes before you claim that it is solid evidence..

and what has the switch to Australia got to do with anything?? does it make the first 9 mins more authentic than the other 2hours and 20ish mins??

I have been open and honest with you..
Yet you resort to obfuscation & misleading statements..

i ask you questions but you never answer them, so im left guessing to what you really mean..

Page 22 is where you first entered, interupting a debate between myself & skepticoverlord..
So if you want to make factual statements about our discussions.. I suggest "again" that you refresh your memory and get your FACTS Straight.

that was interrupting you, back then you said we were conned, i asked how.. you still havent answered..

As I have said.. I do not believe that the apollo even went outside of L.E.O.. full stop.

why?? because the VAB is impossible to traverse???
you see this is the type of answers you give me, they never left LEO, why do you believe this?? you wont answer..

AND THAT THE "ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.
That as of 2010.. The cost is estimated to be over $150 BILLION."

what has the cost of the ISS got to do with Apollo not leaving LEO??

you need to understand that the cost of the ISS is Global, NASA was not the sole financier for the ISS.. and not to mention that its 150billion over 16 years minimum..

If they had been to the moon over 45yrs ago..
Why have they wasted that kind of money floating around like an OVERSIZED satellite in Lower Earth Orbit..?

the ISS is not a waste of money there have been valuable information gathered from the ISS, ie. long term exposure to micro gravity for one..
heres a list:
en.wikipedia.org...

but lets see, if building the ISS and doing science experiments cost about 150billion how much do you think it would cost to do the same in lunar orbit or the lunar surface??
doing science experiments in the ISS is much cheaper than doing science on the moon and much safer..

this is basically all boiling down to space ventures being too expensive.. NASA only has less than a percent of the budget.. is it still too much? NASA has done more good for mankind than other departments that get double or even triple the budget NASA gets..

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: johnb

The Belts aren't uniform. They're thicker in some places and thinner in others. Some areas are so dangerous satellites going through them are shut off first.

The route Apollo took was through a thinner portion.

Does NASA have a map that would allow them to plot a safe course through the "thinner portions"?

Actually yes they do.Haven't you seen the 'Google Van Allen Belts' maps next to 'Google Moon'?

a reply to: cheery1

How are they going to turn up, when nasa has taped over them?!
Very insightful.. aren't you..

What makes you think there might not be missing or mislabeled boxes that will turn up later? Think things through much?

Cheers for your astute wisdom

Cheers for you transparent trollery. Goodbye.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Can you post something that is in the proper context of the comment you replied to?

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert

The duration of the mission should not even matter, according to this,

It doesn't matter wether you are exposed to harmless levels of rads per hour for one week, or for one year.

it does matter since it will accumulate, 13rads/hour is more or less harmless for short periods because humans can recover slowly from radiation damage..

but being exposed to 13rads/hour CONSTANTLY for a week is 2184 rads / roughly 22 Sv, well above the prescribed career limit..