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

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

I will leave that task to you, as it was you have posted the claim. I will not do the work of proving other people's claims.

-MM

then simply email him... what are you afraid of?? if i email him you claim i made it up..

Since you put up the claim then you e-mail him or otherwise submit proof of your claims; what are you afraid of?

-MM

dude i just told you.. if i emailed him.. you will claim i made it up just as you did about the letter..

so YOU email him.. that way there is no need for you to claim i made it up.. that way YOU can confirm it for yourself no middle man to try to trick you, DENY IGNORANCE.. what are you afraid of?? its a simple email to confirm for yourself to deny ignorance.

p.s. if i email him and post the reply here, will that make you believe?

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this.

-MM

embrace ignorance then.. not my problem, what you are telling me now is that you are willing to believe a stranger on the internet more than yourself..

tell me what you want to ask him, so that you cannot try and weasle out of it.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

I will leave that task to you, as it was you have posted the claim. I will not do the work of proving other people's claims.

-MM

then simply email him... what are you afraid of?? if i email him you claim i made it up..

Since you put up the claim then you e-mail him or otherwise submit proof of your claims; what are you afraid of?

-MM

dude i just told you.. if i emailed him.. you will claim i made it up just as you did about the letter..

so YOU email him.. that way there is no need for you to claim i made it up.. that way YOU can confirm it for yourself no middle man to try to trick you, DENY IGNORANCE.. what are you afraid of?? its a simple email to confirm for yourself to deny ignorance.

p.s. if i email him and post the reply here, will that make you believe?

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this.

-MM

embrace ignorance then.. not my problem, what you are telling me now is that you are willing to believe a stranger on the internet more than yourself..

tell me what you want to ask him, so that you cannot try and weasle out of it.

Unlike you, all of my claims have been referenced and documented throughout this duscussion.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

If you got Dr. Vann Allen to post here on ATS... Well that would be another matter.

Yes; it would require a Ouija board.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

yes but there is no connection between them.

you post a link saying shielding is required.. and then randomly put a quote that says 6 feet of lead is required..

but they dont link.. you need quite the imagination to link that..

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer, with a signature that no one else has seen before? And the proof - none - except being someone I've never heard of with a fancy title and supposedly well-respected within his field. Now, if the signature could be verified that would be another matter.

If Professor Whackadoodle from Stanford University claimed he had a mansion on Mars, then would you take his claims as proof because of his credentials? I think not. Deny ignorance.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

If you got Dr. Vann Allen to post here on ATS... Well that would be another matter.

Yes; it would require a Ouija board.

No problem, ATS has forums for that too

-MM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

A piece of paper with a signature presented by someone with or without credentials is not proof of anything unless the signature and letter is verified. Sending an e-mail to the person that presented the aforementioned letter where he/she confims that the letter is authentic makes no difference as it is all hear-say unless the letter and signature is legally verified by a truested 3rd party.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

A piece of paper with a signature presented by someone with or without credentials is not proof of anything unless the signature and letter is verified. Sending an e-mail to the person that presented the aforementioned letter where he/she confims that the letter is authentic makes no difference as it is all hear-say unless the letter and signature is legally verified by a truested 3rd party.

-MM

but you want to verify if the letter is authentic.. how are you going to do that without emailing the owner of said letter?

oh and he is a trusted 3rd party.. thats why i gave you his credentials........

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

If you use ANY amount of lead for shielding you will turn the craft into a death trap, which Dr Van Allen knew, which is why he would never say to use it.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

A piece of paper with a signature presented by someone with or without credentials is not proof of anything unless the signature and letter is verified. Sending an e-mail to the person that presented the aforementioned letter where he/she confims that the letter is authentic makes no difference as it is all hear-say unless the letter and signature is legally verified by a truested 3rd party.

-MM

but you want to verify if the letter is authentic.. how are you going to do that without emailing the owner of said letter?

oh and he is a trusted 3rd party.. thats why i gave you his credentials........

You are missing the point; the Burden of Proof is with he/she that made the claim. I don't have to e-mail anyone as it is not me that made the claim; rather, I can rightly call your submitted claim balderdash until it is proven otherwise - as I do quite merrily.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

A piece of paper with a signature presented by someone with or without credentials is not proof of anything unless the signature and letter is verified. Sending an e-mail to the person that presented the aforementioned letter where he/she confims that the letter is authentic makes no difference as it is all hear-say unless the letter and signature is legally verified by a truested 3rd party.

-MM

but you want to verify if the letter is authentic.. how are you going to do that without emailing the owner of said letter?

oh and he is a trusted 3rd party.. thats why i gave you his credentials........

You are missing the point; the Burden of Proof is with he/she that made the claim. I don't have to e-mail anyone as it is not me that made the claim; rather, I can rightly call your submitted claim balderdash until it is proven otherwise - as I do quite merrily.

-MM

so wheres your proof that Van Allen stated you need 6 feet of lead???

are you saying that van allen saying shielding is required proves he says you need 6 feet of lead shielding??

if i show you that a few mm of aluminium shielding will bring the radiation dosage down alot be enough to convince you??

or does verifiable sources only work to support you and no one else?

p.s. since you havent actually provided signed proof of van allen saying you need 6 feet of lead shielding am i also allowed to say your claim he said that as complete "balderdash"?? or does your burden of proof only work one way??

You mean there are actually still people out there who think we didnt land on the moon?

........this has got to be one of the most far out there conspiracy theories .....

Honestly I would believe aliens are abducting cows before ill believe we DIDNT land on the moon......

I feel like people who believe this should probably come outside more often and step away from the computer....

You also have to produce an electric feild similar to Earths if you want to travel space.

Our brain is tethered to the rythm of the planets core.

Without it our hearts would not function.

it's funny cuz most people forget about his.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

A piece of paper with a signature presented by someone with or without credentials is not proof of anything unless the signature and letter is verified. Sending an e-mail to the person that presented the aforementioned letter where he/she confims that the letter is authentic makes no difference as it is all hear-say unless the letter and signature is legally verified by a truested 3rd party.

-MM

but you want to verify if the letter is authentic.. how are you going to do that without emailing the owner of said letter?

oh and he is a trusted 3rd party.. thats why i gave you his credentials........

You are missing the point; the Burden of Proof is with he/she that made the claim. I don't have to e-mail anyone as it is not me that made the claim; rather, I can rightly call your submitted claim balderdash until it is proven otherwise - as I do quite merrily.

-MM

so wheres your proof that Van Allen stated you need 6 feet of lead???

are you saying that van allen saying shielding is required proves he says you need 6 feet of lead shielding??

if i show you that a few mm of aluminium shielding will bring the radiation dosage down alot be enough to convince you??

or does verifiable sources only work to support you and no one else?

p.s. since you havent actually provided signed proof of van allen saying you need 6 feet of lead shielding am i also allowed to say your claim he said that as complete "balderdash"?? or does your burden of proof only work one way??

I have proved - by submitting verifiable sources - that Dr. Vann Allen said humans needed shieldng from the deadly radiation from the Vann Allen Belts; the width of the shielding and the type of shielding required I do not consider not important to the core of the discussion, it is what you would call "a technicality" in sport terms.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

In the last paragraph of your post, you link to a 6.2 MB .pdf file that is a detailed report from a Design Panel that investigated the failure of a pressure vessel on the Apollo 13 spacecraft. As the report is 102 pages long, could you please advise which page contains the measurement data for the "Apollo walls" that you have stated? (ie, "0.015 to 0.025 inches thick aluminum".)

Thank you.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No, you put up a claim then you have prove it - I'm not e-mailing anyone, and this is the last I will say on this

His claim is verifiable, yet you refuse to verify it. This proves that you know it will falsify your claim, otherwise you would falsify his claim, thus winning the argument. You lose by default. Was that really your final word?

Verify what? A letter that could have been written by anyone with a PC and a printer

-MM

yet you are willing to believe a random stranger on the internet sending an email rather than believing yourself sending an email???

hmmmmmmm.. sense a bit of conflict of interest here..

A piece of paper with a signature presented by someone with or without credentials is not proof of anything unless the signature and letter is verified. Sending an e-mail to the person that presented the aforementioned letter where he/she confims that the letter is authentic makes no difference as it is all hear-say unless the letter and signature is legally verified by a truested 3rd party.

-MM

but you want to verify if the letter is authentic.. how are you going to do that without emailing the owner of said letter?

oh and he is a trusted 3rd party.. thats why i gave you his credentials........

You are missing the point; the Burden of Proof is with he/she that made the claim. I don't have to e-mail anyone as it is not me that made the claim; rather, I can rightly call your submitted claim balderdash until it is proven otherwise - as I do quite merrily.

-MM

so wheres your proof that Van Allen stated you need 6 feet of lead???

are you saying that van allen saying shielding is required proves he says you need 6 feet of lead shielding??

if i show you that a few mm of aluminium shielding will bring the radiation dosage down alot be enough to convince you??

or does verifiable sources only work to support you and no one else?

p.s. since you havent actually provided signed proof of van allen saying you need 6 feet of lead shielding am i also allowed to say your claim he said that as complete "balderdash"?? or does your burden of proof only work one way??

I have proved by submitting verifiable sources that Dr. Vann Allen said humans needed shieldng from the deadly radiation from the Vann Allen Belts - the width of the shielding and the type of shielding required I consider not important to the core of the discussion.

-MM

so if i show you sources that say shielding of say 1g/cm^2 at 2780 km orbit on a 30degree inclination giving a total of 3.9Sievert/day of radiation will that be clear enough for you??

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

In the last paragraph of your post, you link to a 6.2 MB .pdf file that is a detailed report from a Design Panel that investigated the failure of a pressure vessel on the Apollo 13 spacecraft. As the report is 102 pages long, could you please advise which page contains the measurement data for the "Apollo walls" that you have stated? (ie, "0.015 to 0.025 inches thick aluminum".)

Thank you.

Page 21, Table D3-I (page 24-25) which describes I believe describe thickness of the welds, and page 26:

Outer shell.- The outer shell is made of Inconel 750, also a nickel
base alloy having the following nominal composition: 15 percent chromium,
7 percent iron, 2.5 percent titanium, 1 percent columbium, 0.7 percent
aluminum, and the remainder nickel. According to references 3 and 4, the
outer shell can be annealed. Typical strength values for the annealed
alloy are 130,000 psi ultimate strength and 60,000 psi yield strength.
This is more than adequate for this application. The wall thickness of
the outer shell is 0.020 ± 0.002 inch. When the space between the two
shells is evacuated, the outer shell preloads the insulation between the
two shells. The dome of the outer shell contains a burst disc designed
to vent the space between the

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

In the last paragraph of your post, you link to a 6.2 MB .pdf file that is a detailed report from a Design Panel that investigated the failure of a pressure vessel on the Apollo 13 spacecraft. As the report is 102 pages long, could you please advise which page contains the measurement data for the "Apollo walls" that you have stated? (ie, "0.015 to 0.025 inches thick aluminum".)

Thank you.

Page 21, Table D3-I (page 24-25) which describes I believe describe thickness of the welds, and page 26:

-MM

scroll up a bit to page D-13 and find this heading:

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE OXYGEN TANK

the oxygen tanks wall is NOT the command modules wall..