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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 14
377
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


I have asked the same question about 50 times, where is the high neutron radiation.

And the answer is this, although no one will admit it.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

And that is an awfully big chance to take with the astronauts.

And it presents a very good reason why no one has been back, even with our old 1968 technology.

And why we haven't been back, even with our old 1968 technology.

And why the scientists are currently obviously so worried about radiation.
Why not just use more of our 1968 technology?

Because Ockham's razor tells the critical thinking individual that we probably didn't go to the moon.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





WE DO NOT KNOW.


You don't know.

And yet your answer is "there could be pockets" of radiation. Yet you provide no evidence of such pockets or anything that could account for such pockets. You speculate that the Apollo missions would have landed in those "pockets".

You provide no reason why the data from LEND (which you were asking for) is not acceptable (except for your imagined "pockets"). No reason for high energy neutron radiation to be confined to the surface of the Moon.

Your argument is useless, based on nothing. You don't know what you are talking about, you're just talking.



[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Josephus23
 





WE DO NOT KNOW.


You don't know.

And yet your answer is "there could be pockets" of radiation. Yet you provide no evidence of such pockets or anything that could account for such pockets.

You provide no reason why the data from LEND (which you were asking for) is not acceptable (except for your imagined "pockets"). No reason for high energy neutron radiation to be confined to the surface of the Moon.

Your argument is useless, based on nothing. You don't know what you are talking about, you're just talking.
[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]


I am pointing to what could be huge flaw in the "official storyline", and you are trying to use the same argument that I have presented to disqualify my points.

First, the ONLY radiation was in the Van Allen Belts. Now I have shown that to be invalid and another answer is quickly made up to try and sell the official storyline.

This is called the ad hoc hypothesis.

Good form if you are on a debate team, but bad form for all those looking for the truth.

I genuinely hope that anyone who can think critically can see through this baseless answer given by Phage.

It is nothing but a last resort answer to the fact that my point can not be proven wrong or right.

And that is too big of an anomaly for me to accept.

See persistence of motion.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

Sure, it could be a flaw. If you had anything to back it up. "Well, it could happen." Doesn't cut it. Especially when there is real evidence (and science) that contradicts it.


First, the ONLY radiation was in the Van Allen Belts. Now I have shown that to be invalid and another answer is quickly made up to try and sell the official storyline.


You keep saying that. The only radiation was not in the Van Allen belts. No one ever said it was. Varying levels of radiation were encountered through out the flight. The Van Allen belts were where the most intense radiation was expected to be, and was, encountered. But even those levels were acceptable for the limited exposure time, just as the radiation encountered on the surface (and indicated by LEND) was.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Well, I've just spent ten minutes viewing the first JW video. That's ten minutes I won't get back, and I *dearly* hope that the next one is better.

I've taken copious notes, and will be back later to dissect the DRIVEL in detail. Suffice to say that I am even less impressed than I expected to be, and if anyone can seriously watch that and be impressed with the science... (of which there was a total of about 30 seconds, and it was mostly wrong) well.. what can I say.

At least I learnt that you can immediately skip to 30 seconds in to the videos (I presume they all use the same crass opening?), to avoid irrelevant and egotistical junk.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
LMAO, wow.

Josephus23
Your own source, has proven you wrong.
Phage and myself, have proven you wrong.

You keep shouting "WE DO NOT KNOW", but that is incorrect. As is your whole stance, and arguments.

WE DID NOT KNOW, but now we do know the conditions on the Lunar surface. We can take that knowledge, and apply it to what we know about the Apollo missions.

I can say for certain, due to CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT, that the Astronauts were not exposed to the radiation for a long enough time to build up a lethal dosage.

This is not circular reasoning (which you obviously don't understand), it is looking back at something with hindsight. Another thing, which you obviously do not understand.

You're just a poor sport, who can't admit when you've been fairly defeated. And with your own source, to boot.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Byteman]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


More evidence from the supposed "moon landings".

More circular reasoning.

More ad hoc hypothesis.

I am done here. I made my point.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


If your point was to incorrectly accuse people of circular reasoning, then yes, you made your point.

The fact is that your own source says that people can stay on the Moon for a few days.

You keep ignoring that, as if that makes you right, but it doesn't.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
i checked the vids out, quite enjoyed them. he is very thorough, and his expertise on the subjects and research can't be denied, despite his obvious subjectivity on it.

i'm personally on the fence, but my legs are hanging over on the hoax side. there is a lot of uncanny, and bizarre coincidences that have me lean there, and it would be business as usual as far as america goes, and any hard-nosed ATSer shouldn't have a problem with that statement.

sometimes you just get so sick of being paranoid and simply want to trust and believe your leaders, you know? if it were a hoax, i wish they would just come clean. it wouldn't change a whole lot in my opinion, we already have the inernational space station up there, and then we can really take our small steps as mankind.

looks like i'm gonna have to crawl through this thread, i don't want to miss any ATS insight, and i see phage is posting. you guys say what you want about him, but he keeps it real.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I just watched this, and it leaves me perplexed, the first guy is a photographic expert (allegedly - not doubting him, just that I can't substantiate this), Dr David Groves, and he is convinced the moonlanding photo's are faked, and backs it up with some pretty good arguments!

www.youtube.com...

If this video has been de-bunked or scrutinized to death on this forum, my apologies, but hey, it's new to me, lol

Peace

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Myrddin Wyllt]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Myrddin Wyllt]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I have not read the whole thread nor watched all of his video's but he has certainly proved that some things are fake...

However, and i've asked him this very same question and will post his reply when I get it. I apologise if it is on here already... but... If the moon landings were fake then why didn't the Russians say something? The transmissions were coming from the moon therfore proving that they went...

Or did they send a satellite there to orbit the moon and send a pre-recorded transmission back to earth... sorry but if that is the case I want some serious evidence to even start to contemplate that outcome.

They went to the moon... they've hyped it up and made more footage that is totally faked... no arguments there! It's a fantastic and unique commodity to sell to people so make it more Hollywoodlike and worth selling... but they did go to the moon.

The transmissions are the one thing that no hoaxer can deny from happening nor prove they were faked and that is the key piece of evidence. I dont think the Soviets would sit back and allow this debarcle to happen if it wasn't true. If you think that the Soviet Media was blacked out by the western authorities then you are wrong because they would still be on about it to this day. It was massive and one of the major achievements mankind has ever made! I know a lad from Russia and he said the Americans went to the moon and had never even thought of it to be a conspiracy.

Jarrah White is a great, great arguementer. He has proved a lot of things but the Americans did go to the moon. If he comes back to me with a hell of a reply then I may change my mind. I'd like to know what he says on that...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adono86
I have not read the whole thread nor watched all of his video's but he has certainly proved that some things are fake...

However, and i've asked him this very same question and will post his reply when I get it. I apologise if it is on here already... but... If the moon landings were fake then why didn't the Russians say something? The transmissions were coming from the moon therfore proving that they went...

Or did they send a satellite there to orbit the moon and send a pre-recorded transmission back to earth... sorry but if that is the case I want some serious evidence to even start to contemplate that outcome.

They went to the moon... they've hyped it up and made more footage that is totally faked... no arguments there! It's a fantastic and unique commodity to sell to people so make it more Hollywoodlike and worth selling... but they did go to the moon.

The transmissions are the one thing that no hoaxer can deny from happening nor prove they were faked and that is the key piece of evidence. I dont think the Soviets would sit back and allow this debarcle to happen if it wasn't true. If you think that the Soviet Media was blacked out by the western authorities then you are wrong because they would still be on about it to this day. It was massive and one of the major achievements mankind has ever made! I know a lad from Russia and he said the Americans went to the moon and had never even thought of it to be a conspiracy.

Jarrah White is a great, great arguementer. He has proved a lot of things but the Americans did go to the moon. If he comes back to me with a hell of a reply then I may change my mind. I'd like to know what he says on that...


maybe we just landed, and didn't get out because we were under some king of extraterrestrial duress. since we made it and couldn't film anything, we took it to the studio?

the only thing i agree with when i hear about this 'galactic federation' thing is that it is very logical that we're prevented from entering the solar system and beyond until we are a united, prosperous, and a peace oriented planet.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

I felt the need to chime in here because I can't stand your replies anymore. I think you are 'blinded by the forest' so you 'can't see any of the trees'. Take a few days to ponder your argument then come back and try to make sense of these replies.

You use circular reasoning while accusing others of the same, this becomes a pointless debate and one that has no resolve. The point of any debate is to find resolve, your point here seems to be the removal of any possibility of resolve which is circular reasoning.

Let's take a look at this from a chronologically linear point of view.

Point of information; The Apollo missions sent men to the Moon.
Accusation; The Apollo Moon landings were a hoax.

The point of information is corroborated by evidence presented that we did go to the Moon and the Apollo astronauts did land and walk on the Moon's surface. It is a fact that there is evidence supporting this 'point of information'. What remains to be proven/disproved is if this information is true or hoaxed.

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is stating that we did not go to the Moon because we could not possible have gone therefore any information proving we did go must be false.

Another circular argument that you use is that we can not know what we do not know therefore the "lethal radiation” would kill anyone there. Since we don’t know what can not be known you cannot disprove/prove it. This is a pointless and useless debate, it has no possibility of resolve and is therefore false.

It is logical to make the statement that we did go to the Moon because of all the evidence. This is a 'reasonable' argument.

It would also be logical to make the accusation that we did not go to the Moon because of all the evidence.

Of coarse the evidence against a Moon landing has been shown to be lacking in the least or out right wrong, some of it even ridiculous.

Regardless of this it is still reasonable to make the accusation that we did not go to the Moon. The accuser would then need to supply evidence for this accusation and thus a debate can commence. You supersede all of this by making the assumption that we did, in fact, 'not' go to the Moon therefore any evidence to the contrary must be false. This is a very poor manner in which to start a debate.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Devino]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Josephus23
 

I felt the need to chime in here because I can't stand your replies anymore. I think you are 'blinded by the forest' so you 'can't see any of the trees'. Take a few days to ponder your argument then come back and try to make sense of these replies.

You use circular reasoning while accusing others of the same, this becomes a pointless debate and one that has no resolve. The point of any debate is to find resolve, your point here seems to be the removal of any possibility of resolve which is circular reasoning.

Let's take a look at this from a chronologically linear point of view.

Point of information; The Apollo missions sent men to the Moon.
Accusation; The Apollo Moon landings were a hoax.

The point of information is corroborated by evidence presented that we did go to the Moon and the Apollo astronauts did land and walk on the Moon's surface. It is a fact that there is evidence supporting this 'point of information'. What remains to be proven/disproved is if this information is true or hoaxed.

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is stating that we did not go to the Moon because we could not possible have gone therefore any information proving we did go must be false.

Another circular argument that you use is that we can not know what we do not know therefore the "lethal radiation” would kill anyone there. Since we don’t know what can not be known you cannot disprove/prove it. This is a pointless and useless debate, it has no possibility of resolve and is therefore false.

It is logical to make the statement that we did go to the Moon because of all the evidence. This is a 'reasonable' argument.

It would also be logical to make the accusation that we did not go to the Moon because of all the evidence.

Of coarse the evidence against a Moon landing has been shown to be lacking in the least or out right wrong, some of it even ridiculous.

Regardless of this it is still reasonable to make the accusation that we did not go to the Moon. The accuser would then need to supply evidence for this accusation and thus a debate can commence. You supersede all of this by making the assumption that we did, in fact, 'not' go to the Moon therefore any evidence to the contrary must be false. This is a very poor manner in which to start a debate.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Devino]


I find it also funny that he (Josephus) might be right with the radiation. If there was radiation on the moon, then why were all the astronauts clean of it? There was not enough lead to protect them from that much time period in space. They would of had some radiation on them as well as the capsule. I want to believe, but things just don't add up.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


I have gotten this same reaction from sooooo many posters on so many other Apollo hoax boards.

Thanks for the support my friend.

People will eventually turn it into a "I do now like you" fest.
Very juvenile.

1) I am using articles put out by NASA and I am catching things that do make sense.
2) Of course the article is going to go out of its way to make the radiation look less than harmful, but THEY DO NOT KNOW.

Because as I said, we did not begin to map the radiation until 1998-99.

3)Another article that I have referenced several times, from NASA, said this...



The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.


Link to quote.


Let me repeat that quote and please pay attention to the discussion of high and low neutron radiation.



The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.


If I am questioning the legitimacy of the moon landings, then using the information gathered from the supposed moon landings to answer my question is circular reasoning.

That is not debatable.

I don't expect many people to agree with me, because the majority of people that I see on here are followers.
They scream to Phage for help when they get in a conundrum.

They want to feel reassured.

Well guess what boys and girls, NASA has spoken, and they have NO IDEA where the high and low neutron radiation is located in the surface of the moon.

And high neutron radiation kills.

Did I mention that?

And apparently NASA is worried enough about this deadly radiation to send the LRO up to map it for....



profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.


Why are they worried about long term exposure?
Why not just use more of the aluminum and plastic sheeting that we used on the FIRST supposed "trip to the moon"?
(probably because it's a hoax people)

I am glad that I apparently p'd off a lot of people.

That means that I am apparently onto something.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Actually, Astronauts DO show signs of elevated radiation dosage. They are not "clean of it" as you put it. The vast majority of Astronauts, and especially the Apollo Astronauts develop Cataracts caused by radiation exposure.

Josephus is not right about the radiation though. The article that he himself posted. Stated clearly that radiation is not a serious issue, unless your there for more than a few days. And no Apollo mission was there for more than a few days.

The Apollo Astronauts did not absorb a lethal dose of radiation.

Lead is not the only metal that can block radiation, in fact metals themselves are not the only substances that can block radiation.

The Earth's atmosphere blocks a lot of radiation, and it's mostly gas and liquid. Alpha radiation can be blocked by a single sheet of paper. Sunscreen blocks UV radiation. Wood, concrete or rocks, even soil and water can block radiation.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


STOP misquoting and look at the article that I posted.

Look at the parts that I posted as a quotation.

Please, then read the article.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I thought you were done with this topic.

Isn't that what you said earlier?


Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Phage
 


More evidence from the supposed "moon landings".

More circular reasoning.

More ad hoc hypothesis.

I am done here. I made my point.


I guess you were wrong about being done here. I propose that this is prime evidence that you are also wrong about Apollo and Lunar surface radiation.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Did that Aussie debunk the recent pictures taken of the various Apollo landing sites as well? Maybe someone posted this already...the thread has already grown too large to check.

Apollo Landing Sites Photographer



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by fockewulf190
Did that Aussie debunk the recent pictures taken of the various Apollo landing sites as well?


He's working on it:


Jarrah's LRO Series

*There's 15 videos in the LRO section. Start with the newest ones.




[edit on 2-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join