It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 152
<< 149  150  151    153  154  155 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:48 PM

Originally posted by FoosM
That all depends on who you believe regarding the intensity of radiation in the VABs.

I believe all the Countries and private companies that have satellites operating within the belts. If the information on the intensity of the belts had been falsified, you'd be seeing a lot of failing satellites.

And Aluminum, as shielding, creates deadly secondary radiation.

All metals do to some degree, but Aluminum is one of the better ones due to its low atomic number. Using Lead however would be far worse.

However the CSM had an inner and outer Aluminum hull with fibrous insulation sandwiched in between which also helped to block/minimize the particle radiation.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by FoosM

So, FoosM, yet another of the attempts to refute the reality of Apollo has blown up in the "hoaxists" faces....

Just to review, YOU claimed, after showing the video of the Apollo 17 LM ascent module lift-off, that YOU doubted it could accelerate to the speed necessary to achieve orbital rendezvous with the CSM, and thus safely return the entire crew to Earth.

This assessment was based on nothing but a "gut feeling" on your part?? That seemed to be the gist of the post you made.

I used a simplified example of a One-G acceleration scenario, just because the math was easier (9.8 m/sec rounded up to 10), and it didn't account for the complex math of the initial velocity being zero, etc...and the added complexity of acceleration over time, changing mass, and such.

Gave a "ball-park" figure.

To your credit, you did the research, and found more exact Apollo LM ascent module lift-off and flight to orbit trajectory information. Good ole' Rocket Science!


Originally posted by FoosM

At ignition, the ascent stage rises at about 3 meters/sec2 (about 10 feet/sec2), creating a accelerating force equal to about one-third of Earth's gravity, only twice that what the astronauts were experiencing standing in the cabin. Acceleration increases gradually until cut-off, when it will have built to about two-thirds that of normal Earth gravity. After the ascent stage reaches an altitude of only 50 feet (15 meters), it pitches about 54° face down to build horizontal velocity as it climbs.


02:01:15 PM T+124:29:15.67 LM lunar latitude = 0.73° N, longitude = 12.99° E,height = 11.5 mi (60800 ft), flight path angle = 0.28°, heading = 251.85°,speed = 3775.8 mph, pitch = 92°, apolune = 55.2 mi, perilune = 10.8 mi,CSM/LM range = 313 mi. APS shutdown


Edit in: The above narrative, and details, seem to be referring to a different mission, other than Apollo 17. I checked the MET of LM lift-off for 17, and it isn't the same. So, despite the original discussion rgarding Apollo 17, this is merely another mission profile. Still, the trajectories and physics will be similar....


Now we have actual figures of acceleration....3 meters/second. About one-third G. Gradually increasing, whch is understandable...since as propellant is burned, the mass decreases, and since the amount of thrust remains constant, the rate of acceleration increases.

The only remaining question was the TIME required to reach the appropriate velocity.

THAT info can certainly be found in the historical records....I haven't checked yet, but using THIS program: can input various values, and units, and get answers.

Using the constant (simplified) rate of 3.0 m/sec, and just an off-the-top-of-the-head educated (and perfectly reasonable) guess of ten minutes' duration, results in a velocity at the end of that time of 1,800 meters/second.

That is 4026 MPH. That is 6,480 kph.

Any questions?

Can we finally all see that the Moon/Apollo "hoax" claims are meritless???

Because, each and every attempt to find flaws/holes/inconsistencies, and therefore "prove" their point, the "hoax" believers fail miserably....this INCLUDES Jarrah "White Noise" White.

[edit on 29 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 29 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:59 PM
How odd. I just went to WhiteJarrah's Youtube page to view the original Moonfaker video and it's not there. How strange. His truthfulness gets questioned and the evidence disappears. By the way, FoosM, how did you know that JW expunged the evidence and re-edited the footage into separate clips? There are over 400 postings there (if you include all the Thomas The Tank Engine clips).

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by AgentSmith

Many folks visiting this post (like myself) probably don't know half what you know on this subject.
I am eager to read intelligent, well-informed, decisive arguments that cast doubt on White's arguments. That is all that is required.
If you are looking for a concession from White or his followers, you will be waiting a very long time. Arguments like this are won in the minds of the readers.

Thank you. I don't mean to make a short post or one liner, but you must be thanked for your clarity regardless of where you stand on the issues. It is only with clarity like yours that these issues can find rest.

Thanks again, ltru

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:48 PM
Let's take a second here to post a list of the distinguished military test pilots and civilian scientists who have all uniformly and without a single slip-up maintained their obvious lies about walking on the Moon for the last 40 years.

What a disgusting bunch of reprobates they are:

  1. Neil Armstrong
  2. Buzz Aldrin
  3. Pete Conrad
  4. Alan Bean
  5. Alan Shepard
  6. Edgar Mitchell
  7. David Scott
  8. James Irwin
  9. John Young
  10. Charles Duke
  11. Eugene Cernan
  12. Harrison Schmitt

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 01:12 AM
The thread has moved on a few pages but there were some questions FooM posed which i'd like to get back to. I've cut that post down in quotes because there was a lot of waffle in it.

Originally posted by FoosM
You said there was a firing FITH firing during Apollo 5. That is correct.
And for that I thank you and anybody else who posts this as an answer.
But tell me, what did this test prove?

It was a test firing of the engine in space, and demonstrated the separation of the vehicles. There was little else to test, because the engine was as simple and reliable as possible. The whole point of the 'fire in the hole' design was to ensure that there would be as little that could go wrong as possible, because that engine HAD to fire to get the astronauts off the moon.

The supposed concern about tipping was early on in the program before significant testing had been done with live engines. The tests included firing in confined spaces. There was little real concern that the LM would tip by the time Apollo 11 came around.

The use of hypergolic propellants meant that the engine was just mixing the compounds, as they ignited on contact. Hence there was no ignition system, and very little that could go wrong (hence the meticulous planning and testing of the injection systems, which needed to be as perfect as possible).

In fact, the chemistry of the burn meant that an engine could not be re-used after testing. Hence,the production engines on all LM's had never been fired before their ascent firing on the moon. This was actually the biggest concern with the ascent engines, which your post missed.

You are trying to make it sound like the engine's first and only test was Apollo 5, and it then went into production. This couldnt be further from the truth. It was tested over and over and over at White Sands before it was ever sent to the moon (over 50 successful tests before going to the moon).

Now, from some of the quotes you've put up i know you have looked through enough material to be aware of everything i have posted here. So why are you picking out little bits of info to try and mislead readers about a great number of topics on this thread?

[edit on 31-7-2010 by zvezdar]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by zvezdar]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by zvezdar]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Retseh

All of them my heroes. In all the interviews that i've ever seen of these guys, they've never indicated any sign of deception whatsoever. These men are the genuine article. I cannot believe that I am such a poor judge of character or that they are such consummate liars, that I have been deceived for 40 years.

Even when harassed by charlatans like Bart Sibrel they display remarkable restraint - even giving interviews to the quack. They expressed themselves in a most natural and open manner - devoid of any telltale signs of deception.

Yes Buzz punched the guy, but I wouldn't expect a career military man and Astronaut to stand there being abused like that in front of family and friends. Sibrel got off easy.

White is obviously very intelligent and makes some interesting observations, but I cannot buy that all of it was a hoax. It may be that there was some deception going on for various unspecified operations, but that would be expected during the cold war. Perhaps some of the photos have been doctored or are not what they're pretended to be. Even that would not invalidate the entire Apollo program.
No, I think Mr.White has a long, steep hill to climb to prove the moon landings a hoax.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:21 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by turbonium
I see this failed argument come up all the time.

...Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?

*You* just failed, only WORSE... If it's just the 'bolt tighteners' and the like, then it is in fact HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS. That figure can be verifed at innumerable sources:
..and many others...

But if we restrict it to those who *would* spot a hoax, ie the supervisors and coordinators, the designers, the overseers, the managers, the astronauts, even the geologists who examined the returned moon samples, the crews on the carriers, ad infinitum - in other words, people who could EASILY spot any hint of a hoax, it's still MANY, MANY THOUSANDS. And that doesn't count the uncountable - *other* astrophysicists, scientists and engineers that were simply watching at the time, and since, who have access to an absolute wealth of information and documentation. There is NOT ONE notable, credible scientist or engineer who promotes the hoax - just web pretenders and idiot cab-drivers like Sibrel, or people who lie about their qualifications/involvement like Kaysing, or delusional dullards whose only skill is the ability to use presets in a video editing program, and steal other people's faulty ideas. Hi, Jarrah.

So, for someone who doesn't do math, has only ever tightened bolts, has never worked in or near the upper echelons of science or engineering and doesn't understand the finer points of either... then maybe you might think that way.

This thread is a 'testament' to those folk - people without a clue about basic logic, let alone space sciences, general science, engineering, photography, and the myriad of other disciplines involved in such a huge project. The Interweb gives them a voice. Hurrah.

If you AREN'T one of those, turbonium, can I ask where is your input to the actual scientific discussions in this thread?

What is your 'favorite' issue? Walk the walk.

Not even close to "thousands" would know if it was a hoax. Simulations were run prior to each mission, but they only knew that because they were told it was a simulation. As the 'actual' mission was known to them when told it was. But they had no way to tell one from the other.

The majority of those you claim would know if it was a hoax were not in any position to know. One small part of the whole, which was only known by the few top-level chiefs. Astronauts and stage crews knew, but the total is not in the thousands like you claim it would be.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:27 AM

Originally posted by turbonium
Not even close to "thousands" would know if it was a hoax. Simulations were run prior to each mission, but they only knew that because they were told it was a simulation. As the 'actual' mission was known to them when told it was. But they had no way to tell one from the other.

The majority of those you claim would know if it was a hoax were not in any position to know. One small part of the whole, which was only known by the few top-level chiefs. Astronauts and stage crews knew, but the total is not in the thousands like you claim it would be.

So a bunch of interwebz people, who thus far seem to lack knowledge in a about any subject dealing with Apollo, would be more clever than all those thousands of engineers and scientists that actually worked on Apollo and who were easily fooled? Doesn't that seem a but unlikely?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
By the way, turbonium, can you tell us how you have changed your goalposts? Back in 2005, on this forum, you posted this:

Just a damn picture of the buggy or buggy tracks or lem base will do. Is that really so much to ask for? Why wouldn't NASA do it for PR purposes alone

You made that comment AFTER showing that you didn't understand optics, and being asked what proof you wanted.

Let's be very specific - you asked to see some images from NASA showing buggy tracks, LM base... There's a link below with LOTS of such images from NASA's LRO showing buggy tracks, LM base... I've picked the link below because not only does it show a good sampling of those images, it also has some REALLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND text that fills in the big gaps in your knowledge of telescopes and optics. Stuff like this:

Satellite photos of Earth are taken from about 280 miles up. The moon is 238,857 miles away. If you zoom in (+), cars are visible but fuzzy. Remember, that's from 280 miles away! Satellite photographs are taken by satellites, small spacecraft in close orbit around a moon or planet. We had to put a satellite in orbit around the moon to get satellite-quality photos there!...
At the distance of the moon, the Hubble can't see anything smaller than 60 meters wide. The lunar module's landing gear is 9 meters across...


What would be good enough proof now? They have to take you up there personally?

(Fixed broken link)

[edit on 11-7-2010 by CHRLZ]

Anyone can see it. That tiny white dot is obviously the LM, and a small black speck next to ir can only be the rover!

That sure is undeniable evidence you've presented there!! I must congratulate your efforts!

Funny stuff, but sort of in a sad way.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by turbonium

Anyone can see it. That tiny white dot is obviously the LM, and a small black speck next to ir can only be the rover!

That sure is undeniable evidence you've presented there!! I must congratulate your efforts!

Funny stuff, but sort of in a sad way.

What would you consider acceptable evidence? A Youtube monologue? What exactly do you consider funny, and what is sad? Ask someone with management experience how difficult it is to roll out a new policy or product without rumors spreading. Why would NASA be any different? Can you imagine how difficult it would be to get anything done if no two people knew the same thing about what they were working on? How do you schedule something like that?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by DJW001

how odd you didn't look hard enough.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by dragnet53

The original started with a parody of the James Bond opening, remember? This is not the original. It has been re-edited. How odd you think it is the original.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by dragnet53

How odd, and so sad, you post yet another Jarrah "White Noise" White effort, and provide no comment???

Shilling for that numbskull???

Meh!! More of the same rubbish, re-packaged with a rant in the first three minutes' time whilst he whines about no one taking him seriously.

And, the unmitigated GALL to compare reasoned people, who know the reality and facts of Apollo, to those ancient geocentric Solar System believers...(WHO, BTW, believed that way because of religious convictions...their 'beliefs' had nothing to do with science).

JUST AS "White Noise" and his beliefs have NOTHING to do with science!!

An interview with an American "man-on-the-street" to further document that he had enough money to fly to the States??

(BTW...might want to do some digging into his source of funding for that...)

What utter crap, this delusional man spews.

Yes indeed...sad, so very sad. AND, incredibly and increasingly sad that anyone with critical thinkng skills doesn't see through his garbage immediately....

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:47 AM
I have learned alot throughout this thread with regards to the radiation belts and the equipments alleged capabilities of the time, but what about the glass sheild on the astronaughts helmet? As far as i know glass wouldnt be able to repel the significant levels of radiation in space.
unless it was "special NASA radiation reflecting glass".

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by lestweforget

What "space radiation"???

Why would you worry about the helmet visor?? (polycarbonate, multi-layered...not glass).

The primary source for ANY radiation is the Sun (The cosmic background radiation pales in comparison, as to intensity. THAT is only a problem over very, very long time periods. Many months).

There are many resources online to research the EVA suits...from present-day, and back in history too:

For walking on the moon, the space suit was supplemented with a pair of protective overboots, gloves with rubber fingertips, a set of filters/visors worn over the helmet for protection from sunlight...

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by lestweforget
I have learned alot throughout this thread with regards to the radiation belts and the equipments alleged capabilities of the time, but what about the glass sheild on the astronaughts helmet? As far as i know glass wouldnt be able to repel the significant levels of radiation in space.
unless it was "special NASA radiation reflecting glass".

The visors were gold plated to reflect ultra-violet radiation. Nevertheless, astronauts do have a statistically higher rate of cataracts. Although they experienced a higher flux of alpha and beta particle radiation from the solar wind, the exposure was not long term enough for any cumulative effects to manifest. The effects of radiation vary depending on the length of the exposure as well as the intensity. Whether the radiation is from an external source or if the radioactive particles are ingested is also important. Most of the fatalities at Chernobyl, for example, were due to the inhalation of radioactive particles.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:40 AM
The visors were made in two parts, the gold plated outer visor offered additional UV protection but was primarily to help prevent glare.
The inner clear visor is clear to the visible wavelengths of light, but blocked the UV radiation which was the only concern.
Here are various quotes, I just copied these from a post I made 5 years ago on a similar thread here to teach that particular years influx of Moon Hoax believers a few facts. This was when I used to actually bother explaining things and before I realised I was wasting my time.
Let's face it if people can't be bothered to read a thread on this very board which has addressed every point and MORE from THIS thread in greater depth, why bother? Even this thread goes in loops with people bringing up resolved arguments from several pages back.

The LEVA was an elegant design, consisting in one assembly of a thermal cover, 2 visors, and 3 eyeshades.
The 2 visors were layered over each other. The inner "protective visor" was made of ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate plastic and filtered ultraviolet rays, rejected infrared and, in combination with the sun visor and pressure helmet, formed an effective thermal barrier. The outer "sun visor" was made of high-temperature polysulfone plastic and filtered visible light and most ultraviolet and infrared rays.

The protective visor is an ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate shield which affords impact, micrometeoroid, and ultraviolet ray protection. It can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions and requires a force of 2 to 4 pounds for movement. A coating is added to the inner surface of this assembly. The elastomer seal on the upper surface of the stiffener prevents light passage between the two visors. The protective visor can be lowered independently of the sun visor, but cannot be raised independently with the sun visor in the Down position.

The inner surface of the polysulfone sun visor has a gold coating which provides protection against light and reduces heat gain within the helmet. The visor can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions by exerting a force of 2 to 4 pounds on the pull tabs. The sun visor cannot be independently lowered unless the protective visor is in the Down position, but it can be raised or lowered independently when the center eyeshade is in the full-Up position and the protective visor is in the Down position.

One of the major considerations in flight was the amount of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to which the crewmen would be subjected during extravehicular activity. Prior to Apollo missions, the UV threshold of the eye was unknown. Over a three-year period, NASA-sponsored research determined these levels. The problem was, however, subsequently resolved with the development and use of Lexan in the extravehicular visor assembly, since Lexan was opaque to UV radiation. A minimum of 2000 hours of exposure would be required to produce a corneal "burn" through this plastic.

The astronaut wore two helmets. The transparent "fishbowl" helmet was worn underneath, and the LEVA "hardhat" with the visors attached was placed over this helmet for lunar EVA activities. The LEVA had the gold visor, which could be rotated upward if necessary.

Both the "fishbowl" and the visor were made of Lexan, a polycarbonate which is almost perfectly opaque to ultraviolet. Even with the gold visor up, the astronaut would be subject to very little ultraviolet.

I'm not sure what other forms of radiation people believe are out there. The visor will not stop cosmic rays, but they aren't that plentiful. The Lexan will stop a good portion of ambient x-rays, but they aren't that plentiful either. The particle flux isn't much to worry about either.

The gold on the visor was simply to dim the glare to improve the astronaut's vision. If he worked for prolonged time in the shade, he raised the visor to get a better view of details.

Home Depot sells plastic sheets of Lexan (poly-carbonate) which are printed with claims of blocking UV. Try this stuff. You might find it blocks only 90%, depending on your UV meter. I do not think it depends on thickness, though. I think they take a
clear plastic that transmits most UV, then they soak into one face a "UV dye" that absorbs only UV, just like the PABA or other active chemical in sun-screen lotions. Even says on the cover sheet: "this side towards the sun". This is the side with the
UV-blocking dye, less than 0.1mm deep.

This suit for children which suffer from a rare disorder which makes them highly sensitive to the Sun's UV light features a clear polycarbonate visor.
These kids have to be protected completely from UV.

These children suffer from a rare genetic disorder (called Xeroderma Pigmentosum) that puts their lives at risk when they are exposed to the Sun. Their bodies are extremely sensitive to the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays. This means they cannot go outside in daylight, except with special protection. Unless all UV is blocked, their skin and eyes may be severely damaged, eventually leading to cancer.......
There are two parts to the suit. The headgear, designed to look 'cool' for children, covers the head and face. It includes a large see-through, polycarbonate visor, an adjustable plastic headband and a fabric hood.

Any shooting glasses lens rating less than 99% or 400nm probably won't provide adequate UV protection. It should be noted that even clear Polycarbonate lens will block or absorb UV rays, so don't become focused on the tint as playing a role in the level of protection.

Better quality coated lenses, most "high index" (thinner and lighter-weight materials) and all polycarbonate lenses block virtually 100% of the UV.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:40 AM
[reposted content removed]
1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by WWu777

At what point is it determined to be spamming...of your own thread??

Is this just more duplicity, and desperation??

Because, here is the exact same post from 27 July, that you made, in this thread. Has the same crap video links to YouTube....only change is in your introduction text!!!:

I call you out, you and Jarrah "White Noise" White, as the frauds that you truly are.....

[edit on 1 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

top topics

<< 149  150  151    153  154  155 >>

log in