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: 159
377
<< 156  157  158    160  161  162 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Rather than cut-n-paste extravaganza....just link to the source (as it turns out, what you linked to was a history of the production design of the film 2001: A Space Odessey, and has nothing to do with Apollo) and let people read about the history of that fine filmmaking achievement??

There isn't any connection, in that last post, to anything to do with "Jarrah 'White Noise' White" (
) or his crap YT videos.

IN FACT, it has no connection to any of the Apollo "hoaxists" beliefs at all.

The dubious assertion of Mueller's and Slayton's visit to the set??? is THAT a "point" you're trying to make??


Wow...it has no bearing whatsoever on anything brought here, to date.

Yet, you went to all that effort, in that post....and left it without any opinions??

What are people supposed to think? Is it now just a strategy, on your part(and everyone behind you, pulling your strings) to merely drop veiled innuendos?

I fail to see your value, in contributing to this thread, any more.

But, nice link to the 2001 site (though I think I've seen it, years ago, still interesting, since I'm keen on that film, and movies in general).

OH...and the Charlie Duke clip!!


Good...further example of the time delay in radio transmissions, I mentioned in a post up above. Excellent!! Just helps show that Apollo IS fact, and happened as seen.




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You forgot to add the despicable way they treat some of the most decent, heroic men ever to serve this country. It is truly slanderous.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You forgot to add the despicable way they treat some of the most decent, heroic men ever to serve this country. It is truly slanderous.


Who are they? weedwhacker & Co. ?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now why would somebody like Mueller waste his time visiting the set of 2001? He had five years to land men on the moon. Was he looking for tips?


No Kubrick was. As a manager, Mueller's presence was not necessary on the line at every moment. He would be in a position to provide technical information to Kubrick and influence him to portray space travel in a positive light. "Deke" Slayton, I believe, actually played the voice of "Mission Control" in the film. If you wanted to fake a moon landing, would you look to the director of "Dr. Strangelove?" Doesn't really show America in its best light, now does it? Maybe that's why they wanted Mueller et al to launch a charm offensive.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by bokonon2010
 



Why are you obsessed with your stupid thread? It's even more ridiculous than this one! I though it was a joke when I started reading it, then I realised you're serious


^^^^^^^^^^

ad hominem, off-topic, flood (multiple posts of the same nature) in attempts to derail threads.

Reported to ATS moderators.

[edit on 7.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

Add:

The issue have been addressed by moderators. Thanks and regards.
Now this can be deleted as not directly related to the thread topic.

[edit on 7.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Every time I see that video I cringe.
Guilty Guilty Guilty
Everything about their body language screams lies.


Exactly how I feel about Jarrah White. The stress in his voice is unbelievable... it's not like he just spent ten days in space and is suffering from loss of body mass and muscle strength. At least he admits to being a liar.


I know what you have posted, and what you posted did not back-up your claim that JW lied in his video. If you continue dodging this issue, then you will look like a liar yourself. So if you have evidence provide it, otherwise, retract and apologize. Real evidence would include posting the original video for example or JW admitting he edited the video.


I did exactly what you asked of me, using Jarrah's own words and objective evidence:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seem to have forgotten that. You just changed the topic without acknowledgement or apology. Then you have the nerve to call other people liars. The subject of this thread is "Young Aussie Genius...." Do you have nothing to say in that young Aussie genius' defense?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   



Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Every time I see that video I cringe.
Guilty Guilty Guilty
Everything about their body language screams lies.


Exactly how I feel about Jarrah White. The stress in his voice is unbelievable... it's not like he just spent ten days in space and is suffering from loss of body mass and muscle strength. At least he admits to being a liar.


His voice or whatever might irritate you, but his body language and the passion in his voice does not come across as lying. JW, whether you agree with him or not, believes in what he is saying. That much is sure. Those astronauts, who claimed to have landed on the moon, a once in a lifetime dream, do not believe in what they are claiming. That much is sure. Any person would not be able to contain their joy at what they have experienced. They all should have been uncontrollable grinning from ear to ear ready to share to the world what they have witnessed.





I know what you have posted, and what you posted did not back-up your claim that JW lied in his video. If you continue dodging this issue, then you will look like a liar yourself. So if you have evidence provide it, otherwise, retract and apologize. Real evidence would include posting the original video for example or JW admitting he edited the video.


I did exactly what you asked of me, using Jarrah's own words and objective evidence:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seem to have forgotten that. You just changed the topic without acknowledgement or apology. Then you have the nerve to call other people liars. The subject of this thread is "Young Aussie Genius...." Do you have nothing to say in that young Aussie genius' defense?


DJW001, why did you bring this up again?
I let you had the last say in it.
Let our readers decide.

But OK, since you did. Here is my issue:



Jarrah took advantage of the editing process necessary to meet Youtube's Flash player requirements to alter the content as well as break up the length.


Now I, and many others, discovered JW on Youtube, and that video he has posted is the only video Ive seen. Any discussion about his videos I assume is in regard to his YT videos, the ones that most of us are familiar with.

And the link you provided dont even show pre-youtube videos. So I dont know what he said or claimed in those, and frankly, I dont care, they are not relevant to me.

So, lets be clear, do you have any proof that JW purposely lied in his YT videos?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now I, and many others, discovered JW on Youtube, and that video he has posted is the only video Ive seen. Any discussion about his videos I assume is in regard to his YT videos, the ones that most of us are familiar with.


Why do you assume that? I posted a quotation from him that indicates his revisionism. He has also left many posts in various forums to take into account as well. And why were you so intent on that one specific video? Are you privy to some inside information?

As for how astronauts are "supposed" to behave: where do you get that idea? Spaceflight is a harrowing personal experience. Can you truly predict how you would feel if you realized the crushing force of gravity would be mercilessly dragging you to earth for the rest of your life after having soared with the angels? Your willingness to project your own pre-conceived ideas of human behavior onto others is remarkable, to put it politely.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh dear....you just don't get it, do you???


Those astronauts, who claimed to have landed on the moon, a once in a lifetime dream, do not believe in what they are claiming. That much is sure.


WOW! I guess you do get it! What an amazing ability you have, to read the minds of people on a video...from 40 years ago!! That's incredible!!


Any person would not be able to contain their joy at what they have experienced. They all should have been uncontrollable grinning from ear to ear ready to share to the world what they have witnessed.


"Grinning from ear to ear", huh???

Well, looky, looky:





AND, did even stop to consider the timing of that press conference?? (August 12, 1969).

How ridiculous you sound, claiming such a thing, absent the full understanding of the circumstances.

IF you had ever bothered to research, you'd see that with minor exceptions EVERY Astronaut loathed those public appearances.

It was, though, expected of them as part of their PR "duties", and they did it begrudgingly.

This is obvious in plenty of documented stories, tales of the lives of the Astronauts in the program, even BEFORE 1969. NASA required those not in active mission training to make rounds, and do PR junkets.


Why not do some research, for a change....here, I did a little for you, from ATS of all places...just ONE good post, from a few months back, to help you along:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the case of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins they'd already been making rounds, been debriefed, feted, and must have felt beaten to death....what you see there is most likely just exhaustion from all the attention, and a dire wish to get away and have some privacy!!!

Trying to claim this, as you are... (and merely parroting the same "hoax" BS lines that have been spewed for years) is pretty pathetic, actually --- and very telling as to your lack of crediblity, and originality.

AND dearth of research....but, we already knew that....











[edit on 8 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

There isn't any connection, in that last post, to anything to do with "Jarrah 'White Noise' White" (
) or his crap YT videos.

IN FACT, it has no connection to any of the Apollo "hoaxists" beliefs at all.



Ahhh and there it is.
So weedwhacker, are you the authority on Apollo hoax theories? It sounds like you want to pick and choose your opponents arguments so you can debate them on your terms? Is that it?



Aint going to happen with me, bro.


Google Video Link



James Van Allen tells us that one of the most obvious clues NASA’s Apollo spacecrafts were incapable of sending men to the moon is the spacecrafts were equipped with windows. James Van Allen stated “the windows installed on the spacecraft would provide the astronauts basically no protection against the deep space deadly radiation and any attempt to travel beyond earth’s inner orbit would mean instant death for the astronauts.” The lecture started with Charlie Hawkins introducing his friend and mentor James Van Allen.


Now I didnt hear the whole clip, so I cant verify their claims. But their statement does warrant some investigation.

The claim: Radiation would have irradiated the astronauts in the CM or LM because it couldnt stop the various forms of radiation from the SUN.

To block or protect humans from dangerous radiation like X-rays the industry uses

Lead Glass



The presence of lead is used in glasses absorbing gamma radiation and X-rays, used in radiation shielding (e.g. in the cathode ray tubes, where lowering the exposure of the TV viewers to soft X-rays is of concern).



Glass with even higher lead oxide contents (typically 65%) may be used as radiation shielding because of the well-known ability of lead to absorb gamma rays and other forms of harmful radiation.


Medical use of Lead Glass: Lead glass can be used for X-ray observation equipment, electron beam/plasma generators and X-ray TV detectors. Lead glass protects doctors and staff from X-ray irradiation with no glass discoloration or deterioration in viewing quality. Use of the larger size LX windows facilitates remote control of X-ray equipment.

Industrial use of Lead Glass:
Used to protect people from airport luggage inspection equipment in airports, and from radiation testing equipment or radioactive industrial products at industrial sites.

Nuclear use of Lead Glass:
Leaded glass can be used for observation windows at radioactive storage stations, nuclear fuel development and reprocessing plants, and for applications near nuclear reactors.



LX-57B Lead Glass for Radiation Shielding
Thicknesses: 8 mm, 11 mm, and 14 mm.

National Bureau of Standards: Comply with the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) Report No. 49 "Structural shielding Design and Evaluation for Medical use of X-Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies up to 10 MeV


There is another type of glass to protect us from radiation

Alkali-barium Silicate Glass




Without this type of glass watching TV would be very dangerous. A television produces X-rays that must be absorbed, otherwise they could in the long run cause health problems. The X-rays are absorbed by glass with minimum amounts of heavy oxides (lead, barium or strontium). Lead glass is commonly used for the funnel and neck of the TV tube, while glass containing barium is used for the screen.


Lets see what Apollo used:

All CM inner-structure windows were made of aluminosilicate glass . and were thermally tempered to 25 000 psi MOR for the hatch and side windows and to 23 200 psi MOR for the rendezvous window. The two panes in each of the windows had the same thickness: 0.23, 0.25, and 0.20 inch for the hatch, side, and rendezvous windows, respectively.


.20 inches =5.08 mm < 8 mm (of lead glass to safely block x-rays)
.23 inches = 5.84 mm < 8 mm
.25 inches = 6.35 mm < 8 mm

And I know what some are you thinking, there are two panes, so lets double it! Why double it? Only the exterior window was claimed to stop radiation!


The structural design philosophy for the LM windows was to provide a window ofminimum weight with maximum crew visibility, which led to the selection of the single-pane-window concept using chemically tempered glass. The design consisted of a singlestructural pane and an external pane for micrometeoroid and radiation protection


Which is strange, because how was the outer pane different than the inner pane?

Lets see why anyone would one use aluminosilicate:

Aluminosilicate Glass



A small, but important type of glass, aluminosilicate, contains 20% aluminium oxide (alumina-Al2O3) often including calcium oxide, magnesium oxide and boric oxide in relatively small amounts, but with only very small amounts of soda or potash. It is able to withstand high temperatures and thermal shock and is typically used in combustion tubes, gauge glasses for high-pressure steam boilers, and in halogen-tungsten lamps capable of operating at temperature as high as 750oC.


To operate in high temperature environments and resist shock. But it says nothing about blocking or absorbing radiation.

So, can somebody educate us on how the windows of Apollo managed to block harmful radiation of the sun?


Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.britglass.org.uk...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Your "sources" are almost as hilarious as you are!!!


It was dead easy to follow your Google Video link, and find another, apparently posted by the same individuals.

HERE is the cut-n-paste of the comments from THAT video! ( Edited down, will link [**] for everyone's viewing "pleasure"....
)


This is part 2 of the James Van Allen Lecture and Charlie Hawkins lecture where these two scientists tell us why NASA's moon landing could not have been real. The audio is currently encrypted and we will unlock it once we receive adequate compensation for uncovering this rare historical artifact. We are also willing to considering an exclusive with a news network like CNN, Fox News, and China Daily News for $1,000,000 US.



[**]:


Google Video Link


(CLICK ON THE GOOGLE VID LINK, NOT THE 'PLAY' SYMBOL)

That takes you directly to the (shorter) linked video I mentioned.


Oh, this is rich!! Rich, I tells ya!!!

A cool mil.....what, after taxes? About one half to two thirds....(maybe they have an off-sghore account, to avoid taxes? Hmmmmm...)

Oh, and speaking of "picking and choosing"....?

How is it going with all of the many direct questions that have been posed to you repeatedly, in this thread, by others?? You know, the ones you keep dodging?









[edit on 8 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


So, can somebody educate us on how the windows of Apollo managed to block harmful radiation of the sun?
Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.


Can anyone (you) explain how radiation from the Sun is any different in LEO than it is in translunar or lunar orbit?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Oh....and the Apollo 11 Astronauts?? The 'arguably' most famous of all?

Here....( of course, it's that "evil" MSM, right? So, YOU can't believe them....right??
)



Google Video Link


Grrrrr!
Need to brush up on google-vid links...

Here is the url: video.google.com...#




[edit on 8 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   



Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now I, and many others, discovered JW on Youtube, and that video he has posted is the only video Ive seen. Any discussion about his videos I assume is in regard to his YT videos, the ones that most of us are familiar with.


Why do you assume that? I posted a quotation from him that indicates his revisionism. He has also left many posts in various forums to take into account as well. And why were you so intent on that one specific video? Are you privy to some inside information?



1. To revise one's work does not make one a liar.
2. I believe you & TOMBVLD made a comment on that particular video.
3. Yes, the inside information I have is that I have seen that particular video and I want to know why you claim he lied in that video.





As for how astronauts are "supposed" to behave: where do you get that idea? Spaceflight is a harrowing personal experience. Can you truly predict how you would feel if you realized the crushing force of gravity would be mercilessly dragging you to earth for the rest of your life after having soared with the angels? Your willingness to project your own pre-conceived ideas of human behavior onto others is remarkable, to put it politely.



1. They are human. Calling them astronauts doesn't make them less than human.
2. I am human.

Because I am a human who has experienced a good deal of what life can offer, and because I have observed and studied other human behavior from various lands and cultures, I can safely state that those three men are lying about their accomplishments. Its not rocket science.

So when you have three persons exhibiting classic tells in their body language, well thats enough for the rest of us to know what's up.

3. After such a harrowing experience, being back on Earth with my family, I still would be smiling from ear to ear. As would anybody unless they dearly missed the moon and wished to go back.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.


I gave up on Foos a long time ago when it became apparent that s/he was intent on nothing less than cementing his place as the internet's most clueless poster. (Although, I must admit, his cut-and-paste skills are unparalleled.)

Anyway, a bit of housekeeping, just for those who are enjoying our resident jester's implosion:

Apollo wasn't designed for "deep space", it was designed for cis-lunar space.

But that's another term Foos doesn't understand, and, true to his militant ignorance, will refuse to look up.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by FoosM


So, can somebody educate us on how the windows of Apollo managed to block harmful radiation of the sun?
Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.


Can anyone (you) explain how radiation from the Sun is any different in LEO than it is in translunar or lunar orbit?



Earth is largely protected from the solar wind, a stream of energetic charged particles emanating from the Sun, by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles. Some of the charged particles from the solar wind are trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt.


therefore


Orbits higher than low orbit can lead to earlier failure of electronic components due to intense radiation and charge accumulation.


and consequently would also be deadly to biology.


Here is a very nice image of the different orbits




en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...'s_magnetic_field



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.


I gave up on Foos a long time ago when it became apparent that s/he was intent on nothing less than cementing his place as the internet's most clueless poster. (Although, I must admit, his cut-and-paste skills are unparalleled.)

Anyway, a bit of housekeeping, just for those who are enjoying our resident jester's implosion:

Apollo wasn't designed for "deep space", it was designed for cis-lunar space.

But that's another term Foos doesn't understand, and, true to his militant ignorance, will refuse to look up.


Wow... I mention your name and *poof* like the The Great Gazoo you appear. Fascinating. Well why you are here, let me impress you some more with my C&P.


Tracking vehicles in low Earth orbits (LEO) is quite different from tracking deep space missions. Deep space missions are visible for long periods of time from a large portion of the Earth's surface, and so require few stations (the DSN uses only three, as of February 20, 2010). These few stations, however, require the use of huge antennas and ultra-sensitive receivers in order to cope with the very weak signals. Low earth orbit missions, on the other hand, are only visible from a small fraction of the Earth's surface at a time, and the satellites move overhead very quickly, which necessitates the use of a large number of tracking stations, spread all over the world. The antennas required for LEO tracking and communication are not required to be as large as those used for deep space, but they must be able to track quickly.

These differing requirements have led NASA to build a number of independent tracking networks, each optimized for its own mission. Prior to the mid 80's, when the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellites became operational, NASA used several networks of ground based antennas in order to track and communicate with Earth orbiting spacecraft. For the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions, these were the primary means of communication, with the Deep Space Network (DSN) being assigned a supporting/backup role.


Ouch.


The DSN, as the name implies, tracks probes in deep space (more than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) from Earth), while TDRSS is used to communicate with satellites in low earth orbit.


How far away is the moon Tomblvd? Right. Ouch.


The first EVA in deep space (not on the moon or in the Earth's orbit) was made by American Al Worden, on the return trip of Apollo 15. This was done two more times: by Ken Mattingly on Apollo 16 and by Ron Evans on Apollo 17.


Ouch.

Yeah, we can see why you gave up.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


Because at this point, it appears Apollo was designed for LEO and not deep space.


I gave up on Foos a long time ago when it became apparent that s/he was intent on nothing less than cementing his place as the internet's most clueless poster. (Although, I must admit, his cut-and-paste skills are unparalleled.)

Anyway, a bit of housekeeping, just for those who are enjoying our resident jester's implosion:

Apollo wasn't designed for "deep space", it was designed for cis-lunar space.

But that's another term Foos doesn't understand, and, true to his militant ignorance, will refuse to look up.


Wow... I mention your name and *poof* like the The Great Gazoo you appear. Fascinating. Well why you are here, let me impress you some more with my C&P.


Tracking vehicles in low Earth orbits (LEO) is quite different from tracking deep space missions. Deep space missions are visible for long periods of time from a large portion of the Earth's surface, and so require few stations (the DSN uses only three, as of February 20, 2010). These few stations, however, require the use of huge antennas and ultra-sensitive receivers in order to cope with the very weak signals. Low earth orbit missions, on the other hand, are only visible from a small fraction of the Earth's surface at a time, and the satellites move overhead very quickly, which necessitates the use of a large number of tracking stations, spread all over the world. The antennas required for LEO tracking and communication are not required to be as large as those used for deep space, but they must be able to track quickly.

These differing requirements have led NASA to build a number of independent tracking networks, each optimized for its own mission. Prior to the mid 80's, when the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellites became operational, NASA used several networks of ground based antennas in order to track and communicate with Earth orbiting spacecraft. For the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions, these were the primary means of communication, with the Deep Space Network (DSN) being assigned a supporting/backup role.


Ouch.


The DSN, as the name implies, tracks probes in deep space (more than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) from Earth), while TDRSS is used to communicate with satellites in low earth orbit.


How far away is the moon Tomblvd? Right. Ouch.


The first EVA in deep space (not on the moon or in the Earth's orbit) was made by American Al Worden, on the return trip of Apollo 15. This was done two more times: by Ken Mattingly on Apollo 16 and by Ron Evans on Apollo 17.


Ouch.

Yeah, we can see why you gave up.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


Thank you for making my point. And making it rather well.

You see something on Wikipedia and automatically assume it's true and proper usage, but anybody with a working knowledge of astronomy knows that the term "deep space" has a specific meaning.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, defines it thusly:

The regions beyond the gravitational influence of Earth encompassing interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space.

Other definitions:

space well outside the earth's atmosphere and especially that part lying beyond the earth-moon system

and

space beyond the limits of the solar system.

If "deep space" meant what you say it does, why bother with the term "csi-lunar space"?

Foos once again walks into a closed door.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



Foos once again walks into a closed door.








new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 156  157  158    160  161  162 >>

log in

join