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: 166
377
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


*Yawn*

Yes Im really tired, long day at work.

Maybe you were gone when I covered this.
Those pictures are misleading.
They suggest that the craft simply shot out straight to the moon thereby skirting parts of the belt.
When infact the TLI happened on the opposite side of the planet

(that is, weedwacker, the part of the planet not facing the moon)

and elongated its orbit.


This makes a world of difference.
So put in those VABs in that picture,
and then we can talk on what was skipped or not skipped.



Apparently too tired to actually read the link I posted.

It's all there, in mind-boggling detail.

I'll start you out. You are looking at those graphs in 2 dimensions, the numbers he gives clearly puts it into 3. The graphs only show the postions of Apollo in relation to the VABs, that all it is meant to do. The author assumes anybody reading the website would be able to envision the proper orbital mechanics.

It really isn't that hard.




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, I see now....

....in your continued lack of understanding about orbital mechanics, and trajectories (with the added uncomprehension about the TLI burn...who cares WHERE it was fired initially!?!)***.

***This probably is another sticking point, for the wannabe Apollo "hoaxists"...who likely get their understanding of space travel from Star Wars movies...where the spce vehicles seem to operate like airplanes, in an atmosphere on Earth. It AIN'T the way it happens, cowboy!

[---Question for extra credit: What happens to a spacecraft on orbit when it fires its rocket and accelerates? Does it just go faster, round-and-round in the same path it was following previously???---]


Your problem with understanding is that you rely on what are simplified graphical representations, that are NOT TO SCALE!!!

They are diagrams, to help one visualize something...not meant to be exact renderings.

Gee....it is so obvious to everyone else, when looking at them, I guess most just didn't see how WRONG you were, and therefore how utterly inane your "points" are, re: the Belts...

I doubt this will make sense....perhaps someone else will be able to put it in more simple terms for you?

~~~~~

Here....a view of the MC tracking screen...this image is from 1965, and is following a Gemini mission....looking at the tracks (paths) depicted on the screen, do you think the Gemini spacecraft made all those curving paths on its orbit?

Or, do you think it's a depiction that can be INTERPRETED by intelligent people...like, oh...rocket scientists! (And others, too...with a bit of explanation...):







[edit on 14 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Opposite side of the planet? What difference does that make?

The image you are showing is a generic representation of a typical TLI (not an Apollo TLI) but you can see how highly inclined it is. You really should provide your sources.

A Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) is a propulsive maneuver used to set a spacecraft on a trajectory which will arrive at the Moon.
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

Here is the actual trajectory used on the Apollo missions. With the Van Allen Belts shown. Maybe this will help you understand.


Here's a more detailed look at the passage through the belts.



[edit on 8/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Here is the actual trajectory used on the Apollo missions. With the Van Allen Belts shown. Maybe this will help you understand.


[edit on 8/14/2010 by Phage]


D**n you Phage, I just found them and was getting ready to post them. ;-)

They really are a fantastic job demonstrating the TLI.

I doubt it will matter though.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


Two types of radiation are particularly significant: solar flare protons, and high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Solar flare protons come in bursts, lasting a day or so, following an energetic solar event. The proton flux is omnidirectional; although the source of the radiation is solar, the actual radiation comes from all directions, and

hence the spacecraft must be shielded in all directions, and not just in the direction of the sun.


In the absence of shielding, a single large solar flare would likely be fatal to the crew, either immediately or as a result of cancers induced by the radiation dose. Cosmic rays are a continuous background consisting of extremely high energy heavy nuclei, and are also omnidirectional.

www.islandone.org...

Now, maybe your interpretation of 'omni-directional' is different than mine, and if it is, we will just have to agree to disagree. Maybe you and others also want claim that solar flares are not deadly to astronauts without sufficient shielding. Then you and I will have to agree to disagree on the definition of 'fatal'.



What, precisely, are the energies of the directional protons vs. the "omnidirectional" protons?

And since your source also says this:


On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant.


Are you finally prepared to admit that solar flares did not prevent the Apollo missions?

Remember, this is your own source saying that.


Since TomB is bugging me that I didnt answer a question, I went back to see what his question was. And truthfully, Im confused.



What, precisely, are the energies of the directional protons vs. the "omnidirectional" protons?

And since your source also says this:


On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant.


Are you finally prepared to admit that solar flares did not prevent the Apollo missions?



Can anyone tell me what GCR's and Solar Flares have to do with one and other in this context? I dont know what you think you caught me on Tom. I really dont see it, your jumping around.

What do you want to hear, GCRs were not dangerous for a week trip to the moon. OK. Did I say they were? We all know that GCRs are reduced during peak solar cycles.

Or you want me to say that there were no Solar Flares while the Astros went to the moon. Well, I've already posted videos showing that Flares occurred during the missions. JW has made his calculations regardng the REM for all to see. So Im waiting for somebody to show us why JW is wrong. If nobody can show us this, then JW and others who have analyzed the data could be very much right.

You see, there is a catch to this.
If you admit that Flares occurred during the trip to the moon,
then you have to prove that scientists would be able to determine in time the size of the flare before it would hit the CM, LM, or EVAs. Because if NASA couldnt tell the size of the flare in time, what would they do?
That's right, tell the astros that a flare has been ejected and to initiated safety precautions regardless of size and intensity.

So, if there is no indication that the astros, for any mission, were told to prepare for a flare, then NASA got's something to explain.

Otherwise, somebody has to prove to us that NASA can predict flare size and intensity with accuracy back in the 1960's and early 70's. LOL.


Mr David Brodrick took up radio astronomy as a hobby, using an A$200 'off-the-shelf' antenna.
On 4 November 2003, his antenna detected a huge drop in radio waves emitted from the Sun.
This recording, helped determine the size of the largest ever recorded solar flare.
Mr Brodrick discusses how the antenna works and why he was fortunate enough to record that solar flare.




Sorry, its a bit misleading, NASA did record it too, but...



The flare, which erupted on 4 November 2003, was the most powerful ever recorded.
Its X-rays overwhelmed the detectors on the US GOES-12 satellite, so scientists had to resort to other means to estimate how strong it was.
The incomplete satellite data at first suggested that the flare was rated “X28”, meaning it was equivalent to billions of one-megaton nuclear bombs.


Yeah... aluminum and silicon dioxide could shield for that.


The worst Sun storms are called coronal mass ejections (CMEs). They're made of charged particles flung from intense magnetic fields on the solar surface. CMEs are sometimes but not always generated at the sites of solar flares, which are in turn associated with sunspots.

Initial radiation from a solar flare, including X-rays, travels to Earth at the speed of light.

But the charged particles of a CME, which expand into space like a growing cloud, present greater hazards to the electrical systems aboard Earth-orbiting satellites. Radio transmissions on Earth can be disrupted and entire power grids can be tripped, though such events have proved rare.

There are many factors behind the damage potential of any CME, including whether it is directed squarely at Earth, how strong it is, and whether its magnetic field is oriented the same or opposite to that of Earth. How fast it moves also contributes to its strength upon arrival.

"The faster the CME, the more potentially destructive it can be, so for a worst-case scenario, we now know we have at least 12 hours to take preventative measures," according to Nat Gopalswamy of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.


www.csiro.au...
www.space.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Opposite side of the planet? What difference does that make?


Big difference.

Top down please top down.

*edit*
oops, just saw that there was a top down being shown.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


yeah i can see there's alot of pages here of discussion

i'm no professional on the subject , but the whole thing is riddled with curiousity, definitely worth debating at least


[edit on 8/14/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


sorry about that, i don't have time to read 160 + pages of discussion on the subject.. not that the thread has derailed in anyway from the original post, but after seeing the first video or so, the detailed hassle that the 'aussie genius' is put through just for his videos is what intrigues me

i'm familiar for the most part with the moon hoax theory, and it's interesting to say the least, however i have no intention of getting into what i have just discovered is a 'heated debate' going on in this thread


i'm no professional on gamma radiation, or x rays or anyything like that haha so i can't really contribute to your discussion going on exactly now

i do, however, think IF there was a 'cover up' of a false mission to the moon, even if the evidence of the fake mission was completely destroyed, the evidence of the cover up will always remain and continue to remain as long as there are those in the act of covering it up



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Opposite side of the planet? What difference does that make?


Big difference.

Top down please top down.


What does that even mean?

For crying out loud, we drew pictures and even posted you favorite media, youtube, to properly demonstrate Apollo's TLI, what more do you want???



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
But I tell you something. If somebody would ask me, why debate about Apollo, why not 9/11, Kennedy Assassination, or any of the other classic conspiracies. I would say, with 9/11, Kennedy, etc. the government can always claim it was done by someone else. It was due to islamic radicals, to Cubans, to Communists, Spectre or whatever the popular evil organization of the day is. But Apollo is 100% American. 100% created and run by the US Government, paid for by the American people.

If the American public discover that Apollo was faked, then maybe we will have a situation where the American public wake up from their manufactured dreams and actively take back their country en masse.


OK, so what your admitting is what I've experienced before with certain perpetrators of various conspiracies - it's not the truth that matters it's that people don't believe the official story, leading to civil unrest and what you hope to be a civil war. I had a 9/11 'truth' seeker say to me once 'It doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as they don't believe the official story'.
The other disturbing thing was that he was always ranting about how I and anyone else that didn't agree 'would be hanged' when they 'took over'.

You don't see the irony? You are as bad as the Government you hate by creating an illusion, uncaring if it is real or not, to justify your war.
Your not interested in truth, your little more than a member of a psyop wing of some unknown domestic terrorist group or foreign country and you probably don't even realise your a participant. Either way your only interest is civil unrest.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Can anyone tell me what GCR's and Solar Flares have to do with one and other in this context? I dont know what you think you caught me on Tom. I really dont see it, your jumping around.

What do you want to hear, GCRs were not dangerous for a week trip to the moon. OK. Did I say they were? We all know that GCRs are reduced during peak solar cycles.

Or you want me to say that there were no Solar Flares while the Astros went to the moon. Well, I've already posted videos showing that Flares occurred during the missions. JW has made his calculations regardng the REM for all to see. So Im waiting for somebody to show us why JW is wrong. If nobody can show us this, then JW and others who have analyzed the data could be very much right.

You see, there is a catch to this.
If you admit that Flares occurred during the trip to the moon,
then you have to prove that scientists would be able to determine in time the size of the flare before it would hit the CM, LM, or EVAs. Because if NASA couldnt tell the size of the flare in time, what would they do?
That's right, tell the astros that a flare has been ejected and to initiated safety precautions regardless of size and intensity.


The problem is that you are totally ignorant of radiation, CMEs and the effect of radiation on humans. You are the one who jumps from protons, to cosmic radiation to x-rays. They are all radiation. Yet they are all very different.

You keep snickering that "astros" (???) as you call them, makes going to the moon impossible. However in your haste to post earlier you posted from a paper that said this:


On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant.


Now, your esteemed author conflates the effects of a CME with galactic cosmic rays, but the conclusion is the same. If scientists had observed a CME, they had contingency plans in place and the astronauts would have survived. It's that simple.

And that, of course, completely refutes your argument.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
BTW, can anybody point me to Jarrah's "research" on CMEs?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
But I tell you something. If somebody would ask me, why debate about Apollo, why not 9/11, Kennedy Assassination, or any of the other classic conspiracies. I would say, with 9/11, Kennedy, etc. the government can always claim it was done by someone else. It was due to islamic radicals, to Cubans, to Communists, Spectre or whatever the popular evil organization of the day is. But Apollo is 100% American. 100% created and run by the US Government, paid for by the American people.

If the American public discover that Apollo was faked, then maybe we will have a situation where the American public wake up from their manufactured dreams and actively take back their country en masse.


OK, so what your admitting is what I've experienced before with certain perpetrators of various conspiracies - it's not the truth that matters it's that people don't believe the official story, leading to civil unrest and what you hope to be a civil war. I had a 9/11 'truth' seeker say to me once 'It doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as they don't believe the official story'.
The other disturbing thing was that he was always ranting about how I and anyone else that didn't agree 'would be hanged' when they 'took over'.

You don't see the irony? You are as bad as the Government you hate by creating an illusion, uncaring if it is real or not, to justify your war.
Your not interested in truth, your little more than a member of a psyop wing of some unknown domestic terrorist group or foreign country and you probably don't even realise your a participant. Either way your only interest is civil unrest.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by AgentSmith]


Where did I say I wanted war?
That's a bit paranoid... agent. LOL.

Im debate Apollo because I feel that we have been lied to.
Simple as that. And I believe Im on the side of truth.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Opposite side of the planet? What difference does that make?


Big difference.

Top down please top down.


What does that even mean?

For crying out loud, we drew pictures and even posted you favorite media, youtube, to properly demonstrate Apollo's TLI, what more do you want???


What do you want Tom?

Lets take a look what was offered.


Looking at the top down view on the top portion of the screen.
Now I ask, how long or wide do you think those belts look to you in relation to the Earth? Maybe 4 to 5 radii ?

thats about what 6371 km x 5 = 31,855 km

The belts go out to about 10 earth radii more than 60,000 km.
A third of the distance to the moon.
Its intense region is about 4 to 5 radii.

I want accuracy Tom.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

Opposite side of the planet? What difference does that make?


Big difference.

Top down please top down.


What does that even mean?

For crying out loud, we drew pictures and even posted you favorite media, youtube, to properly demonstrate Apollo's TLI, what more do you want???


What do you want Tom?

Lets take a look what was offered.
[
Looking at the top down view on the top portion of the screen.
Now I ask, how long or wide do you think those belts look to you in relation to the Earth? Maybe 4 to 5 radii ?

thats about what 6371 km x 5 = 31,855 km

The belts go out to about 10 earth radii more than 60,000 km.
A third of the distance to the moon.
Its intense region is about 4 to 5 radii.

I want accuracy Tom.



Your video doesn't work.

Anyway, we've already given the information. In exquisite detail. And absolute accuracy.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Can anyone tell me what GCR's and Solar Flares have to do with one and other in this context? I dont know what you think you caught me on Tom. I really dont see it, your jumping around.

What do you want to hear, GCRs were not dangerous for a week trip to the moon. OK. Did I say they were? We all know that GCRs are reduced during peak solar cycles.

Or you want me to say that there were no Solar Flares while the Astros went to the moon. Well, I've already posted videos showing that Flares occurred during the missions. JW has made his calculations regardng the REM for all to see. So Im waiting for somebody to show us why JW is wrong. If nobody can show us this, then JW and others who have analyzed the data could be very much right.

You see, there is a catch to this.
If you admit that Flares occurred during the trip to the moon,
then you have to prove that scientists would be able to determine in time the size of the flare before it would hit the CM, LM, or EVAs. Because if NASA couldnt tell the size of the flare in time, what would they do?
That's right, tell the astros that a flare has been ejected and to initiated safety precautions regardless of size and intensity.


The problem is that you are totally ignorant of radiation, CMEs and the effect of radiation on humans.


Are you an expert on radiation and its effects on humans Tom?
If not, then how do you know Im ignorant of radiation?




You are the one who jumps from protons, to cosmic radiation to x-rays. They are all radiation. Yet they are all very different.


maybe thats why... we have... branching posts?





You keep snickering that "astros" (???) as you call them, makes going to the moon impossible. However in your haste to post earlier you posted from a paper that said this:


If you weren't in such a hurry you would have figured out that astros=astronauts, not radiation. LOL.





On the Apollo missions, the approach to crew protection was simple: on notification of a large solar flare, the mission would be aborted to Earth. Since the missions were short, the cumulative fluence of galactic cosmic rays was not significant.


Now, your esteemed author conflates the effects of a CME with galactic cosmic rays, but the conclusion is the same. If scientists had observed a CME, they had contingency plans in place and the astronauts would have survived. It's that simple.

And that, of course, completely refutes your argument.



Wow... I simply cant untie that knot of... what?
What are you saying?





[edit on 14-8-2010 by FoosM]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by FoosM]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Wow... I simply cant untie that knot of... what?
What are you saying?







God your posts are a mess.

I am saying that you posted a paper as evidence of the alleged dangers of proton flux. However, in that same paper, the author says specifically that radiation and CMEs would not prohibit the Apollo missions.

That completely contradicts what you are alleging.

Now, instead of another cut-and-paste fest, just answer the question. Do you now admit your source is correct about the Apollo missions?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I have a couple of VERY simple, and absolutely CRITICAL questions for anyone who wishes to debate the radiation issue.

If they cannot answer BOTH of these questions, then in simple terms (for simpletons), they are incapable of contributing.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?

2. IF SO, PROVIDE YOUR ALTERNATIVE FIGURES, OR AN EXPLANATION, IN ORBITAL MECHANICS TERMS, OF WHY THEY ARE INCORRECT.


Easy questions, and very obviously inescapable if you wish to debate the topic...


BTW, for anyone who says orbital mechanics is too difficult, then maybe you should realise you are WAY out of your depth, and BUTT OUT of the discussion. For anyone who wants to try to weasel their way out of this, you are clearly way beyond your depth - the equations required are public, they do NOT come from NASA. and there are even fully OPEN SOURCE simulators that can be used to plug in the numbers and view the resulting trajectories. Yes, you can fly your very own Apollo mission by simply knowing a little about physics and geometry, and everything can be independently verified. After all, we are talking about simple gravitation/speed/acceleration calculations - if we know the masses involved and the thrust capabilities (and of course we do), then it can't be 'cheated'.

Physics, and specifically orbital physics, don't just vanish because some loud-mouthed ill-informed hoax-pusher claims he knows better. So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Are the trajectories incorrect? If anyone claims they are, SHOW EXACTLY HOW and give the 'correct' figures.

Then watch what happens. Yes, I'm setting the usual trap, in preparation for the final stages of the radiation treatise, to weed out those who haven't got a freaking clue..

Enter those who dare.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have a couple of VERY simple, and absolutely CRITICAL questions for anyone who wishes to debate the radiation issue.

If they cannot answer BOTH of these questions, then in simple terms (for simpletons), they are incapable of contributing.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?


Ummm what published apollo trajectory information.
If you got that, please provide a link and share it.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have a couple of VERY simple, and absolutely CRITICAL questions for anyone who wishes to debate the radiation issue.

If they cannot answer BOTH of these questions, then in simple terms (for simpletons), they are incapable of contributing.

1. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PUBLISHED APOLLO TRAJECTORY INFORMATION?

2. IF SO, PROVIDE YOUR ALTERNATIVE FIGURES, OR AN EXPLANATION, IN ORBITAL MECHANICS TERMS, OF WHY THEY ARE INCORRECT.


Easy questions, and very obviously inescapable if you wish to debate the topic...


BTW, for anyone who says orbital mechanics is too difficult, then maybe you should realise you are WAY out of your depth, and BUTT OUT of the discussion. For anyone who wants to try to weasel their way out of this, you are clearly way beyond your depth - the equations required are public, they do NOT come from NASA. and there are even fully OPEN SOURCE simulators that can be used to plug in the numbers and view the resulting trajectories. Yes, you can fly your very own Apollo mission by simply knowing a little about physics and geometry, and everything can be independently verified. After all, we are talking about simple gravitation/speed/acceleration calculations - if we know the masses involved and the thrust capabilities (and of course we do), then it can't be 'cheated'.

Physics, and specifically orbital physics, don't just vanish because some loud-mouthed ill-informed hoax-pusher claims he knows better. So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Are the trajectories incorrect? If anyone claims they are, SHOW EXACTLY HOW and give the 'correct' figures.

Then watch what happens. Yes, I'm setting the usual trap, in preparation for the final stages of the radiation treatise, to weed out those who haven't got a freaking clue..

Enter those who dare.


Foos keeps saying "top down", so all I can imagine, until the link is fixed, is that they are looking at a basic lunar trajectory mapped over the top of the belts, treating them as if they are a ball, instead of toroids.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join