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: 168
377
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Nicely done DJ. Another dry hole for Foos.

Well Foos, are you done now with this issue? You source has contradicted you. How much more proof do you require?

___________________________

BTW DJ do you mind if I post the response, with a link, of course, to Apollo Hoax forum?

We were tossing around the issue and this seems to confirm their conclusions.




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Here is the e-mail reply from Mr. Landis (emphasis mine):


Solar protons spiral around magnetic fields, which include the
interplanetary fields and also self-generated magnetic fields. Since
they're not all the same energy, they end up coming from different
directions. It's been ages since I've looked at any of the data (which is
all in old papers, not in easily accessable electronic form), but as I
recall, the flux is about 50% isotropic, with a wide directional peak in one direction (not necessarily directly toward the sun-- the trajectories are curved). So, while it's omnidirection in the sense radiation of coming from all directions, it's not uniform intensity in all directions.

The highest energy (and hence the most damaging) particles curve the least, though.

There's undoubtably better data around now-- what I had was pretty old, and is probably superceded by better information (and better models).


(Private correspondence)

As I suspected, most of the energy of a CME comes from sun-ward. The particles impinging from other angles would be of lower energy. Mr. Landis also points out in his e-mail that there were no CMEs during the Apollo missions... but we all already knew that, right FoosM?



Thanks, it only proves that what I stated I stated correctly.
And those who laughed look like fools.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by DJW001
 


Nicely done DJ. Another dry hole for Foos.

Well Foos, are you done now with this issue? You source has contradicted you. How much more proof do you require?

___________________________

BTW DJ do you mind if I post the response, with a link, of course, to Apollo Hoax forum?

We were tossing around the issue and this seems to confirm their conclusions.



Umm... no Tom. I was not contradicted, my statement was confirmed. You got it backwards again. Nice try.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM


history.nasa.gov...

whats this? TLI?
This is common knowledge.
Im looking for the trajectory, the actual path, the points plotted.
Where is that?


It just gets funnier!!! There's a sort of hilarious irony amongst this... which I'll come back to in a second..

First, for anyone new to orbital mechanics.. may I briefly explain?

(I may get shot for this by the purists, perhaps, but nevertheless...)

Orbital mechanics, when you boil it down to the absolute bones, provides a series of ellipses - the spacecraft will be on one elliptical* path (that would be.. an ORBIT!!), and then it is boosted by a rocket blast (the Trans Lunar Injection (TLI), in this case) into another elliptical* path (another ORBIT), and so on until it gets where it is supposed to. Each of those ELLIPSES is pretty simple to define. The numbers that FoosM was pointed at ARE those numbers. They define the ellipse. They ARE the trajectory! FoosM hasn't the first clue about this stuff! And yet he is still trying to argue???


Anyway, I was referring to the irony..

Earlier FoosM was desperately after the 'top-down' version - in 2D - of the trajectory - embarrassingly he then realised he was.. er.. looking at it.

NOW, when he is presented with what is, a 2D set of simple numbers (the ellipse is in fact on a 2d plane - you simply need the inclination to have it fully defined in 3D), he doesn't recognise it. Absolutely no idea.

Delicious, strawberry-coated irony.


If I was a denier, I would now be demanding FoosM be put off the team...


* - or parabola/hyperbola - I'm just tryin' to keep it simple..




You guys crack me up.
You're not adding anything but air to do this thread.
I think thats your mission, to derail it to the point of no return.

You think any of the readers really care if I screw up on a few points.

Recap

The VABs in those diagrams, I have said countless of times, and nobody can dispute it, are wrong in size and scope. You (Chrlz) stated that NASA has published a trajectory of Apollo and have produced nothing.

Glass of the CM and LM windows, nobody as of yet has proven it could block any radiation of any kind.

Nobody has been able to dispute JWs or anybody else's figures on how many major flares were produced by the sun during the missions and how much radiation would have slammed Apollo with on the moon or in space.

You cant even provide the information when NASA would warn astronauts that a flare is coming and how they can determine if its a major flare or not.

You have the resources of NASA and all the scientists in the world and you cant even prove that man landed on the moon? Thats pathetic guys.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thanks, it only proves that what I stated I stated correctly.
And those who laughed look like fools.


Correction: you stated nothing. You quoted Mr. Landis' paper completely out of context and left out the comments relevant to the topic at hand. You did not take the time to fully understand the statement you cut and pasted. Nobody laughed, we researched the topic properly. The author of the paper himself pointed out that most of the research is old and difficult to find on the internet. I did make a statement, however:


Particles trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere are isotropic due to their spiraling around the lines of magnetic flux. I'm not sure if the particles in a CME would necessarily behave the same way. If they do, I will stand corrected.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I stand corrected, and, more importantly, understand why. Now, would you like to admit that there were no CMEs during Apollo? And even if there were, the Service Module would provide adequate shielding from electromagnetic radiation, and that of the "omni-directional" proton flux it would would not be completely random, but focussed mainly in line with the flare, and... well I could go on but you probably wouldn't understand the question.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Yes, of course. Mr. Landis understood his reply would end up on a BBS.
Line two.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 





You guys crack me up.
You're not adding anything but air to do this thread.
I think thats your mission, to derail it to the point of no return.

You think any of the readers really care if I screw up on a few points.


This statement speaks for itself. In the past three pages we have tried to explain orbital mechanics to you, lectured you on the proper way to measure radiation and clarified the statement you yourself posted without fully understanding. Yet we're the ones contributing nothing. We're the ones de-railing the thread. If you really believe that no-body cares if you screw up, why don't you just admit you don't know what you're talking about? In fact, your attitude towards the readers is downright contemptuous. Why don't you think they care? Do you think they're stupid? Or have they been so brainwashed they'll accept anything that supports their irrational beliefs? At least we've been trying to educate ourselves and one another.



[edit on 15-8-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The VABs in those diagrams, I have said countless of times, and nobody can dispute it, are wrong in size and scope. You (Chrlz) stated that NASA has published a trajectory of Apollo and have produced nothing.


Which diagram? Please post the diagram you are referring to and a map for comparison.


Glass of the CM and LM windows, nobody as of yet has proven it could block any radiation of any kind.


All materials block radiation to a certain extent. Even those transparent to visible light. It was not ordinary glass, it was aluminum glass.


Nobody has been able to dispute JWs or anybody else's figures on how many major flares were produced by the sun during the missions and how much radiation would have slammed Apollo with on the moon or in space.


Oh?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(And we won't even get into the issue of the CFI's usefulness for the question at hand. Or whether 7 out of 15 qualifies as "major." Or the fact that none of the solar flares produced significant proton fluxes.



You cant even provide the information when NASA would warn astronauts that a flare is coming and how they can determine if its a major flare or not.



A system of solar-monitoring stations, the Solar Particle Alert Network (SPAN), provides a NASA-sponsored network of continuous data on solar-flare activity. SPAN consists of three multiple-frequency radio telescopes and seven optical telescopes. The network gives data for determining the severity of solar-particle events and the resultant possible radiation hazards to crewmen. After the appearance of particles is confirmed onboard a spacecraft, protective action can be taken....



In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads
  • to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen)....

  • lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...


    You have the resources of NASA and all the scientists in the world...


    So do you. Why don't you use them to learn something?

    Edits to do an end run around external quotation limit. Sorry, Mods, but it is public domain.


    [edit on 15-8-2010 by DJW001]

    [edit on 15-8-2010 by DJW001]



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:24 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM

    Originally posted by Tomblvd
    reply to post by DJW001
     


    Nicely done DJ. Another dry hole for Foos.

    Well Foos, are you done now with this issue? You source has contradicted you. How much more proof do you require?

    ___________________________

    BTW DJ do you mind if I post the response, with a link, of course, to Apollo Hoax forum?

    We were tossing around the issue and this seems to confirm their conclusions.



    Umm... no Tom. I was not contradicted, my statement was confirmed. You got it backwards again. Nice try.



    Please post your quote and the confirmation, otherwise we will be forced to conclude you are yet again making things up.



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:37 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM

    Originally posted by DJW001
    Here is the e-mail reply from Mr. Landis (emphasis mine):


    Solar protons spiral around magnetic fields, which include the
    interplanetary fields and also self-generated magnetic fields. Since
    they're not all the same energy, they end up coming from different
    directions. It's been ages since I've looked at any of the data (which is
    all in old papers, not in easily accessable electronic form), but as I
    recall, the flux is about 50% isotropic, with a wide directional peak in one direction (not necessarily directly toward the sun-- the trajectories are curved). So, while it's omnidirection in the sense radiation of coming from all directions, it's not uniform intensity in all directions.

    The highest energy (and hence the most damaging) particles curve the least, though.

    There's undoubtably better data around now-- what I had was pretty old, and is probably superceded by better information (and better models).


    (Private correspondence)

    As I suspected, most of the energy of a CME comes from sun-ward. The particles impinging from other angles would be of lower energy. Mr. Landis also points out in his e-mail that there were no CMEs during the Apollo missions... but we all already knew that, right FoosM?



    Thanks, it only proves that what I stated I stated correctly.
    And those who laughed look like fools.




    Once again, please post what you stated and what in this correspondence confirms it.



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:03 PM
    link   



    the moon jump done at the national space centre in the UK. What better proof is there than doing it yourself.


    compare that to



    Not even close


    If its dangerous for him to fall, then why is he hopping?
    How can he control that he doesn't go too high?
    Or land in a crater and break his leg?

    So fake.


    Speaking of not knowing about ground conditions:



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:09 PM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    Tightly reasoned as usual. I thought we discussed the kinematics of lunar locomotion 100 pages ago. Does your latest post have any point at all? Oh yes, change the topic from radiation to special effects. Called it, didn't I?

    [edit on 15-8-2010 by DJW001]



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:28 PM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    I think we can properly call your continued refusal to answer questions a concession.

    Thanks for playing.



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:37 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM

    Not even close


    If its dangerous for him to fall, then why is he hopping?
    How can he control that he doesn't go too high?
    Or land in a crater and break his leg?

    So fake.


    Just like your lame attempt to change the subject.

    Absolutely pathetic.

    Let's get back to the discussion at hand. You claim the email from Landis:


    Umm... no Tom. I was not contradicted, my statement was confirmed. You got it backwards again. Nice try.


    Please post your statement and the portion of Landis' email that confirmed it.

    We're waiting.......



    posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:24 PM
    link   
    You know, at least Foos, as dim as he is, is essentially harmless. While I post here I'm also fighting on the Ickes forum with people who not only are trying to scare people away from antibiotics and vaccinations, but don't believe in germ theory.

    Those people are dangerous.

    They make our confused friend here look positively harmless.



    posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:44 AM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    Stop trying to change the subject Foos and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
    You really do excel at this, as long as your aim is to be a COMEDIAN and make the already dumb looking moon hoax crowd look even DUMBER.
    What's the matter? Taking too long going through Jarrah's videos to find an answer is it?
    Hint: You won't find one, or maybe you've already realised that hence why you're changing the subject AGAIN!



    posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:39 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by AgentSmith
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    Stop trying to change the subject Foos and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!



    You are just upset that Foos is doing such a good job at controlling the debate.

    And you refer to Foos in the third person, which detracts from your credibility and thus weakens your arguments.

    And you beg him to allow you to steer the debate. You are overusing Caps lock, which also detracts from your credibility.

    Perhaps you should admit defeat.

    If you treat each of your posts as if it is the only one that anyone will read; it may help your arguments. Try examining your posts from this perspective, it may help you make better posts.



    posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:38 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Exuberant1
     


    This is the only way hoaxers can "win". Just claim victory out of the blue. Winning by arguments is not going to happen. Calling someone who is refusing to answer questions is the winner is a good joke though
    . For a moment I thought you were being sarcastic.



    posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:43 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by -PLB-
    reply to post by Exuberant1
     


    Calling someone who is refusing to answer questions is the winner is a good joke though



    Do you believe that your side (the 'polo bleavers') is winning this debate?




    'polo bleavers'...



    posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:55 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM

    Circular argument to use Apollo received doses. LOL

    Back to the CFI
    Why do you suppose JW has to use the 100 rem/hr number?
    Where is NASA's data on the flares?
    Where are their REM measurements?

    Your just complaining that JW used 100rem/hr.
    He could be wrong, he could be right.



    Its not a circular argument, its measured data. If you reject it just because the source is NASA then that is your issue. NASA has the documentation to show how the data was measured and what the results were. JW has a number he has pulled out of a hat.

    No, If JW wants to use 100rem/hr then has has to justify it. You just dont want to understand this point. Its not my role to show why JW shouldnt use a figure, if he wishes to use it then he needs to justify that choice. Otherwise his calculation is useless.

    You have admitted as much, by saying "he could be wrong". Thats the point, you have no idea if he is right or not, yet you dont subject him to the same burden of proof that you wish to subject NASA to.

    If i did the same calculation as JW, but instead used 1rem/hr as the exposure i would be equally correct, as i have justified my answer just as well as JW has ie not at all.

    Until you get this point, you are not going to be able to move out of your little bubble of thought. NASA has reams and reams of radiation data from measurements on the Apollo missions. If JW wants to show this is all wrong then he has to justify why he is correct and NASA is wrong. Thats how the world works.


    Either way, you have not shown that he is wrong.


    Any sane, rational person would disagree with you. I have shown why JW's calculations are rubbish, and shown how inconsistent they are with the measured data. If you wish to claim he is right, then justify why. Start with the 100rem/hr figure.




    top topics



     
    377
    << 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

    log in

    join