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: 174
377
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


X-rays ARE short term, how many times must that be stated?
You think they didnt have major X-ray flares prior to the 21st century?
And If you want discuss amongst yourself certain topics, by all means do so, I dont have to partake, I can freely move on to new topics as I please.
What are you, the thread cop?


Demonstrate when Apollo astronauts were exposed to x-ray radiation. Then demostrate how much x-ray radiation they were exposed to.

We are talking about an event that happened during a known time period. Discussing the chances of x-rays occuring during future missions is completely irrelevant. The only relevance is discussed radiation events that occurred during the missions.

PS: you really dont know a thing about radiation or energy do you?

electron volt: en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, the electron volt (symbol eV; also written electronvolt) is a unit of energy equal to approximately 1.602×10−19 Joules.

Joule: en.wikipedia.org...

The work required to move an electric charge of one coulomb through an electrical potential difference of one volt; or one coulomb volt (C·V). This relationship can be used to define the volt;

Do you understand now the many orders of magnitude difference between an electron volt and a volt?

Probably not, but hey it might help someone...





[edit on 19-8-2010 by zvezdar]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Nichirasu, time to cue the Jeopardy music again.


Are you sure? I think it is - or has been for a while now - time for another video that prefectly sums up Foos'es contribution to this thread:

www.youtube.com...-vid-title

This video concerns almost any and all of his posts.

And I know, it isn't fair to just pop into this thread and making fun o Foos. But I was a minor part in the debate 50 pages back or so. It's just that I'm not really needed since there are people who easily trump my basic knowledge about apollo. So thank you guys for truly denying ignorance - and for having the patience to do it. Any rational person can study this thread and see the hoax argument for the complete intellectual fraud that it is.

Whenever someone in the future will mention the "hoax" argument, all I would do is referr to this thread. I think almost every claim made since the 60's is debunked here.

Also.. Has anyone ever heard of Richard Hoagland's arguments? I quit listening to Hoagland when I was a teen - he's mildly fraudulent to say it nicely. But Hoagland has this anecdote where he attends the first Apollo mission as a represantive of the press. He claims that right on the day of the mission someone from within NASA was distributing a leaflet that claimed that the whole mission was a hoax. Of course he can't seem to find the document anymore.
I've always wondered where the myth was born. I can only highly doub Hoagland's version.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Or perhaps this one:



yes, mainly catering...



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by AgentSmith


No Foos, we've got a problem with someone who keeps trying to argue about something when they don't even understand the fundamental principles. You should be listening and learning, but instead you try and prove you know better. Give up Foos, you don't.
It's not the first time you've referred to electron volts as 'volts' either, OK granted one of your sources had made the mistake - but you should have known there was a mistake and highlighted the fact. You didn't Foos, do you know why? Because you don't know what an Electron volt is.
You don't know the difference between Proton Flux and Electron Volts either, so as you actually keep proving you don't even understand the units of measurement your giving, how the hell do you have the nerve to think you can argue wherever or not they received excessives doses of radiation?
I know I'm arrogant Foos, but there's arrogance and then their complete and utter stupidity.



Let's not forget his relativity-overturning statement:



"High energy protons travel at the speed of light...."


(I think that was pulled from one of his many, insightful sources, but anybody with the slightest bit of science knowledge knows that is a grossly incorrect statement.)


Hey look, go to guy for scientific understanding has raised another pertinent issue proving Apollo actually happened. LOL, the only thing that is gross is your repeated attempts to derail this thread into mediocrity. You want to be so right about Apollo the myth, you have to pick on the small things? Will that prove Apollo happened by distinguishing between near light speed and at light speed?

Or are you trying to make it sound like high energy protons travel slowly?


The force from exploding supernovas accelerates protons to velocities near the speed of light.

www.aps.org...


One example of the slowing of time at high speeds that is observed all of the time is what happens when cosmic rays (extremely high-energy particles, mostly protons) strike the Earth's atmosphere. A shower of very fast-moving muon particles are created very high up in the atmosphere. Muons have very short lifetimes---only a couple of millionths of a second. Their short lifetime should allow them to travel at most 600 meters. However they reach the surface after travelling more than 100 kilometers! Because they are moving close to the speed of light, the muons' internal clocks are running much slower than stationary muons. But in their own reference frame, the fast-moving muons's clocks run forward ``normally'' and the muons live only a couple of millionths of a second.

www.astronomynotes.com...


We see that different tracks emanate from one point, which is the target nucleus. The primary nucleon was in this case a proton of energy about 5 GeV, travelling at 98% of the speed of light. Its track is the vertical line in the upper half of the photograph, labelled A. The thin lines pointing downward from the target nucleus are particle tracks within a narrow cone around the direction of the incident high-energy proton.

www.nmdb.eu.../172


Special relativity predicts that if you take a massive particle and keep applying forces on it, it goes faster and faster, slowly approaching the speed of light, but never quite reaching it. Right now, for example, the Large Hadron Collider has protons flying around it at a whopping 3.5 TeV. This means that the protons are traveling 99.999994% the speed of light, and when the LHC gets up to full power (at about twice the energy), the protons will go even faster, but even then, less than the speed of light. At these speeds, the difference between "at" and "a tiny bit below" the speed of light may seem academic...

io9.com...

So Tom you may be correct in stating that particles cannot travel 'at' the speed the light, and definitely not more than the speed of light, but in our conversation its not important. Who cares if its "at" or "close to" because its all too fast for any human to act upon and thats the point.

If NASA could not predict and conduct preventive measures for example X-ray flares then why bother sending people to early graves? If you cant make it, fake it.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



LOL, the only thing that is gross is your repeated attempts to derail this thread into mediocrity. You want to be so right about Apollo the myth, you have to pick on the small things?


OUR attempts to derail this thread? You are not even mediocre. You post all sorts of plagiarized texts that you clearly do not understand. Your confusion concerning volts and electron Volts proves you do not understand the "evidence" you are submitting. And being so desperate as to pick on small things? Didn't you make a huge issue out of astronaut's "body language?" In fact, at one point you were so desperate you claimed that if you played recordings backwards, they deliver cryptic proof? What?!

[edit on 19-8-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



If NASA could not predict and conduct preventive measures for example X-ray flares then why bother sending people to early graves? If you cant make it, fake it.


Cowardice and duplicity. Maybe Jarrah was right when he said that people were really talking about themselves when they were talking about each other.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Hey look, go to guy for scientific understanding has raised another pertinent issue proving Apollo actually happened. LOL, the only thing that is gross is your repeated attempts to derail this thread into mediocrity. You want to be so right about Apollo the myth, you have to pick on the small things? Will that prove Apollo happened by distinguishing between near light speed and at light speed?

Or are you trying to make it sound like high energy protons travel slowly?


This is what you said:

"High energy protons travel at the speed of light...."

No, I am proving, rather easily, I might add, that you are completely ignorant of basic science, and thus, unable to put together a cogent argument regarding science, which, of course, leaves out Apollo.

Anybody with the most basic science background would look at that statement you posted and say to themselves, "Hey wait, as something approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, therefore there is no way a proton, which has mass, could possibly travel the speed of light."

Yet you squatted and dumped it on a thread without even wasting a single brain cell to consider it.



So Tom you may be correct in stating that particles cannot travel 'at' the speed the light, and definitely not more than the speed of light, but in our conversation its not important. Who cares if its "at" or "close to" because its all too fast for any human to act upon and thats the point.


What do you mean "may be correct"? I am correct. Are you really that be rift of science understanding??? A particle with mass cannot travel the speed of light. The fact that particle can travel at relativistic speeds is irrelevant because that isn't what you said


If NASA could not predict and conduct preventive measures for example X-ray flares then why bother sending people to early graves? If you cant make it, fake it.


How do they test new jets? Do they fly them by remote control first? How do they know some of the radical new designs will work? Buy putting a test pilot in the cockpit and sending it into the air. Many test pilots died figuring out what the designers "could not predict".

That is why most of the Apollo astronauts were test pilots AND all were volunteers.

Concerning your newfound bogeyman, x-rays, I will again quote your own source back to you:


Marcelo Vazquez of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, US, who studies the health effects of particle radiation, agrees that there is a risk, but stresses the flares that produce large quantities of X-rays are not common. "The frequency of those events is very rare - it's not likely to happen," he says. "The main concern is solar particle events."


Very rare.

Unlikely to happen.

In addition, it says:


The Sun has even produced flares that could kill an unprotected spacesuited human on the Moon, they say, although these are extremely rare.


So even in the event of a very rare xray event, the astronauts would have had to have been outside when it occured. Which lowers the threat even more.

So sayeth your own source








[edit on 19-8-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
In fact, at one point you were so desperate you claimed that if you played recordings backwards, they deliver cryptic proof? What?!

[edit on 19-8-2010 by DJW001]


Oh Lord, I missed that one. Any idea about where it was?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Lest I be accused of suddenly turning ad hom, permit me to explain my new strategy. Since it is pointless to attempt to change FoosM's mind, particularly in regards to the science he does not understand, I have decided to expose his methodology, and, ultimately, his personal agenda.

Formally, his typical post begins with a lengthy cut and paste quotation, often well in excess of ATS rules. It generally reflects issues of concern to those currently planning for extremely long term missions in space. He selects passages dense with the most technical material possible. He edits out any comparison with the short term effects on Apollo. Why? Because the sources he is quoting not only affirm Apollo, they often rely on the data Apollo provided in order to establish their research. This plagiarized material is neither intended to inform the general reader nor refute a point made by one of his detractors. It is intended to be so technical as to alienate the general reader, conveying an impression not only of diligent research, but comprehension and mastery of the subject matter. In other words, people just glance at all the big words and numbers and get the impression that Foosm must be some sort of "Authority." He is not. He is wrapping himself in borrowed clothes.

After the stolen material, FoosM then makes his own contribution. Does he explain the text he has just quoted in order to educate the average reader? No, educating the average reader is not his intent. On the contrary, the better informed the reader, the less credibility FoosM has. No, he highlights one or two alarmist phrases: "ONE MILLION VOLTS!" "X-Ray bursts are IMPOSSIBLE to predict!" And so forth. At no point does he show any indication that he has understood the plagiarized material, or even tries to show it is relevant. He simply "punches" the points he think sound the scariest. Because fear is an important part of his agenda. He then enters into a purely rhetorical mode that is made to appeal to fear and paranoia: "How dare they sentence the astronauts to certain death?" He then rounds off his purely rhetorical, contra-factual syllogism with the assertion: "They must have faked it instead." Nope. No possibility that it might have been less dangerous than he claims, or that even, as in the case of unpredictable X-rays or CMEs, that they might have had the courage to take the risk anyway... because FoosM hates courage as much as he hates authority. It also never strikes him as irrelevant that discoveries made since the Apollo missions could not have influenced the decision making at the time. (It would be like saying that Japan could not have attacked Pearl Harbor because they knew the US had "atom bombs," and would be afraid to do so.)

He repeats this process several times in the course of a single post. Plagiarized material to create an impression of authority, followed by rhetorical fear mongering, and, often, childish mockery.

His agenda is clear: he is desperately trying to create the impression that he is an "authority." He is unable to do so by mastering a legitimate discipline; that takes hard work. He has chosen to do so by tearing others down. What better way than to attack the synergistic masterpiece of western science and technology? FoosM's envy has driven him to become the ultimate pseudo Authority. By parroting random technical gobbledeegook he can make himself look authoritative. But, alas, at every turn he makes it clear that all it is to him is gobbledeegook.

Like all the wannabe pseudo-authorities, he counts on people's fear and ignorance. If you don't have the chops to be an MD, become an "alternate medicine" healer and warn people of the dangers of western medicine. If you can't crunch the numbers to be an astrophysicist, become a "metaphysical ET contactee" and assure your readers that scientists are stupid, or just plain lying to them. If you can't take the time to learn Akkadian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Quiche, etc, become an "Ancient Alien researcher" and plagiarize other fantasists while decrying the lies and conspiracies of people who actually have to sort through the actual texts.

Sorry, FoosM. but that's your game, isn't it? You want fearful, ignorant people looking up to you as an "authority." Maybe if you wrote an episode guide to "Thomas The Tank Engine" you could be a genuine authority on something.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


I couldn't find it, so it's possible I've conflated in my mind with this related thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If that is the case, my sincere apologies to you FoosM. Body language is the lowest you've had to go on this thread.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
No need to apologise DJW, it's right here:


Originally posted by FoosM
The truth about the hoax is seeping out in all kinds of ways



THE APOLLO MOONLANDING CONTROVERSY – TRUTH OR HOAX?

My intention for this research was to prove that the Apollo Moonlandings did happen.

I used a method called Reverse Speech to make an audio analysis of numerous original sound recordings of the astronauts and many others involved in the Apollo Moonlandings..............**snip**

www.reversespeechinternational.com...


Link to FoosM's original post

I think we've got enough bloopers now to make a pretty funny little book..

To be honest Foos, please don't ever stop believing in the Moon conspiracy - the last thing we want is you on OUR side!


[edit on 19-8-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The truth about the hoax is seeping out in all kinds of ways



THE APOLLO MOONLANDING CONTROVERSY – TRUTH OR HOAX?

My intention for this research was to prove that the Apollo Moonlandings did happen.

I used a method called Reverse Speech to make an audio analysis of numerous original sound recordings of the astronauts and many others involved in the Apollo Moonlandings.

****merciful snipping out the of inanity*********


www.reversespeechinternational.com...

examples

President Nixon:
1. For every America[n this has to be the] proudest day of our lives
Deep is (our) Sin

Neil Armstrong:
6. During our flight to the moon we flew though the moon shadow. In fact the moon was eclipsed in the sun and ah we took the opportunity to try and take some photographs of it bu[t our film] was just not sufficiently fast to ah capture the event…
My Fraud




NASA cant get a break


Foos, in a world full of dim bulbs, you are a veritable black hole.

And don't accuse me of avoiding the subject, there is no "there" there.

There is a difference between being a skeptic and just plain gullible.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


If NASA could not predict and conduct preventive measures for example X-ray flares then why bother sending people to early graves? If you cant make it, fake it.


Since astronauts (and cosmonauts) have been in orbit almost constantly for decades, be it Mir, the Shuttle, the ISS, etc. Why haven't any of them been killed by these killer x-rays?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Thanks, AgentSmith. Apology withdrawn.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
It's been awfully quiet. I'm expecting a dump of monumental proportions coming up.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
***YAWN***

So... Any breakthroughs?

Has Master Foo condescended to address the incongruities of his dissertation? Has Master Foo's recent fit of parapraxis, (which has caused us all many a mirthful cachinnation) rendered him mute?

Will our illustrious purveyor of NASA's ineptitude deign to bestow upon us mere mortals the blessings of his perspicacity, his treasure trove of minuscule miscellanies?

I wonder.

Foo...
On topic: J. White is a liar and couldn't reckon his way out of a paper sack. Men have been to the Moon. Nothing you say will ever change that fact. I hope you wake up one day and realize what a great disservice you've done to thousands of decent people that dedicated their lives to that noble pursuit.
I hope you realize that by spewing your unsubstantiated claims of fraud, you are disrespecting me and many others, who know the truth and deeply respect those men and women who have served our nation, and the world with sublime bravery and devotion.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Not sure where FoosM's current belief that people are trying to derail the thread is coming from ... or that him changing the topic constantly is an okay thing to do.

There's 'directing the conversation' and then there's refusing to answer any number of bits of information that directly contridict what you're talking about. Furthermore, about 10 pages back FoosM went from picking out every tiny typo or possible factual error in other people's posts to saying ... oh people make mistakes, it doesn't change my point!

At one stage Foos was stating things like ... Admit you were wrong/you were lying/trying to worm out of things/being disrespectful ... at people's errors. Now it appears to be all biscuits and marshmallows whenever anyone makes a stuff up.

It's not just FoosM's arguements that keep changing ... it's his entire attitude, thoughts, feelings ... just about everything. That and other posters references to how big the thread is getting as if it proves Jarrah's point ... I don't know, it all looks a bit odd.

I just hope people realise length of debate doesn't give it any more of a point. If it did then all philosophy would be fact and big conspiracy.

People just like to argue I think.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

People just like to argue I think.


I'm sorry sir, this is the wrong thread. This is abuse.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 

So... Any breakthroughs?
Has Master Foo condescended to address the incongruities of his dissertation? Has Master Foo's recent fit of parapraxis, (which has caused us all many a mirthful cachinnation) rendered him mute?
Will our illustrious purveyor of NASA's ineptitude deign to bestow upon us mere mortals the blessings of his perspicacity, his treasure trove of minuscule miscellanies?
I wonder.


No! High school classes resumed this week, and more next week. Deeply immersed in sticker-buying and pencil-sharpening, no doubt.

Most likely, abandoning "radiation" speculation as entirely too confusing and complicated; and searching for input from JW on new tacks that can be easily manipulated by simple minds.

Weekend will bring vast new revelations of undeniable importance and unimpeachable credibility to prove a completely new and dispositive aspect of the Lunar Hoax.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I have the counter video for the flag movement:


Static electricity.
Unless they would like to prove Tesla's ether which they don't
as I left this innocuous post:




Give it up for Tesla sound wave transmission from static motions. 


In which case they would blow the lid right off the anti Tesla conspiracy
and would most likely better say Disney did it for us.
Yes it was done on Earth so forget that Tesla science.
ED: Flag waving on the moon, was it air or ether, well both transmit
static...and the ether is always there.


[edit on 8/20/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join