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: 175
377
<< 172  173  174    176  177  178 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
ED: Flag waving on the moon, was it air or ether, well both transmit
static...and the ether is always there.


To quote a popular Oz tv show - Thank God you are here, T&L! Now we'll get to the bottom of this...

Umm, would you mind providing a cite for your claim that static doesn't need air, and works in a vacuum? JW would really appreciate it...

FTR, static electricity works quite differently in a vacuum. Because there is nothing to conduct the electrons, you do NOT get the effect of attraction/repulsion that you get here on earth. Static still exists - don't get me wrong, in fact it's quite a problem (just look at their suits..!) BUT ONLY on contact! In other words, you need to touch the dust/flag/whatever. The dust/flag/whatever will not be attracted from a distance (see below for clarification..), unless there is something to carry those electrons - there must be a conductive path.

But it actually gets quite complex, as there MAY be some very small effects due to the presence of tiny dust particles that have been kicked up, or even gaseous vapours hanging around the Apollo site as the Astronauts went about their duties. That slight 'non-vacuum' might allow some static attraction at a distance, but it would be difficult, nay impossible to measure or predict.

But it would most certainly NOT be the same as on Earth, despite JW's ridiculous demonstrations suggesting the contrary. Let's face it, he didn't even manage to use the right materials, let alone comment on the vacuum issue.

That's because, of course, like the rest of his videos, he doesn't understand the first thing about the topics he dumps on...




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


T & L....no. Not going to work to "prove" Tesla's so-called "ether" crackpot ideas...kinda obvious, isn't it? I mean, we HAVE BEEN into space (something that Tesla could only wet-dream about, in the early 1900s...) and NO, there IS NO 'ETHER.'


The "hoaxists" have ONLY one...count them ONE...video clip to claim "fakery" using the flag's (up til now) 'unexplained' motion. Even though in hundreds of other examples of Lunar footage evidence, it is NOT seen moving unless directly interacted with, physically.

This 'YouTuber' does a stupendous job analyizing....AND (bless his heart) calls out the likes of Jarrah White, et al.....for what they truly are. While 'politically incorrect', perhaps, because of its allusions in the word form, his term "hoaxtards" is spot on.

The following, after a bit of introduction, begins at ~3:00 a computer-generated 3-D analysis of the events with Astronaut Scott, and the Apollo 15 flag "caper":






~~~~~~

The YouTube presenter, above, summarizes at the end, thusly:

"...(and... Moon hoax enthusiasts) are to be laughed at, mocked and ultimately, pitied."




[edit on 21 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, playing devil's advocate here, how does he place the two objects (the flag and astronaut) in the 3D environment? I realize he goes into detail getting the measurements of each object, but I'm not quite sure how he places them and what the margin of error is.

Anyway, the best debunking of this issue are the literal hours of video of the flag on the surface of the moon in which it never moves. Ever.

As you pointed out earlier, the only time we have video of this hoax "proof" is when an astronaut is in close proximity.

Personally, I believe Scott brushed against the flag, just due to the movement that results. But I don't think the video does a good job of proving it. I also think he discredits the video by his over-the-top appeal to authority. There is no reason to bring that up in an analysis like this.

Hey, just my 2 cents worth.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Answer about his proximity placement....he explains it, I thought.

Early on, using the NASA dimensions for the flag, and Scott's height. He scales the images based on that, and the frame grabs from the video...he even mentions the camera lens focal length, to adjust for any distortions in perspective, due to the optics.


I think the point is: The hoaxists' claims come from an apparent closeness of Scott to the camera, thus inferring (in their minds) too great a distance between him and the flag for direct contact to occur.

Camera perspectives are not always what they seem, yes? The hoaxists are relying on THEIR interpretations, of what they would see with their eyes, and trying to over-lay that on the video scene, in thier interpretations.


Now, about "appeal to authority"? Not sure I agree...Yes! he gets a bit rough in his language...but I have the feeling it's borne out of frustration at the past interactions he's expereinced with them, on his YT channel....

...so, I kinda lke his attitude, actually. I mean...someitmes they deserve it!!



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I understand what you are saying, but looking at it from a hoax believer's perspective, his placement of the objects in the 3D environment isn't spelled out precisely enough for most of them to understand (not that it would matter to any of them). So your point stands, but I don't think the video will make a dent on any HB.

Although there are very few things that will.....



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I understand what you are saying, but looking at it from a hoax believer's perspective, his placement of the objects in the 3D environment isn't spelled out precisely enough for most of them to understand (not that it would matter to any of them). So your point stands, but I don't think the video will make a dent on any HB.

Although there are very few things that will.....



This is why earlier I suggested FoosM perform these calculations himself. Most people simply don't comprehend this type of data or believe it's possible without seeing it for themselves.

Match moving has come a long way and is now accessible to most persons. Unfortunately in situations like this most consulted experts are 'optics' persons, or professors of media (or experts in 'perspective' in JW's case) who don't deal with such data and have no need to.

I haven't watched the video since I'm on my phone, but unless FoosM and others perform these calculations for themselves on a variety of test footages they always have the ability to say such things are not accurate or possible.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Would bar magnets work just as well on the moon.
So why not static electricity.
However there is more from the Tesla side or Lyne, as the
apparent advocate of Tesla theories, side as myself just
posts away hopefully not as foolishly as others in respect
these revealed un looked at un appreciated theories or
fact which NASA or our scientific authorities neglect to
put down and leave us with agents from la la land.

So here it is, if not air in the Disney studio, the ether
transmitted a pressure wave of static to push the flag
as the moon walker passed by.

Static on the flag was pushed by static on the moon walker.
Would Mr. Tesla say that, would Mr Lyne say that.
Perhaps.

We all studied static electricity at one time so we know that
forces are transmitted.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 

Electrostatic attraction occurs in a vacuum just as much as it does in air. The attraction is not due to the transfer of electrons it is due to the fact that the electrons are not transferred and there is a difference in charges between objects. Electrostatic attraction (and repulsion) is a force.

Coulomb's law:

The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two charges.




[edit on 8/21/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Polarization waves


the electric field vector is described and the magnetic field is ignored


The wave and the math works without dual electric and magnetic
transverse vibrations.

They are there due to xy transverse solutions to the wave equation
which is also solved by sound and pressure waves.

By not bothering to model other solutions does not gives science the
right to say transverse vibrations occur in a medium that also
behaves to pressure noted in vacuum tube vibrations and the
consideration that since transverse cannot exist in gas then there
is no gas when transverse vibrations normally need a solid
medium to transfer.

Perhaps it just so happened that Tesla worked with coils that did
exhibit sound waves for his experiments and found that transverse
vibrations were not needed to explain any of his work.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
*eats the last of the popcorn*

wow, what an entertaining series of posts.

Im telling you, you guys, Apollogists & propogandists,
remind me of little fishes swimming around in their little
bowl waiting for some morsels of nourishment.

Its fun to feed you a little info and watch you all get frenzied.
Except some of you tend to just spit it right back out.
Dont worry, its good for you, trust me. LOL

But, yes, I have to be careful not to feed you guys too much.
Overfeeding tends to kill the fishes, and I have already noticed some
disturbing behavior from many of you... well, its time to feed the fishes.
And it wont disappoint, it will be chock full of quotes.
Open wide...

I call this post... "Bad Timing"


Chris - This is the solar wind? It's what a million mile an hour maelstrom of ionized material isn't it? It's a stream.

Giulio - Yes it goes streaming across and passing through the earth and throughout the whole solar system and creating all these wonderful displays of the auroras on the earth but also on all the planets. [Dr Giulio del Zanna, Mullard Space Science Laboratory]

Chris - So the northern lights and stuff is down to that?

Giulio - That's right, yes. The fast solar wind mostly. But then especially thanks to flares, when these big displays are happening, there's a link. For example when I was here I was able to predict a big explosion of the sun one day, and then it happened. And I was able to basically follow this huge energy release from the SoHo satellite. And we knew there were going to be huge Auroras, so it was very exciting one and a half days later.



Chris - Why do you actually get aurora borealis, the northern lights? What's actually happening to make them?

Giulio - Well what happens is there is this huge stream of particles that are coming together with huge masses of gas, about 10 thousand million tonnes or something like that, a huge amount of ionised gas that is streaming towards the earth. And then all these energetic particles they get trapped into the magnetosphere and then they follow basically the magnetic fields that we have on the earth. And so they stream down and they decelerate and interact with the upper atmosphere. They ionise our atmosphere, the oxygen and nitrogen atoms. And then they show the colours.


Helen - I've never seen the northern lights and I was wondering why we only see them at the north or south poles?

Giulio - It's because normally when the sun is quite normally active, that's where they are. You have these ovals which are very close to the North and South poles.

Chris - Just because that's where the magnetic field is dipping into the poles?

Giulio - Yes, that's right. When you have a flare, all that gets disrupted so you can get them to lower latitudes. You can see them even almost towards the equator in certain circumstances. I saw them even in Cambridge just because there was this flare that had this coronal mass ejection directed towards us. That was very nice. So they're easy to see actually, if you know when to see them and you have the right kind of combination.


Chris - I suppose one benefit of studying the behaviour of the sun is that it will enable you to know when communications on earth might be likely to be affected. Is that because satellites that we're using for our communications are also being bombarded by this radiation and this can cause problems?

Giulio - Yes, indeed. That has caused problems. To start with you have these energetic particles that come after just a few hours. You have first the light that comes in 8 minutes, and you have all these X-rays and you have all this very dangerous stuff, especially for humans in space who can get basically fried. But then you have after a few hours these very energetic particles, which can swamp all the detectors and cause damage. Plus you have after one day or something, you have these bubbles of gas passing at high speeds. And they've been known to cause trouble for even shut down satellites. The last one was in 1997, in the past there have been a lot of cases of this, they can shut down satellites and cause trouble. And of course the other problem is that all these X-rays they deform our ionosphere. They deregulate all of our upper atmosphere so when they happen basically they can affect all the transmissions, their upper frequencies, they can change a lot of things.


As we all know that on May 25, 1961 President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of landing Americans safely on the Moon before the end of the decade. Not the smartest time period to choose for a landing a man on the moon, seeing how that would place it smack dab in the middle of solar cycle 20 (1966 to 1976). One would ask "why the rush?" Did the US have any evidence that the USSR was planning to land men on the moon prior to that time?

A few months later, October 1, 1961 - Aurora borealis was seen over the New York sky.

An omen?


As the CME magnetic field connects with the Earth's, high energy particles are injected into the magnetosphere. Due to solar wind pressure, the Sun's magnetic field lines will fold around the Earth, sweeping behind our planet. The particles injected in the "dayside" will be funnelled into the polar regions of the Earth where they interact with our atmosphere, generating light as aurorae. During this time, the Van Allen belt will also become "super-charged", creating a region around the Earth that could cause problems to unprotected astronauts and any unshielded satellites.



"Flares are the storms of solar space. They're tongues of plasma that occasionally shoot out from the sun,
with energies much higher than the normal wind. For example, the biggest flare yet recorded, in September, 1960, would have
delivered about 700 roentgens to an unprotected man in space, over two or three days. That's easily enough to kill a man."
"Then astronauts will have to be shielded against these flares?" I said.
"Yes, that's one possibility But

shielding costs weight, and we may not be able to afford it. The other possibility is to schedule flights at times
when it's unlikely that an astronaut would receive "too" much radiation from flares."


[Popular Science Apr 1963, page 209]

Hmph, you would think van Allen would know about the wonders of aluminum shielding. They were about to build the CM a year later AFAIR after all.


Aurorae normally are visible only at high latitudes. However, during a geomagnetic storm aurorae can light up the sky at lower latitudes.



May 18, 1969 Apollo 10 was launched


May 24, 1969 - Aurora borealis seen from N.Y to Louisiana [Los Angeles Times, May 24, 1969, p. A5].


May 24 Apollo 10 Transearth injection

May 26 Apollo 10 Splashdown

A10 astronaut's average skin dose rad: .48

Now I ask, who here wants to claim that no major solar flare(s) occurred during the Apollo missions to the moon?
In particular, Apollo 10. And give a rationale reason why.

This is a question for believers and non believers. And if you are going to hand wave and run in circles your reply
wont be taken seriously and at least I will ignore it.

Let me offer this piece of info as well.
367 major flares were recorded during Solar Cycle 20.
That would average out to about 1 major solar flare every 10 days.
Which is not adjusted for the peak period, the period that Apollo flew.

Days:
A8 - 8
A10 - 8
A11 - 8
A12 - 10
A13 - 5
A14 - 9
A15 - 12
A16 - 11
A17 - 12

www.universetoday.com...
www.solarstorms.org...
www.thenakedscientists.com...
wemustknow.net...
[New York Times, October 1, 1961, p. 48].



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

That LA Times article does not seem to be available but the Kp index for that period of time never reached 4 (it did reach 5, minor storm level on the 18th, briefly). The Kp index records the level of geomagnetic activity. If aurora had been visible in Louisiana the Kp index would have had to have been pretty high and there doesn't seem to be any reference to such an event other than that for which you did not provide a source. Maybe you can find a direct source for us. Are you sure you don't mean March 16th?

Aurora Lights are Visible in Deep South

Source


spidr.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Please provide evidence of a major solar flare occurring during any Apollo mission. How about a source for that "major flare" count as well.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now I ask, who here wants to claim that no major solar flare(s) occurred during the Apollo missions to the moon?
In particular, Apollo 10. And give a rationale reason why.


Considering your complete ignorance of radiation and solar weather, can you possibly tell us what you consider a "major" solar flare.

Using, you know, numbers?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

I call this post... "Bad Timing"


And I call it "intentionally dishonest".






"Flares are the storms of solar space. They're tongues of plasma that occasionally shoot out from the sun,
with energies much higher than the normal wind. For example, the biggest flare yet recorded, in September, 1960, would have
delivered about 700 roentgens to an unprotected man in space, over two or three days. That's easily enough to kill a man."
"Then astronauts will have to be shielded against these flares?" I said.
"Yes, that's one possibility But

shielding costs weight, and we may not be able to afford it. The other possibility is to schedule flights at times
when it's unlikely that an astronaut would receive "too" much radiation from flares."


[Popular Science Apr 1963, page 209]

Hmph, you would think van Allen would know about the wonders of aluminum shielding. They were about to build the CM a year later AFAIR after all.



As usual, Foos leaves out the pertinent part of the article:


"We can't predict the weather very well here on earth", I said. How good are we at predicting it on the sun?"

"Well, we're learning", he said. "Bubbly, active regions on the surface of the sun seem to show up a few days before flares occur. So it's possible to make some general, prudential predictions. We can forecast for a period of one to two days. That's not good enough, but we hope to improve out accuracy, by the time we're ready to send astronauts to the moon."


As usual, Foos only includes the part that makes things sound the worst. However, the most silly thing in this post is the fact that he somehow thinks an article from 1963 somehow accurately describes the Van Allen Belts. Even Dr. Van Allen admits there was still much to learn at the time, and he was right.

Note also, that when talking about the dangers to astronauts, he mentions an "unprotected man". Foos is hoping you'd miss that little qualifier which invalidates essentially the entire post.

And if you need more invalidation, we yet again revisit Foos' penchant for quoting sources who contradict him:


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen







[edit on 21-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CHRLZ
 

Electrostatic attraction occurs in a vacuum just as much as it does in air. The attraction is not due to the transfer of electrons it is due to the fact that the electrons are not transferred and there is a difference in charges between objects. Electrostatic attraction (and repulsion) is a force.

Coulomb's law:

The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two charges.




[edit on 8/21/2010 by Phage]


Looks like I have to defer to an expert on that one! I was under the mistaken impression that the effect was dependent on conduction, but I was thinking of the process by which the objects get charged in the first place, and other issues like the dryness of the air which affects the charging process. I withdraw my observations unreservedly, and apologise for that error.

Thanks phage - I like learning new stuff!



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 

Don't we all... well, some of us anyway.

But I should have thrown into that explanation that I think the static electricity explanation is unlikely. I'm pretty sure the flag got brushed by an elbow.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I didn't emphasize this enough in my previous posts, but if you need any more proof of Foos' blatant dishonesty, you only need look at the date of the PopSci article where he quoted Dr. Van Allen. For some reason Foos has to go all the way back to 1963 to mine a quote that he is able to use. Nevermind that Van Allen continued to study the belts until his death in 2006.

Did I say "blatant dishonesty"? That's about right.

The rest of the post is just furious handwaving.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

That LA Times article does not seem to be available but the Kp index for that period of time never reached 4 (it did reach 5, minor storm level on the 18th, briefly). The Kp index records the level of geomagnetic activity. If aurora had been visible in Louisiana the Kp index would have had to have been pretty high and there doesn't seem to be any reference to such an event other than that for which you did not provide a source. Maybe you can find a direct source for us. Are you sure you don't mean March 16th?

Aurora Lights are Visible in Deep South

Source


spidr.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Please provide evidence of a major solar flare occurring during any Apollo mission. How about a source for that "major flare" count as well.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by Phage]


Your's is more likely, but I also found there was a major event May 23, 1967.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Either way, it looks like Foos is doomed again by not questioning his sources.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
There is plenty of information available that has been gathered to show what the actual levels of radiation experienced in space are.
For example the MARIE Mars Radiation Experiment which shows a general daily exposure of only 20mrad.
When one considers that 1 Rad is only 0.01 Gray (So 20mrad is 0.0002 Gy) and that Radiation sickness does not seriously manifest until an exposure of between 1 - 2 Gray has been experienced, it really does show that over a short period of time the radiation in space does not generally pose a serious threat.
Considering also that death does not generally occur until an exposure of around 4-6 Gray or more has been reached, it does leave a relatively large margin for error.

Radiation Poisoning

As can also be seen in the MARIE data, even during a large SPE such as the one around the 23rd July most probably caused by the CME on the 15th July (SpaceWeather Archive link here) the dose was 'only' 2866mrad/day (2.866 Rad/Day).
This equates to only 0.02866 Gy / Day.
This was the strongest of only two significant events in an 18 month period.
Mars does not possess a Magnetosphere of any significant strength, so the radiation levels in Mars orbit are a good indication of what to expect beyond the protection of ours (i.e. on the Moon or anywhere else in the Solar System).

EDIT:

Oh I forgot to add, as Foos got confused before about how directional the Proton Flux is during an event, the following extract from the Wikipedia article linked above about MARIE:


SPEs were observed by MARIE that were not observed by sensors near Earth, confirming that SPEs are directional.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


A perfect illustration of my thesis. Let's remove all the cut and paste and see what FoosM's actual contribution is:


*eats the last of the popcorn*

wow, what an entertaining series of posts.

Im telling you, you guys, Apollogists & propogandists,
remind me of little fishes swimming around in their little
bowl waiting for some morsels of nourishment.

Its fun to feed you a little info and watch you all get frenzied.
Except some of you tend to just spit it right back out.
Dont worry, its good for you, trust me. LOL

But, yes, I have to be careful not to feed you guys too much.
Overfeeding tends to kill the fishes, and I have already noticed some
disturbing behavior from many of you... well, its time to feed the fishes.
And it wont disappoint, it will be chock full of quotes.
Open wide...

I call this post... "Bad Timing"
As we all know that on May 25, 1961 President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of landing Americans safely on the Moon before the end of the decade. Not the smartest time period to choose for a landing a man on the moon, seeing how that would place it smack dab in the middle of solar cycle 20 (1966 to 1976). One would ask "why the rush?" Did the US have any evidence that the USSR was planning to land men on the moon prior to that time?

A few months later, October 1, 1961 - Aurora borealis was seen over the New York sky.

An omen?

Hmph, you would think van Allen would know about the wonders of aluminum shielding. They were about to build the CM a year later AFAIR after all.

May 18, 1969 Apollo 10 was launched


May 24 Apollo 10 Transearth injection

May 26 Apollo 10 Splashdown

A10 astronaut's average skin dose rad: .48

Now I ask, who here wants to claim that no major solar flare(s) occurred during the Apollo missions to the moon?
In particular, Apollo 10. And give a rationale reason why.

This is a question for believers and non believers. And if you are going to hand wave and run in circles your reply
wont be taken seriously and at least I will ignore it.


Let me offer this piece of info as well.
367 major flares were recorded during Solar Cycle 20.
That would average out to about 1 major solar flare every 10 days.
Which is not adjusted for the peak period, the period that Apollo flew.

Days:
A8 - 8
A10 - 8
A11 - 8
A12 - 10
A13 - 5
A14 - 9
A15 - 12
A16 - 11
A17 - 12


Positive points earned:
New information provided: 0
Explanation of technical passages for the general reader: 0
Definition of key terms: 0
Completed logical arguments (valid, true): 0
Completed logical arguments (valid, false): 0

Negative points deducted:
Completed logical arguments (invalid): 0
Condescension/Mockery: 7
Empty rhetoric: 3
Emoticons: 0

Congratulations, you only scored a -10. (Good thing you resisted the urge to :lol
Could you at least earn yourself one positive point by providing your definition of "major solar flare?" In your own words so it won't get deleted in the next analysis of your style.



[edit on 21-8-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
And Foos still doesnt understand the difference between major solar flares and major particle events.

Foos, allow me to re-phrase your question, but i'll ask you to demostrate it. The assertion from those who understand the issues here is that there were no major particle ejection events during Apollo missions. Your assertion is that there were major ejection events. Demostrate that your assertion is true.

Oh and BTW Foos, do you want to go back and answer the questions i posed to you on x-rays (and the other 3,000 questions you have avoided)? Or will you ignore it and just go back to x-rays in 10 pages pretending the questions were never asked.

Much as you have done with the solar flares and radiation issues...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 172  173  174    176  177  178 >>

log in

join