Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

I don't think it matters if they are fake or not, I'm sure they're not. But I don't really see how a few photographs of failed tests or accidents prove or imply that they 'could not do it'.
If that was an indication of anything, then we wouldn't have cars, trains, planes, helicopters, the shuttle, rockets, etc, etc.
But you have to excuse poor Pokemon, he does he's best but sadly always falls short of proving anything other than his own poor understanding, flawed logic and a complete lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by AgentSmith

That's about as logical as posting this:


And saying they 'couldn't do' the Space Shuttle. Are you saying that the Space Shuttle doesn't exist?

Do you agree that the Space Shuttle exists and has flown in space?

You may wish to open a separate thread about it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Photographs can be faked, as you yourself keep pointing out.

Do I? Provide quotations from my posts for your allegations.

reply to post by AgentSmith

Originally posted by AgentSmith

I don't think
But you have to excuse poor Pokemon

Please let us know to whom you are referring as Pokemon.
Your post can be confusing for somebody.

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by AgentSmith

I don't think

Please let us know to whom you are referring as Pokemon.
Your post can be confusing for somebody.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64c9c232d4d9.jpg[/atsimg]

Are you going for the Ultimate Quote Mining Championship award? Well I guess you are a Moon Hoax believer so it is your style...
Is that really the best way you could think of to try and ridicule me? By quoting elements of text completely out of context?
Do you know how I ridicule you Bokonon? I just let talk.. You do it by yourself everytime your fingers touch the keys.
Why don't you just go the whole hog and make it all up.. Oh wait, you already do.

bokonon2010 -- good lord, dude, you are woefully ill equipped for this debate - even more so than Foo foo.

Here are some glossary terms for you to study:

1. Evidence
2. Facts
3. Theory
4. Conjecture.
5. Assumption
6 Logic
7 Assertion
8. Fallacy
9. Fraud.
10. Fake.
11. False
12. Deductive
13. Inductive
14. intellectual honesty
15. Scientific Rigor

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by AgentSmith

That's about as logical as posting this:


And saying they 'couldn't do' the Space Shuttle. Are you saying that the Space Shuttle doesn't exist?

Do you agree that the Space Shuttle exists and has flown in space?

You may wish to open a separate thread about it.

Evasion noted, you also forgot to answer the rest of my post which, ironically, did have to do specificallly with the thread. I'll just repost the whole thing so you don't get confused:

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

What's your point exactly? You've posted some pictures of failed tests and accidents and somehow the conclusion is they couldn't do it?

These are not conclusions, but facts:

What "facts" are you talking about? All I see are assertions.

Originally posted by bokonon2010

They could not do it AND it was cancelled. Both.

Pictures have been presented as illustrations to the facts and to help you with the logic:

Originally posted by bokonon2010

www.tallgeorge.com...
cache.boston.com...
bigpicture.ru...
scienceblogs.com...

And what do these pictures prove, specifically?

reply to post by Tomblvd


Do you have problems with your vision? I hope not, and you can try to read my post several times slowly: www.abovetopsecret.com... (tip: the answers to your questions are there).

Having problems with some glossary terms? - Take the Smack's advice: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by bokonon2010


Third party here....been reading both your, and Tom exchanges...

And, this post does NOT aid in any way, in answering his question.


The question was for YOU to offer YOUR interpretation of those photos you posted --- specifically, the ones that showed a few failures in the (now shelved) "Orion" concept spacecraft. HOW do those photo examples help in your "argument"??

Be careful, and consider your response....BECAUSE, IF you care to research into ANY other field (sticking just to aerospace, for the time being) you will see hundreds of examples of SIMILAR type 'failures' in designing new machines.

Pay attention to the MANY failures in the testing of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo components...to include the LM (for Apollo).

Pay attention to OTHER machines that fly, as well....and THEIR failures/setbacks.

It is HOW SCIENCE PROGRESSES, sometimes. Test, test and test. Engineering, from the drawing board, to the actual cutting of metal, does NOT always go exactly as expected, even with the best of engineering minds on the task.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Do you have problems with your vision? I hope not, and you can try to read my post several times slowly: www.abovetopsecret.com... (tip: the answers to your questions are there).

Uh, there are no "answers" in your post. Just wild assertions. Pictures of a failed test mean nothing more than tests have been done.

Having problems with some glossary terms? - Take the Smack's advice: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Glossary term to add:

Test

reply to post by bokonon2010


Oh dear, we are a little slow today arn't we?
You still haven't given any basis for your statement, are we just supposed to accept they 'could not do it' because you say so? Please elaborate on why they 'could not do it' and give a detailed explanation complete with sources and data.
You posted some photos of a failed capsule parachute test, yes? Some damage to a booster, yes? A failed launch, yes? I assume you know what you posted, or is this too much to ask?
You presented it along with your statement that they 'could not do it' thereby implying that somehow this was proof of your statement.
Are you really so slow you even need your own posts explaining to you?
I prefer Foos to you, at least he almost tries to make an effort, you're no sport at all. Talking to you is like kicking a puppy on a leash.

Read the above post several times slowly before you answer, take your time..

[edit on 23-8-2010 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

You are mistaken. The "typing" has nothing to do with the strength of the flare. It has to do with the type of radio frequency emissions. It gives a clue to the source of the radio burst.
www.ips.gov.au...

Please provide evidence of a "major solar flare" (much less a high energy particle event) occurring during an Apollo mission.

I did.

The major events on May 19 and 20, 1969.







I doubt they would write papers on unimportant flares and present them to such events as the American Astronomical Society:

www.springerlink.com...
&
www.springerlink.com...
&
www.springerlink.com...

Apollo 10 Launch date May 18, 1969.
It went through the VABs and travelled passed the protection of Earth's magnetosphere into deep space.

Does this mean that those particular events would have killed those astronauts? I have no idea. The issue is, would NASA try to control information regarding flares knowing that the public knew about the dangers?

Missing flares?
Sometimes a flare will show up in the GOES data graphs but not the catalog. The GOES data is reduced by hand, and often flares are "missed" being added, or they are determined for some reason not to be included in the catalog.

And this is for a modern satellite system.
Why is it so difficult to get info on flares for Solar cycle 20?


The concerns were there:

The chances of a dangerous particle flare during Apollo 11 flight are very slim, about 1 in 1,000, says Donald E. Robbins, head of the solar physics section at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center... If one should occur, it would take about two hours for the first bust of particles to reach the area of the moon... The dangerous flux or main body would not arrive until some 10 hours after the sun erupted... A large burst detected by radio telescope means the flare is one shooting out particles that could be dangerous. The degree of danger can be quickly assessed, and specialists can advise Mission Control whether the astronauts should flee to safety.
The X-rays bursting forth in a big solar flare are mostly "soft: rays, the kind that could be stopped by spacemen's suits and spacecraft walls. The great danger is from particles.

pg-5, Daytona Beach Morning Journal - Jul 15, 1969

and

A noted solar astronomer says he believes the possibility of the Apollo 11 astronauts being exposed to deadly shower of x-rays and protons from a solar flare while on the moon is slim. "I think the astronauts have a lot more serious worries..." Dr. John Evans, head of the Air Force's solar observatory complex...

However in the same article:

... Slovak scientist disagrees. Stefan Pinter, heliogeophysicist of the Observatory at Hurbanovo (founded in the second half of the 19 century) in western Slovakia was quoted June 28 as predicting solar flares intense enough to harm the spacemen. "The trip of the U.S. astronauts to the moon will have to be postponed. Eruptions on the sun will be so strong at the time that the sun radiation might be dangerous for the spacemen."

p-25, Reading Eagle - Jul 8, 1969



articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
solar-center.stanford.edu...

reply to post by FoosM

Please provide evidence of a "major solar flare" or a solar particle event occurring during an Apollo mission. You have provided none, you have provided evidence of two flares. Perhaps you can tell us the classification of those flares. Were they, oh, say, X10 flares? That's a major flare, were they that strong? I'm sure if you look you'll be able to find out. The data is there after all.

The article was not about the flares because they had any particular importance. The purpose of the article was to analyze the relationship between the amount of radio noise and the intensity of the flare. None was found.

No good correlation was observed between meter intensity and the the degree of simulataneous Ha outflow

Apollo 10 Launch date May 18, 1969.
It went through the VABs and travelled passed the protection of Earth's magnetosphere into deep space.

Yes, yes it did.

Stefan Pinter was predicting on June 28 that which mission would have to be postponed? Apollo 11? Didn't you say that the ability to predict solar flares was not very good? But for some reason you think that Pinter could produce a valid prediction almost three weeks before launch? It seems Pinter was wrong. The mission was not postponed.


[edit on 8/23/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Please provide evidence of a "major solar flare" or a solar particle event occurring during an Apollo mission. You have provided none, you have provided evidence of two flares. Perhaps you can tell us the classification of those flares. Were they, oh, say, X10 flares? That's a major flare, were they that strong? I'm sure if you look you'll be able to find out. The data is there after all.

The article was not about the flares because they had any particular importance. The purpose of the article was to analyze the relationship between the amount of radio noise and the intensity of the flare. None was found.

No good correlation was observed between meter intensity and the the degree of simulataneous Ha outflow

Apollo 10 Launch date May 18, 1969.
It went through the VABs and travelled passed the protection of Earth's magnetosphere into deep space.

Yes, yes it did.

Stefan Pinter was predicting on June 28 that which mission would have to be postponed? Apollo 11? Didn't you say that the ability to predict solar flares was not very good? But for some reason you think that Pinter could produce a valid prediction almost three weeks before launch? It seems Pinter was wrong. The mission was not postponed.


[edit on 8/23/2010 by Phage]

I did provide evidence for a major solar flare. No thanks to NASA.
The article refers to the May 19th event as a major flare and a large flare.
What the article is about, or what is being studied is irrelevant.

Now if Im not mistaken, during the month of May, 1969 there were two X class flares registered. If there were two X-class flares in May, which days did they occur?

www.ta3.sk...

In that same document, I see 1 X class flare documented for July, 1969.
If that is true, was Pinter wrong? And when do you suppose that flare occurred?

reply to post by FoosM

Yes, Pinter was wrong. He said the mission would have to be postponed. It wasn't.

When the article says "major flare" it is talking about the strongest flare of a series of flares. Maybe you missed the description for Fig. 3:

At 1431, three distinct, intense spikes at met-dkm wavelengths occurred simultaneously with three brief, weak 20-32 keV X-ray spikes.

adsabs.harvard.edu...
Strong radio bursts occurred at the same time as weak xray bursts. Doesn't sound like a "major flare" to me.

Good, you found something worthwhile. A couple of X class flares occurred sometime in May and one in July. So what is an X class flare? How are flares classified? The classification is based on the measured soft xray flux of the flare. Soft xrays are those below 12keV (0.1-.8 nm), wimpy little guys, they are stopped by just about anything. They are really only of concern because of how they affect the ionosphere. So without knowing the level of hard xray radiation and/or particle emissions which may or may not be associated with a flare, the classification doesn't really indicate much about any danger posed by it.

Keep looking.


[edit on 8/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by FoosM


Your last few posts have been excellent, FoosM. They are focussed, directly on topic and show every indication that you have tried to engage the material. You even provided a definition of "major flare," although not all of your sources seem to be using that definition. They also tend to use expressions like "large" in a subjective, comparative fashion. Most solar flare research has focussed on the interaction of the Sun on the Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere with an eye on their effects on communication. A solar flare that is highly disruptive of the ionosphere, and hence, radio communication may be considered "large" by such a researcher, although it may have no proton flux and be considered as "mild" by someone concerned with astronaut safety. The CFI, incidentally, was a sort of portmanteau index which combined a number of factors in the hopes that correlations would eventually be found.

Has anybody else noted that the HBs have all gone quiet on every hoax-related thread, not just on this site, but others?

It's like they were all beamed up to the mother ship.....

reply to post by Tomblvd


School's started again I think in some countries, I'm fairly sure some of them are Chinese or Russian too. It's obvious they are not native English speakers and one of them seems to link to Russian text without translations while the other has the same writing style as some Chinese Moon hoax site (in English) that I saw a while ago. I'm not sure when summer holidays finish in those countries?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

School's started again I think in some countries, I'm fairly sure some of them are Chinese or Russian too. It's obvious they are not native English speakers and one of them seems to link to Russian text without translations while the other has the same writing style as some Chinese Moon hoax site (in English) that I saw a while ago. I'm not sure when summer holidays finish in those countries?

You are correct. Many of the universities in the US have started, and suddenly, every HB disappears.

Pretty amazing.

You are correct. Many of the universities in the US have started, and suddenly, every HB disappears. Pretty amazing.

Kinda makes you wonder what the hell they teach these kids at school nowadays.