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: 182
377
<< 179  180  181    183  184  185 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Nevertheless...isn't it imperative to ALWAYS point out attempts to distract/deflect?

Just thinking out loud, about some history of events, as they occured in this very thread.....




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
During my last set of posts
I clearly established that
Major Solar Flares occurred
during the Apollo missions.

In particular Apollo 12





X-ray Flux Alert and Event Summaries


X-ray Flux ALERT:
Issued in near-real-time, when flare x-ray flux exceeds the M5

X-ray Event SUMMARY:
Issued for all flares exceeding M5

These products provide information on Major Flares (with peak X-ray flux above M5
M5.0 ≤ flux < X1.0 Strong x-ray flux
X1.0 ≤ flux < X20.0 Severe x-ray flux


Yet during Apollo 12 no alarm bells rang

Back in those days they didnt care about astronaut safety right




Now if anyone, via website or any source, claims that no major flare occurred during Apollo missions, he or she cannot be taken seriously. But of course somebody will move the goal posts and state,

'So what if a Major Solar Flare occurred, it doesnt mean a Solar Proton Event occurred!"

Really?

Does anybody here want to claim, that at no time during the Apollo missions a Major Solar Proton Event occurred and was recorded?



Lets list the mission, the dates, their radiation exposures to see if you can guess where one [could have] happened.

And here is that link for major LDE flares:
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Maybe one of them, that occurred during
an Apollo mission, produced an SPE?



Apollo 8
Launched 21 December 1968
Lunar Orbit and Return
Returned to Earth 27 December 1968
Average Radiation Exposure 0.16

Apollo 10
Launched 18 May 1969
Lunar Orbit and Return
Returned to Earth 26 May 1969
Average Radiation Exposure 0.48

Apollo 11
Launched 16 July 1969
Landed on Moon 20 July 1969
Sea of Tranquility
Returned to Earth 24 July 1969
Average Radiation Exposure 0.18

Apollo 12
Launched 14 November 1969
Landed on Moon 19 November 1969
Ocean of Storms
Returned to Earth 24 November 1969
Average Radiation Exposure 0.58

Apollo 13
Launched 11 April 1970
Lunar Flyby and Return
Malfunction forced cancellation of lunar landing
Returned to Earth 17 April 1970
Average Radiation Exposure 0.24

Apollo 14
Launched 31 January 1971
Landed on Moon 5 February 1971
Fra Mauro
Returned to Earth 9 February 1971
Average Radiation Exposure 1.14

Apollo 15
Launched 26 July 1971
Landed on Moon 30 July 1971
Hadley Rille
Returned to Earth 7 August 1971
Average Radiation Exposure 0.30

Apollo 16
Launched 16 April 1972
Landed on Moon 20 April 1972
Descartes
Returned to Earth 27 April 1972
Average Radiation Exposure 0.51

Apollo 17
Launched 07 December 1972
Landed on Moon 11 December 1972
Taurus-Littrow
Returned to Earth 19 December 1972
Average Radiation Exposure 0.55


nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.clavius.org...
www.swpc.noaa.gov...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

reply to post by FoosM
 


During my last set of posts
I clearly established that
Major Solar Flares occurred
during the Apollo missions.


You established that there were X-class flares? Funny, I remember it differently. Let's see. Oh, yes. Here it is.

posted by Phage
As you found out, there were 12 X-class flares in November of 1969. 7 of them occurred during Apollo 12, the strongest being X5 (3 of them).



Now if anyone, via website or any source, claims that no major flare occurred during Apollo missions, he or she cannot be taken seriously. But of course somebody will move the goal posts and state,

'So what if a Major Solar Flare occurred, it doesnt mean a Solar Proton Event occurred.

It isn't moving any goal post. We have been talking about the dangers of solar flares. What dangers are posed to astronauts by solar flares?
1) Strong fluences of hard x-rays.
As has been pointed out, the classification of x-ray flares is based on soft x-ray flux (up to 10keV). Soft x-rays are not of concern, they are very easily shielded against. Hard x-rays at high fluences could be dangerous during EVAs. Maybe you can prove there was high hard x-ray flux during an EVA. If not, the electromagnetic radiation posed no danger.

2) High energy particle events associated with the flare.
As has been pointed out, proton events strong enough to be dangerous are not common. As also been pointed out, no such events occurred during an Apollo mission (unless you can prove otherwise).


Yet during Apollo 12 no alarm bells rang
Back in those days they didnt care about astronaut safety right

Because of the flares there was probably a lot of attention paid to the radiation detectors on the spacecraft. Had there been a particle event, then alarm bells would have rung.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

reply to post by FoosM
 


During my last set of posts
I clearly established that
Major Solar Flares occurred
during the Apollo missions.


You established that there were X-class flares? Funny, I remember it differently. Let's see. Oh, yes. Here it is.

posted by Phage
As you found out, there were 12 X-class flares in November of 1969. 7 of them occurred during Apollo 12, the strongest being X5 (3 of them).



Now if anyone, via website or any source, claims that no major flare occurred during Apollo missions, he or she cannot be taken seriously. But of course somebody will move the goal posts and state,

'So what if a Major Solar Flare occurred, it doesnt mean a Solar Proton Event occurred.

It isn't moving any goal post. We have been talking about the dangers of solar flares. What dangers are posed to astronauts by solar flares?
1) Strong fluences of hard x-rays.
As has been pointed out, the classification of x-ray flares is based on soft x-ray flux (up to 10keV). Soft x-rays are not of concern, they are very easily shielded against. Hard x-rays at high fluences could be dangerous during EVAs. Maybe you can prove there was high hard x-ray flux during an EVA. If not, the electromagnetic radiation posed no danger.

2) High energy particle events associated with the flare.
As has been pointed out, proton events strong enough to be dangerous are not common. As also been pointed out, no such events occurred during an Apollo mission (unless you can prove otherwise).


Yet during Apollo 12 no alarm bells rang
Back in those days they didnt care about astronaut safety right

Because of the flares there was probably a lot of attention paid to the radiation detectors on the spacecraft. Had there been a particle event, then alarm bells would have rung.





Phage, are you saying that no Major SPE's occurred during any Apollo mission?

And dont think for one moment I didnt know about that source you so like to claim you first produced. Where do you think I was going with my earlier posts? You simply tried to cut me off at the pass and add your own interpretation to the information before I did. Makes no difference though, the information is out, and its devastating.

You see folks, that facts that Major Flares occurred, the fact that SPEs (could have occurred) means NASA has been lying about the missions. They weren't even aware of CMEs!


Because at some point in time, they had to warn the Astronauts and they, as far as I can tell, never did. They launched them in harms way, and didnt even bother to tell them when danger was coming? Does that make any sense?

3 bright double ribbon X-5 class flares associated with proton events occurred during Apollo 12. M-5 class flares already should set off alarms.

So let me ask you guys... if I produce evidence of a MAJOR SPE occurring during an Apollo Mission, what would you conclude about NASA?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Is this what this debate has turned into ???


Solare Flares ???? lol


Next your going to tell me, that one of the astronauts had left his lucky pair of underwear at home, and that he was notorious for never flying without them, .... therefore the moon landing is a hoax !! hoax, hoax !!!

I'll say it once, and for the last time.

To argue against the moon landing is to argue for lack of intelligence, and to devote so much time and effort to the most mundane pieces of non evidence is simply ludicrous and a waste of life.

... I take it one of you is this Aussie "" Genius"" ( note the quotation marks) who simply won't allow this thread to die ??

sorry if i was obtuse, ....

its tough love baby, ... tough love.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So let me ask you guys... if I produce evidence of a MAJOR SPE occurring during an Apollo Mission, what would you conclude about NASA?



Why dont you just produce your evidence? We've been asking for it for some time now.

It would need to contradict what we have already presented. And since the data presented was the collective data from all US spacecraft monitoring proton fluence i'm very interested to see what you think you have.

PS: NASA was modelling proton events, so they did have some idea of the risk. There were measurements being taken before spacecraft had been launched which actually recorded a more active solar period. So in hindsight the risk NASA actually took was less than what they had expected.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So let me ask you guys... if I produce evidence of a MAJOR SPE occurring during an Apollo Mission, what would you conclude about NASA?


Most likely, that their definition of "major" is different from yours.

Without specific numbers, claims of major or minor events are useless for comparisons.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
there is a difference between a CME and a solar flare. any class flare would not do much harm but it that was an X class CME they would have been toast. There is a difference and by the looks of it your talking about flares.

No alarms need to go off for flares!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
So which clown actually got spacefraft films to turn in Jarrah filed for "copyright infringement" on youtube? The videos spacecraft films uses are free to the public and he calls copyright infringement?

LMAO This world is so god damn messed up.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Phage
The levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted during solar flares are easily shielded against. The skin of the spacecraft was entirely adequate.


Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.

Her section starts at 1.15.

[SPAM LINK DELETED]

Also, here is her CV.

hacd.jsc.nasa.gov...


ppk I for one am not giving JW any more hits. He has a PROVEN record of lying and distorting facts.

So, YOU find the IN CONTEXT quote you wish to discuss, and give YOUR opinion.

Let me spell this out.. STOP SPAMMING JARRAH WHITE.


The only out of context is your post 'cause this thread is basically all about Jarrah's videos.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53


Let me spell this out.. STOP SPAMMING JARRAH WHITE.

The only out of context is your post 'cause this thread is basically all about Jarrah's videos.


Let me explain in simple terms that you might understand.

People who simply post youtube videos without explaining in THEIR OWN WORDS are opinionless, ignorant , lazy, time-wasting spammers.

That's just my opinion of course, but it seems the audience here agrees..

And do explain your comment about Spacecraft films.
What has just happened? If he hasn't done anything wrong, why is there a problem? I know what the copyright rules are, and they are fair and reasonable. If you use copyrighted footage, you follow the rules. It's not rocket science (ironically...) If you are stupid enough to breach copyright, then you deserve everything you get. So like I said, EXPLAIN what happened - what did Jarrah do, and what action is being taken? Or is this just ANOTHER Jarrah White beatup???

Any publicity, as they say..



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


not sure but checked this out:

www.youtube.com...

edit: it is old but weird never seen it before.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
not sure

Why am I not surprised...?


but checked this out:
www.youtube.com...

??? Let me get this straight. You've only just visited his homepage, and whilst there discovered there was some alleged incident in...

early 2007 that resulted in him creating a new account.

2007. Two Thousand and Seven.

That's over 3 years ago.

And now you bring it up here and suggest one of us dobbed him in to Youtube for copyright abuse????

Siiigggghhh. Sherlock Holmes reborn.

If I'm missing something here and it's not that, please enlighten the eager audience...

And then, let's talk about what he actually DID that caused the loss of his YT account, shall we? I'm sure that will be most enlightening.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Still waiting for phage or any moon hoax non believers to respond to this...
anyone?


Originally posted by Phage
The levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted during solar flares are easily shielded against. The skin of the spacecraft was entirely adequate.


Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.

Her section starts at 1.15.



Also, here is her CV.

hacd.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


well excuse me princess. I always go to his home page and never saw that video pop up.

Seriously, ever took prozac?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


well excuse me princess. I always go to his home page and never saw that video pop up.

Seriously, ever took prozac?



Nice.

Why don't you drop the attitude and TELL US WHAT'S IN THE VIDEO IN YOUR OWN WORDS?

I've told you before I no longer watch his spammed videos. I ASSUMED you meant the waffling description in his channel's 'about me' bit.

But I now take it that's *not* what you meant, and YOU are now spamming another video (see my comments above, and check mirror).

Argumentum adyoutubum= FAIL.


Don't know why I bother...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Still waiting for phage or any moon hoax non believers to respond to this...
anyone?

... can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem...


I'll happily address this, AFTER you, ppk, explain the issue and how it relates to your claims IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and also tell us what you know about the structure of the spacecraft. Was it just aluminium? Is aluminium BETTER than.. oh.. say.. lead? What OTHER materials would work well as a shield? Were any of those used, and how much?

HOW ABOUT SOME.... NUMBERS? You know, particle flux, material density, amount of scattering, etc..

And yes, I know the answers already, but I really think it would do you good to get off your backside and go do some learning. It would have been best to do this BEFORE parroting Jarrah White (you know, that guy who also lives in Sydney..).

I trust the video footage is complete and quoted in context, as well as coming to a useful conclusion. And if it DOES... then I'm VERY puzzled why ppk can't just tell us what was said, exactly, and then draw HIS OWN carefully considered conclusions..

Added -- By the way, ppk, now that you are complaining about people not answering your questions, I think it's time YOU answered some questions about your previous postings on this thread. I shall return with a list.. Count on it.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
BEFORE people get inclined to answer PPK's questions.. Here's some questions to PPK that remain unanswered. As you read them, ask yourself - does this guy have a bias, perhaps? Does he concede points when they are shown to be incorrect?

Also bear in mind this is just from the first page of SIX pages of his posts on this thread....


All of the NASA techs on the day would be trusting their instruments. They wouldn't know if the telemetry was pre-recorded or not.

Can you support this claim, with particular reference to the technicians working on the actual receiving/transmitting equipment at Houston? Parkes? Honeysuckle Creek? The hams that intercepted Apollo transmissions on directional antennas? The doctors watching astronaut telemetry? The fact that topics that could NOT have been pre-recorded were discussed, and issues were addressed in real time with the exact delays caused by the distance involved?


this is a more 'real world' investigation than I've seen from any ATS members.. At least this guy took the time to get out of the house and interview respected professionals

Could you explain these comments, given that they were directed towards Jarrah White's FAKED interview with his arts teacher for his school project - the art teacher who has now admitted she was no expert, disclaimed the comments and even made the point that it shows how easily people are fooled by alleged experts on the web?


many of the videos appear to have been slowed. You can even see in some places where they switch to it .. I'll try and find a few.

Can you explain why it is that despite being asked many times, you have failed to do this, and why you have refused to discuss the required speed factor, or show videos sped up by that amount?


why hasn't NASA released all their 16mm Apollo film footage in HD

Can you explain why you, of all people, were not aware of how to get access to high-definition versions of the 16mm footage, and that there is NOTHING stopping you asking NASA for the footage, or simply asking here if the footage you want is available in hi-res?


I mean, what if that lunar buggy broke down ?

Can you explain why you were ignorant of the contingency calculations and safety margins built in to all the Apollo lunar traverses?


how did they keep that high gain antenna ( the big parabolic dish ) on the rover pointed in the right direction all the time

Can you explain why you didn't realise how quick and easy it is to re-align an antenna each time the Rover moved, given there was a big blue earth in the sky to point it at?


But hey, that's OK, PPK, we'll answer your questions.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


so I assumed you watched them and have a small fear that he might be right? This is what I get from your post.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
lol.. I read him and what I got from him was a round about way of calling the guy a moron. who won't answer questions posed to him. while demanding answers to questions he poses it goes back and forth but the guy before you asked some better questions IMO



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 179  180  181    183  184  185 >>

log in

join