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: 183
377
<< 180  181  182    184  185  186 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
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.



You throw one liners like this out all the time. They're pretty meaningless, and don't acknowledge the effort others put into their posts and the debate.

Notice I've been quiet for ages? It's because some of this is over my head, and I have nothing to contribute. I do this out of respect for my fellow posters, and to let the healthy debate continue. Your one liners aren't really helping the debate - they're just kind of there.

The style of logic you're using is emotive and entirely subjective. I would also suspect a lot of the time incorrect. I don't think anyone is in fear of Jarrah being correct - if anything they're just irritated by the constant topic jumping whenever someone has to answer a question. This is probably why some posters are getting a bit sharp also.

It's not TPTB going 'oh no they're getting closer to the truth!' It's a bunch of ordinary people getting frustrated at the constant subject changing, and self congratulating yarns that get thrown out in substitute for useful well thought out facts and ideas.




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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]



LOL.
Sorry CHRLZ, but thats a class "A" cop-out if I ever saw one.

Here is the scenario you are asking for.
In his own words, PPK states that he saw a scientist, Eleanor Blakely, state that aluminum shielding would "exacerbate the problem" of solar radiation.

then you CHRLZ would say, prove it! Because you wont accept heresay.

So PPK would then, offer proof by linking a video where Eleanor Blakely makes that statement. And then goes further to offer her credentials via a CV.


So now, all PPK did was save some time and provided the source materials from the get go. Whats the problem? Why wont you comment on what Eleanor Blakely stated? PPK is not claiming to be the scientist.

Here sans J.W.
54:15 :


Would you now watch it and offer PPK your
educated answer? And then while you are at it, you can try to answer that
lingering question that I have regarding how the windows in the CM or LM could possibly provide any serious radiological protection. And I did address the materials they were composed of.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
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.



It sounds more like you can't understand the points being debated, and refuse to try to put things into your own words.

This tactic of argumentum ad youtubum has to stop. All it does it feed the hit count for Jarrah's videos, and does nothing to further the debate because he refuses to show up anywhere and support his points. Also, if the poster can't understand what he is posting, how are we to debate the points?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Has anyone else noticed that when these clowns got backed into a corner they went quiet for a week or so and now all has been 'forgotten' they have come back en masse, vomiting drivel to try and bury their ignorance as effectively as possible?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
FoosM I see your point ... except you are you, and the same goes for the other persons in this thread. Many points have been dodged and ignored before this. Many times people have continued debating on the newly chosen topic ... If someone comes up with hard evidence to prove this new point wrong a new one will simply be spawned in its place or an old one regurgitated.

Before you say 'this proves the mountain of evidence' ... Usually the points are redundant and the new circling game begins. Perhaps you should continue your debate with Phage?

And Tom is 100% correct - most of Jarrah's videos are posted with zero or close to zero understanding of the subject matter therefore making it similar to debating the existence of sock gnomes with a child.

At best it's pointless, at worst its just pseudo self promotion.

On the subject of Jarrah I don't understand his whole 'fly me to the moon' stance. It makes no sense. Surely he could prove his point with considerably less money simply by sending a probe to investigate the radiation and its effect on various materials?

Instead he wants 2 million dollars to fly himself to the moon??? Can anyone explain this?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


nope its called beating a dead horse and gets repetitive after awhile. I do the same with 9/11 forum and 2012/nibiru forum. Don't be a hypocrite because I see many of you do the same.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I will resume posting on this thread when I receive a reply from Dr. Blakely. I have a feeling she will not be pleased about her comments being used out of context. She has done excellent research in biophysics.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I will resume posting on this thread when I receive a reply from Dr. Blakely. I have a feeling she will not be pleased about her comments being used out of context. She has done excellent research in biophysics.


LOL the infamous quote 'out of context' being used again. =)



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
nope its called beating a dead horse and gets repetitive after awhile. I do the same with 9/11 forum and 2012/nibiru forum.


Well! I have to commend you Dragnet, I never thought you would actually admit it. Kudos to you!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
LOL.
Sorry CHRLZ, but thats a class "A" cop-out if I ever saw one.


Sorry FoosM, but that's a class AAA copout. And it's not just in my opinion. It rests on a very simple observation:


In his own words, PPK states that he saw a scientist, Eleanor Blakely, state that aluminum shielding would "exacerbate the problem" of solar radiation.

I don't give a toss what ppk thinks. He has repeatedly demonstrated (see my previous post showing the ignorant and unsupported points he has made) that he is not qualified, heavily biased, and is spamming JW.


Because you wont accept heresay.

Correct. Should I? It's HEARSAY, by the way...


.. offer proof by linking a video where Eleanor Blakely makes that statement. And then goes further to offer her credentials via a CV.


Just answer the VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS:
- was Eleanor quoted fully and in context?
- why doesn't PPK simply QUOTE what was said?

Just as I don't accept hearsay, I don't accept crap from sources that have been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to doctor information, selectively quote, and quote out of context, let alone have the required knowledge to build a case based on the lies.

Only the intellectually challenged, or HOAX PROMOTERS would. Hands up all those who think JW videos are a reliable source...

When I see a full, text version of Eleanor's comments, along with a description of what questions she was answering (if applicable) I'll be happy to address the issue.

Oh, and I'm curious - FoosM, why did you not address these questions - are you afraid of the answers??:

- tell us what you know about the structure of the spacecraft
- was it just aluminium?
- is aluminium BETTER than.. oh.. say.. lead (FoosM's favorite)?
- what OTHER materials would work well as a shield?
- were any of those used, and.. how much?


I might pop back with a very informative link later, but first.. FoosM, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Because they are of course, VERY important in this discussion - if you haven't thoroughly considered them, why would you bother poking an ill-informed nose in..?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by DJW001
I will resume posting on this thread when I receive a reply from Dr. Blakely. I have a feeling she will not be pleased about her comments being used out of context. She has done excellent research in biophysics.


LOL the infamous quote 'out of context' being used again. =)



Why don't you help PPK and explain to us precisely what the "context" of her statement was?

Do you know?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Just for the record, I do not have a sound card on my home computer. If a summary of the information on a YouTube video is not presented, I am unable to comment on it until I have the time and opportunity to view it. (YouTube is blocked at work, for obvious reasons.) Of course, it's probably best if I just rely on the person allegedly quoted in the video for an explanation.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
LOL.
Sorry CHRLZ, but thats a class "A" cop-out if I ever saw one.


Sorry FoosM, but that's a class AAA copout. And it's not just in my opinion. It rests on a very simple observation:


In his own words, PPK states that he saw a scientist, Eleanor Blakely, state that aluminum shielding would "exacerbate the problem" of solar radiation.

I don't give a toss what ppk thinks. He has repeatedly demonstrated (see my previous post showing the ignorant and unsupported points he has made) that he is not qualified, heavily biased, and is spamming JW.


Because you wont accept heresay.

Correct. Should I? It's HEARSAY, by the way...


.. offer proof by linking a video where Eleanor Blakely makes that statement. And then goes further to offer her credentials via a CV.


Just answer the VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS:
- was Eleanor quoted fully and in context?
- why doesn't PPK simply QUOTE what was said?

Just as I don't accept hearsay, I don't accept crap from sources that have been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to doctor information, selectively quote, and quote out of context, let alone have the required knowledge to build a case based on the lies.

Only the intellectually challenged, or HOAX PROMOTERS would. Hands up all those who think JW videos are a reliable source...


When I see a full, text version of Eleanor's comments, along with a description of what questions she was answering (if applicable) I'll be happy to address the issue.

Oh, and I'm curious - FoosM, why did you not address these questions - are you afraid of the answers??:

- tell us what you know about the structure of the spacecraft
- was it just aluminium?
- is aluminium BETTER than.. oh.. say.. lead (FoosM's favorite)?
- what OTHER materials would work well as a shield?
- were any of those used, and.. how much?


I might pop back with a very informative link later, but first.. FoosM, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Because they are of course, VERY important in this discussion - if you haven't thoroughly considered them, why would you bother poking an ill-informed nose in..?


Oh I see, so now you expect PPK to quote her entire lecture...
Well he and I offered you to look at the video yourself of her making that statement. Why would you want to PPK to write a transcript when you can just watch it straight from the horse's mouth?

And regarding Aluminum vs Lead. At this point I dont care. Because the CM and LM had windows.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Oh, and I'm curious - FoosM, why did you not address these questions - are you afraid of the answers??:

- tell us what you know about the structure of the spacecraft
- was it just aluminium?
- is aluminium BETTER than.. oh.. say.. lead (FoosM's favorite)?
- what OTHER materials would work well as a shield?
- were any of those used, and.. how much?


I might pop back with a very informative link later, but first.. FoosM, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Because they are of course, VERY important in this discussion - if you haven't thoroughly considered them, why would you bother poking an ill-informed nose in..?



Oh I see, so now you expect PPK to quote her entire lecture...
Well he and I offered you to look at the video yourself of her making that statement. Why would you want to PPK to write a transcript when you can just watch it straight from the horse's mouth?

And regarding Aluminum vs Lead. At this point I dont care. Because the CM and LM had windows.


There is a certain "context" you and PPK are leaving out. I believe you are doing it on purpose because it ruins your argument.

Oh, and thanks for the hilarious sig line.....



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I see again he ignored my questions (if you can follow his brilliant quoting technique) - anyone noticing a pattern?


Originally posted by FoosM
Oh I see, so now you expect PPK to quote her entire lecture...

Classic tinfoilhat technique. Put words in others mouths.

I'll address the comments she made on that issue if they are presented here, in context. Just the relevant part, not the entire lecture.

Is that so difficult to understand? You or ppk incapable of doing a little transcribing? I do it quite often, it doesn't take long. If it's an important point, it's worth doing.

Or are you a teeny bit concerned that by doing so, you will reveal the misquoting/misinterpretation, or the necessary context that has been removed, or your inability to then debate the implications? Or all of the above...

A blanket statement that Aluminium causes secondary radiation effects under certain circumstances when discussing Apollo, is a bit like saying that because steel sinks, it could not possibly be used for shipbuilding...

You, ppk and JW have not addressed the questions I asked, because you don't have the first clue about how this is relevant, and what factors are involved. Here they are again, ready for you to ignore and pretend they don't exist:

- tell us what you know about the structure of the spacecraft
- was it just aluminium?
- is aluminium BETTER than.. oh.. say.. lead (FoosM's favorite)?
- what OTHER materials would work well as a shield?
- were any of those used, and.. how much?



And regarding Aluminum vs Lead. At this point I dont care.

That's hilarious. Yes, we can tell that none of you care, because you know that you are wrong and it is hurting your 'case'.


Because the CM and LM had windows.

Ah yes, those (small) windows. Windows that cast an occasional beam of sunlight into the capsule, having passed though the thick, treated, glass - only when the capsule was oriented in such a way that the windows were pointed at the Sun of course. How often would that have been, FoosM? How difficult for the astronauts to simply avoid that little bright patch, or to simply rotate the capsule a few degrees to put the window back in shadow? Given the lack of major solar events, and the materials used in the glass, just HOW MUCH of a problem was there? What are your numbers on this? Go on, take a wild uneducated guess and see what happens. I DARE you.


Yes, we know, you DON'T CARE.



I'm heartily sick of this garbage. But at least all this reveals the true nature of your 'arguments', your complete lack of understanding of the topics and your willingness to mislead the forum, all with the now very obvious goal of spamming the poster boy for Apollo Hoax stupidity.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
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.




Can somebody respond to the embolded statement?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by maya2
 


Try reading ALL of THIS.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   


I has a video link. It's pretty darn long, but you know it has some relevant information and you can read the comments. Edit: Oh woopsies is the same one FoosM posted but yes ... going through that amount of footage for one quote ... Not worth it! Doctor Blakely believes we went to the moon also.


Dr Blakely reports increased frequency of cataracts among the 600-odd
astronauts studied, consistent with increased exposure to radiation
during space travel.

She does not say that aluminum shielding makes the situation worse.
She says it can increase the fluence of particles within the shielded
enclosure. Fluence is the number of particles per unit time crossing a
given area within the enclosure. Fluence says nothing about the energy
of the particles, hence nothing about their ability to cause damage.

Conservation of energy implies that when an energetic particle strikes
the outside of the shield causing a cascade of particles inside, the
total energy of all the inside particles must be less than the energy
of the single outside particle. The outside particle has to overcome
the energy binding the internal particles to the aluminum in the first
place.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are inside an enclosure. A bullet
strikes the outside and sets off a cascade of ping-pong balls on the
inside. Which would you rather have hit you, the bullet, or the ping-
pong balls?

Another ignorant misreading.




[edit on 5-9-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by maya2

Can somebody respond to the embolded statement?


My statement was in regard to electromagnetic radiation (xrays). Blakely's statement is about high energy particles.

Two different things. ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I think our friends need to spend some time away studying, perhaps it would be better to concentrate their efforts on finishing the semester successfully rather than arguing about something they time and time again prove they know nothing about.
Of course there is one vital fact which is critical to proving anything in this discussion that the hoax believers seem to keep forgetting - they're wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 180  181  182    184  185  186 >>

log in

join