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: 184
377
<< 181  182  183    185  186  187 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
For a little light relief, and for those genuinely interested in radiation but wanting a 'different take', I recently stumbled upon this:

www.projectrho.com...

It's actually part of a site dedicated to providing some scientific insights for SF authors! He comes at the topic from another direction altogether, and the guy doesn't claim to be an authority, but what I've looked at so far seems accurate enough, and his style of presenting the information is.. er.. unusual and quite interesting..
Added: - when you hit the mathematics, don't get put off - you can skip those bits and keep rading without losing much..

His initial coverage of the types of radiation is a good way to begin to understand the complexity of the issues, and how REAL science needs to be applied. There isn't much point in designing your spacecraft to be impervious to Cherenkov- or gamma- or x-ray- radiation...

This complexity is what the foosms and ppks don't get.

So scumbags like JW prey on them...

[edit on 5-9-2010 by CHRLZ]




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Hi ,

I have read all the posts, and would like to add my two cents about teh moon landing.

I am not a scientist, so I won't be talking about the scientific reasons for it being/ not being a hoax.

But this thread has really boggled my mind, so I tried to find out how the Russians felt about it.

I found 2 articles where it explains how the Russians felt about the American's landing on the moon right in front of their noses.

Since the Russians looked like were winning the race, and had accomplished more in space , I simply thought that if the Russians believed the Americans did it , then it must be true.
Otherwise the Russians IMHO would have been the first to tell the whole world that it is a hoax and the Americans never did it.
This never happened.
Please read the articles, you'll see for yourself.
I'm only getting the sense that even to this day after like 40 years the Russians are still pissed about it, and want to win the next race to Mars.

www.abs-cbnnews.com...

another one interviewing a Russian person

www.scientificamerican.com...

Just my two cents. I believe the moon landing happened, and the Russians want to win the next space race to Mars.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rainbowresidue
Hi ,

I have read all the posts, and would like to add my two cents about teh moon landing.

I am not a scientist, so I won't be talking about the scientific reasons for it being/ not being a hoax.

But this thread has really boggled my mind, so I tried to find out how the Russians felt about it.

I found 2 articles where it explains how the Russians felt about the American's landing on the moon right in front of their noses.

Since the Russians looked like were winning the race, and had accomplished more in space , I simply thought that if the Russians believed the Americans did it , then it must be true.
Otherwise the Russians IMHO would have been the first to tell the whole world that it is a hoax and the Americans never did it.
This never happened.
Please read the articles, you'll see for yourself.
I'm only getting the sense that even to this day after like 40 years the Russians are still pissed about it, and want to win the next race to Mars.

www.abs-cbnnews.com...

another one interviewing a Russian person

www.scientificamerican.com...

Just my two cents. I believe the moon landing happened, and the Russians want to win the next space race to Mars.



If you read all the posts then you would have known that this was all discussed before. Including a video JW has on the subject. Why dont you comment on that?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Kind Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your comment. I do know that the Russians have been discussed before, but then science took over.

I was simply using my very simple . in thinking that :Oh my, if it's this hard to prove something scientifically, then let's look at what the people felt about it back then and to this very day in Russia.

I thank you very much again, but I prefer not to comment on any videos.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rainbowresidue
reply to post by FoosM
 


Kind Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your comment. I do know that the Russians have been discussed before, but then science took over.

I was simply using my very simple . in thinking that :Oh my, if it's this hard to prove something scientifically, then let's look at what the people felt about it back then and to this very day in Russia.

I thank you very much again, but I prefer not to comment on any videos.


What do you mean science took over?


[edit on 6-9-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Hi NASA,

I am AwE130, and run a video channel about the Apollo moon landings. As stated in my channel I doubt that Apollo put a man on the moon.

It seems to me that NASA is holding back information, about the van Allen belts and deep space radiation. I like to ask the stand of NASA on Colonel P. Corsos statement, that man can not travel in space? He was well informed as white House advisor of President Eisenhower and . of military R&D.

AwE130 is not against NASA we just critical on some points, I look forward to your reaction to my question.

www.youtube.com...

Regards AwE130




The way this video is presented suggests that the magnetosphere is the Van Allen Belts. And that the Apollo would have to fly through several ring currents.




So what would the thickness of a spacecraft with an aluminum hull be to stop 10 roentgens an hour? What about 100? And what type of glass would you have to use?




Bean and every Apollo astronaut had to know about the VAB's. These people who work and write books about Space travel are liars to say otherwise.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Foosm...


If you read all the posts then you would have known that this was all discussed before.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Where's your SPE data?

We're waiting



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
If you read all the posts then you would have known that this was all discussed before. Including a video JW has on the subject. Why dont you comment on that?


So has Eleanor Blakely. So has many many unanswered questions. So has this entire topic. Yet here we are.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
 


Where's your SPE data?

We're waiting


And Im waiting for people to state whether or not a major SPE occurred during an Apollo mission. What do you say?
Yes or No?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
 


Where's your SPE data?

We're waiting


And Im waiting for people to state whether or not a major SPE occurred during an Apollo mission. What do you say?
Yes or No?



And we are waiting for you to define numerically what constitutes a "major" SPE.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
If you read all the posts then you would have known that this was all discussed before. Including a video JW has on the subject. Why dont you comment on that?


So has Eleanor Blakely. So has many many unanswered questions. So has this entire topic. Yet here we are.



Whats your point? He can bring it up but it would be constructive to the discussion if s/he what was already discussed to add more information to what was already there. S/He is the one who claimed he read the entire thread.

As I recall there was a post where a Russian did not believe NASA landed men on the moon.

What about the US payoff to the USSR during that period of time?

What about the US wanting to explore space together with the USSR and did so even during the Cold War? What leverage did the USSR have over the US to make that happen or any other political deals that have nothing to do with space?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
 


Where's your SPE data?

We're waiting


And Im waiting for people to state whether or not a major SPE occurred during an Apollo mission. What do you say?
Yes or No?



And we are waiting for you to define numerically what constitutes a "major" SPE.


I will go by NASA's definition.
Good enough for you?
So when NASA says there wasn't one, but then they say there was one.
Which NASA will you believe?

And what do you say, yes or no?
Or do you know doubt yourself and NASA?



[edit on 6-9-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Brah just trust NASA. They are not like other government agencies which are corrupt and dishonest - they are the exception.

Brah.




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


In addition to defining the word "major," you need to determine whether any of the particles reached Earth. Just the other day there was a CME that was not .ed in Earth's direction. Please, just present your evidence. BTW, since I cannot hear sound on my computer, I have no idea what aWe said on his silly little videos. Given his track record, it was probably pretty inane. Anyone who begins a letter: "Hi NASA" must be mentally deficient. And yes, the Van Allen Belts are a small region of the Earth's magnetosphere.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


I will go by NASA's definition.
Good enough for you?
So when NASA says there wasn't one, but then they say there was one.
Which NASA will you believe?



What is NASA's definiton?

Please use the numerical defintion.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


I will go by NASA's definition.
Good enough for you?
So when NASA says there wasn't one, but then they say there was one.
Which NASA will you believe?



What is NASA's definiton?

Please use the numerical defintion.


You seem to be having a hard time there Tom
What, you dont know?

What is NASA's position on the subject?
Did a large SPE or, as a matter of fact, an SPE of any kind occur during Apollo? And do you believe them? Its a simple question.
You all have had plenty of time to investigate yourself and come up with



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


I will go by NASA's definition.
Good enough for you?
So when NASA says there wasn't one, but then they say there was one.
Which NASA will you believe?



What is NASA's definiton?

Please use the numerical defintion.


You seem to be having a hard time there Tom
What, you dont know?

What is NASA's position on the subject?
Did a large SPE or, as a matter of fact, an SPE of any kind occur during Apollo? And do you believe them? Its a simple question.
You all have had plenty of time to investigate yourself and come up with


You keep playing games here Foos. We already know you know little about SPEs and what, specifically they entail. All we want you to do is define what you allege is a "major" SPE using the numbers that are published.

We all know that some writers use the term "major" in different ways, and it isn't a specific term, unless accompanied by numbers. So all we are doing is asking you to clarify what "major" is, and how it applies to Apollo.

There's no doubt you have a text fragment or video segment with someone talking about a "major" solar event happening during Apollo. But without knowing the specifics, i.e. the numbers (and yes, I'm being purposefully vague about what numbers I'm looking for), the statements mean nothing.

Now, either define "major" or place your cards on the table and quit wasting our time.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


I will go by NASA's definition.
Good enough for you?
So when NASA says there wasn't one, but then they say there was one.
Which NASA will you believe?



What is NASA's definiton?

Please use the numerical defintion.


You seem to be having a hard time there Tom
What, you dont know?

What is NASA's position on the subject?
Did a large SPE or, as a matter of fact, an SPE of any kind occur during Apollo? And do you believe them? Its a simple question.
You all have had plenty of time to investigate yourself and come up with


You keep playing games here Foos. We already know you know little about SPEs and what, specifically they entail. All we want you to do is define what you allege is a "major" SPE using the numbers that are published.

We all know that some writers use the term "major" in different ways, and it isn't a specific term, unless accompanied by numbers. So all we are doing is asking you to clarify what "major" is, and how it applies to Apollo.

There's no doubt you have a text fragment or video segment with someone talking about a "major" solar event happening during Apollo. But without knowing the specifics, i.e. the numbers (and yes, I'm being purposefully vague about what numbers I'm looking for), the statements mean nothing.

Now, either define "major" or place your cards on the table and quit wasting our time.


So obviously you dont know what your talking about so dont bother posting replies pretending like you do if I provide any information. You are not interested in the truth Tom, your interested to push an agenda.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
 


Where's your SPE data?

We're waiting


And Im waiting for people to state whether or not a major SPE occurred during an Apollo mission. What do you say?
Yes or No?



My position has been made clear, as has that of others on this thread. There was no major SPE during an Apollo mission.

I've asked repeatedly in this thread for you to post up data if you believe otherwise. So post it. Stop beating around the bush.

And when i say data, i do mean data. Measurements. Numbers. Not words. I am more than happy to be wrong if you can actually provide data that demonstrates it, something you have not done a single time in this thread.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by zvezdar]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 181  182  183    185  186  187 >>

log in

join