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: 185
377
<< 182  183  184    186  187  188 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hello, I think this is quite rude.


Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.


All I asked for was a comment. To educate myself. Can you not ask a simple question like this on ATS? Here is what I asked...


Originally posted by ppk55
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.


What's the problem with asking a question like that?


Regardless, here is another point I find very interesting.

Toni Myers, producer and director of 'Space Station 3D' had this to say about radiation affecting the film they took in low earth orbit.

"We had to get the film up to the station, throw it across from the shuttle, shoot it, throw it back to the shuttle, and take it back, all on the same flight to the space station, or it would have been ruined,"




The full article is here
www.telegraph.co.uk...

So how did the Apollo missions avoid this film fogging problem 40 years ago, when producers in 2002 ran into these very issues?

Now, we have to consider that Apollo film went through the extremely intense radiation of the Van Allen belts on it's way to the moon. The Imax film didn't.

Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.

Then the apollo film travelled back through the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts to finally arrive on earth. The Imax film didn't.

And how did the final apollo pictures look after that enormous journey ?

Answer: Better than most taken on earth.

So what technology did they have in 1969 that the producers of Space Station 3D in 2002 lacked ?

Also I should add, the alleged apollo astronauts used 70mm film, the same dimensions as IMAX is shot on.

Jarrah White (who this thread is about) also has a video about this issue here.
Space station section starts at about 5 min, but it's worth watching from the beginning.



[edit on 7-9-2010 by ppk55]




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


It was probably their 1960's tech that provide the answer to your question.
From what I can see, not all film is the same. The effects of radiation on film is dependent, on a multitude of factors I had not considered. Speed, density, type of film - all of these factors and more, make the difference in the quality of the pictures.

Also, there are many examples of film from Apollo that was ruined, spotted, or foggy due to radiation. It is likely that all of the film suffered some reduction in quality due to radiation, whether it was spotting, reduced contrast or color balance.
So it was happening, but not as much as some think and it did not affect all film equally.

Here is a link to a 1995 report:"The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight
Film". ston.jsc.nasa.gov...

Edited to add link.


[edit on 7-9-2010 by Smack]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Maybe "Jarrah", and any of the other HOAXists, like the one in the video, haven't yet realized that the SOVIETS also used film cameras. In the 1960s!!

Funny, that THEY were able to send spacecraft and cameras, and get pictures of the far side of the Moon....without any undue radiation damaging:


www.mentallandscape.com...

A short snippet, to assist those reading the link above:


Adjacent frame pairs were simultaneously exposed, through 500 mm and 200 mm objective lenses, onto 35 mm aerial-reconnaissance film (obtained from American spy balloons, according to one Russian account). The system cycled through four exposure times, 1/200 to 1/800 sec, as it photographed the Moon.
After photography, the film was automatically developed, fixed and dried in chambers of chemicals, and then scanned by a flying spot CRT and a photomultiplier tube...




But, of course, Apollo "deniers" would have us believe that it was "impossible", based on some silly comparison to an IMAX film??







[edit on 7 September 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I think this is quite rude.


Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.


All I asked for was a comment. To educate myself. Can you not ask a simple question like this on ATS? Here is what I asked...


Originally posted by ppk55
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.


What's the problem with asking a question like that?


I produced information on this ... yet you have not answered to it? Instead you've chosen to take a cheap shot at Phage who has provided a lot of useful information in this thread. I think Phage is just a bit tired of data mining for no reason.


Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.


IMAX film. IMAX. It's not the same film that Nasa used nor does it have the same purpose.


Then the apollo film travelled back through the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts to finally arrive on earth. The Imax film didn't.

And how did the final apollo pictures look after that enormous journey ?

Answer: Better than most taken on earth.


Really?


So what technology did they have in 1969 that the producers of Space Station 3D in 2002 lacked ?

Also I should add, the alleged apollo astronauts used 70mm film, the same dimensions as IMAX is shot on.


Same dimensions. Not the same film. There are many different film formats. Apollo was designed to be a long term mission.

I suspect your answer is essentially here:


Because of limitations on the amount of film - each pound in weight costs millions of dollars to blast into space - the astronauts were limited to shooting less than two minutes of film at a time.


It could be filmed quickly enough. So why bother with the extra cost and effort? Treating the film and adding casings onto the already very heavily modified stereoscopic rig to shield the film could have increased the cost of the film by many millions of dollars.

Stereoscopic rigs are already very heavy. They consist of a required mirror rig, follow focus, sync boxes, processors ... These cameras were not required to go to the moon, so why would they modify them as if they were?

Why make the use of 69, 000 feet of footage any more complex or expensive than it already had to be? NASA wasn't assisting for free I imagine.

Different time. Different equipment. Different purpose. Different limitations. The methods and equipment they used were right for the job in both circumstances.




[edit on 7-9-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   





So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.


Well I imagine that poster speaks for more people than yourself at the moment FoosM. Most of your current supporters mostly just post useless one liners at best.

I'd prefer if you didn't join them and actually added to the debate and closed off this radiation issue.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Stop trying to avoid punishment, Foo. You've been cornered on the radiation issue. You have been shown to be wrong and ignorant of basic facts on several occasions. Now you're just desperate and it shows. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.


Well I imagine that poster speaks for more people than yourself at the moment FoosM. Most of your current supporters mostly just post useless one liners at best.

I'd prefer if you didn't join them and actually added to the debate and closed off this radiation issue.



Oh so now you are in charge of determining which posts are good and which are not?

Since you want to butt into this conversation, why don't you take a position on the SPE question I have asked awhile ago? Because at this point, your post is useless at best.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.


Well I imagine that poster speaks for more people than yourself at the moment FoosM. Most of your current supporters mostly just post useless one liners at best.

I'd prefer if you didn't join them and actually added to the debate and closed off this radiation issue.



Oh so now you are in charge of determining which posts are good and which are not?

Since you want to butt into this conversation, why don't you take a position on the SPE question I have asked awhile ago? Because at this point, your post is useless at best.


I posted some information on the Blakely (sp?) issue and it is unanswered.

I have responded to some of PPK's information. You're not even involved in this conversation.

Previously I have asked questions and made points and they have been ignored by you and others.

Other than that I put my opinion in. You'll notice I don't post one liners that state 'lol I agree' or are simply being sarcastic about another persons opinion.

Of all the people you could have picked a fight with I think I'm the worst. For a start I've even stated I won't talk if I have nothing to say on the issue. I've stuck to this and been quiet for many pages. I only post when I have information to add or something useful to say.

At this stage FoosM you're down to attacking individual members of a forum to try and make a point. Who said anyone spoke for everyone on the forum? And as far as I know in a public forum I'm allowed to have an opinion on your posts and my opinion is you're busy dancing around waiting for someone to say something you can criticize and avoid the real issues. As if someone can 'butt in' on a public forum.


By all means keep playing charades and pretending everyone is avoiding your 'evidence' - it's not really working and it's only damaging your cause.



[edit on 7-9-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by FoosM
 


Stop trying to avoid punishment, Foo. You've been cornered on the radiation issue. You have been shown to be wrong and ignorant of basic facts on several occasions. Now you're just desperate and it shows. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong.


I appreciate the wonderful self-serving things man has accomplished in his short existence on this planet... but there is one thing man has not been able to accomplish, world peace and landing a man on the moon and bringing him back home safely.

For those who do not believe we landed man on the moon, I want to know, do you think a major SPE occurred during the dates of any Apollo missions? Its an important discussion to et into, because radiation is the show-stopper. Whether or not your follow J.W., Ralph R, or whoever.

We all know, even people who believe in Apollo, that going to Mars is impossible because of the radiation obstacle. So if we end up landing people on Mars in 8 years time, who here will believe it?

And so it goes with Apollo. Landing man on the moon (and returning him home safe) was impossible back in 1961, it will be near impossible in 2011 or 2019.

So making small mistakes here and there is no bother for me, cause I know I'm right about the hoax and many aspects of the hoax, I and others are just piling on the evidence.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I think this is quite rude.


Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.


All I asked for was a comment. To educate myself. Can you not ask a simple question like this on ATS? Here is what I asked...


Originally posted by ppk55
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.


What's the problem with asking a question like that?


Regardless, here is another point I find very interesting.

Toni Myers, producer and director of 'Space Station 3D' had this to say about radiation affecting the film they took in low earth orbit.

"We had to get the film up to the station, throw it across from the shuttle, shoot it, throw it back to the shuttle, and take it back, all on the same flight to the space station, or it would have been ruined,"




The full article is here
www.telegraph.co.uk...

So how did the Apollo missions avoid this film fogging problem 40 years ago, when producers in 2002 ran into these very issues?

Now, we have to consider that Apollo film went through the extremely intense radiation of the Van Allen belts on it's way to the moon. The Imax film didn't.

Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.

Then the apollo film travelled back through the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts to finally arrive on earth. The Imax film didn't.

And how did the final apollo pictures look after that enormous journey ?

Answer: Better than most taken on earth.

So what technology did they have in 1969 that the producers of Space Station 3D in 2002 lacked ?

Also I should add, the alleged apollo astronauts used 70mm film, the same dimensions as IMAX is shot on.

Jarrah White (who this thread is about) also has a video about this issue here.
Space station section starts at about 5 min, but it's worth watching from the beginning.



[edit on 7-9-2010 by ppk55]



PPK, you do realize you opened a pandora's box here right?


Here is a challenge for you, compile all the answers to this post and see if any of them support each other. And once you find the common thread, see if that answer makes any sense. I got a feeling your going to have a tough time. I bet these guys wish they had JW on their side.



Now when you read the following excerpts, I want you to think about Apollo 12 and all those X-class flares that were going off during their supposed passed LEO:


A lead-lined bag was tested to determine its effectiveness in shielding spaceflight film against the radiation


Didn't Apollo teach them anything? USE ALUMINUM! LOL.

The shielding bag used in DSO 318 was a lead-vinyl-lined Kevlar bag designed to hold one film sample canister. Both a protected and an unprotected sample were placed in the "Return to Houston Bag" at the start of the experiment. The differences noted between the protected and unprotected sample were used to determine the usefulness of the shielding bag. The bag afforded very little protection from the penetrating space radiation.




Of the types of radiation encountered during Shuttle missions, low LET or soft radiation is the most damaging to photographic films. Low LET types of radiation, such as electrons, x-rays, and gamma rays, are more efficient in transferring energy (in the form of photons) to the grains in photographic emulsions. Soft radiation may be described as the least massive particle form of radiation. X-rays and slow-moving ionizing particles ionize during collision and/or interaction with all matter including air. High LET or hard radiation is more penetrating than softer radiation due to the mass and velocities of the particles themselves.



Apollo 17 CSM pilot Ron Evans performs a deep space EVA (en route to Earth) to retrieve film cartridges. 17 December 1972.




Protons, alpha particles (helium ions), heavy ions (heavy Z), and interation products of fast neutrons are examples of hard radiation. This type of radiation is more difficult to shield against. Once they are slowed these particles release energy in incident mediums such as shielding, human tissue, bone, and photographic film. Secondary forms of radiation (daughter radiation) often result from this interaction and can be even more damaging to film than the primary radiation (parent radiation). Ionizing particles are the most abundant source of radiation during Shuttle missions and are the principal cause of photographic damage





This is the video of the very last moments of Neil Armstrong's EVA. Buzz Aldrin is in the lander with cable taking in the lunar sample boxes. The camera magazine "S" had fallen off and is near the foot pad. Armstrong leans down and retrieves it. It is coated with moon dust and it is packed in a lunar lock box for transport.


Take a look how damaged Magazine "S" turned out

Clicky


Space radiation is very penetrating and difficult to shield against... The ideal would be to shield for all energized particles, but that is not a reasonable solution. However, the damage to the photographic materials can be minimized by simply shielding out a large enough percentage of incident particles.


Apollo 16 - Charlie Duke changing camera magazine


So fake!


For most films, the bag afforded no protection. The bag was designed to shield against softer and less penetrating x-rays. However, the film was exposed to high energy particles which passed through the bag quite easily.


So how did they manage to shield all those mags from Apollo?



Smack offered you a goldmine!
ston.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seems like someone else has access to your ATS password, again....style and tone have returend in FULL force.



Of course, no one could possibly be THAT desperate, to make such an embarrassing post....guessing it is only the anonymity of the Internet which has "embiggened" you?? Since, being so anonymous, there really is no "Piper to Pay", no actual embarrassment and ridicule to face....

....unless you count the collective opinions of everyone who bothers to pay attention to the nonsense, ditractions, and just downright WRONG assertions, each and every time.

Apparently, you may have missed THIS vital bit of knowledge, history, and information......

You really should take time to read through it, very carefully and fully, for complete comprehension.

It would be a welcome change......



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seems like someone else has access to your ATS password, again....style and tone have returend in FULL force.



Of course, no one could possibly be THAT desperate, to make such an embarrassing post....guessing it is only the anonymity of the Internet which has "embiggened" you?? Since, being so anonymous, there really is no "Piper to Pay", no actual embarrassment and ridicule to face....

....unless you count the collective opinions of everyone who bothers to pay attention to the nonsense, ditractions, and just downright WRONG assertions, each and every time.

Apparently, you may have missed THIS vital bit of knowledge, history, and information......

You really should take time to read through it, very carefully and fully, for complete comprehension.

It would be a welcome change......



Get to the point man.

What is it your trying to say, the Soviets shielded their cameras and the Americans didnt?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I see you have conveniently managed to forget about the actual data I posted a few pages back from several space missions showing actual radiation dosages in space. I don't blame you for doing so Foos, because as most of the readers will remember they clearly show there is no short term danger with radiation exposure. Why are you deceptive Foos? Why do you choose to ignore evidence Foos?


Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I think this is quite rude.


Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.



Not really - he's right


Originally posted by ppk55
So how did the Apollo missions avoid this film fogging problem 40 years ago, when producers in 2002 ran into these very issues?

Now, we have to consider that Apollo film went through the extremely intense radiation of the Van Allen belts on it's way to the moon. The Imax film didn't.

Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.


In case you didn't notice, STS-125 that filmed the Imax Hubble movie was in LEO for nearly 13 days which is longer that the Apollo missions.
What, you don't understand? When they said:


"We had to get the film up to the station, throw it across from the shuttle, shoot it, throw it back to the shuttle, and take it back, all on the same flight to the space station, or it would have been ruined," said Myers.
www.telegraph.co.uk...


What exactly did you think? It was all over in a couple of hours? Days?

'The Van Allen Belts' he whimpers.

Funny, the film is affected by EM radiation which as you know
is comprised of photons and not particles such as Electrons, Protons or Neutrons. The X-Rays and Gamma Rays which would cause the fogging are not shielded by the Van Allen Belt. Not unless you are saying the magnetic field is somehow capable of doing this? You realise that photons have no electrical charge and therefore are not affected by a magnetic field? You realise that if somehow it was, then visible light would be affected as well?
The only thing that shields us from the Gamma Ray and X-Rays on Earth is the atmosphere, so you have the same problem on the moon as in LEO in that respect. All you have proven is that it is perfectly feasible to use film in space! So thanks for that.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I appreciate the wonderful self-serving things man has accomplished in his short existence on this planet... but there is one thing man has not been able to accomplish, world peace and landing a man on the moon and bringing him back home safely.


Well you're entitled to your opinion I guess, even if it is completely wrong.



For those who do not believe we landed man on the moon, I want to know, do you think a major SPE occurred during the dates of any Apollo missions?


As we keep saying, that depends on what you define a 'major' SPE to be. As you have been asked on numerous occasions please give your own specification of a 'major' SPE. Preferably with some useful data such as energy and flux of the particles involved with links to the data sources.



Its an important discussion to et into, because radiation is the show-stopper. Whether or not your follow J.W., Ralph R, or whoever.


Only in your . and the equally vacuous minds of your friends. As I showed previously there is now even more data when is readily available which shows the actual radiation levels in space and in the Van Allen Belts. There is even data showing radiation levels during major SPEs and best of all, some of this data is not even American in origin.


We all know, even people who believe in Apollo, that going to Mars is impossible because of the radiation obstacle. So if we end up landing people on Mars in 8 years time, who here will believe it?


Well that seems unlikely, as the US program has been canceled and in case you didn't notice (which you probably didn't as you are too self absorbed in your delusions of grandeur) the world is having a small financial problem. No matter which nation you are, trying to sell a space program to your electorate who are struggling to make ends meet isn't likely to be successful.
But as you have been shown, several times, the radiation problem is one of long term exposure. We're talking years vs a week or two, big difference. And even so, we're talking about increased cancer rates as being the show stopper, not ear piercing screams as some poor guy melts in his spacesuit.



And so it goes with Apollo. Landing man on the moon (and returning him home safe) was impossible back in 1961, it will be near impossible in 2011 or 2019.


You should have paid attention in class, we went to the Moon in 1969 and several times after. It's under the .ing 'Apollo Moon Program'. You're right in that it's impossible to go back in 2011 or 2019 though, but it's due to financial constraints.



So making small mistakes here and there is no bother for me, cause I know I'm right about the hoax and many aspects of the hoax,


You keep believing that, I can assure you anyone with more than 1 neuron firing in their skull doesn't though, sorry.



I and others are just piling on the evidence.


You're piling it on alright, but the word your looking for isn't 'evidence'.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 





"...we're talking about increased cancer rates as being the show stopper, not ear piercing screams as some poor guy melts in his spacesuit. "


LOL I should make that a sig!

Arguing with some people is like trying to pin down something slippery with another thing that is also slippery, isn't it?

I'm waiting to see how many pages it will take for Foosm to provide hard data to support his assertions. As I have pointed out in previous posts, there is a noticeable absence of critical thinking or rigor in the majority of these screeds of incredulity.

Here (imo) is a much needed refresher on Critical Thinking for the junior astrophysicist.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
[


For those who do not believe we landed man on the moon, I want to know, do you think a major SPE occurred during the dates of any Apollo missions?


As we keep saying, that depends on what you define a 'major' SPE to be. As you have been asked on numerous occasions please give your own specification of a 'major' SPE. Preferably with some useful data such as energy and flux of the particles involved with links to the data sources.



Wrong. Its what NASA or the scientific community define's as major.
And if NASA has information that a major SPE has occurred during the Apollo missions, but publicly says that it didn't happen, what would your opinion of NASA be?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   




LOL, I'm surprised any you guys haven't found it yet.
Or maybe a couple of you have and are preparing a response to spin the evidence.

"...they dont mean the 'major' you are talking about, they mean 'major' as in 'general' ummm... army..."

LOL



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by zvezdar

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]



So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.



Since i have repeatedly asked for your data in this thread i am perfectly justified in stating my position. I did not speak for anyone else in this thread, I stated a fact (that others have also posted the same position).

So why arent you posting your data Foos?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

LOL, I'm surprised any you guys haven't found it yet.
Or maybe a couple of you have and are preparing a response to spin the evidence.

"...they dont mean the 'major' you are talking about, they mean 'major' as in 'general' ummm... army..."

LOL






Holy crap I'm bored now. If it's really that damning just post it. If you have a point I'll pay pal you $5, but seriously if all debate was done as a stupid crossword puzzle or newspaper game we would get nowhere.

What are you? Jeremy Irons from Die Hard 3?




top topics



 
377
<< 182  183  184    186  187  188 >>

log in

join