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: 188
377
<< 185  186  187    189  190  191 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM
 


So Foos, where is this "show stopper" radiation data you were promising 6 pages ago?

Or was that colossal "PLONK" on the last page it?



These excursions into cislunar space placed the astronauts at risk of receiving life threatening radiation exposures if a large SPE were to occur. Fortunately, no major solar proton events occurred during these missions.

srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov...

Tell me, what did they mean by 'no MAJOR solar proton event"?
What is their definition?

If I provide a document with the exact same wording and it shows a MAJOR PROTON EVENT occurring during Apollo, what will you say about NASA's statement?



As has been pointed out over and over and over, it would mean NOTHING, because the term "major" is not specific enough for what you are alleging.

From your earlier abortion of a post, it is obvious you know nothing about proton events and you are just looking for a specific word to substantiate your claim. Well science doesn't work like that. It uses numbers. And you showed very well how bad you are at numbers.

Now, post your "evidence" so we can tell you what it really means.


I know enough about proton events.
Your the one who has a hard time understanding.
Science uses words to define data, so what you are saying is nonsense.
What did NASA mean by NO MAJOR SPE occurred during Apollo?
How do they define MAJOR SPE's?
If you dont know just admit to it.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


I know enough about proton events.


Apparently not, because nobody who understands the subject would post this with a straight face:



Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?


That's just silly.



Your the one who has a hard time understanding.


Considering the beating you took after that post, I'd rethink that statement.



Science uses words to define data, so what you are saying is nonsense.


You've got it backward, sparky. When discussing radiation exposure, you cannot be specific with words. You need numbers.



What did NASA mean by NO MAJOR SPE occurred during Apollo?
How do they define MAJOR SPE's?


Please give the link so I can see the context.


If you dont know just admit to it.


Irony so thick you can cut it with a knife.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I know enough about proton events.


Clearly not Foos, the only thing you've successfully demonstrated is that you know nothing about radiation.



Your the one who has a hard time understanding.


That's weird, because the general consensus seems to be that it's you that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. The only people that ever show their faces in here and agree with you are equally clueless and illiterate.



Science uses words to define data, so what you are saying is nonsense.


Your above statement being in response to


Originally posted by Tomblvd
Well science doesn't work like that. It uses numbers. And you showed very well how bad you are at numbers.


Once again shows how completely clueless you are about the topic and science in general. Science is all about the numbers. I think you've clearly demonstrated that you don't have a school level education in the subject let alone anything advanced enough to be taking part in this topic at a meaningful level.



If you dont know just admit to it.


Everyone talks to themselves sometimes Foos, but why actually write it down?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


I know enough about proton events.


Apparently not, because nobody who understands the subject would post this with a straight face:



Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?


That's just silly.



Go on, explain why thats so silly.
Lets see how knowledgable you are on the subject.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


I know enough about proton events.


Apparently not, because nobody who understands the subject would post this with a straight face:



Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?


That's just silly.



Go on, explain why thats so silly.
Lets see how knowledgable you are on the subject.


Again, more evidence you don't read posts responding to you. Other posters have already explained it. The flux level (even OVER 8) is way too low, and the energies don't come up to the level of danger.

Now PLEASE, can you post your information you've been sitting on for six pages?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
What doesn't help is that he has not even formatted the figure he has given correctly.
Does he mean 8 PFU, or does he mean 8^1 (0.125) PFU? He's chucked some brackets in there for some reason and seems to have missed out some parts so we have to guess what he means. Either way he's so off the mark it kind of makes it irrelevant anyway so all he's done is prove that
a) he doesn't know anything about what constitutes a significant level safety wise and
b) that he doesn't even understand the unit measurement and how to represent it correctly.
Frankly, I don't know how anyone can still keep arguing when they have proven so effectively that they are incompetent beyond belief. I almost feel sorry for the chief HBs, must be embarrassing having people like Foos, PPK, etc representing you.
Do everyone, especially the Hoax Believers you worship, a favour Foos and cancel your Internet connection and take your PC down the tip and throw it out. Find a new hobby better suited to your talents, like making models out of dung or something.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001Why do Moon Hoaxers seem to think that the astronauts had nothing better to do than pose for pictures?


Maybe because it took them 4 minutes to set up the flag. That's right ... 4 minutes.

Then in the next one minute Armstrong only took 2 photos of buzz beside it.

Surely in 1 minute you could rattle off quite a few just to make sure at least 1 worked out.
But to only take 2 and hope those 2 turned out ok ? Remember, the camera had a motorized wind function. Kinda easy to take more in rapid fire succession.

So out of 1408 photos, they only took 2 of buzz beside the flag. Not likely or probable considering it was to be the defining photo of Apollo 11. Shenanigans.

Here are the videos of the event.





edit on 9-9-2010 by ppk55 because: adding original tv broadcast videos



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


No...it wasn't the :


....considering it was to be the defining photo of Apollo 11.


There is no ONE "defining photo". There ARE, though hundreds of images and videos that, in aggregate, "define" Apollo 11.


The decision to NOT lord it over, by asserting the implied "domination" of one nation on the Moon was very well made. The "importance" of that flag, as a usual symbol of "conquest and colonization" was not desired to be emphasized.

In any case, per the United States Code, in many ways that particular flag was disrespected. As were all of them. But, that is a bit of an out-dated notion, IMO...the "Code". Few ever truly follow it to the letter.

Again...am I on "ignore" or something??
I showed the plaque on the Apollo 11 LM landing strut. It says it all........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW:


.....8. The toughest moonwalk task? Planting the flag. NASA’s studies suggested that the lunar soil was soft, but Armstrong and Aldrin found the surface to be a thin wisp of dust over hard rock. They managed to drive the flagpole a few inches into the ground and film it for broadcast, and then took care not to accidentally knock it over.

9. The flag was made by Sears, but NASA refused to acknowledge this because they didn’t want "another Tang." ...


Ten Things You Didn't Know....


AND this interesting titbit, helps put ALL of this Apollo "hoax" nonsense into perspective:


Five years, and five lunar landings later, the nebulous idea that the government faked the whole moon shot on a soundstage somewhere in the Southwest finally coalesced when, in 1974, Bill Kaysing, a former technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company that worked on the Atlas V launch vehicle, self published a book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s $30 Billion Swindle. Kaysing claimed that the Apollo program was faked to allow the U.S. to secretly militarize space, and that the astronauts, who were put through sessions of “guilt therapy” to help deal with the deception, were actually at a strip club in Nevada the night of the moon landing.

Far from being the work of an exhaustive investigative journalist, its notable lack of evidence, sources, and logical reasoning kept the tome from hitting the bestseller list (or any list). But mistrust of the government—1974 was the height of frustration with Vietnam and the Watergate scandal—gave Kaysing’s semi-formed ideas enough to nudge the Apollo Hoax out of the ether and into the near fringe of pseudo-science. The seed was slow to germinate, but Capricorn 1—a popular 1978 film starring OJ Simpson (who later theorists have implicated in the Apollo coverup) in which the government fakes a manned Mars landing—kept Kaysing’s ideas alive and helped spawn a cottage industry of Moon hoaxers.....


(emphasis mine...)

A Brief History of the Apollo Hoax



edit on 9 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: added stuff.....





edit on 9 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Fixed tags ["ex"] BBCodes.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
[
Maybe because it took them 4 minutes to set up the flag. That's right ... 4 minutes.

Then in the next one minute Armstrong only took 2 photos of buzz beside it.

Surely in 1 minute you could rattle off quite a few just to make sure at least 1 worked out.
But to only take 2 and hope those 2 turned out ok ? Remember, the camera had a motorized wind function. Kinda easy to take more in rapid fire succession.

So out of 1408 photos, they only took 2 of buzz beside the flag. Not likely or probable considering it was to be the defining photo of Apollo 11. Shenanigans.


As I pointed out before, you seem to be the only person who thinks it was important to take a picture of the flag with an astronaut beside it. NASA obviously didn't consider it a priority, becuase it wasn't on the mission plan (you know, the stuff they REALLY wanted them to do). There are pictures of the flag, so I'm not sure why the astronaut in the picture is so important. Two shots is more than enough for something like that.

And you never answered, what about this makes you think it is a hoax? What are the "shenanigans"?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I think the poor little chap believes they just went there to take some photos and fly home again. Maybe he thinks Hubble's sole purpose is to take pretty pictures so you can have a 'Picture of the Day' on his iPhone or a nice background wallpaper. He probably thinks the Herschel Space Observatory is to look for Planet X or something



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


I know enough about proton events.


Apparently not, because nobody who understands the subject would post this with a straight face:



Would you (all) accept
solar proton events with
a flux of over
8 particles (cm^2s ster)^-1 above 8 MeV
as major SPE's?


That's just silly.



Go on, explain why thats so silly.
Lets see how knowledgable you are on the subject.


Again, more evidence you don't read posts responding to you. Other posters have already explained it. The flux level (even OVER 8) is way too low, and the energies don't come up to the level of danger.

Now PLEASE, can you post your information you've been sitting on for six pages?


Flux levels OVER 8 are not dangerous.... right. So anything OVER 8, like, 100, 1.000, 10.000 is not dangerous.
You accept whatever answer from someone else as long as they believe Apollo happened.
Whatever. thanks for the non-answer.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
[

Flux levels OVER 8 are not dangerous.... right. So anything OVER 8, like, 100, 1.000, 10.000 is not dangerous.
You accept whatever answer from someone else as long as they believe Apollo happened.
Whatever. thanks for the non-answer.



So that is what you were saying? The flux levels were at least 8, but they could have been 10,000?

In other words, you have no idea what the flux levels were.

Thank you for making my point that numbers not words are necessary to define "major".


edit on 9-9-2010 by Tomblvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Pinke


While the Internet does provide a 'forum' for the deniers to *try* to convince the gullible and uninformed (and make a few dollars or gain a bit of 'fame') they can ONLY do that while hiding behind the protection of sites where they can control the debate - Youtube being the prime example. The rest of the Internet, where forums are moderated and at least a semblance of proper debate takes place, is where he and his ilk get shredded. Again and again.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by CHRLZ]


I think you are forgetting exactly what this website is about, and that's conspiracies pure and simple. But you and tomblvd, weedwhacker and the rest of the clan are the worst type of people on here. You call out foosm for using youtube, and then proceed to use it yourself, what a joke. What was a lively entertaining thread has turned into a hate fest against foosm. Your replies are all laced with name calling, mockery, and an inability to agree to disagree. You're not going to change foos mind so instead you resort to insults. How none of you haven't had a warning yet is astounding. You think people are idiots for believing in the moon hoax? Good then don't visit this thread then and take your disgusting attitude with you.

Jeez what ever happened to believing in something without prejudice?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
It's funny that the same people that attack outlandish theories are also posting on other threads on here using the same bile.
If you don't like conspiracies why are you even here?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod


Jeez what ever happened to believing in something without prejudice?


Ah, it was called "The Enlightenment".

Maybe you heard of it?

And what good is having a debate about a subject if everybody agrees with it? I bring a strong scientific background to my posts, and some people around here resent it. But that's OK, I can take it.

If there is a specific point we didn't address to your satisfaction, please bring it to our attention.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



I think you are forgetting exactly what this website is about, and that's conspiracies pure and simple.


And, that is true. However, ATS should be about TRUE conspiracies, not half-assed unscientifically-supported "mock" hoax "theories"....that don't even come close to defining any 'conspiracy' at all!!

Like the Apollo Moon "hoax" topic. This isn't a "conspiracy", it is a hogwash load being slopped about, of general accusations and claims, NONE of which have any meat on their bones, and ALL of which have been completely and satisfactorily explained and described.

For Apollo in particular to have been a "conspiracy" requires substantiation in order for it to even begin to qualify....in other words, there has evidence that can't be refuted, to allow the question. BUT, the mere fact of the SCALE of the space program, then and now, makes it clear how silly this all is, to attempt to try making something out of nothing.

Only the non-educated will, at first, tend to believe in the possibility of a "conspiracy" --- but, that is the reason it is so important to teach people the science, to preclude the misconceptions that damage people's abilities to understand facts. It is a shame so many still remain fooled by this entire fake "conspiracy" claim, and the cottage industry it has created..



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
I think you are forgetting exactly what this website is about, and that's conspiracies pure and simple.


It's supposed also be about 'Denying Ignorance' and finding out the truth. There are plenty of other sites on the Internet where people can wallow in their fantasies unchallenged but here the whole point is to find out what the truth is.



But you and tomblvd, weedwhacker and the rest of the clan are the worst type of people on here. You call out foosm for using youtube, and then proceed to use it yourself, what a joke.


There is a massive difference between posting the odd video as part of a write up and spamming. Foos spams and seemingly has no opinion, certainly not a valid one.


You think people are idiots for believing in the moon hoax?


Well frankly yes, I certainly do. As a scientist you tend to look at the evidence before you and make your conclusions based on the facts. Time and time again the hoax believers ideas are proven wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's simple facts. The fact is we went and the evidence shows it, the 'evidence' that HB keep bringing up is either complete lies or pseudo science, so frankly if after being made aware of all the facts people still choose that path then frankly yes, in my opinion they are idiots and nothing anyone will ever do or say will change that. It's like arguing that water isn't wet when in liquid form for the sake of it, ridiculous. The fact that some people can't see that the Moon hoax theory is propagated to make a few 'Moon Hoax pioneers' up top some dosh saddens me. It's basically a kind of pyramid scheme in that all of the ordinary believers at the bottom generate traffic and revenue for the guys up the top, but I guess if you don't have a clue about how Internet Marketing or how book/DVD/VHS sales (particularly before the Internet was around) are promoted then you would be forgiven for not getting it. .



Good then don't visit this thread then and take your disgusting attitude with you.


This is a discussion board, if you want to go and fantasise that we didn't go to the Moon without any pesky scientists, engineers, etc bothering you then I'm sure there are plenty of dingy places online you can visit.

As for the attitude to Foosm, if he stopped evading questions, dumping on the thread every time he's cornered and trying to say it's everyone else that are the idiots then maybe we wouldn't have a funny attitude towards him now. Frankly, he's asked for it. I suppose you think that kids in class should be allowed to argue with the teacher and throw insults at them?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Dumping on the thread shouldn't be tolerated. The dumper should have their nose rubbed in it, whacked with a newspaper and put outside.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
I think you are forgetting exactly what this website is about, and that's conspiracies pure and simple.

And the motto of the website is..?

I'll give you hint - Deny ________. Can you guess the missing word?

Why do you think that motto exists?


You call out foosm for using youtube, and then proceed to use it yourself, what a joke.

As has been pointed out MANY times, IF a debater wishes to use Youtube, that's just fine and dandy. But there is an expectation here (would you like us to requote the relevant posting rule?) that you do NOT simply post a Youtube video without your own opinion and preparedness to discuss the correctness or otherwise of the video.

On a related note, just what exactly have YOU brought to this thread that is ontopic and useful? All I see is whining. But do correct me on that. After all, you wouldn't want to be seen as having a slightly hypocritical attitude...


Your replies are all laced with name calling, mockery

This, when your post contained this?:

But you ... are the worst type of people on here.
..take your disgusting attitude with you.

Do you see a small problem?


You're not going to change foos mind so instead you resort to insults.

Thankfully, FoosM has never insulted anyone here, right?



How none of you haven't had a warning yet is astounding.

Well, maybe the owners don't agree with you.
MAYBE instead of whining on thread you should report the posts you think are inappropriate.
(maybe you are just peeved that all your complaints have been ignored..?)
MAYBE you should accept that in the cut and thrust of debate, the odd criticism may be thrown.
MAYBE you haven't noticed that you have thrown a few yourself.


You think people are idiots for believing in the moon hoax?

Why the emotive terms?
And if someone refuses to accept facts, has no reasonable grounds whatsoever for their belief, what would YOU call them?


Jeez what ever happened to believing in something without prejudice?

If you wish to simply believe, why would you visit a forum where the motto is "deny ________"? Perhaps you are at the wrong place.

And why, on another thread, did you say this:

So Im not suprised newer members get excited when another fraud rolls around with a sole intent to fleece us of our money.

It's a bit difficult to work out which side of the fence you are currently balancing on...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



I don't have any problem with people debating a well worn conspiracy. The moon hoax is more of a good story to me, and personally i come here to be enlightened and be entertained, certainly not to read a near two hundred page thread of a small group of posters ripping in to someone because they don't believe what you do.

While some brilliant and thorough material has been brought to our attention by you guys, I just reckon you have insulted foosm relentlessly by doing so.

And why drag up a quote of mine from another thread? What relevance does that have here? If I remember rightly, it was referring to somebody promoting alien disclosure (i think).

I haven't even said anything about JW's videos.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 185  186  187    189  190  191 >>

log in

join