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: 193
377
<< 190  191  192    194  195  196 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


He got loads of stars for being honest and admitting he's fallible. You should try it some time.





yeah sure....
His honesty was riddled with pot shots towards me.
And Im wondering who were all those people who starred him when he made the initial mistake


Thats what I mean, many of you Apollo defenders are just "go along to get along" people.
Your not seriously looking for the truth.

And if you have been paying attention, I have more than once said I was wrong about one thing or another.
Just because we dont agree about certain aspects of Apollo, doesn't make ME automatically wrong.
So keep that nonsense to yourself, thank you.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
For those who have been patiently waiting for information regarding the SPE that occurred during Apollo I want to reveal the mission where it was confirmed to have happened.

Please remember, my mission with this is not to prove that the SPE which occurred during an Apollo mission was deadly, at least not at this time, my mission is to show that NASA did not run any emergency procedures despite knowing an SPE was about to hit Earth and the Moon and consequently Apollo.

remember:


Because only approximately 20 percent of the flares result in particle events, it is not necessary to change normal mission procedures on the basis of RF or visual observations alone. Rather, radiation sensors on board solar-orbit and earth-orbit satellites, as well as on board the Apollo spacecraft itself, are used to confirm the particle event.

Only after the appearance of particles is confirmed

would action be taken to protect the crewmen.
For a typical event, approximately 8 hours would be available from the time particles are confirmed to the time of peak radiation dose.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

I have waited for quite some time for somebody to provide me with any info showing
safety protocols being initiated during Apollo for a flare, solar storm or SPE.
Thus for nobody has been able to do so.

Therefore, I submit to you that no safety protocols would have been necessary because the Astronauts were never in danger! Not because their ship was radiation proof, but because they either never left LEO or Earth itself. So, after providing the mission, if somebody can still not provide evidence that NASA initiated safety procedures for the SPE. I, and probably others, will assume it never happened.

So without further ado,
In honor to the subject of this thread.
I will let J.W. present to you the mission in question:



White: Well by far one of the most prominent things that Ralph picked up on is radiation in space. Bill Kaysing briefly scratched the surface when he pointed out that in 1963 the Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation. Ralph picked up on the same footnote, but also did so much more research on that subject. He has a whole chapter regarding solar radiation, and a few detailed addenda on the Van Allen radiation belts.



There are so many important points that I feel need mentioning regarding radiation. First of all, during his study on the solar flares Ralph picked up on a 1963 book called Astronautical Engineering & Science, written by various scientists from the Marshall Space Flight Center. In this book they state that minor solar storms can deliver 25 rem/hr depending on how many centimeters of water is used as shielding [rem being the dosage in rads that will cause the same amount of biological injury as one rad of X rays or gamma rays].



The reason this is important is because propagandists claim that all the solar flares during the Apollo flights were minor and thus not lethal. They of course ignore the 25 rem/hr figure that Ralph picked up on. One such flare spurted on April 17 1972, during the Apollo 16 mission, and lasted for three days. At 25 rem/hr, a flare lasting for three days would deliver a whopping dose of 1800 rem. All it takes is 500 rem and you're dead. And that's just for one flare; NOAA's solar records show that there were over 1400 solar storms during all nine moon flights combined. Each is capable of delivering 25 rem/hr.



In addition to denying the hazard posed by minor flares, propagandists like Jay Windley and Phil Plait also claim that there were no major solar storms during the Apollo missions. This is not true. A friend of mine called Rick managed to check NOAA's Comprehensive Flare Index for major flares. It shows that out of all the 1400 flares shared among the Apollo flights, thirty of them were major. Major flares deliver in excess of 100 rem/hr. Ralph had requested NOAA to send him this data and it took sixteen years before Rick and I finally managed to supply him with it. He received this data in the weeks before his death. At least he lived long enough to get what he was looking for.



Jay Windley, in his arrogance, claimed that the Apollo major flares were not hazardous enough to cause harm. Even though some were clearly listed as being more hazardous than the major flares of August 1972—which even propagandists admit could kill an astronaut.



That brings me to another point that Ralph brought up. During his research Ralph received a document from J.A. McKinnon of NOAA. The document is titled "NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL SEL-22" and it's all about the major solar activity of August 1972. It is important to note that these major flares took NOAA totally by surprise: there were no warnings, it was not detected in any of their forecasts, and it wasn't predicted. This is important because propagandists run around claiming that if a major flare were going to happen during an Apollo flight, NASA would have known about it in advance and postponed the mission. Clearly NASA had no way of knowing when these eruptions would occur.


www.paranoidsonline.com...



Hereby some Xray flares that occurred during that time period:


19720418 105E 1.10E-003D 105E 2.70E-002 106 8.00E-002 109 131
19720418 1505 1.40E-004 1506 5.20E-003 1507 2.70E-002 1509 1513D
19720418 1801 1.20E-003 1803 2.20E-002 1805 8.00E-002 1807 1813D
19720421 1453E 3.80E-004 1458 6.50E-003 1457 2.80E-002 1458 1501D
19720427 1639 3.20E-004 1641 8.90E-003 1641 2.70E-002D 1645D 1645D
19720427 2128 7.80E-005 2129 4.70E-003 2129 2.40E-002 2131 2139D


SOLRAD X-ray FLARES


Each detected solar X-ray flare is listed, giving the starting date and time,
the end time, and the peak flux and time at which the peak occurs for the
0.5-3A, 1-8A, and 8-20A bands. The starting and ending times are arbitrarily
determined at the time (UT) when the 1-8A flux first rises above and
subsequently drops below the 3x10**-3 ergs cm**-2 s**-1 level. In general,
a flare will not be listed unless the 1-8A flux remains above the 3x10**-3
ergs cm**-2 s**-1 level for four minutes or more. The peak flux values given
for the 1-8A and 8-20A bands are based on a 2.0x10**6 degree Kelvin "Gray
Body" approximation and the peak value given for the 0.5-3A band is based on
a 1.0x10**7 degree Kelvin approximation. All detectors are in units of
ergs cm**-2 s**-1.


ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

So now all you're doing is quoting JW? Great.


"Minor solar storms can deliver 25 rem/hr". What exactly is being talked about? Is a flare the same as a "storm"? I suppose a "storm" could result in 25 rem/hr, depending on the amount of shelding. But of what sort of radiation are they talking about, how much shielding? JW doesn't bother to tell you that, does he? No worries, I'm sure it's of no real importance. Right? The radiation is "deadly".

You've given us x-ray flares. You haven't even bothered to show us the class of those flares. Let's see, the strongest one you listed was on April 18. Oh look, there it is listed in the catalog of LDE's I showed you (remember?) It was an M3 flare. The others were too minor to make the cut (B's and C's).

But wait, remember that exposure limit? What was it? 400 rads? So even if we were talking about high energy x-rays (with a Q factor of 1), it would have taken 16 hours of exposure to that 25 rem figure in order reach the limit. Did any of those "storms" put out sufficient flux of high energy x-rays for 16 hours (or even 4)?

We're still waiting for that SPE data. You know, the one that occurred during a mission.


edit on 9/14/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by WWu777
 



How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon Landings


Why did Weidner use examples of front projection from the "Dawn of Man" sequence and not the "Moon Base" sequence? Oh yeah, because Kubrick didn't use front projection for the scenes in space! Why not? Front projection doesn't work if you project black on it!!! We've covered this issue many, many times on this thread already. As the OP, you really should look in more.


Really?
First time I ever heard about that....


In addition to the "Dawn of Man" prologue, the front-projection system was used to establish scenes of the astronauts walking on the lunar surface. Onto the background screen was projected a photograph of a miniature set representing the, vast American Moon-base within the crater CIavius. The foreground action shows the astronauts amid huge lunar rocks that apparently tower above the base. An artist's conception of the final breath-taking scene appears in full color on the cover of this issue of AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER.


www.visual-memory.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

So now all you're doing is quoting JW? Great.

"Minor solar storms can deliver 25 rem/hr". What exactly is being talked about? Is a flare the same as a "storm"? I suppose a "storm" could result in 25 rem/hr, depending on the amount of shelding. But of what sort of radiation are they talking about, how much shielding? JW doesn't bother to tell you that, does he? No worries, I'm sure it's of no real importance. Right? The radiation is "deadly".

You've given us x-ray flares. You haven't even bothered to show us the class of those flares. Let's see, the strongest one you listed was on April 18. Oh look, there it is listed in the catalog of LDE's I showed you (remember?) It was an M3 flare. The others were too minor to make the cut (B's and C's).


We're still waiting for that SPE data. You know, the one that occurred during a mission.


edit on 9/14/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



So what you are saying that no SPE occurred during that mission because the April 18 flare was only a M3??



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



For those who have been patiently waiting for information regarding the SPE that occurred during Apollo I want to reveal the mission where it was confirmed to have happened.


Finally.


Please remember, my mission with this is not to prove that the SPE which occurred during an Apollo mission was deadly, at least not at this time, my mission is to show that NASA did not run any emergency procedures despite knowing an SPE was about to hit Earth and the Moon and consequently Apollo.


That's not how I remember it, but let's go with that.


19720418 105E 1.10E-003D 105E 2.70E-002 106 8.00E-002 109 131
19720418 1505 1.40E-004 1506 5.20E-003 1507 2.70E-002 1509 1513D
19720418 1801 1.20E-003 1803 2.20E-002 1805 8.00E-002 1807 1813D
19720421 1453E 3.80E-004 1458 6.50E-003 1457 2.80E-002 1458 1501D
19720427 1639 3.20E-004 1641 8.90E-003 1641 2.70E-002D 1645D 1645D
19720427 2128 7.80E-005 2129 4.70E-003 2129 2.40E-002 2131 2139D

NOAA FTP

Not very user friendly, this format, so allow me to translate the relevant passages. On April 18th there were three solar flares. The first lasted nearly thirty minutes but peaked at about two minutes. The second lasted less than fifteen minutes and peaked at about two minutes. The third lasted twelve minutes and also peaked early on. Not much time to abandon ship.



I have waited for quite some time for somebody to provide me with any info showing
safety protocols being initiated during Apollo for a flare, solar storm or SPE.
Thus for nobody has been able to do so.


Remember, these were the radiation procedures:

(Courtesy of Phage)

Mostly they seem to end in "continue the mission."


Therefore, I submit to you that no safety protocols would have been necessary because the Astronauts were never in danger! Not because their ship was radiation proof, but because they either never left LEO or Earth itself. So, after providing the mission, if somebody can still not provide evidence that NASA initiated safety procedures for the SPE. I, and probably others, will assume it never happened.


They followed the protocols: they continued the mission.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

I'm saying show us that a dangerous SPE occurred during any Apollo mission.
You have not done that.

That M3 flare occurred well into the eastern portion of the Sun. Very unlikely to produce an SPE.



edit on 9/14/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Ok folks,
Im about to establish that an SPE occurred during an Apollo mission:

A16: April 16 to April 27, 1972


On Apollo 16, particles from a solar flare (an energetic eruption of material away from the surface of the Sun) were also recorded.



The Cosmic Ray Detector attached to a leg of the lunar module.

The Cosmic Ray Detector Experiment was performed on Apollo 16. A reduced-scale version of this experiment was also performed on Apollo 17, when it was called the Lunar Surface Cosmic Ray Experiment. These experiments measured particles with energies of 100,000 to 150 million electron volts, much higher than measured by any other experiment during the Apollo program.


Now remember:

Apollo 09: 0.20 rad (Earth orbit) 10 days
Apollo 10: 0.48 rad ("moon flight") 8 days
Apollo 11: 0.18 rad ("moon flight") 8 days
Apollo 12: 0.58 rad ("moon flight") 10 days
Apollo 13: 0.24 rad ("moon flight") 5 days
Apollo 14: 1.14 rad ("moon flight") 9 days
Apollo 15: 0.30 rad ("moon flight") 12 days
Apollo 16: 0.51 rad ("moon flight") 11 days
Apollo 17: 0.55 rad ("moon flight") 12 days

Anything about Apollo 16 in terms of rads suggest that
it flew during an SPE? It had less exposure than Apollo 12, 17 & 14.



The relative abundances and energy spectra of solar flare particles contain detailed information about the sun as a cosmic ray source and about the acceleration and propagation of solar particles. The low energy range from a few MeV per nucleon down to a keV per nucleon (a solar wind energy) has been largely unexplored. On Apollo 16 there were three cosmic ray experiments which contained track detectors designed to examine this energy range [I]. We report here energy spectra and relative abundances for heavy solar cosmic rays from the flare of April 17, 1972.


Hmmm.... a flare from April 17th. How many flares during A16 released solar particles?


For the uppermost portions of the detectors the flood of solar particles gave an abundance many times the expected galactic fluence; the results we report are essentially therefore only those for the April 17 flare.


There should now be no doubt that an SPE, as well as major Flares occurred during an Apollo mission. Not only that, but NASA had ran experiments for them with Apollo. It may seem that these experiments were done on the moon, but more likely they were done in LEO as NASA was still trying to determine the nature of radiation coming from the Sun.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...


edit on 14-9-2010 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok folks,
Im about to establish that an SPE occurred during an Apollo mission:


Good for you!

We've been talking about SPEs for a while now, welcome to the the party.

However, whatever happened to "major" SPE?

Moving the goalposts again?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

That flare on the 17th seems to be the one we were talking about on the 18th. It began right around midnight.

Interesting that you are using data from a landing which you think never happened.

But did you bother looking at Figure 1 in the paper you linked? The >10Mev flux peaked at a something over 100 protons/cm^2/sec. The >30Mev flux barely hicupped. The event occurred while the spacecraft was in cislunar space and by the time the landing occurred had completely ended. Hardly a "major" SPE and definitely not dangerous to the crew inside the CM. There was no reason to believe that the MOD would have been exceeded. The particle event protocols were followed.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Anything about Apollo 16 in terms of rads suggest that
it flew during an SPE? It had less exposure than Apollo 12, 17 & 14.



The relative abundances and energy spectra of solar flare particles contain detailed information about the sun as a cosmic ray source and about the acceleration and propagation of solar particles. The low energy range from a few MeV per nucleon down to a keV per nucleon (a solar wind energy) has been largely unexplored. On Apollo 16 there were three cosmic ray experiments which contained track detectors designed to examine this energy range [I]. We report here energy spectra and relative abundances for heavy solar cosmic rays from the flare of April 17, 1972.


Hmmm.... a flare from April 17th. How many flares during A16 released solar particles?


For anyone still following this trainwreck, please note the bolded text.

Foos, when you finally figure out what, specifically, makes an SPE dagerous, let us know. Because right now, you are completely lost.

Let me repeat the relevant passage so you can look more closely at it and maybe a lightbulb will go off in your head:




The low energy range from a few MeV per nucleon down to a keV per nucleon (a solar wind energy) has been largely unexplored. On Apollo 16 there were three cosmic ray experiments which contained track detectors designed to examine this energy range



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
You see guys,
I knew you would only focus on whether or not the SPE was dangerous or not.

Im not concerned with that.
I said that from the get go.

What is important is that an SPE occurred and the procedures NASA took to protect the astronauts.
Somewhere in the transcripts, Mission Control should have said, "guys, we detected a Solar Particles from a flare. Please do "X" until you get an all clear..." or, "be prepared to do "X" "

Or even if they didn't tell the crew, where can you find anywhere, during the mission, a discussion by NASA personnel on the flares of Apollo 12 and the SPES of Apollo 16?

Thats like somebody being in a watchtower and not reporting an advancing army. Army might not be dangerous in the end, but people have to be ready for them.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

No. I wouldn't expect it because it wasn't called for in the procedures. In fact, it would have gone against procedures.

The calculations based on all relevant available data will be treated in one of two ways. If the expected dose is a significant fraction of the dose limits, the SEC operator will report the available facts to the flight surgeon. If not , no warning will be given.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

It was a low level event, a flux level of 1 or 2 hundred pfu of particles which would not penetrate the hull of the spacecraft. What would be the point of talking about it with the astronauts? The data from the NPDS was telemetered to mission control, not displayed in the spacecraft. That and the data from SPAN would all be considered. If it had presented any indication of causing MOD to be exceeded, yes. Otherwise, why? It was not important.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You see guys,
I knew you would only focus on whether or not the SPE was dangerous or not.

Im not concerned with that.
I said that from the get go.

What is important is that an SPE occurred and the procedures NASA took to protect the astronauts.
Somewhere in the transcripts, Mission Control should have said, "guys, we detected a Solar Particles from a flare. Please do "X" until you get an all clear..." or, "be prepared to do "X" "

Or even if they didn't tell the crew, where can you find anywhere, during the mission, a discussion by NASA personnel on the flares of Apollo 12 and the SPES of Apollo 16?

Thats like somebody being in a watchtower and not reporting an advancing army. Army might not be dangerous in the end, but people have to be ready for them.



An earlier quotefrom Foos:




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.


All you talked about for 10 pages was MAJOR SPE.

Now, not so much.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I knew you would only focus on whether or not the SPE was dangerous or not.
........................
What is important is that an SPE occurred and the procedures NASA took to protect the astronauts.


Let's look at the definition of 'protect' one moment shall we..



protect (shield from danger, injury, destruction, or damage)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]


You say we shouldn't be focusing on wherever or not the SPE was dangerous or not, yet your concern is they did not take any action to protect the astronauts or warn them? Surely this concern of yours only applies if the SPE was dangerous? You seem to be contradicting yourself there a bit..
Surely the fact that the SPE was not dangerous means there was nothing to warn them about? Seems pretty simple and logical to me..



Somewhere in the transcripts, Mission Control should have said, "guys, we detected a Solar Particles from a flare. Please do "X" until you get an all clear..." or, "be prepared to do "X" "


Why? It wasn't a danger. You have seen the protocols, what exactly did you expect them to do?

Perhaps you envision something like this:



Or maybe as you have such disregard for these brave and intelligent people you would expect a reaction like this?



You don't even make any sense Foos, what are you on about?



Whoops :s How did that get in there?


edit on 15-9-2010 by AgentSmith because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Tell me, isn't true that NASA or the scientific community cannot determine if a FLARE, SPE or CME etc
is truly dangerous until it has passed its peak? Isn't that the reason why when they [NASA, et al] detect particles they take action before the peak? And if that's true, how long does it take for a typical SPE or Flare to reach its peak?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


By my reckoning, the first of the flares of the 17/18th took place during the mid-course correction burn. Failure to execute this properly would certainly result in mission failure. Not the best time to worry about minor solar activity that may or may not get worse. After two minutes, the flare had begun to dwindle in intensity and became a dead issue. What exactly is your point? Did you expect them to hold a press conference to talk about the possibility of deadly radiation? Mission Control monitored the situation; it was a non-starter at a crucial point in the mission. Now where's this major SPE you were teasing us with? Or was that it?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I hate to say it but I have a nasty feeling that was it.. Still, I know how Foos must be feeling right now, I felt pretty dumb myself when I posted that document a few posts back without reading it properly first :S
It would probably have been best to back out before posting it and admitting to the mistake rather than just post it anyway, or maybe Foos genuinely thinks he has a point? IDK..... IDK...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I take it all back about JW, the brat's a mastermind! I was perusing some of his older posts on a 9/11 forum and he's even connected it all into 9/11 ! Did you know it was a NASA plane that hit the WTC? Well according to the boy 'genius' it certainly was.. As Foos likes quoting lot's of the hoax*cough*s work here's some choice bits that would be a shame to miss:


Also, in Mark Burnback's coverage of September 11th on Fox News, he states that what was reported to be United Airlines Flight 175 had no windows and was complete with a circular blue logo on the front. If anyone can put me in contact with him I would be delighted because I think I know what that logo was. As you can see NASA has a logo that's round and blue. I wouldn't put it past NASA to be capable of this attack, they showed no remorse when they murdered Gus Grissom and his two co-pilots, not to mention when they pushed Thomas R. Baron's vehicle in front of a train. So far fourteen people have died needlessly from the space shuttle, how many planetary photos do they equal? On the last shuttle mission it was clear they rushed the crew to space without properly checking the heat shielding and I can only describe it as luck that the crew of STS-114 made it back to Earth.



But if what Mark Burnback saw was a NASA logo on the plane that hit the second tower, this would explain why the passengers of Flight 93 were taken to the Glenn Research Centre. And if they definitely were involved in the attacks on 9/11, I believe that Bush's hallow promise of a manned moon mission may have also been a reward for the part they played. In other words it works out fine for everybody: Halliburton gets Iraqi oil and pipeline contracts, NASA gets funding and public support, everything's peachy.


letsrollforums.com...

There you have it folks, NASA killed a plane load of passengers and flew an airliner helpfully liveried with the NASA logo for easy identification into the WTC in exchange for a future Moon mission.
Wow
To see inside the mind of a genius like this is simply... such a privilege. I am now forced to admit that I nothing but a poor dumb peasant because there is no way I can claim my mind works in this clearly superior and enlightened way.

The best bit is, the new Moon mission that NASA was going to get in return was going to be fake too.



Of course, if this new moon shot is going to take place, I doubt this one will be for real either. What will actually happen is the astronauts will be launched with the CEV, but once in space instead of beginning their lunar trajectory they will simply orbit the Earth, their altitude will conveniently be above the ionosphere and below the beginning of the Van Allen belts.


What a clown




edit on 15-9-2010 by AgentSmith because: Added missing 'h'



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Tell me, isn't true that NASA or the scientific community cannot determine if a FLARE, SPE or CME etc
is truly dangerous until it has passed its peak? Isn't that the reason why when they [NASA, et al] detect particles they take action before the peak? And if that's true, how long does it take for a typical SPE or Flare to reach its peak?


Aren't those questions you should have asked prior to proclaiming Apollo a hoax because of radiation due to solar activity???




top topics



 
377
<< 190  191  192    194  195  196 >>

log in

join