Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

I'm with you there bud, it's nearly October now and I've got various assignments coming up to be handed in as well as the usual home life and work so I frankly don't have the time to play around. I see little point in it anyway, I think parallelogram's conclusion that they should be left alone is probably the most sensible post in a while. You just can't educate some people at the end of the day! Still I guess when you lack the capacity to be 'somebody' amongst the educated and intellectual elite, you can always settle for being king of the plebs. King is king at the end of the day and let's face it, if you lower your standards of who you want to impress enough anyone can enjoy being in the limelight and worshiped by many - just look a Jade Goody!

Originally posted by DJW001
By the way, FoosM, you might enjoy this:
Apollo 15 Transcript Viewer

cool thanks

reply to post by CHRLZ


and the so called experts of the moon landing couldn't even go back to the moon and got their constellation program canceled.

I personally get tired of the tiresome circle-jerk this thread gives as well as one group just giving itself stars.

reply to post by dragnet53

and the so called experts of the moon landing couldn't even go back to the moon and got their constellation program canceled.

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express -Albert Einstein

Think about it.

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

and the so called experts of the moon landing couldn't even go back to the moon and got their constellation program canceled.

How did they "get" the program cancelled? It was a political decision, not a scientific one.

If you are going to blame anybody, blame Obama.

I personally get tired of the tiresome circle-jerk this thread gives as well as one group just giving itself stars.

"circle-jerk"? Like continually bringing up the totally-unrelated cancellation of constellation as proof of the moon hoax?

If you have real evidence, post it. Otherwise quit complaining and go away.

Originally posted by dragnet53
I personally get tired of the tiresome circle-jerk this thread gives

Tell me about it

How many times do you have to be told, America and the world as a whole are in great financial difficulty. The electorate is not interested in seeing anyone flying to the Moon, they want to be able to pay their bills and eat! Telling people that times are hard and they need to cut back while spending billions on flying to the Moon (which in most people's opinion is a waste of time as they are too narrow minded to see otherwise) is a sure fire election LOSER.
As for the technicalities - short term exposure vs LONG TERM exposure. Is it all really that hard to understand? You seem to be having problems both 'getting it' and remembering it, perhaps you should see someone about the problem you evidently have?
I say this out of sincere concern for a fellow human being, so please don't take it the wrong way. There are various conditions out there which severely impair memory and judgment, I just hate seeing someone deteriorate when something could have been done about it if it was caught early enough.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by dragnet53

 

and the so called experts of the moon landing couldn't even go back to the moon and got their constellation program canceled.

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express -Albert Einstein

Think about it.

Come one guy, Foosm isn't that much of a trailblazer.

Sure he is winning a debate against you guys, but calling him a 'great spirit'....


*No offense Foos, you're doing a great job though.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Huh??

Sure he is winning a debate against you guys...

As has been continually pointed out, merely stating something (like "I'm winning!!") over and over again doesn't make it suddlenly become true.

Cases and direct instances of any "wins", please, from this poor poster who cannot seem to ever get it right....

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by dragnet53

 

and the so called experts of the moon landing couldn't even go back to the moon and got their constellation program canceled.

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express -Albert Einstein

Think about it.

Come one guy, Foosm isn't that much of a trailblazer.

Sure he is winning a debate against you guys, but calling him a 'great spirit'....


*No offense Foos, you're doing a great job though.

Is that all you do on these threads?

Show up for a post, drop your pants, squat, excrete another "he's winning" turd, and run away laughing?

Are you even capable of making a cogent point O "master of debate"?

I know this will never get answered, but I must ask; what, specifically, leads you to the conclusion that Foos is "winning" the debate?

Our friend Exuberant1 should be careful he doesn't get brought in front of Trading Standards due to his subtitle breaching false advertising regulations. I scanned over a random selection of his posts and could only find one or two liners which didn't add anything to the topics at hand and served little other than to detract and antagonise. I can only come to the logical conclusion that the 'Champion of Debate' tag is little more than an ironic joke.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
. I can only come to the logical conclusion that the 'Champion of Debate' tag is little more than an ironic joke.

edit on 18-9-2010 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)

Ooops! I made a mistake.

Instead of "Champion of Debate", I wrote "master of debate(r)"

Freudian slip I suppose.

Forked Tongues

A forked tongue is a tongue split into two distinct tines at the tip; this is a feature common to many species of reptiles...

The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner. In the longstanding tradition of many Native American tribes, "speaking with a forked tongue" has meant lying, and a person was no longer considered worthy of trust, once he had been shown to "speak with a forked tongue". This phrase was also adopted by Americans around the time of the Revolution, and may be found in abundant references from the early 19th century — often reporting on American officers who sought to convince the tribal leaders with whom they negotiated that they "spoke with a straight and not with a forked tongue"

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...

The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely

www.clavius.org...

We did look close and found Apollo 12:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now the question is did any Solar Proton Events occur during Apollo?
Well yes they did:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We have also seen that the exposure rates for Apollo were not to different
than exposure rate for Gemini's longest mission,
regardless of landing on the moon, just going to the moon, or staying in LEO:

Apollo 11 0.18 rads 08 days (moon landing)
Apollo 08 0.16 rads 08 days (circling the moon)
Apollo 07 0.16 rads 10 days (LEO)
Gemini 07 0.16 rads 13 days (LEO)





Now many of you want to know
why I used the word Major in combination with Solar Proton Event, when asking if any SPE's occurred.
And for those of you who have waited patiently, and also for those who have not,
I will now precede in revealing that reason.

I didnt call MAJOR Solar Proton Events MAJOR out of my own.
When I was researching for documents pertaining to SPEs during solar cycles 19 & 20
M. A. SHEA and D. F. SMART did as of 1989.

What do they consider a Major Solar Proton Events?

All polar riometer (or riometer equivalent) events with at least a 1.0 dB absorption were included unless satellite measurements indicated the > 10 MeV peak flux was lower than 10 particles (cm2 sster) '... It satellites measured a minimum of at least I0 particles (cm- s ster)' above 10 MeV, the event was included. This was selected as the particle flux necessary to produce a 1.0 dB riometer absorption in the sunlight polar cap.

They found ONLY 218 events between 1955 and1986 that met that criteria.

We also have KING who refers to SPE's as major SPEs when.

King (1974) analyzed major SPEs with energy > 10 MeV (10 million electron volts) during the active years of solar sunspot cycle 19 (1966-1972). There were 25 SPEs >10 MeV during this period...

www.preparingforthegreatshift.org...

Thus, one can conclude that proton events above 10 million electron volts can be labelled as major by various scientists.

As a matter of fact NOAA Space Weather Scale for Solar Radiation Storms begins their
scale at 10 Mev. Which means that their scale begins at Major Solar Particle Events because
it takes at least 10 MeV to have an effect on planet Earth:
Solar Radiation Storms

And you will notice that even the lowest Major storm (S1) only occurs about 50 times per cycle of 11 years.
If you actually add all the severities you end up with on average 89 Major storms in 11 years. Not much.
Thats why Major Solar Radiation storms are rare events:
Major Storms


Finally, Here is the document where you can find
A SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROTON EVENTS

You will find two listed during Apollo 16.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a4dc03ebae1.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3450faf4564d.gif[/atsimg]






[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/92eaf2b5072d.gif[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91e2afd2702b.gif[/atsimg]

Dear appolo scientists, please help me debunk this..

The closeness of the horizon and the point of shadow.
Can you explain that with photographic examples?

Originally posted by maya2

Dear appolo scientists, please help me debunk this..

The closeness of the horizon and the point of shadow.
Can you explain that with photographic examples?

I'm not an "Apollo Scientist", but if you point me to the origin of those pictures, I'd be happy to help.

Always remember, provenance is important.

Other that the original Apollo pic, I can't tell what's been photoshopped and what hasn't.

I'm not an establishment defender and by all means, most people consider me revolutionary. I do not however put faith in this particular conspiracy. At least, not yet...\

As for these videos, the experiments aren't good at all. I do give Jarrah an A for effort, but his demonstrations are not done in conditions parallel to an actual moon landing setting. I do need some more evidence to believe in the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Other that the original Apollo pic, I can't tell what's been photoshopped and what hasn't.

Seriously Tom... other than the original Apollo photo you cant tell which photos have been photoshopped?
That statement is so wrong in so many ways.

I am restraining myself from posting a wall of

The photoshop examples were posted earlier in this thread.

No photographic evidence is required for this, because they are flawed from their inception. The 'shopped' layer itself is the wrong perspective to match the moon pictures. Why would over laying random landscapes help in this situation?

Without some effort going into tracking, and perspective matching etc ... This doesn't really convey any point other than demonstrating why eye balling perspectives in photo shop without at least using a grid is hazardous at best.

You could look up the other information about those images in this thread I suppose.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Other that the original Apollo pic, I can't tell what's been photoshopped and what hasn't.

Seriously Tom... other than the original Apollo photo you cant tell which photos have been photoshopped?
That statement is so wrong in so many ways.

I am restraining myself from posting a wall of

Then is there a point to that post?

Originally posted by prepared4truth
I'm not an establishment defender and by all means, most people consider me revolutionary. I do not however put faith in this particular conspiracy. At least, not yet...\

As for these videos, the experiments aren't good at all. I do give Jarrah an A for effort, but his demonstrations are not done in conditions parallel to an actual moon landing setting. I do need some more evidence to believe in the moon landing hoax.

Wouldnt that be a form of 'argument from ignorance'?
Apollo has never been disproven therefore Apollo must be true?

Basically you are saying that there needs to be another moon landing to prove or disprove the supposed moon landing of Apollo. Which makes sense, But then I would ask you, prove that the Apollo moon landing actually happened in the first place. What makes it a fact?

Keeping in mind that NASA has made a claim that no one else after 40 years have been able to reproduce.
I would say, critical thinkers should be first skeptical of US/NASA's claims and scrutinize them. This was not done.

Just because it was a trip or adventure, makes it no less an experiment as if it were conducted in a LAB.
I ask you this, what was Chris. Columbus's theory?

His theory and claim caused a whole continent of natives of the Americas to be named after the people's of India. It took third parties to show how Columbus was so wrong.

Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by ball lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[63]

To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research granting agencies like NSF and science journals like Nature and Science have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before. Scientific data archiving can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the World Data Center

How would you rate NASA's handling of their Apollo moon landing data?

Replication of results is "a standard procedure in the validation of any scientific discovery."

"Science was long protected from fraud by a built-in safety mechanism: to be generally accepted, experiments must be repeatable by others."

Remember, the only organization that repeated the experiment of the moon landing was NASA itself.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FoosM


Please don't bring up Christopher Columbus.

That cretin is nothing but a swindler who has been idolized by white Americans for centuries. Many other cultures discovered America way before he did, so him naming Native American Indians is just another mark up in his book of ignorance.

As far as the Apollo landing, which is a different situation, it would also be saying:

The moon landing hasn't been proven to my satisfaction, therefore it's fake.

We could do this all day but point being, there isn't enough evidence on either side to back up or dismiss this conspiracy theory.