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: 236
377
<< 233  234  235    237  238  239 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GlobalAgenda
 


Like hell he's a "good debater"!! He's an annoying pest who intentionally lies and cheats and twists facts in order to SCAM his audience. His audience of gullible, mostly innocents who are sometimes slavish in their devotion. He is a joke and a twit.

I realize you just joined, and are aiming for twenty posts in order to start a thread.....but your contributions, so far here (and elsewhere, other threads) haven't amounted to much of any substance.

Pity.




posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hopefully he is referring to CHRLZ as being the aussie who is a 'good debater'. If he means Jarrah... well... :shk:



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Here is a challenge, how about you guys methodically go over JW's video and go video by video and point out where he is wrong. This could have been done a while ago, but I haven't seen any Apollogists go into such deep analysis:


Here's the challenge for you: admit that every single point you raised in the great "Geology Debate" has been completely addressed, and that you have been intentionally ignoring issues that we have raised. In other words, you are now attempting to change the subject rather than admit defeat. Before we move on, at least riddle me this one, one last time: Which of these is definitely from Earth, and why?






posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where is the be all end all radiation compendium?

Why do you ask? Did you miss the SEVERAL PAGES I've already posted? It's notable that you haven't offered any comment, nor argued any of it. So you concede it's correct so far. Thanks.

Oh and thanks also for proving the point about endlessly returning to make the same debunked claims over and over and over... HERE is a point by point review of a JW video. HERE's another. Here are 'normal' links, in case you still don't get it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
YOU, FoosM, have been asked to respond to these in a point by point fashion, but you have refused to do so and ignored the requests. Yet here you are AGAIN claiming that no such reviews exist. That either means:

1. You are lying and deliberately misleading the forum
2. You have a very severe case of Alzheimers
3. It is all part of a game.

Which is it?

The rest of your post is a contentless as usual. Come back when you learn to debate.


Now, those questions again for PPK55:

Regarding the VLT and ppk55's claimed email to Dr Richard West
1. Did you get a reply?

2. What email address did you send it to?

3. If you did get a reply, would you care to post it, in full?


Whenever you are ready, ppk.
edit on 1-11-2010 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby
One thing that you guys might look into is Richard Hoagland's Dark Mission Book.
He was there when the 'moon hoax' theory began.
According to Hoagland started in a roomfull of NASA employees and reporters, by JPL and NASA at a press conference.
Hoagland believes the reason JPL and NASA started this 'moon hoax' hoax was because they were trying divert attention away from what NASA found on the moon.
Dark Mission goes into more detail on this in his book.

Or perhaps the rumour that NASA found alien stuff on the moon was put out to distract attention from the fact that they never went there.

Divide (the sceptics) and conquer.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
Or maybe you think aliens planted the reflectors on the moon for us....

Why bring aliens into it?

You know we have sent unmanned craft on the moon and collected moonrocks on unmanned missions.

Well, you should know, anyway.


So NASA could have put reflectors and lunar modules there without humans being near the place.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
In fact, there was plenty of dust, but the moons' regolith is rather densely packed due to billions of years of gardening and a lack of air on the moon.

Billions of years of gardening on the moon???

Pics or it didn't happen.



Hmmm . . . perhaps you're right.
I just found books called: "Easy Organic Gardening and Moon Planting" and "Gardens of the Moon".



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Or perhaps the rumour that NASA found alien stuff on the moon was put out to distract attention from the fact that they never went there.

Or, or .. maybe fairies were there!! Or giant green tree frogs!!! yeah that's it. I'm offering the same level of evidence as you...


Divide (the sceptics) and conquer.

Ooops. Did you really mean to type that, and not just think it..?

So it's not about factual debate, it's about tactics. Perhaps you shouldn't give away your trolling secrets so freely.

Anyway, I'd prefer to bring back the actual debate - can you walk the walk, Kailassa?

Here I'll repeat that Eleanor Blakely transcript:

JW: Eleanor Blakely, radiation biologist for the Life Sciences Division, Lawrence [sic] National Laboratory also spoke of using ethylene shielding as well as the possibility of shielding spacecrafts [sic] with its actual fuel tanks.

Q: Ah yes I'm just wondering if you could speak to ..how difficult it would be to shield a spacecraft or even a space suit against different types of radiation.

EB: Yes, you ask another good question. The only problem is that particles undergo a process called fragmentation, so if a particle comes in and hits like an aluminum shielding, it actually fragments into an array of particles of a lower atomic number so you actually have a higher fluence on the inside than you would have on the outside. So there's been a recent study by NASA of the materials of the spacecraft, because the hydrogenous materials like shielding, polyethylene shielding can reduce, just by the different Z of the impact of the ions coming in from space. So shielding has limitations from that point fo view, however I talked to an astronaut that.. his vision is that - of course what you want to do is minimise the exposure to Mars - so he's a big proponent of other kinds, alternative propulsion and he would like to put the propulsion material, which is hydrogenous, in big tanks around the spacecraft. Now that would really ruin your view but it certainly would shield you. And so they have lots of things under study just to examine different alternative shielding...

JW: Obviously Apollo could never have been shielded with its own propellants, as [sic] the majority of which was spent right at the beginning of the trip. It should also be noted that Apollo used aluminium shielding which, by Doctor Blakely's admission would increase the risk of particle fragmentation and thus worsen the radiation problem.


Now, again I invite PPK55, and indeed Kailassa and any other interested parties.. before I do it, can you point out the flaws in JW's argument, or NOT? I've even bolded the important bits for you..



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Huh????


You know we have sent unmanned craft on the moon....


Yes, you are right, there....BTW, can you NAME any of them? I mean, did you actually research, and LOOK IT UP?? Or, just talking out of your......


....and collected moonrocks on unmanned missions.


....arse. Yes, guess you are. "collected moonrocks" on unmanned missions???
You had better have proof of this. I'll help. Research the Soviet Lunar sample return missions. See if they mention any "rocks" in the paltry few grams....GRAMS...of Lunar soil they managed to return, in unmanned vehicles.


So NASA could have put reflectors....


Yes...could have is the key phrase, there. The Soviets did, robotically (and couldn't find them when they tried to target, from Earth, because they weren't aimed at the Earth properly). NASA used Humans to properly set up, and align the retroreflectors. That's why they are STILL being used today, to measure distance.


....and lunar modules there without humans being near the place...


Your arse is getting a workout, there. Why not have a sit-down?

Down? OK, now type into your keyboard to find the PROOF that the LMs could be landed on the Moon, WITHOUT any Humans to control them. We'll wait.

Meantime, we were fitting another poster in this thread with a dunce cap. What's your size?
edit on 1 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: reason? What reason?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
The Flap


APOLLO 15 Dave Scott First Steps:


Play the video again and pay attention to the strap hanging off Scott's
PLSS. Ok, since the moon has no atmosphere worth mentioning why does it
appear that Scott's strap seem to catch "air" when he jumps?

Here is Dave Scott himself demonstrating and explaining about falling objects on the moon


How about that


Some other weird things about the video:
- After he is on the surface, he appears to move the LM's leg 0:29
should that be possible?
- In the helmet's reflection, we can see the LM. The bright spot that appears to be behind the LM, is that the Sun?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Here is a challenge, how about you guys methodically go over JW's video and go video by video and point out where he is wrong. This could have been done a while ago, but I haven't seen any Apollogists go into such deep analysis:


Here's the challenge for you: admit that every single point you raised in the great "Geology Debate" has been completely addressed,



Why, when it hasnt been?




and that you have been intentionally ignoring issues that we have raised. In other words, you are now attempting to change the subject rather than admit defeat.


Wow, you sure like jumping to conclusions.
Im dealing with more than one person on this thread, and in the interest of time and relevance I choose to address some posts over others. You got a problem with that? Do I not give you enough attention?




Before we move on, at least riddle me this one, one last time: Which of these is definitely from Earth, and why?





Like these silly challenges.
What relevance does it have with the points that were raised?
You might as well ask me to compare a shuttle engine to a CM engine.
What does it prove? So I will ignore such blatant distractions.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You said it...it "appears" to "catch air":


...why does it appear that Scott's strap seem to catch "air" when he jumps?


Do you truly not understand motion? Especially, absent an atmosphere, so no restriction of motion (except for inertia, as always).

When the strap begins to move slightly "up", look at what Scott's upper body is doing AT THE SAME TIME.

See it? He tilts his body. The strap moves in response. Simple. BTW, IF there were any air, the strap's shape (its arced shape) would change. As it is, it is in a default state, based on its own internal stresses that are present, as you will see in a woven nylon strap of that sort. Under heavier gravity, OR in air, there are different influences ot alter its shape.


Why not troll...I mean, stroll YouTube for some videos of the ISS EVAs?? Watch, and learn....


edit on 1 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Now, again I invite PPK55, and indeed Kailassa and any other interested parties.. before I do it, can you point out the flaws in JW's argument, or NOT? I've even bolded the important bits for you..


Whats important is that you need various types of shielding material to address the various types of radiation found in space. Aluminum, pure glass and those space suits they used on the moon alone could not protect vulnerable biology such as humans. Turtles wouldn't have much problems though. LOL.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Kailassa
Or perhaps the rumour that NASA found alien stuff on the moon was put out to distract attention from the fact that they never went there.

Or, or .. maybe fairies were there!! Or giant green tree frogs!!! yeah that's it. I'm offering the same level of evidence as you...

Divide (the sceptics) and conquer.

Ooops. Did you really mean to type that, and not just think it..?
So it's not about factual debate, it's about tactics. Perhaps you shouldn't give away your trolling secrets so freely.

Getting a bit punch-drunk are we, after fighting too long?

C'mon, sit back, crack a tinny and a smile, - if you remember how.

Now, re my suggestion: "Or perhaps the rumour that NASA found alien stuff on the moon was put out to distract attention from the fact that they never went there."
I was pointing out the lack of logic in the notion that "the rumour that NASA found alien stuff on the moon was put out to distract attention from the fact that they never went there."
I thought it was funny that c3hamby had this argument this way around, apparently not realising it meant nothing because it could just as easily be reversed.


Anyway, I'd prefer to bring back the actual debate - can you walk the walk, Kailassa?

Now, again I invite PPK55, and indeed Kailassa and any other interested parties.. before I do it, can you point out the flaws in JW's argument, or NOT? I've even bolded the important bits for you..

*shrug* I'm sure you can do that better than I can, if there are any flaws in it.

What makes you think I have any argument with JW?

He/she has said nothing I can pick as untrue or illogical.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The Flap


APOLLO 15 Dave Scott First Steps:


Play the video again and pay attention to the strap hanging off Scott's
PLSS. Ok, since the moon has no atmosphere worth mentioning why does it
appear that Scott's strap seem to catch "air" when he jumps?
It doesn't seem to catch any air to me. It seems to be moving as inertia would dictate.


Originally posted by FoosM

Here is Dave Scott himself demonstrating and explaining about falling objects on the moon


How about that


Some other weird things about the video:
- After he is on the surface, he appears to move the LM's leg 0:29
should that be possible?
- In the helmet's reflection, we can see the LM. The bright spot that appears to be behind the LM, is that the Sun?


I don't see the leg moving at all. And you can't see the LM in the refection, since it is behind him. What you're seeing is the reflection of the LRV and the "bright spot" is Irwin.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What does it prove? So I will ignore such blatant distractions.


In other words, you admit defeat.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Kailassa
 

Huh????

You know we have sent unmanned craft on the moon....

Yes, you are right, there....BTW, can you NAME any of them? I mean, did you actually research, and LOOK IT UP?? Or, just talking out of your......

LOL, do you really want proof I know what I'm talking about, when I could immediately find all the info on the net? Perhaps you'd like to pay a visit and give me a supervised test on it?
(That's sarcasm, not an invite.)

I've been interested in the moon landings and subsequent space program ever since high-school classes were stopped during the afternoon, so we could all crowd into the rooms with tellies and watch Neil Armstrong's historic steps.

And by the way, I'm much too ladylike to talk out of my arse.




....and collected moonrocks on unmanned missions.

....arse. Yes, guess you are. "collected moonrocks" on unmanned missions???
You had better have proof of this. I'll help. Research the Soviet Lunar sample return missions. See if they mention any "rocks" in the paltry few grams....GRAMS...of Lunar soil they managed to return, in unmanned vehicles.

Uck, you really are rude, aren't you.
Re the unmanned missions, I was pointing out the illogicality of the "must be either men or aliens" choice loner007 posed, when collection by unmanned missions was, as I'm sure you'll agree, much more likely than placement by aliens.



So NASA could have put reflectors....

Yes...could have is the key phrase, there. The Soviets did, robotically (and couldn't find them when they tried to target, from Earth, because they weren't aimed at the Earth properly). NASA used Humans to properly set up, and align the retroreflectors. That's why they are STILL being used today, to measure distance.

So we're in agreement. I'm not saying American astronauts did not go to the moon and carefully put the reflectors in place. I'm saying that the existance of reflectors on the moon is not proof of manned missions.



....and lunar modules there without humans being near the place...

Your arse is getting a workout, there. Why not have a sit-down?
Down? OK, now type into your keyboard to find the PROOF that the LMs could be landed on the Moon, WITHOUT any Humans to control them. We'll wait.

Bah, you do know about the Surveyer series, don't you, Weedwhacker? Surely you're aware that America has landed many unmanned craft on the Moon?

Sure the Lunar Modules were designed to be flown by astronauts. But there's no reason NASA could not have remotely landed a craft which would look like a LM through a telescope.


Meantime, we were fitting another poster in this thread with a dunce cap. What's your size?

Just send me one the same size as yours, WW.
Considering the swelled head you have, I could comfortably live in it.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Kailassa, as you haven't really made any points at all, and have indicated you really don't care.. (*shrug*) this is all the energy I care to expend on you. bye.


Now, back to FoosM - who you will note has immediately changed the subject several times, as he didn't want to respond to this.

FoosM doesn't ever admit to his errors, nor answer any questions that might involve logic and/or math. Like JW, he's seen where that leads... Ask yourself, dear reader, why did FoosM LIE about there being no point by point rebuttals of JW videos?? And why didn't he then leap in and address each point?

Tricky questions, aren't they...?



So, PPK55, it's back to you - how about answering all those simple questions about your email to Dr West above, AND also expressing your views on the Blakely transcript? Everyone else seems to be backing away... And of course JW hasn't got the cohones to show his face here, brave little mouse that he is...

I'm happy to do the Blakely stuff for you, but seriously, it would help your cred if YOU leaped in first to tell us where JW's claims are flawed. So I'm very gracefully standing back for a short while...

No trap there, by the way, except that you will look silly if you don't know where the flaws are, esp. given the bolding I did for you. I'm such a gentleman....



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why not troll...I mean, stroll YouTube for some videos of the ISS EVAs?? Watch, and learn....


edit on 1 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Classy Weed,
this is why I usually ignore you.
Even if your posts have good points.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
The Flap


APOLLO 15 Dave Scott First Steps:


Some other weird things about the video:
- After he is on the surface, he appears to move the LM's leg 0:29
should that be possible?
- In the helmet's reflection, we can see the LM. The bright spot that appears to be behind the LM, is that the Sun?


I don't see the leg moving at all. And you can't see the LM in the refection, since it is behind him. What you're seeing is the reflection of the LRV and the "bright spot" is Irwin.


Sorry for the confusion, I meant the first video.
"the first steps"



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 233  234  235    237  238  239 >>

log in

join