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: 260
377
<< 257  258  259    261  262  263 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
theability, could you please point out to me any successful science missions (US or USSR) doing human tissue or live animal testing which exceeded beyond LEO and beyond the VAB's prior to A8, launch date December 21, 1968? Same question for weed and Tomblvd. It is a yes or no question.


Demanding 'yes or no' answers to questions isn't being neutral. It's presenting such information as the crux of an argument and a debating technique if anything.

In fact all of your posts are remarkably one sided to be requesting neutral answers. You haven't had a single issue with JW's arguments at all that you've expressed. At very least you're playing aggressive devil's advocate.

If you are neutral I'd probably suggest starting with the larger problems with the moon landing being fake as a whole before progressing onto radiation and other similar topics. The logistical problems in creating the hoax are much larger than the problems created by the landing being real IMO. There are simple problems and issues that to my mind can't be answer by hoax theorist before I even seriously worry about the radiation issue.

What is you thoughts on key researchers believing the moon landing is real? Do you believe that such researchers have remained silent their whole careers to avoid being attacked by some shadowy government organisation or something like that?




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Well...have some true colors again been revealed? Motives?

In a prior post, you begged whether you could be allowed a level of "neutrality" in asking these questions (and, 'tacitly supporting' JW??? Hardly "neutral", wouldn't you say?)

All good, as long as adhering to that standard of investigative, and unbiased study on the topic (which has flipped back to "radiation", again. May have to put that word out to CHRLZ to return here, and finish his radiation treatise....).

NO, you yourself have hinted that the crux of "JW"s so-called 'argument' relies on the radiation "debate". AND, in that vein, you committed the same sort of disingenuous crime as "JW", and ATS member FoosM did previously in this thread...repeatedly. In your citation of the "source", above, you omitted salient points.

Salient points which tomblvd noted, and called you out on.

What else is there to say about any alleged "neutrality", when one's 'arguments' are intentionally skewed to display out-of-full-context source material??






edit on 11 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



JW's radiation argument is not based on nor does it not promote an irrational fear of space radiation.


Yes, it is. Rather than look objectively at the data, it makes subjective claims. By repeating the phrase "DEADLY RADIATION" it obfuscates the fact that radiation's effects depend upon exposure, which is a matter not merely of intensity but of time. He cites studies of long term exposure to radiation but censors the parts of these studies that suggest that the Apollo missions were safe. As I stated previously, the "radiation argument" hinges entirely upon an irrational fear of radiation based on ignorance.



SPACECAST 2020 was a USAF project report done in 1993. What they are saying is that space is not empty like a vacuum... space is FILLED with deadly radiation!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So much for your neutrality. You do realize the Earth's environment is also FILLED WITH DEADLY RADIATION!!! There's uranium in the soil, cosmic rays raining down from the skies, ultraviolet rays sizzling from the Sun... how on Earth do we survive?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter theability, could you please point out to me any successful science missions (US or USSR) doing human tissue or live animal testing which exceeded beyond LEO and beyond the VAB's prior to A8, launch date December 21, 1968? Same question for weed and Tomblvd. It is a yes or no question.


You have received your answer, you just don't understand it. As has been explained - in a dozen different ways - testing on biological specimens, whether human or other, can and are still done on earth. It is not necessary to expend valuable resources on a rocket launch to test the effects of radiation on live subjects. The environment - type and intensity of various radiation hazards - were known at the time, and at least two decades of radiological and nuclear testing data had been acquired in regards to living tissue; including humans.
Most of this data is available and was linked several times in this thread, but for some reason you've failed to grasp its significance in regards to your inquiry.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



DJW001, let me explain to you something. Your job is not to convince me what to think. My job is to ask a neutral question and I expect just neutral responses. I am not here to make points against you.


Supporting JW is no way shape or form NEUTRAL!! You have already stated this numerous times that you believe JW. Make up your mind please of what it is your actually doing!

Your confusing yourself and doing a good job of it look below:


The thread it gets a bit confusing when Tomblvd is quoting SayonaraJupiter, when SayonaraJupiter is asking questions to DJW001. I have no control over that aspect of the thread. Please accept my apologies if there has been some mis-communications in our dialogue here in this thread.


Mis-communication?? You refer to yourself in the third person I'd say that is a communication issue!


JW's radiation argument is not based on nor does it not promote an irrational fear of space radiation. There are a thousand sources which will tell you that men landed on the moon but there are a thousand sources which tell you that space is full of deadly radiation!


There is NOT ONE single source on the planet that supports JW's claims about anything, including radiation.

Like everyone that has been with this thread has said OVER AND OVER AND OVER:

JARRAH WHITE HASN'T BEEN RIGHT YET!

Get over it!




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

.. May have to put that word out to CHRLZ to return here, and finish his radiation treatise....).

Still lurking, and laughing at this new 'turn' of events.. 'Sayonara', you sound familiar.. I guess the hits are going down again, nobody is interested in this thread any more, needs a fresh injection, eh..?

As to the radiation essay, I'll be posting it at my own website when it is finished (with appropriate citation, given that most of the hard work has been done by others!). It's a bit large to post here. But I have to say I'm not in any hurry. The truth is still the same as it always was, there are just new gullible people, and new people willing to exploit them. yawn.


Oh, and for 'Sayonara', the answer to the radiation question "Was radiation an insurmountable problem for Apollo", the answer is NO.

That should be sufficient for you, as you only want Yes or No answers.


edit on 11-12-2010 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Do you believe that such researchers have remained silent their whole careers to avoid being attacked by some shadowy government organisation or something like that?



A nuclear warhead sat atop a missile and the missile caught on fire in it's silo at Fort Dix in the 1960's. The US Army got in their vehicles and headed WEST. Nobody ever told you and it was almost 50 years before this information became public.

National Secrets do stay silent. If American's knew +40,000 Americans died from that accident from radiation leaving the area...heads would have rolled.

We have more Secrets you know nothing of. If it will effect our economy, it will not be told.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
A nuclear warhead sat atop a missile and the missile caught on fire in it's silo at Fort Dix in the 1960's. The US Army got in their vehicles and headed WEST. Nobody ever told you and it was almost 50 years before this information became public.

National Secrets do stay silent. If American's knew +40,000 Americans died from that accident from radiation leaving the area...heads would have rolled.



themilitarystandard.com...

Shortly after the explosion, the State Police station near Fort Dix received a call from an Air Force sergeant who stated, "an atomic warhead has exploded." The State Police quickly notified area civil defense forces and closed off area roads. Troops at Fort Dix on maneuvers were recalled to post. Shortly thereafter, a wire service sent out the following bulletin: State Police reported an atomic warhead of a BOMARC exploded today near here sending heavy radiation throughout the area.


Doesn't appear that secret. Even if it was ... an entirely military event being secret in comparison to an event run by civilians and scientists? Then broadcast on TV? Then no single scientist speaks out about it? It's a bit difficult.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



A nuclear warhead sat atop a missile and the missile caught on fire in it's silo at Fort Dix in the 1960's.


What does this have to do with Apollo?




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Yes, some moon videos and photos are fake.
Yes, some are real.
We did land on the moon.
Why is there so much confusion of whether we did or not?
Because they saw UFO's on the moon as well as artifacts.

Study history and not obsess over some details in a photograph.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 




Yes, some moon videos and photos are fake.


Which? Can you point them out for us?



Yes, some are real.


How can you tell the difference?



We did land on the moon.


Well, at least we cleared that up.



Why is there so much confusion of whether we did or not?


Confusion? No confusion here.



Because they saw UFO's on the moon as well as artifacts.


Ah, that must be the fake photos you were talking about.



Study history and not obsess over some details in a photograph.


I study history often and I obsess over it. Photographs, not so much.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Yes, some moon videos and photos are fake.
*snip*
Study history and not obsess over some details in a photograph.


Never seen anything that would even remotely look fake. Nice try thought.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
THIS THREAD IS RADIOACTIVE!!
We are experiencing some shred of the thread with excessive quoting. Some people are even getting to the edge of frustration when I asked a simple, fact seeking question.

Q: Could you please point out to me any successful science missions (US or USSR) doing human tissue or live animal testing which exceeded beyond LEO and beyond the VAB's prior to A8, launch date December 21, 1968? An irrational fear of radiation? I do not think so. Thanks for the turtles, Tomblvd.


Some people then argued that the Soviets sent turtles around the moon for propaganda - this is only one view or version of history. The Zond-5 was doing applied physical science. NASA was doing only theoretical science up to the launch of Apollo 8. Why didn't NASA do that testing? Russians are better dedicated at doing proper science experiments. See the Bion/Cosmos series.

Some people would say because they didn't need to do actual applied science because the theoretical laboratory work was better. Because the theoretical laboratory experiments was sufficient and in some cases better than doing actual physical science in a real world. Others would say that data from satelllites helped to support those theories. But still in 1968 there were some skeptics and they needed to be converted! Who were these skeptics from 1968?


"Apollo 7's achievement led to a rapid review of Apollo 8's options. The Apollo 7 astronauts went through six days of debriefing for the benefit of Apollo 8, and on October 28 the Manned Space Flight Management Council chaired by Mueller met at MSC, investigating every phase of the forthcoming mission. Next day came a lengthy systems review of Apollo 8's Spacecraft 103. Paine made the go/no-go review of lunar orbit on November 11 at NASA Headquarters in Washington. By this time nearly all the skeptics had become converts." Source science.ksc.nasa.gov...


This is a conspiracy theory site. I'll be skeptical by asking clear questions. Does it automatically follow that I am a moon landing negationist?



"Lunar landing negationists may fade into the background again when the US returns to the moon, but will they die out entirely? Probably not, said American astronomer Seth Shostak.

"We'll go back to the moon and find all this hardware and take pictures of it and say, 'Look! Their bootprints!'

"And people who like to think that the US government has nothing better to do than fake a moon landing will say, 'Well, you faked that, too.'" Source : www.chinadaily.com.cn...


Skepticism. Get Some.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
THIS THREAD IS RADIOACTIVE!!
We are experiencing some shred of the thread with excessive quoting. Some people are even getting to the edge of frustration when I asked a simple, fact seeking question.



You have ignored every point and question brought up. Why?

Let's go back to one of the first:



I want to know what it is about "deep space" that you think is specifically dangerous. You are the one who brought it up, now tell us why.


I'm waiting to find out what you know about radiation, which, at this point, seems to be very little.




Skepticism. Get Some.


Give us something to be skeptical of.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Tell the dead monkeys the laboratory experiments were theoretical. Your supposedly objective question has been answered. What is your objective conclusion?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 





Why didn't NASA do that testing?


Yikes! You are not getting it. Let me briefly explain: Radiation behaves in the same way on earth as it does in heaven. Since NASA scientists (having gone to college to study these very things) already had telemetry data, that describe in detail, the spectrum of radiation dangers in that environment, it was not necessary for them to risk an expensive rocket launch just to study something easily reproduced on Earth.
Also, for two decades, the military had been conducting nuclear weapons research. Research on the effects of radiation on biological subjects had already been underway for some time. This research included extensive data collected on its effect on humans. There had already been over 60 years worth of research on radiation, dating back to the end of the 19th century.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Your ignore questions exactly like Foosm does!

Funny that he is missing from this thread and you take over, waving the JW band flag. I woinder if there should be more read into this??


So why don't you answer the questions that have been asked of you?

Like "What do you know about radiation?" [Let see if you can suffice and explanation without a source.]

Or "How does anything you asked, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Apollo was a Hoax?"

BTW you haven't proved anything other that you faith in JW is Blind and without basis.

Lets see if you can answer the most basic of questions.....

...I won't hold my breath.




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



Study history and not obsess over some details in a photograph.


The photographic record of Apollo is history you goof!


Did you attend school? Basic and rather elementary school skills teach us that photographs are history, memory's and documentation of our past, right?

So why wouldn't we "obsess" over photographs, for it is apart of the Apollo Mission history record.

:shk:



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterWhy didn't NASA do that testing?
Sending animals into space to test for radiation is a really poor way to do the science. Let's say you send a monkey up into space and get it back. You can examine it, and it might appear fine. Great, radiation must not be a problem, you conclude. But 6 years later, the monkey dies of cancer. Unfortunately, living tissue makes for a pretty poor radiation detector. You might be able to tell there is some kind of radiation, but you won't necessarily be able to tell what kind and how much.

It makes much more sense to send instruments up that can precisely characterize the type and amount of the radiation first.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by dplum517
 



Study history and not obsess over some details in a photograph.


The photographic record of Apollo is history you goof!


Did you attend school? Basic and rather elementary school skills teach us that photographs are history, memory's and documentation of our past, right?

So why wouldn't we "obsess" over photographs, for it is apart of the Apollo Mission history record.

:shk:



Obviously you were successfully brainwashed from the beginning. History is written by the victor, so there will always be biased points of view on history. Photos do represent history but if some photos are faked does that make the history true? Also I am confused at what your initial point is?? I KNOW the Apollo missions are true historical events. I am not saying the moon landing was a fake.




top topics



 
377
<< 257  258  259    261  262  263 >>

log in

join