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: 262
377
<< 259  260  261    263  264  265 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Let us talk about an obsession:

Why the fixation by you with Apollo 8?

Is there something that Apollo 8 signifies?




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


How about the uncanny resemblance to another poster that likes to ignore questions and answers he doesn't like.
I suspect there is a common agenda being forced here; one far removed from objective reality.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


Yes it is pretty simple to surmise that FOOSM has other accounts as in SayonaraJupiter!!

I mean the write post and ignore all in the same manner.

Plus they violate T@C the same way by ignoring them,
such a coincidence eh?






posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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?




DJW001 has lost all credibility in this thread. DJW001 has quoted my post from a different topic/ different thread. DJW001, The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim C is false.

Points off for you, DJW001. Better luck next time, mate. Don't let your emotions cloud your ability to be reasonable.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Smack
 

Yes it is pretty simple to surmise that FOOSM has other accounts as in SayonaraJupiter!!
I mean the write post and ignore all in the same manner.
Plus they violate T@C the same way by ignoring them,
such a coincidence eh?


The username Smack & username theability should **immediately** refrain from any psychoanalytical scribblings about my possible motives or my possible associations. I have stated that I support JW's videos where JW has stated himself that radiation is his best argument. Smack & theability, stay on topic!


The space radiation science data that existed in NASA's possession as of December 21st, 1968 was inadequate and necessarily leads to the radical conclusion that the history of Apollo 8 - Apollo ? - were not based on science at all. The Apollo 8 story was partly constructed from theoretical sciences and a severe lack of radiation data.

Looking at the radiation argument from a different perspective we can see how NASA accumulated NO DATA with regard to human tissue/live animal testing beyond the VAB's prior to the launch of Apollo 8 on December 21, 1968. Now you may understand how JW's radiation argument (built upon previous research) is so significant from a real historical perspective.

NASA didn't know anything about space radiation beyond the VAB when Apollo 8 was launched. I have been informed by nataylor of some conferences where research papers had been submitted between 1964 and 1967. Page after page of Monte Carlo simulations which are developed by computer and this is scientific code language for "we made a theory, we guessed a lot and used random numbers, it's in the report".

Am I the only one who recognizes the important difference between scientific theory, method and practice? By skipping over the necessary steps of valid science NASA has done a magician's trick which requires a genuine leap of faith to believe.

So the fantasic story of Apollo 8 is also fantastic question. Where was the hard science done by NASA to show that a human being (or 3!) could survive beyond the VAB into deep space for any duration of time?

That science data simply does not exist. Therefore, the radical conclusion, must be - a leap of faith.

This line of thinking provided a whole new meaning to Armstrong's words "That's one small step for man - a giant leap for mankind."

Quite a leap of faith!
Skepticism. Get Some.

edit on 12/14/2010 by SayonaraJupiter because: punctuation



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The username Smack & username theability should **immediately** refrain from any psychoanalytical scribblings about my possible motives or my possible associations. I have stated that I support JW's videos where JW has stated himself that radiation is his best argument. Smack & theability, stay on topic!


I am so sorry but this is ON the topic, the continual violation of ATS policy by people like yourself who come on the board and violate TERMS AND CONDITIONS and have no regard for the RULES!

Like this post of yours here: post by SayonaraJupiter The Moderators had posted that this kind of behavior was not going to be tolerated yet you did it anyway, just like FOOSM has done hundreds of times.

Since you seem to have forgotten to read the thread as man have suggested let me direct you to the post were this type of behavior was to be stopped: post by GradyPhilpott

A quote from that post:

Posts that consist entirely of external material with no original commentary are likely to be deleted and warnings given to the posters.


Your waving of the Jarrah White band flag raises serious concerns, because you obviously cannot answer questions along with your counter-part FOOSM, and low and behold while you post now he isn't.


It wouldn't be the first time I have sniffed out someone using another profile, trust me your not the first NOR the last!

No matter what you try to plaster across the ATS forum, Jarrah White is a known FRAUD and his pathetic attempts to act and look educated have failed miserably here on ATS.

By all means if you cannot follow simple posting rules or answer questions, then you will be in question regarding your motives and agenda here on this forum.

I bet the moderators will agree completely.





edit on 14-12-2010 by theability because: wording



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The username Smack & username theability should **immediately** refrain from any psychoanalytical scribblings about my possible motives or my possible associations. I have stated that I support JW's videos where JW has stated himself that radiation is his best argument. Smack & theability, stay on topic!


I am so sorry but this is the topic is the continual violation of ATS policy by people like yourself who come on the board and violate TERMS AND CONDITIONS and have no regard for the RULES!

Your waving of the Jarrah White band flag raises serious concerns, because you obviously cannot answer questions along with your counter-part FOOSM, and low and behold while you post now he isn't.


It wouldn't be the first time I have sniffed out someone using another profile, trust me your not the first NOR the last!

No matter what you try to plaster across the ATS forum, Jarrah White is a known FRAUD and his pathetic attempts to act and look educated have failed miserably here on ATS.

By all means if you cannot follow simple posting rules or answer questions, then you will be in question regarding your motives and agenda here on this forum.

I bet the moderators will agree completely.



Please refrain from presuming that you know my motivations or my associations. Please refrain from making your baseless accusations in this thread.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Please refrain from presuming that you know my motivations or my associations. Please refrain from making your baseless accusations in this thread.


Here since you definitely haven't figured things out yet try here:

Terms and Conditions of Use

Then when your done reading about your obligations to the forum and other members then why don't you start at the beginning of this thread and reread what you have obviously missed below:

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

After words then if your decide that your still want to support Jarrah White the known fraud liar and person who invents experts, then maybe we can discuss it.

I expect it to take a few days to read through.

But I know you won't because that would be logical.

Clearly logic isn't your forte.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Please refrain from presuming that you know my motivations or my associations. Please refrain from making your baseless accusations in this thread.


Here since you definitely haven't figured things out yet try here:

Terms and Conditions of Use

Then when your done reading about your obligations to the forum and other members then why don't you start at the beginning of this thread and reread what you have obviously missed below:

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

After words then if your decide that your still want to support Jarrah White the known fraud liar and person who invents experts, then maybe we can discuss it.

I expect it to take a few days to read through.

But I know you won't because that would be logical.

Clearly logic isn't your forte.




You are not a Moderator.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
NASA didn't exist in isolation in the 1960s. There have been plenty of epidemiologic studies performed without having to irridiate humans or monkies. Though it baffles me that a person thinks it's more likely that NASA faked a moon landing over irridiating a pile of monkies or homeless people. If they were evil enough to mislead and kill to cover it up surely they would be evil enough to irridiate a bunny or other creature.

There are entire foundations dedicated to discovering the effects of radiation (Radiation Effects Research Foundation) and also uranium miners and medical studies.

Radiation is something we have perfectly good access to on Earth. People have been writing about it for over fifty years, and were writing about it in the 1950s. Some books:

    S. H. Silverman and L. Wilkins, "Radioiodine Uptake in the Study of Different Types of Hypothyroidism in Childhood," Pediatrics 12

    W. L. Freeman, "Research with Radiation and Healthy Children: Greater than Minimal Risk," IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 5, no. 16 (1994)

    B. J. Duffy and P. J. Fitzgerald, "Thyroid Cancer in Childhood and Adolescence: A Report of Twenty-eight Cases," Cancer 3 (November 1950)

    R. Murray, P. Heckel, and L. H. Hempelmann, "Leukemia in Children Exposed to Ionizing Radiation," New England Journal of Medicine 261 (1959).

    S. A. Beach and G. W. Dolphin, "A Study of the Relationship Between X-Ray Dose Delivered to the Thyroids of Children and the Subsequent Development of Malignant Tumors," Physics in Medicine and Biology 6 (1962)

    Malcom J. Farrell, Superintendent, Walter E. Fernald State School, to Parent, 2 November 1949 the Task Force for Human Subject Research, "A Report on the Use of Radioactive Materials," appendix B, document 19.

    L. Van Middlesworth, "Radioactive Iodide Uptake of Normal Newborn Infants," American Journal of Diseases of Children 88 (1954)

    Eugene L. Saenger et al., " Neoplasia Following Therapeutic Irradiation for Benign Conditions in Childhood," Radiology 74 (1960)

And here is a partial list of probes I found interesting from another forum:

    1958 February 1 - Explorer 1: Perigee: 347 km Apogee: 1,859 km. Discovered radiation belt around Earth.
    1958 March 26 - Explorer 3: Perigee: 186 km Apogee: 2,799 km. Radiation & micrometeoroid data.
    1958 July 26 - Explorer 4: Perigee: 257 km Apogee: 1,352 km. Mapped project Argus radiation.
    1958 October 11 - Pioneer 1: Apogee 113854 km
    1958 December 6 - Pioneer 3: Apogee 102,332 km. Discovered 2nd radiation belt
    1959 February 17 - Vanguard 2: Perigee: 557 km Apogee: 3,049 km. Studied magnetosphere.
    1959 March 3 - Pioneer 4: Lunar fly-by, Solar orbit. Measured radiation near the Moon.
    1959 August 7 - Explorer 6: Perigee: 245 km Apogee: 42,400 km. First Earth photo; radiation data.
    1959 September 18 - Vanguard 3: Perigee: 512 km Apogee: 3,413 km. Radiation & micrometeoroid data.
    1959 October 13 - Explorer 7: Perigee: 523 km Apogee: 857 km. Magnetic field and solar flare data.
    1960 November 3 - Explorer 8: Perigee: 394 km Apogee: 1,331 km. Ionospheric research.
    1960 March 11 - Pioneer 5: Solar orbit. Mapped magnetic fields in interplanetary space.
    1961 March 25 - Explorer 10: Perigee: 221 km Apogee: 181,100 km. Magnetic field data.
    1961 April 27 - Explorer 11: Perigee: 480 km Apogee: 1,458 km. Gamma ray data.
    1961 June 29 - Injun 1: Perigee: 869 km Apogee: 992 km. Radiation data.
    1961 August 16 - Explorer 12: Perigee: 790 km Apogee: 76,620 km. Radiation and solar wind data.
    1962 August 27 - Mariner 2: Solar orbit, Venus fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data.
    1962 October 2 - Explorer 14: Perigee: 2,558 km Apogee: 96,229 km. Magnetosphere studies.
    1962 October 27 - Explorer 15: Perigee: 306 km Apogee: 17,610 km. Radiation decay data.
    1962 December 13 - Injun 3: Perigee: 240 km Apogee: 2,406 km. Radiation decay data.
    1963 November 27 - Explorer 18: Perigee: 192 km Apogee: 197,616 km. Interplanetary radiation data.
    1964 August 25 - Explorer 20: Perigee: 857 km Apogee: 999 km. Ionospheric research.
    1964 October 4 - Explorer 21: Perigee: 191 km Apogee: 95,590 km. Magnetic field, radiation data.
    1964 October 10 - Explorer 22: Perigee: 872 km Apogee: 1,053 km. Ionospheric and geodetic data.
    1964 November 21 - Explorer 25: Perigee: 526 km Apogee: 2,319 km. Radiation data.
    1964 November 28 - Mariner 4: Solar orbit, Mars fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data.
    1964 December 21 - Explorer 26: Perigee: 284 km Apogee: 10,043 km. Radiation and solar wind data.
    1965 April 29 - Explorer 27: Perigee: 932 km Apogee: 1,309 km. Ionospheric and geodetic data.
    1965 May 29 - Explorer 28: Perigee: 229 km Apogee: 261,206 km. Magnetic field, radiation data.
    1965 November 19 - Explorer 30: Perigee: 671 km Apogee: 856 km. Solar radiation data.
    1965 November 29 - Explorer 31: Perigee: 505 km Apogee: 2,833 km. Ionospheric research.
    1965 December 16 - Pioneer 6: Solar orbit. Studied Solar wind and Sun’s magnetic field.
    1966 July 1 - Explorer 33: Perigee: 265,679 km Apogee: 480,762 km. Magnetic field, radiation data.
    1966 August 17 - Pioneer 7: Solar orbit. Monitored Solar wind and cosmic rays.
    1967 May 24 - Explorer 34: Perigee: 242 km Apogee: 214,379 km. Radiation, magnetic field data.
    1967 June 14 - Mariner 5: Solar orbit, Venus fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data.
    1967 July 19 - Explorer 35: Lunar orbit, Perigee: 484 km Apogee: 675 km. Earth magnetic tail measurements.
    1967 December 13 - Pioneer 8: Solar orbit. Returned Solar radiation data.
    1968 March 5 - Explorer 37: Perigee: 353 km Apogee: 433 km. Solar radiation data.
    1968 August 8 - Explorer 40: Perigee: 679 km Apogee: 2,489 km. Radiation data.
    1968 November 8 - Pioneer 9: Solar orbit. Returned Solar radiation data.
    1969 June 21 - Explorer 41: Perigee: 80,374 km Apogee: 98,159 km. Cislunar radiation data.
    1971 March 13 - Explorer 43: Perigee: 1,845 km Apogee: 203,130 km. Earth magnetosphere research.
    1971 July 8 - Explorer 44: Perigee: 433 km (269 mi). Apogee: 632 km. Solar radiation data.
    1971 November 15 - Explorer 45: Perigee: 272 km Apogee: 18,149 km. Studied magnetosphere, energetic particles.
    1972 September 23 - Explorer 47: Perigee: 201,100 km Apogee: 235,600 km. Investigated cislunar radiation, Earth's magnetosphere, interplanetary magnetic field.

Unless there's some very large difference in radiation that recieve on and around Earth happening somewhere I still don't see where the problem is.

And people should probably alert the moderators rather than pointing out ad-homs/off topics/things that are upsetting them I suppose.

Kthxbai.


edit on 14-12-2010 by Pinke because: Referencing


 


MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
edit on Tue Dec 14 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Excellent post!
Of course this is what myself and others had pointed out earlier, hoping that Sayonara would spend 5 minutes to verify with a few keystrokes and button clicks.
Very nice work indeed, Pinke. How long did it take you to find the data?

So, now what, Sayonara. What say you? Will you dismiss this or concede?

Facts: get some.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



DJW001 has lost all credibility in this thread. DJW001 has quoted my post from a different topic/ different thread. DJW001, The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim C is false.

Points off for you, DJW001. Better luck next time, mate. Don't let your emotions cloud your ability to be reasonable.


If you are going to use logical terms to attack a claim (or in this case, an individual) please apply them properly. This is a public forum, what you post is a matter of public record, whether in this thread or another. You claimed that you were asking objective questions. I provided evidence that you are extremely biased. How is it that I'm the one who loses credibility?

I asked you a very simple question in an unabashedly ironic way. It was not an attack by ridicule, it is simple and straightforward: given that every living creature is continually bombarded by what you call "deadly" radiation, how is it possible for life to survive on Earth? You have attacked the questioner rather than answer the question. This is an obvious attempt at deflection. "Points off" indeed. (By the way, for those following along at home, I was not the one to use a LOL icon.)

Since SayanaraJupiter has once again elected to go ad hom rather than answer a question, I will answer it for him. Life was able to evolve on Earth and continue to survive despite constant background radiation is because living tissue is capable of repairing damage to itself. It is only when the level of damage is too great for the repair mechanism to keep up does illness and, yes, even death, occur. We can calculate the odds of a given dose of radiation causing different types of damage by performing controlled experiments in the laboratory. This what NASA and many others did. It is the scientific method. Controlled experiments are more useful than merely anecdotal observations, like shooting a dog into space and seeing how long it lives.

Here is another question for you: if NASA had sent a probe with a turtle around the Moon, and it survived for a month, would you be willing to concede that there is no validity to the "radiation argument," or would you claim that turtles are so different from humans that the experiment didn't prove anything? Another question, since you're such a stickler for logic: what's the name of that fallacy that has to do with arguing from a conclusion rather than reaching a conclusion from evidence?
edit on 14-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Moving on...


So the fantasic story of Apollo 8 is also fantastic question. Where was the hard science done by NASA to show that a human being (or 3!) could survive beyond the VAB into deep space for any duration of time?


I think now it is safe to say the radiation issues has been answered once again. I still don't get why you repeat things over and over when others have been addressing the question and providing you with details and supportive data/links.

The research had been done, just because they didn't do it your way has no effect on the thoroughness of the research.

Sorry they didn't consult with you and your expertise on how to conduct deep space radiation experiments.

Anything else that Apollo 8 signifies?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA didn't know anything about space radiation beyond the VAB when Apollo 8 was launched. I have been informed by nataylor of some conferences where research papers had been submitted between 1964 and 1967. Page after page of Monte Carlo simulations which are developed by computer and this is scientific code language for "we made a theory, we guessed a lot and used random numbers, it's in the report".
Absolute nonsense, and hardly neutral. The one set of proceedings I linked to had lots of actual spacecraft-measured data and biological data.

Do you have any data that suggests radiation posed an insurmountable problem for the Apollo missions?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Do you have any data that suggests radiation posed an insurmountable problem for the Apollo missions?


Do you have data that it didnt?

With this thread we have seen that Major SPE's & Flares occurred during Apollo invalidating early warning systems that were in place. We have seen that NASA was not aware of CME's, lunar radiation and if Im not mistaken ring currents.


The interaction of space particles with spacecraft materials and electronics is complex to describe and

difficult to simulate with ground-based test facilities.

It is also not possible to fully specify the space radiation environment for a given mission because of unknowns in mapping it and unknowns in the processes that generate it.

The space environment also changes with time, often in unpredictable and undiscovered ways, making it a challenge to completely assess the hazards in any orbit.



Details of how the magnetosphere accelerates electrons to millions of electron volts in a few seconds have been recently glimpsed; however, the mechanism that accelerates the electrons more routinely in geomagnetic storms has not been established even after 40 years of research. Observations over many years with well understood space environment instruments will be needed before researchers can understand the outer zone's variability and its extreme behavior.

www.aero.org...

We have seen that the glass on the LM, CM, and Apollo Visors lacked any true protection against the various radiation that can be encountered in space. We have seen that the LM and CM were themselves poorly shielded against radiation. That their hull thickness varied therefore shielding was not uniform.

Radiation explains why NASA has not returned to the moon, gone to mars with manned missions.
It also explains why no other country or space program has been able to replicate the success of the Apollo program. It explains why we keep missions in LEO under the magnetosphere, because


The magnetosphere prevents most of the particles from the sun, carried in solar wind, from hitting the Earth.

www.windows2universe.org...

Check out the Space Environment Hazards chart:
Linky

www.colonyworlds.com...

"we are still learning about space radiation"
ISS used to study radiation's effects on biology
"radiation on the moon is vastly different that LEO"
10 to 15 cm of material like water (better than say aluminum) to effectively shield against radiation, but that cannot stop GCRs






edit on 14-12-2010 by FoosM because: added image



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



We have seen that the glass on the LM, CM, and Apollo Visors lacked any true protection against the various radiation that can be encountered in space. We have seen that the LM and CM were themselves poorly shielded against radiation. That their hull thickness varied therefore shielding was not uniform.


FOOSM for the love of God we have covered all this many times over! The claims of above have been beaten like the dead horse, your god Jarrah White is WRONG!

This is the ultimate proof that you have failed, because you can't even come up with new arguments.

Foosm you have no knowledge of radiation we proved this many times, your claims, baseless. Should I show you again how many times you have posted the same material over and over?

Maybe I should, but it won't matter you have been PROVEN WITH DATA THAT YOUR WRONG!

Absolute Ignorance I say!

Late Note: Here is a post were I was responding to your cries about nothing being answered about radiation and Apollo, which i posted over a month ago, and yes you talked about all the same stuff over and over again.
post by theability

try a new argument next time. :shk:


edit on 14-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Puzzling, Foos...because, on one hand....you start out your post (being replied to here) with the SAME already-explained nonsense....already told to you how wrong it is, yet you persist in repeating it anyway....guess you think every few pages, or weeks that elapse, and no one will notice?

But, having done that (with the typical selectivity of quote mining as well) you EXCELLED (finally!!) in your choice of a video!!

What a great one you've decided to post, here..... (compared to so much garbage video you've posted before)!!

I highly, highly recommend everyone take the ~nine minutes or so to watch it...in full screen...

Now, here's the REAL puzzle: The video you chose completely refutes the gist of the first part of that post!

Does this mean you just didn't (can't/won't) understand any of the "radiation" issue? OR, did you slip that in as an admission that you HAVE been wrong all along, and just can't/won't man up and admit it??

Very puzzling behavior.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ETA: Just in case, now that I've complimented FoosM, and lest he/she decide to delete the video, here is the link, repeated for posterity:

www.youtube.com...
edit on 14 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 



We have seen that the glass on the LM, CM, and Apollo Visors lacked any true protection against the various radiation that can be encountered in space. We have seen that the LM and CM were themselves poorly shielded against radiation. That their hull thickness varied therefore shielding was not uniform.


FOOSM for the love of God we have covered all this many times over! The claims of above have been beaten like the dead horse, your god Jarrah White is WRONG!

This is the ultimate proof that you have failed, because you can't even come up with new arguments.

Foosm you have no knowledge of radiation we proved this many times, your claims, baseless. Should I show you again how many times you have posted the same material over and over?

Maybe I should, but it won't matter you have been PROVEN WITH DATA THAT YOUR WRONG!

Absolute Ignorance I say!

Late Note: Here is a post were I was responding to your cries about nothing being answered about radiation and Apollo, which i posted over a month ago, and yes you talked about all the same stuff over and over again.

reply to post by theability
 

try a new argument next time. :shk:



So you have a problem that I summarized the thread?
The issue of the glass is still relevant, your just going to have to deal with that and the many other inconsistencies of the Apollo program.

vimeo.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Man Foosm your video proves you wrong :shk:

At 6:49 its states


...That 50 years of NASA research NASA shown that effective shielding....


You sure don't pay any attention to what you post, as usually Foosm your best work, proving yourself wrong with your own posts.

Classic....



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The issue of the glass is still relevant...


Nope it isn't you had your answers back here almost 4 months ago!! Get with the program FOOSM!

This is were you ask the same question:

post by FoosM

And a few posts back you provided your answers


post by FoosM

You once again had provided the information to debunk your work within your own posts!!

Good job Foosm, keep proving yourself wrong!!!

Like I said you have asked these questions OVER AND OVER.


edit on 14-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 259  260  261    263  264  265 >>

log in

join