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: 265
377
<< 262  263  264    266  267  268 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
No no. Nasa facricated and completely made up the radiation numbers in space. Then no scientist or 3rd party figured that out in the coming +50 years...


Exactly what radiation numbers are you referring to?


Just want to add, as an example, since people are having a very difficult time to connect the dots, see past their blinders, or refuse to take off their rose colored glasses.

Problems in radiation dosimetry for space radiation

Since serious measurements of dose equivalent in space were started, about twenty years have elapsed and no standard method is yet established. In this paper, several principles for measuring dose equivalent in space are explained and the disadvantages of each measurement are described. Then, the discrepancies among the results recently obtained using those methods are shown. These discrepancies are mainly caused by the differences in LET(Linear Energy Transfer) distributions obtained in space. From these findings, it is concluded that the most important problem in space dosimetry is how to obtain correct LET distribution for space radiation. Finally, to obtain the correct LET distribution some ideas are presented




sciencelinks.jp...



edit on 15-12-2010 by FoosM because: text added.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMOf course you wont, you dont want to stick your neck out to get it chopped.
Seems like you're the one who won't stick your neck out. I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 



Is there any question that JW is a crook and a liar?


A crook a liar and banned from almost every forum on the internet because he is beyond adolescent.

I wonder why ATS continues to allow his drivel here?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.


From the research I have been doing lately, Foosm or his screen-names does this on numerous forums, continually beating this dead horse over and over without regard to answering questions.

Funny that every forum around has the same entries over and over, by different names. Posting the same useless videos and nonsense everywhere.

Do the math, how likely is it different people?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




www.abovetopsecret.com... The guy in the CM who goes around the darkside of the moon but doesn't see stars? *cough* Collins *cough* ahem...


Here you suggest that Collins is unable to see stars on the dark side, but you concede that Apollo 11 did indeed go to the moon, or else how would Collins have not seen stars on the dark side?
Here is the part of the transcript you misapprehend:


ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

[Collins] (in response to Armstrong's reference to photographing the solar corona) : I don't remember seeing any(stars).




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You have not demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter sufficient to prove anything other than your profound ignorance of it. Like a toddler with daddy's screwdriver, you grasp the concept of its basic use, but cannot adapt it to tasks of any significant complexity. In your hands, science is a club; a primitive and clumsy weapon; a mere rhetorical device to be wielded haphazardly, and without responsibility. But Science is a sophisticated tool when in the hands of the adept and those who recognize its true function.

You've proven nothing. Refuted nothing. Convinced no one.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosMOf course you wont, you dont want to stick your neck out to get it chopped.
Seems like you're the one who won't stick your neck out. I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.


Thats right, you presented the sources, but you did nothing to explain why those sources are relevant.
So dont ask other people to do the work for you.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Smack
 



Is there any question that JW is a crook and a liar?


A crook a liar and banned from almost every forum on the internet because he is beyond adolescent.

I wonder why ATS continues to allow his drivel here?




For you to know that, you must be obsessed.
You stalking JW?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by nataylor
 



I've presented numerous sources of data, yet you can't show a single bit that is wrong or that presents any kind of problem for the feasibility of the Apollo program.


From the research I have been doing lately, Foosm or his screen-names does this on numerous forums, continually beating this dead horse over and over without regard to answering questions.

Funny that every forum around has the same entries over and over, by different names. Posting the same useless videos and nonsense everywhere.

Do the math, how likely is it different people?



Yeah, your a stalker.
Try using your time to research why Apollo was faked.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by FoosM
 




www.abovetopsecret.com... The guy in the CM who goes around the darkside of the moon but doesn't see stars? *cough* Collins *cough* ahem...


Here you suggest that Collins is unable to see stars on the dark side,

but you concede that Apollo 11 did indeed go to the moon, or else how would Collins have not seen stars on the dark side?


You reaching dude, really reaching.
But I can understand why you are tying yourself into a gordian knot over it because Collins' comments and the whole Apollo program was a contradiction.



Here is the part of the transcript you misapprehend:


ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

[Collins] (in response to Armstrong's reference to photographing the solar corona) : I don't remember seeing any(stars).



And how did I "misapprehend" it?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why are you bringing the whole stars issue up again? It all depends on whether your eyes are dark adapted or whether the camera is set on a lower or higher exposure. We covered all that 150 pages ago.


So how do you explain the stars in the following photo:

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


S11-42-6179 (19 July 1969) --- This photograph of the solar corona was taken from the Apollo 11 spacecraft during trans-lunar coast and prior to lunar orbit insertion. The moon is the dark disc between the spacecraft and the sun.


spaceflight.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats right, you presented the sources, but you did nothing to explain why those sources are relevant.
So dont ask other people to do the work for you.
You said you wanted data on space radiation prior to Apollo 8. I linked to a ton of it. All you have to do is find something wrong with it. Yet you can't.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I've decided to offer proof in the manner most befitting this thread and in the fine tradition of its most prolific poser.. er posters .

This video will explain in detail why JW is a complete asshat:






posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
More irrefuteable proof. See the stars from the space shuttle? wow! Ooo! Ahhh..



Refute that, if you can.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats right, you presented the sources, but you did nothing to explain why those sources are relevant.
So dont ask other people to do the work for you.
You said you wanted data on space radiation prior to Apollo 8. I linked to a ton of it. All you have to do is find something wrong with it. Yet you can't.


Man thats silly.
Why dont you show me what is right about it.
Why did you choose those documents?
Only because they were published prior to Apollo 8?
LOL.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
More irrefuteable proof. See the stars from the space shuttle? wow! Ooo! Ahhh..



Refute that, if you can.



Thanks, you clearly have shown how fake Apollo was.
I said it before, many of you believers would turn into skeptics without even realizing.
LOL.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
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.


In summary response I am not impressed. Pinke posted 7 references to children's cancer research from the 1950's and 1 reference to children's cancer research from 1994. Pinke also posted a list of 46 USA space flights (see page 262 for the original post).

Children's cancer research has nothing at all to do with space radiation studies beyond the VAB. Of the 46 USA space flights Pinke offerred: 20 of those flights were less than Distance: 3,413 km / 2,121 miles into space. 5 of those flights came after Apollo 8. This leaves only 22 USA space flights which exceeded 3,413 km. So Pinke's list of 46 space flights is now cut down to 22 USA space flights which exceeded 3,413 km.

Please recall that the inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km. Source Wiki.

How many USA space flights EXCEEDED 10,000 km and occurred PRIOR TO Apollo 8? I believe we are left with 22 flights only according to Pinke's list. These are the 22 flights:

=================================================
1958 December 6 - Pioneer 3: Apogee 102,332 km. Discovered 2nd radiation belt
1958 October 11 - Pioneer 1: Apogee 113854 km
1959 August 7 - Explorer 6: Perigee: 245 km Apogee: 42,400 km. First Earth photo; radiation data.
1959 March 3 - Pioneer 4: Lunar fly-by, Solar orbit. Measured radiation near the Moon.
1960 March 11 - Pioneer 5: Solar orbit. Mapped magnetic fields in interplanetary space.
1961 August 16 - Explorer 12: Perigee: 790 km Apogee: 76,620 km. Radiation and solar wind data.
1961 March 25 - Explorer 10: Perigee: 221 km Apogee: 181,100 km. Magnetic field 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.
1963 November 27 - Explorer 18: Perigee: 192 km Apogee: 197,616 km. Interplanetary radiation data.
1964 December 21 - Explorer 26: Perigee: 284 km Apogee: 10,043 km. Radiation and solar wind data.
1964 November 28 - Mariner 4: Solar orbit, Mars flyby. Returned radiation and solar wind data.
1964 October 4 - Explorer 21: Perigee: 191 km Apogee: 95,590 km. Magnetic field, radiation data.
1965 December 16 - Pioneer 6: Solar orbit. Studied Solar wind and Sun’s magnetic field.
1965 May 29 - Explorer 28: Perigee: 229 km Apogee: 261,206 km. Magnetic field, radiation data.
1966 August 17 - Pioneer 7: Solar orbit. Monitored Solar wind and cosmic rays.
1966 July 1 - Explorer 33: Perigee: 265,679 km Apogee: 480,762 km. Magnetic field, radiation data.
1967 December 13 - Pioneer 8: Solar orbit. Returned Solar radiation data.
1967 June 14 - Mariner 5: Solar orbit, Venus fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data.
1967 May 24 - Explorer 34: Perigee: 242 km Apogee: 214,379 km. Radiation, magnetic field data.
1968 November 8 - Pioneer 9: Solar orbit. Returned Solar radiation data.
=================================================

I will examine merely one spaceflight, the 11th one in this list, Explorer 18. Nov. 26, 1963 :
Explorer 18 Studied charged particles and magnetic fields in cislunar, space (Planetary Monitoring Platform--IMP). Source history.nasa.gov...

I will now use some NON-NASA sources to enable us to see a different summary for Explorer 18 (aka "IMP 1", aka "IMP A") . Beginning with the Explorer 18 mission in 1963, a series of Explorer spacecraft were then deemed Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms. IMP 1, 2 and 3 explored the near tail. Source : www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...


Explorer 18 (IMP 1, Interplanetary Monitoring Platform) was a solar-cell and chemical-battery powered spacecraft instrumented for interplanetary and distant magnetospheric studies of energetic particles, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and plasmas. Initial spacecraft parameters included a local time of apogee of 1020 h, a spin rate of 22 rpm, and a spin direction of 115 deg right ascension and -25 deg declination. Each normal telemetry sequence of 81.9 s duration consisted of 795 data bits. After every third normal sequence there was an 81.9-s interval of rubidium vapor magnetometer analog data transmission. The spacecraft performed normally until May 30, 1964, then intermittently until May 10, 1965, when it was abandoned. Source : space.skyrocket.de...


Here is what the Astronautix source says:

Explorer 18 - . Payload: IMP A. Mass: 62 kg (136 lb). Nation: USA. Agency: NASA Greenbelt. Program: Explorer. Class: Earth. Type: Magnetosphere satellite. Spacecraft: IMP. Decay Date: 1965-11-30. USAF Sat Cat: 693 . COSPAR: 1963-046A. Apogee: 197,616 km (122,792 mi). Perigee: 192 km (119 mi). Inclination: 33.3000 deg. Period: 5,666.20 min. Summary: Radiation data; Interplanetary Monitoring Program. Spacecraft engaged in research and exploration of the upper atmosphere or outer space (US Cat B). Source : www.astronautix.com...


So this satellite was only useful for about 5 months total. Aboard Explorer 18 (aka "IMP 1", aka "IMP A")
was a "scintillator" cosmic ray experiment. The cosmic ray experiment description from NASA says:


This experimenter-supplied scintillator and Geiger-Mueller (GM) cosmic-ray ion and electron count rate data set is contained on one reel of 16-mm microfilm that also contains data sets 63-046A-04B and -04D. The data consist of tabular listings of time, spacecraft altitude, and all count rates (5-min resolution) for all the counting modes of the scintillator telescope and the GM tubes. There are no significant data gaps between November 27, 1963, and February 29, 1964. There are no data for March 1 to 15, 1964, but there are data for March 16 to 18, 1964.


Now returning to the year 1968, we have a different perspective again:


A Reevaluation of Solar Flares, 1964-1966, McMath-Hulbert Observatory, 1968, The University of Michigan, which wrote : In efforts to underand the cosmic environment of the earth, geophysicists often turn to tabulations of solar flares prepared by solar astronomers and Solar World Data Centers. The tabulations vary in time of issue and in degrees of completeness and reliability. All too often the user of flare data is confronted with conflicting reports or with disconcerting words of caution from solar astronomers who are especially aware of the many difficulties in the primary measurements and evaluations of the solar events. Source : ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...


This is why, even in 2010, scientists are still conducting studies and holding serious conferences.


Dynamics of the Earth's Radiation Belts and Inner Magnetosphere
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
17–22 July 2011

Conference Objectives and General Description
Despite some 50 years of space research, fundamental questions remain concerning the physics of Earth's radiation belts and inner magnetosphere. Our ability to protect spacecraft systems from the hazardous space environment depends on our knowledge of geospace. In the last decade there has been a resurgence in radiation belt research in parallel with the development of the new discipline of space weather science.
The conference will address the following questions:

What is our current state of knowledge of Earth's radiation belts from particle, wave and magnetic field observations? What further data are essential? Source : www.agu.org...


Scheduled to attend the 2011 conference in Canada is Harlan Spence who is leading the team for CRaTER,

" Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER): Investigates the effect of galactic cosmic rays on tissue-equivalent plastics as a constraint on models of biological response to background space radiation. PI, Harlan Spence, Boston University, Massachusetts." Source : www.space.com...


Obviously we don't know enough about space radiation or radiation on the moon in 2005. What did we really know in 1968?


Leading scientist Harlan Spence noted "Says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University;
"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the
Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a
few days,"

"When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface,
they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation
in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"


Finally,


The value or successfulness of a satellite should not be measured in terms of days of operation
or minutes or kilobits of telemetry recorded. Instead, one should ask the question "What has
been learned?" Answers to this question can be found by referring to Appendix D - a bibliography
of papers published by experimenters based on IMP-I data. Source : ntrs.nasa.gov...

edit on 12/15/2010 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix format



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Man thats silly.
Why dont you show me what is right about it.
Why did you choose those documents?
Only because they were published prior to Apollo 8?
LOL.

Man, you are being more obtuse and circular than normal. You wanted data from before Apollo 8, so of course I picked stuff published before it. And I chose those documents because they contain actual data about radiation in the space environment and that's the data you asked for.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yeah, your a stalker.
Try using your time to research why Apollo was faked.


No the stalker is your Idol Jarrah White, who harasses people, lies, cheats, creates false data in order to obsess over something he doesn't have a clue about.

Funny that he is banned from most forums on the internet, like some or you other screen-names?

Your faith in whack-jobs is disgusting.

No worries I bet more fraud lies an deceit will surface soon enough.

Ohh Why is it also that every forum that has this thread, has the same information posted over and over and over?

I think its called Obsessive Compulsive disorder, because this isn't about Apollo and never has been.




edit on 15-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


And yet, like Foos, you can't point out a single bit of data that makes the Apollo program impossible. Of course there was more to learn in 1968. There will always be more to learn. But they had a good enough understanding of the environment to protect the crews on their short trips.



new topics




 
377
<< 262  263  264    266  267  268 >>

log in

join