Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by backinblack


Not really off-topic, not when you've had the experience of participating in this thread for the length of time I have, and personally encountered the sort of behavior mentioned.

You see, there is a line, and it has been crossed many times. That last was merely another in a long litany.

Some say best advice is to ignore, and they go away. I think you know the proper "Internet" term that is most descriptive. Because, when valiant efforts at polite, patient education have failed, and the other person is not receptive, but instead remains petulant and recalcitrant....well, their wrists should be gently slapped now and then....as a reminder, since many pages can have flown by, since the last episode.

A lot of effort to teach has gone on, in the last several months. And, THAT was the response? Usually it's a blast of spammed posts, in sequence....and usually those are about something to do with Jarrah White, and one of his nonsense claims, that has already been covered!!!

Dredging such topics up again, after allowing the previous discussion to get buried many pages back...WHAT would you call that? When it's done intentionally, and apparently out of malice?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

But when you look into these "independent" sources their information ends up being suspect. Just like that photo.

Very well, look into these sources more closely and let us know what you find. Be specific, show your work .

Mate, it was you that inferred that photo was taken by an airline passenger..
Is that specific enough??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Not really off-topic, not when you've had the experience of participating in this thread for the length of time I have, and personally encountered the sort of behavior mentioned.

You see, there is a line, and it has been crossed many times. That last was merely another in a long litany.

Some say best advice is to ignore, and they go away. I think you know the proper "Internet" term that is most descriptive. Because, when valiant efforts at polite, patient education have failed, and the other person is not receptive, but instead remains petulant and recalcitrant....well, their wrists should be gently slapped now and then....as a reminder, since many pages can have flown by, since the last episode.

A lot of effort to teach has gone on, in the last several months. And, THAT was the response? Usually it's a blast of spammed posts, in sequence....and usually those are about something to do with Jarrah White, and one of his nonsense claims, that has already been covered!!!

Dredging such topics up again, after allowing the previous discussion to get buried many pages back...WHAT would you call that? When it's done intentionally, and apparently out of malice?

I didn't need to quote your entire post but just did it to prove a point..
Lots of space with zero content and again, off topic....

reply to post by DJW001

FoosM wrote "But when you look into these "independent" sources their information ends up being suspect. Just like that photo."

This is just more hand waving and an absolutely ridiculous statement coming from someone who's own sources repeatedly contradict him.

I am horrified at the prospect of their being more than one human being of such stupendous inanity.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by DJW001

 

FoosM wrote "But when you look into these "independent" sources their information ends up being suspect. Just like that photo."

This is just more hand waving and an absolutely ridiculous statement coming from someone who's own sources repeatedly contradict him.

I am horrified at the prospect of their being more than one human being of such stupendous inanity.

edit on 17-12-2010 by Smack because: added proper quote reference

Mate, read the posts, keep up..
The photo WAS described wrong...
We can not believe everything posted..
People make mistakes or misslead..It happens...

reply to post by backinblack

Mate, it was you that inferred that photo was taken by an airline passenger.. Is that specific enough??

You don't seem to grasp how this debate thing works. Evidence is provided. You either disprove its validity, or you move on. You don't get to summarily declare it invalid. That is just gainsay. What you've provided is not proof of anything other than a lack of understanding and manners.

I don't know what you hoped to gain by this tactic, but it only makes you look ignorant.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

Mate, it was you that inferred that photo was taken by an airline passenger.. Is that specific enough??

You don't seem to grasp how this debate thing works. Evidence is provided. You either disprove its validity, or you move on. You don't get to summarily declare it invalid. That is just gainsay. What you've provided is not proof of anything other than a lack of understanding and manners.

I don't know what you hoped to gain by this tactic, but it only makes you look ignorant.

You are just looking silly..
It was posted by your mates and proved that that pic was in fact taken by an airforce plane..
Not an airline passenger as posted...
Check for the link..It's in the thread..

NOW, who looks ignorant?

Originally posted by backinblack
Mate, read the posts, keep up..
The photo WAS described wrong...
We can not believe everything posted..
People make mistakes or misslead..It happens...

I think the spirit of the post is pretty accurate. It WAS witnessed by airline passengers and it WAS photographed (just not by those airline passengers). In the grand scope of things, in a thread where we have people claiming multibillion-dollar spacecraft were destroyed to protect secrets about the visibility of stars, it was hardly a noticeable inaccuracy.

I hope you continue to examine the posts in the thread and go after ALL the inaccuracies with the same vigor.

reply to post by backinblack


And that was the relevant part for you? Not the object in the photo, but who took it?
. I'm done with you.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

And that was the relevant part for you? Not the object in the photo, but who took it?
. I'm done with you.

edit on 17-12-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)

Thank god for small mercies..
Proven wrong and moves along..

reply to post by nataylor

I think the spirit of the post is pretty accurate. It WAS witnessed by airline passengers and it WAS photographed (just not by those airline passengers). In the grand scope of things, in a thread where we have people claiming multibillion-dollar spacecraft were destroyed to protect secrets about the visibility of stars, it was hardly a noticeable inaccuracy.

I hope you continue to examine the posts in the thread and go after ALL the inaccuracies with the same vigor.

More than happy to mate..
I'm on the fence with the moon hoax thing and will question arguments on both sides..

Originally posted by Smack
Gentlemen, I stand by my prior suspicions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mate I don't even believe in the moon hoax..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm on the fence with the moon hoax thing and will question arguments on both sides..

What next, I wonder. Will bib be converted like the credulous sayonara?

If only he could produce some...I don't know...FACT? I've yet to see one emerge.
Perhaps you all could help me discover it?


wufoosayonblackinbackpathetic

Pathetic post and reported..
If it's not removed it just shows what ATS has become...

With this post I want to offer another example of NASA not fully understanding
the space environment prior to claiming to send men to the moon and back
as brought up recently by SayonaraJupiter

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I want to first present the CME

Coronal mass ejections are large eruptions of
mass and magnetic field from the Sun. Although
only discovered in the early 1970’s (Tousey,
1971, MacQueen, 1974), the effects of CMEs
have been seen indirectly at Earth for many
thousands of years. The impact of a CME on the
Earth can generate an aurora...

First discovery of coronal transient (CME) 14 Dec
1971

...flares and CMEs are themselves sources of deadly radiation. CMEs, in particular, cause "proton storms." En route to Earth, CMEs race through the sun's outer atmosphere, plowing through the hot gas at speeds exceeding a million miles per hour. Protons caught in the path of a CME can be accelerated to dangerous energies.

No astronaut wants to encounter a swarm of high-energy solar protons. Severe storms are literally sickening; exposure causes vomiting, fatigue and low blood counts. Without medical attention, an astronaut suffering from radiation sickness could die. Now for the good news: few solar protons are able to penetrate the hulls of NASA spaceships. As long as astronauts stay inside, they're safe.

So, did NASA calculate CME's in their planning of Apollo EVAs?
And how many CME's occurred during the Apollo missions?
How many of those occurred during an EVA?
Where are those numbers?


Now to Solar Flares
In an earlier post I revealed that at least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lets quickly review the dangers of Solar X-rays:

It had been thought that the X-rays were not copious enough to be a major hazard, but a new study suggests X-rays really do pose a threat to astronauts working outside of protective spacecraft or bases. The research was carried out by David Smith at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, US, and John Scalo of the University of Texas in Austin, US.

So an example of NASA flip-flopping, no worries during Apollo, but now...
And before anyone brings up new missions with longer durations "blah blah",
its irrelevant at this point. I'll remind them that there were at
least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were
observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA.

Astronauts do not venture outside the space shuttle during a solar flare.

But 'god-like' Apollo 12 astronauts have no problem doing so!

The radiation absorbed by humans is expressed in roentgen equivalent in man, or rems. In space shuttle flights, the doses received have ranged from 0.05 to 0.07 rem, well below flight crew exposure limits. For comparison, the exposure from a typical medical X-ray is 0.05 rem, and a 500 rem dose is usually fatal. A large solar flare can deliver 100 rem/hour or more

Smith says that because there would be no warning, the X-ray threat should not be ignored. He suggests that astronauts be given protective aluminium shields to carry with them when they roam far from base. "If you're on a rover or something miles from the Moon base, then you have no hope of getting back to shelter," Smith says.

Let me ask this question... how far did the Apollo astronauts travel with their rovers?

He calculates that a shield with an area of three square metres and with a mass of 21 kilograms would keep astronauts safe from most X-ray flares.

www.newscientist.com...


Confirmation that space suits alone are not 'suitable' as protection

Effects of Solar X-ray Radiation on Humans

it seems that most studies have decided not to consider the effects
of the Sun’s ionizing photons but instead focus their efforts on the much more complicated
subject of solar cosmic rays and their corresponding biological doses...

...the rarely-studied effects of the most prominent Solar ionizing radiation,
X-rays, via external contact upon humans. While damage created by photons can be done
by directly ionizing important molecules in the human body such as chromosomes, the
chance for a photon to interact with water is much greater, resulting in a chain of chemical
reactions which can ultimately lead to the destruction of the same sensitive materials in our
body (Lilley 2001, Knoll 2000, Alpen 1998).

The only ionizing photon source we need to
worry about in the near vicinity is the Sun and even then, only when it creates flares. Flares
with enough energy to deal dangerous doses of radiation to astronauts shielded by only
their suits (either on the Moon or orbiting the Earth) happen on a basis regular enough to
warrant additional protection during these events (Smith and Scalo 2007).

In order to approximate risks to humans exposed to ionizing photons, critical levels of
acute radiation exposure for various types of health outcomes (such as hematologic damage,
failure of organs, cancer, and lethality) are required. As a reference, the dose received from
a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mGy (Smith and Scalo, 2007). For a lethal dose to the entire
body, estimates reach a maximum of 5 Gy. Doses greater than 1 Gy can still result in severe
damage which is typically hematologic (affects blood or blood-forming organs) and may do
enough damage at one time that recovery is no longer assured. Doses of this strength can
cause a massive loss of leukocytes (white blood cells), greatly increasing the risk of infection.
A general accepted dose of radiation where the effects begin to become difficult to measure
due to the regular repairing by the body lies around .1 Gy(Alpen 1998, Smith and Scalo

These highly energetic photons are not a concern on Earth as they are rarely able to
penetrate from outer space all the way to the planet’s surface. While more energetic photons
(E > 30 keV) can travel through our atmosphere up to a few meters, 90% of photons around
energies of 3 keV (where the bulk of the Sun’s high energy flux lies) are absorbed by traveling
through 10 cm of air. With nearly all of our atmosphere being greater than 18 km in depth,
we have little to worry about in the ways of damage from our Sun’s high energy photons.

Traveling out in space on the other hand we are not given the luxury of an absorbent
atmosphere to ward off this dangerous radiation. Fortunately, as mentioned earlier a radi-
ation dose is determined not only by the energy of the photon but also requires a intense
concentration of these photons to be dangerous. Though we see a regular flux of X-rays from
thermal emissions in the super-heated Solar corona, the amount of energy deposited from
this process is not significant enough to warrant concern... we see that the X-ray
flux received from the sun is increased by several orders of magnitude during a solar flare
event. These events can produce enough X-rays to result in a significant absorbed radiation
dose.

X-rays associated with flares are produced by particle acceleration in the Solar atmosphere
during this release. Photons produced in this manor have energies that span between 10 1
and 10 6 keV.−p


The most extreme flares, X-class X-ray flares, have a peak flux greater than .1 erg s −1
cm −2

Even at their longest duration, X-class solar flares are considered an
acute source of radiation (i.e. they give a single more dangerous dose of heavy radiation
instead of several smaller doses of lesser radiation.) About a dozen 10^31
− 10^32 erg events (which may include multiple flares withing a short time span) have been detected since
1976, when GOES X-ray monitoring first began.

So that is AFTER Apollo.

A energetic flare like this would result in an absorbed dose greater than the lethal dose
for an unprotected human at 1 AU. Smith and Scalo show concern that current space suits
(such as the space shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit), when exposed to these flares, would
still allow a radiation dose of significant risk. Modeling this situation we get results as seen
in Figure 5. With typical densities of spacesuit components ranging between .5 and 1.5 g
cm−2, a flare of this energy would yield a dose of about .2 Gy, two times as much as the
acceptable value. Smith and Scalo also estimate by these values that an astronaut would
accumulate a 10% risk of dangerous exposure (doses over .1 Gy) to solar flares after just 100
hours of extravehicular activity (EVA).

Hard x-rays are the highest energy x-rays, while the lower energy x-rays are referred to as soft x-rays. The distinction between hard and soft x-rays is not well defined. Hard x-rays are typically those with energies greater than around 10 keV. More relevant to the distinction are the instruments required to observe them and the physical conditions under which the x-rays are produced.

X-rays do not penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore they must be observed from a platform launched above most of our atmosphere. The detection of x-rays requires that they interact with a volume of material within the detector, creating free electrons that are ultimately detected as an electric current. Since hard x-rays can penetrate more deeply into a substance than soft x-rays, they require a denser, more massive material to be detected.
The first x-ray images above 30 keV have been obtained with the Hard X-ray Telescope on the Yohkoh satellite.
On August 31, 1991, a satellite was launched into space from the Kagoshima Space Center (KSC) in Southern Japan. This satellite, known as Yohkoh ("Sunbeam"), was a project of the Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS). The scientific objective was to observe the energetic phenomena taking place on the Sun, specifically solar flares in x-ray and gamma-ray emissions.

Lets take a look at the satellites that measured and detected x-rays.
The earliest I could find was:

Aug. 21, 1972...
OAO-3 was renamed the Copernicus Observatory after launch in honor of the 500th anniversary of the birth of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). It involved a collaboration between NASA and the Science and Engineering Research Council of the United Kingdom. The main experiment on board was the Princeton University UV telescope, but Copernicus also carried an X-ray astronomy experiment for use in the 0.5-10 keV range developed by the Mullard Space Science Laboratory of University College London. It operated until late 1980.

Again, a bit late I would say to be useful for the Apollo program.


So again, what we have just established is
1. X-rays are dangerous.
2. Predicting for X-rays was seriously lacking around the period of Apollo and even to this day.
3. Measuring soft and most notably hard X-rays was seriously lacking around the period of Apollo



But hold the phone.
Not only do X-rays come from the Sun, they are also present on the moon!

X-rays from the moon

In July and September of 2001, a team led by Jeremy Drake of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics used Chandra to study x rays from the moon. These x rays are produced when the solar wind strikes the lunar surface and causes it to fluoresce. The solar wind knocks electrons from atoms on the moon, and when other electrons fall into place, they give off their excess energy in the form of x rays. As a result, the x-ray spectra lists what the surface is made of.

whaaat!? I mean add that to:

In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.

Measurements taken by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter show that the number of high energy particles streaming in from space did not tail off closer to the moon's surface, as would be expected with the body of the moon blocking half the sky.

Rather, the cosmic rays created a secondary -- and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

Why? I thought NASA had fully studied the space environment before sending people to the moon.

Indeed, NASA has played down the dangers of X-rays and played up the GCR danger.
Which they can easily claim to circumvent by stating the Apollo missions were short.
And only for long trips to Mars or long stays on the moon are GCR a show-stopper.


science.nasa.gov...
hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/summerschool/lectures/vourlidas/AV_intro2CMEs/additional%20material/corona_history.pdf
chandra.harvard.edu...
www.astronomy.com...
hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov...
news.discovery.com...

reply to post by backinblack

Mate, read the posts, keep up..
The photo WAS described wrong...
We can not believe everything posted..
People make mistakes or misslead..It happens...

Sorry, I seem to have missed something. Please explain.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Mate, read the posts, keep up..
The photo WAS described wrong...
We can not believe everything posted..
People make mistakes or misslead..It happens...

Sorry, I seem to have missed something. Please explain.

K, you displayed a pic and inferred it was from airline passengers..
It wasn't....That's about it..

Edit: Here you go..

This shows how gullible they are. The re-entry was not only covered live on TV, it was accidentally witnessed and photographed by airline passengers.

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM's latest original contribution to this thread:

With this post I want to offer another example of NASA not fully understanding the space environment prior to claiming to send men to the moon and back as brought up recently by SayonaraJupiter I want to first present the CME So, did NASA calculate CME's in their planning of Apollo EVAs? And how many CME's occurred during the Apollo missions? How many of those occurred during an EVA? Where are those numbers? Now to Solar Flares In an earlier post I revealed that at least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA. Lets quickly review the dangers of Solar X-rays: So an example of NASA flip-flopping, no worries during Apollo, but now... And before anyone brings up new missions with longer durations "blah blah", its irrelevant at this point. I'll remind them that there were at least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA. But 'god-like' Apollo 12 astronauts have no problem doing so! Let me ask this question... how far did the Apollo astronauts travel with their rovers? Confirmation that space suits alone are not 'suitable' as protection So that is AFTER Apollo. Lets take a look at the satellites that measured and detected x-rays.The earliest I could find was: Again, a bit late I would say to be useful for the Apollo program. So again, what we have just established is
1. X-rays are dangerous.
2. Predicting for X-rays was seriously lacking around the period of Apollo and even to this day.
3. Measuring soft and most notably hard X-rays was seriously lacking around the period of Apollo But hold the phone. Not only do X-rays come from the Sun, they are also present on the moon! whaaat!? I mean add that to: Why? I thought NASA had fully studied the space environment before sending people to the moon.
Indeed, NASA has played down the dangers of X-rays and played up the GCR danger.
Which they can easily claim to circumvent by stating the Apollo missions were short.
And only for long trips to Mars or long stays on the moon are GCR a show-stopper.

A veritable marathon. Now what. exactly is your problem with the photographic evidence I presented? Be specific. A diagram like this would be amusing instructive:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6d8e2cf0b51.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by DJW001


So, you ignore my post??
Isn't that what you acuse others of doing??

Kinda sad....

reply to post by backinblack

Again, sorry, where was it established that the photo was not from an airline passenger? I seem to have missed something here. Please provide a link, FoosM's spamming has made this thread difficult to follow.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Again, sorry, where was it established that the photo was not from an airline passenger? I seem to have missed something here. Please provide a link, FoosM's spamming has made this thread difficult to follow.

Here mate...How much more proof do you need??
www.honeysucklecreek.net...