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: 278
377
<< 275  276  277    279  280  281 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
lol, seriously...There are many good posters here to debunk this stuff but this??

I don't think ANY serious researcher would accept " enhanced " images as proof of anything..


Deconvolution is a scientific imaging processing technique. It is used frequently in astronomy.

But even the original, unprocessed images clearly show the different shadow lengths of the Apollo 11 descent stage.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


So, you can't answer the question, can you? Doesn't your reticence to produce anything of substance to dispute the validity of the video - other than your absurdist bloviations - inform me as to the kind of person you are and what you know?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Thanks for the link..
But it's still enhanced..We are not sure what we see is real..The program fills the gaps..

Like I said, you would not accept these pics as evidence of anything if they were posted as proof of things on Mars..

That is not me being difficult, it is the simple truth...

BTW, I thought the best pics they had were 50cm/pixle...
edit on 23-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack
 


So, you can't answer the question, can you? Doesn't your reticence to produce anything of substance to dispute the validity of the video - other than your absurdist bloviations - inform me as to the kind of person you are and what you know?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)


Give it a rest ..
I can show you better pics of artifacts on Mars..
What YOU should be asking is WHY isn't there a nice clear pic of the first landing sight..
Not arguing over a pic of a shadow..
Last I heard, rocks cast shadows also...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well thank you for admitting that you are completely ignorant of the facts about that video.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Like I said, you would not accept these pics as evidence of anything if they were posted as proof of things on Mars..


And like I said, there's a big difference between comparing these images to known information, like the existing photos, the dimensions of the descent stage, etc., to some unknown and undocumented object with uncertain qualities.

If the argument is that these LROC images are faked, well... it wouldn't matter how good they they are, would it? If the argument is that they're not good enough to tell the Apollo artifacts from random rocks, I heartily disagree.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
Like I said, you would not accept these pics as evidence of anything if they were posted as proof of things on Mars..


And like I said, there's a big difference between comparing these images to known information, like the existing photos, the dimensions of the descent stage, etc., to some unknown and undocumented object with uncertain qualities.

If the argument is that these LROC images are faked, well... it wouldn't matter how good they they are, would it? If the argument is that they're not good enough to tell the Apollo artifacts from random rocks, I heartily disagree.


So what you are saying is that you would agree with my stance if we didn't know the equipment was there?
I think that about sums up your post..

As for "Smack" where's that ignore clown button ?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Radiation to the moon as recorded by India's satellite:

isro.gov.in...

One Gy (Gray)=
---One gray is the absorption of one joule of energy, in the form of ionizing radiation, by one kilogram of matter. The gray measures the deposited energy of radiation.

en.wikipedia.org...(unit)

1 abdominal X-ray= 1.4 mGy (milli-Gray)
If you kept getting zapped for hours/days of course that would end up resulting in a lethal Gy exposure.

Shuttle Mission STS-63 studied radiation exposure. Our Astronauts on the shuttle received 2000-2800 mGy, per day.This was low-Earth orbit.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

mGy= 1/ 1,000 (thousandth)
uGy= 1/ 1,000,000 (millionth)

So India's Data says the outer radiation belt = 40,000 uGy / per hour
--inner radiation belt= 130,000 uGy/ per hour



This file shows the satellite recorded over a period of 25 hours a human would have been exposed to 12.3 Gray's of radiation.

That's permanent hair loss level. Any dose above 1 Gray= epilation (hair loss).
12.3 Gray of Radiation PER 24 HOURS is BAD.

Hardcore Radiation Cancer Treatment can dump 45-60 Gray's of radiation into you....but ONLY with 1.8-2.0 Gray's per treatment. If they dumped 12.3 Grays into you in 24 hours you'd have some serious radiation exposure problems.

India's data is crucial in calculating the Apollo crews Gray exposure for each orbit as they passed thru the Van Allen Belts to the moon. You can calculate how many hours they were exposed and compute their total Radiation exposure.

Amazing they suffered no hair loss isn't it?


edit on 23-12-2010 by Pervius because: added word



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So what you are saying is that you would agree with my stance if we didn't know the equipment was there?
I think that about sums up your post.
No, even if I never knew about Apollo, looking at those sites I would definitely be able to say that there was something out of the ordinary there compared to the rest of the lunar surface.

But at any rate, we do know the equipment is there. These photos are certainly good enough to establish that these are, in fact, the Apollo landing sites and not just random rock formations. That's what we're talking about, right? Establishing that these photos are, in fact, the Apollo sites? Because, as I brought up, if the argument is that these images are faked, it doesn't really matter how clear they are.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Amazing they suffered no hair loss isn't it?


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

Let's assume total traverse time for both belts is 4 hours (2 hours in each). We can even assume the intensity remains the same the whole time (though it wouldn't). That gives us 2 hours at 40,000 uGy/hr (40 mGy/hr) for a subtotal of 80 mGy. And then another 2 hours at 130,000 uGy/hr (130 mGy/hr) for a subtotal of 260 mGy. That's a total of 340 mGy, not even at the 1 Gray threshold of hair loss. And that's ignoring the shielding.
edit on 23-12-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
When I come to the question "Is NASA correct about the Apollo story?" I have to pause. This is not an easy question. The immediate answer does not come clearly to me. I remain skeptical. I have asked the obvious quesitons and received the generic answers. I have asked particular questions and been guided toward source material that might convince me with authoritative definitive scientific gibberish words.

The disputes involving various interpretations of the "official NASA story of Apollo" must be clearly understood if we are to make progress on this difficult path of inquiry. This question represents a schism. If we answer 'yes! to this question then we accept the whole story as it has been presented to us. If when we answer !no! the system is designed to antagonize us until we submit to the regularly scheduled programming. Like the lab rat reward for pressing the green button which delivers a coc aine-like substance.

The question "Is NASA correct about the Apollo Story?" is the question that remains unanswered for me. If investigators like Jarrah White are still asking questions about Apollo in 2010 then science has been a failure at providing a convincing argument with indisputable proofs. NASA has failed to convince me. Religion has failed to convince me. You may call me a skeptic. A doubting Thomas. Or a Devil's Advocate.

We must send another man (an international man) around the Moon in a capsule as soon as possible. Let him take his own pictures and bring them back to show us himself and not cleared through the CIA-MSC in Houston or Goddard or Langley. He can bring a turtle with him on the journey.


The question "Is NASA correct about the Apollo Story?" Some of us may fall short of answering that question with 100% certainty. That is why this thread exists. That is why Jarrah White is important. That is why ignorance must be denied.

I know that I have been lied to by corporate managers, corporate executives, corporate police men, corporate judges, corporate prosecutors. They all have one thing in common -- they all believe in this system of corporate mind control. It may seem difficult to believe. These are Agents of the Matrix. They do the program and they don't think about it. You may have seen them operating around your vicinity lately.

If NASA, in 1968, had the technological capability of sending men to the moon then they also had the capability to simulate moon landings for infinite NASA propaganda gain. Lost the original tapes!? Erased the original tapes!? Too easy. CIA written all over it



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



When I come to the question "Is NASA correct about the Apollo story?" I have to pause. This is not an easy question. The immediate answer does not come clearly to me.


That is because it is an ambiguous question. What do you mean by "Apollo story?" It was not a story, but a massive historical undertaking costing billions of dollars and employing hundreds of thousands of people. Remember, everything that NASA used came from somewhere; not just the rockets, spacecraft and space suits, but the photocopy machines, ball point pens and coffee creamer. The Apollo project did not consist of three men whispering in a back room. Specifically, what is your question? Do you have a problem with their accounting practices? Was NASA's employment policy unfair? Were their procurements suspicious? Ask a specific question if you want a clear answer. It is really that simple.


I have asked particular questions and been guided toward source material that might convince me with authoritative definitive scientific gibberish words.


I'm sorry if you do not understand science. It is not gibberish. If you have asked a specific question and been unable to understand the answer, please ask for clarification. Many on this thread can be quite good at explaining difficult concepts in simple terms. Better still, you can learn about science on your own. I would recommend starting with some of Isaac Asimov's books, he had facility both in explaining concepts and putting them into historical context.


The disputes involving various interpretations of the "official NASA story of Apollo" must be clearly understood if we are to make progress on this difficult path of inquiry.


Again, I'm not so sure what you consider difficult. There are massive amounts of documentation to be mined, true, but it helps if you are asking a specific question.


This question represents a schism. If we answer 'yes! to this question then we accept the whole story as it has been presented to us. If when we answer !no! the system is designed to antagonize us until we submit to the regularly scheduled programming. Like the lab rat reward for pressing the green button which delivers a coc aine-like substance.


Which question represents a schism? You still haven't posed a specific question. No-one here "accepts the whole story as it has been presented to us" because there are so many stories presented by so many people! Conservative narratives tell of the triumph of capitalism over communism. Liberal narratives tell of federal money wisely spent. Cynical narratives tell of "corporate welfare." Which of the countless "stories" are you talking about? I'm sorry if your personal frustration at being unable to sort through the facts leads you to feel antagonized and disempowered.


The question "Is NASA correct about the Apollo Story?" is the question that remains unanswered for me.


Again, this question is so broad as to be meaningless.


If investigators like Jarrah White are still asking questions about Apollo in 2010 then science has been a failure at providing a convincing argument with indisputable proofs.


False. First Jarrah White is not an "investigator." Every discipline has a methodology that produces meaningful results. The events of the 1960's and early 1970's is an historical investigation, not a scientific one. Only people who do not understand the difference make the mistake of thinking that JW knows anything about either. I have touched on this point at least three times previously in this thread. If you missed it, just ask and I would be happy to explain it again.


NASA has failed to convince me. Religion has failed to convince me. You may call me a skeptic. A doubting Thomas. Or a Devil's Advocate.


Convincing you was never NASA's job. You are free to believe anything you want.


We must send another man (an international man) around the Moon in a capsule as soon as possible. Let him take his own pictures and bring them back to show us himself (snip)


Why? If your a priori assumption is that it is impossible to travel safely to the Moon and back, you will remain "skeptical," People will return to the Moon when it is economically desirable.


.The question "Is NASA correct about the Apollo Story?" Some of us may fall short of answering that question with 100% certainty. That is why this thread exists. That is why Jarrah White is important. That is why ignorance must be denied.


There's that vague question again! Again, "Apollo" is not a "story," any more than World War II is a "story." If you have doubts about specific events, formulate the question properly so it can be answered. For example: "Why was Apollo 8 changed from an Earth orbital to a lunar mission and the time-table advanced?" The Russian "story" is probably correct; LBJ was an "empire builder," and NASA changed the mission for political purposes. Those are the sort of questions that proper historians ask, and you'll notice they can actually be answered, if controversially. Jarrah White does not ask historical or even scientific questions. He mis-states facts and asks rhetorical questions designed to lead to a pre-conceived conclusion. That is why Jarrah White is an unimportant charlatan; his ignorance must be exposed.


If NASA, in 1968, had the technological capability of sending men to the moon then they also had the capability to simulate moon landings for infinite NASA propaganda gain. Lost the original tapes!? Erased the original tapes!? Too easy. CIA written all over it.


Not necessarily; building rockets and making movies are entirely separate technologies. NASA built spacecraft and still do! (Or do you believe all those communications satellites are the product of corporate mind control?) Funny you should mention missing tapes... I have an old cassette I want to put on CD but can't find it anywhere... do you think the CIA has been going through my things?
edit on 23-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I have asked particular questions and been guided toward source material that might convince me with authoritative definitive scientific gibberish words.


Just because you don't understand it does not make it gibberish or invalid, if the sum of our knowledge was made up from the general populace then we would barely have advanced out of caves. It's difficult and complicated to understand because it is just that, difficult and complicated, at least in comparison to the level of thinking and understanding the average individual has to endure thoughout their ordinary life.
There is no ultimately simple way to explain some of these things because they are not simple, the key to understanding is a high level of intellect, education and research.



If investigators like Jarrah White are still asking questions about Apollo in 2010 then science has been a failure at providing a convincing argument with indisputable proofs.


Wrong. Jarrah White is still asking questions because he likes fame and attention and the easiest way he's found to accomplish this is through his moon hoax series, which preys on people like you that get confused by 'authoritative definitive scientific gibberish words' and can be tricked easily like a member of the public by a street magician.

After failing to find fame through redubbing Thomas the Tank Engine episodes or mumbling on about Japanese paedo cartoons, one can imagine he was over the moon when producing his fictional Moon Hoax school classroom assignment and accidently found out it was popular.

I can't understand though, why do so many people who have no scientific understanding or background suddenly think they are qualified to 'debunk Apollo'? Everyone seems to think they're an expert these days at topics that are, frankly, far beyond their sphere of knowledge or intellectual skill set.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I still think it is rather odd for flights A7 and A8 to have exactly the same average readings (.16 rads). Is the reader of this report expected to conclude that this is the final word? The report leaves out A16 and A17 so it cannot be the final word.


Why is that odd? Because these two measured events turn out to have the same findings?

Scientific method, it actually works.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Not necessarily; building rockets and making movies are entirely separate technologies. NASA built spacecraft and still do! (Or do you believe all those communications satellites are the product of corporate mind control?) Funny you should mention missing tapes... I have an old cassette I want to put on CD but can't find it anywhere... do you think the CIA has been going through my things?


They were not simply movies..
They were records of one of the most important events in Man's history..
Their loss is unexcusable and MUST raise questions..



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


??????


Their loss is unexcusable and MUST raise questions.


The "original" videos of Apollo 11?

There is nothing "lost"......nor is it "inexcusable".

THIS is merely, yet another, in the long litany of ridiculous "arguments" that weak-minded people seem to accept so readily in order to perpetuate the :Apollo hoax" nonsense.

By focusing on this ONE (minor) happenstance, and exaggerating it all out of proportion (to the EXCLUSION of the fact that plenty of other documentation exists....not only of that mission, but of all that followed) shows the ineptitude, and narrow-mindedness, of the overall "Apollo hoax" mindset.

This sort of specious so-called "reasoning" is, unfortunately, not just limited to this topic. It is seen in MANY of the so-called :conspiracy" topics that have become a part of modern life.....it is sad to see the prevalence of such ignorance, as it abounds nearly everywhere....under the guise of pretending to be "just asking questions".....



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Man WW, It's xmas..
Can you atleast cut the rants a little??

Are you saying the tapes are NOT missing???

BTW, still waiting for answers from you in other threads.
You seem to ignore certain questions..

Edit to add: I can't believe you got stars for that rant.

edit on 23-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
How did you come to that conclusion?
Care to provide some sources?


X-class flares are classified as having a peak x-ray intensity of 1*10^-4 watts per square meter. An X5 flare would have an intensity of 5*10^-4 W/m^2. Typically, the duration of these events is under an hour, but it can be longer.


I appreciate you showing us the math.
However, I would like to be clear about some things.
You stated that X-rays aren't a major risk to astronauts from flares.

Are you saying there are other sources where X-rays pose more of a risk?
For example, CME's, VAB's (as in bremsstrahlung), etc?

And furthermore, if you can do the math, then NASA/scientists can do the math.
Why then are they putting out to the public the dangers from X-rays?
Are you saying that they are wrong?

Getting back to the flares.



X-class flares are classified as having a peak x-ray intensity of 1*10^-4 watts per square meter


What does that mean, and what is that based on?



On 4 November 2003, the largest solar flare ever recorded exploded from the Sun's surface, sending an intense burst of radiation streaming towards the Earth. Before the storm peaked, x-rays overloaded the detectors on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), forcing scientists to estimate the flare's size.


Why limit your numbers to GOES if GOES cant handle what the Sun can throw out into space?


GOES 13 SXI sustained damage to several pixels of its detector while observing this X9 flare event. The source of the damage was the large X-ray flux of the flare convolved with the observing sequence. At the time, the susceptibility of the detector to radiation damage was not well understood or constrained. The type of damage affects 8 lines of pixels across the CCD and is unlikely to recover. Operational constraints and updates to on-board observing sequence software will enable the SXI to continue its mission without further damage to its detector. The impact on observations and prediction is currently being assessed as the new sequence software and operational constraints are developed. In addition, ground algorithms will be developed to minimize the appearance of the 'lost' lines through interpolation or other means.


That was only an X9


Taking a different route, researchers from the University of Otago used radio wave-based measurements of the x-rays' effects on the Earth's upper atmosphere to revise the flare's size from a merely huge X28 to a "whopping" X45,


And now we see that flares might be more intense than we thought.
Where do they get the X28, X45 numbers from? GOES?


Their calculations show that the flare's x-ray radiation bombarding the atmosphere was equivalent to that of 5,000 Suns, though none of it reached the Earth's surface, the researchers say


Because Earth is protected. But what about the Moon?


The Sun has even produced flares that could kill an unprotected spacesuited human on the Moon, they say, although these are extremely rare.



We’ve been seeing just the tip of the iceberg when monitoring flares with X-rays. With the complete extreme ultraviolet (EUV) coverage by SDO EUV Variability Experiment (EVE), we now see a secondary peak in the EUV that is many minutes after the X-ray flare peak. Furthermore, the total EUV energy from this broad secondary peak has about four times more energy than the EUV energy during the time of the X-ray flare peak. This result is illustrated in the time series plot of the QEUV, being the integrated irradiance from 5 nm to 45 nm that is important for Earth’s ionosphere (plasma in our atmosphere).


This plot is during the small solar flare (class C2.2) on April 30, 2010. For comparison, the GOES X-ray monitor (XRS-B) is also shown in this plot as the green trace. The QEUV energy during the X-ray flare period is only 21% of the total flare energy; whereas, the energy during the secondary peak is 79%. This result is not unique to this C2.2 flare as we see this secondary peak in all fourteen of the C-class flares that EVE has observed so far.




with X class flares having a peak flux of order 10−4 W/m2. Within a class there is a linear scale from 1 to 9, so an X2 flare is twice as powerful as an X1 flare, and is four times more powerful than an M5 flare. The more powerful M and X class flares are often associated with a variety of effects on the near-Earth space environment. Although the GOES classification is commonly used to indicate the size of a flare, it is only one measure.


Its only one measure, and it measures the near-Earth space environment.
Now, does that include the moon? Or anything past Earth's magnetosphere?
And when GOES measures X-rays, is it measuring SOFT X-rays or HARD X-rays?

I think soft.


GOES - The GOES spacecraft are satellites in geostationary orbits around the Earth that have measured the soft X-ray flux from the Sun since the mid 1970s, following the use of similar instruments on the [code8200.nrl.navy.mil... SOLRAD] satellites. GOES X-ray observations are commonly used to classify flares, with A, B, C, M, and X representing different powers of ten — an X-class flare has a peak 2-8 Å flux above 0.0001 W/m2.


So now think about it, our classification of X-rays are based on Soft X-rays?
Tell me, what is the difference between soft X-rays and hard X-rays?
Even so, Apollo didnt have the benefit of GOES.


The soft X-ray flares (hereafter SXR) observed by the NOAA geosynchronous
satellites have the longest continuous record for a long-term study dedicated to the
relationship between flares and proton events. Two-channel soft X-ray measure-
ments have been archived since 1974, initially by SMS 1–2 and since the end of
1975 by the GOES series.

users.uoa.gr...

At any rate, you can show with your math that X-rays are not dangerous.
But as long as other scientists say they are, there is a problem.
Because it means your not working with the same information
that other scientists are working with.


Using the observed rate of solar X-ray outbursts of different magnitudes, they worked out that a lunar astronaut has a 10% chance of receiving a dangerous dose of X-rays from a solar flare for every 100 hours of activity outside of shelters.


What kind of Flares are those? What is the classification?


The level of radiation they consider harmful is 0.1 Gray or more, which can cause bleeding ulcers and other internal damage, and would certainly increase an astronaut's risk of cancer.


Show us the math to support this.




www.tititudorancea.com...
www.spaceref.com...
www.newscientist.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Don't bother. I just proved that they aren't interested in the truth. The video I posted removes any reasonable doubt from the equation. The debate is over - at least for reasonable people. If any of them can disprove the validity of the video and what it shows, then bring it. Otherwise they've got nothing.

Here it is again. Prove it wrong.


edit on 23-12-2010 by Smack because: nomnitive plural



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


Please explain how they say the pics are 6 inches/pixel when the best pics I've seen from the LRO are 50cms/pixel..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 275  276  277    279  280  281 >>

log in

join