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: 28
377
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

Or if the radiation were not constant, then pockets must exist for an average to even be possible. (again the whole AVERAGE thing)
Deadly high neutron radiation pockets.

That we had NOT ONE IOTA of where they were....

In 1968....



Did you REALLY mean to repost that after it was shown to be completely wrong?




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Precisely my observant friend. No one knows what it is.

Now let's see you circle back around to the previous argument that I just debunked....

"Well if we don't know where it is how do we know it's deadly"

You guys are predictably easy.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


You really are making no sense.

It was not shown to be wrong.

The only thing that was shown to me is that NASA had an idea that neutron radiation was up there in 1968.

Ciao. Please bring it better next time.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Precisely my observant friend. No one knows what it is.

Now let's see you circle back around to the previous argument that I just debunked....

"Well if we don't know where it is how do we know it's deadly"

You guys are predictably easy.



If you would have read the link I gave you would have seen you were wrong:

Neutrons

Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (Kastner et al., 1969). Two methods for neutron-dose assessment were used. These techniques of whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil were initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. Later analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Both methods were retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles and because of possible crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages.


They knew about neutron radiation before the landings. They measured for it. They determined the level was lower than expected.

You seem to be purposefully ignoring all the information given to you.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Idont know what to believe about the moon landings anymore whether there fake where already living there or theres aliens there dunno



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


DUDE....

You cannot use information gathered from the Apollo missions to prove that they existed.
That is circular reasoning.

Like I said....

Bring it WAY better next time.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


You really are making no sense.

It was not shown to be wrong.

The only thing that was shown to me is that NASA had an idea that neutron radiation was up there in 1968.

Ciao. Please bring it better next time.


Why can't you just admit you were wrong an move on?

I'll post your quote again so you can't easily run away from it:

Deadly high neutron radiation pockets.

That we had NOT ONE IOTA of where they were....

In 1968....


While in the real world this paper was being published.

1968 Jul:204-6. Neutron exposure to lunar astronauts. ANL-7615. Kastner J, Oltman BG, Feige Y, Gold R.

And the conclusion from dosimeter studies of all the Apollo mission specifically looking for those "deadly pockets" of neutron radiation:

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar-particle releases are random events, and it is possible that flares, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles, might hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere of the Earth.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Listen....

We are debating whether or not people went to the moon.

And before we began to truly map this neutron radiation a little over a year ago, the only information that we have that tells us anything about the amount of radiation that we would supposedly be exposed to on the moon is information from the very moon landings in question.

That is circular reasoning.

That is like saying God exists because it says so in the bible, which is the holy word of God.

The premise is what proves the conclusion.

We must have been to the moon because the information they brought back tells us that it is true.

That is circular reasoning...

And a logical fallacy.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Sounds to me your just making a regress argument. By your logic nothing can be proved in any argument you have because all arguments require prior knowledge. Your arguing Epistemology you ignore facts by saying its my belief that its not true. Knowledge is widely accepted as meaning justified true belief. By your standards nothing can be proved or ever will be proved since we cant refer back to it to prove its existence. I could tell you the earth is round but by your logic i could not prove it because i cant use the earth because i must prove its existence. And i cant do that with out proving the solar system exists then the galaxy etc.In your case your denying science exists and you show no understanding of what knowledge actually is.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


That is the most ridiculous attempt at parsing logic that I think that I have ever read.

I am stating that the neutron radiation can be extremely dangerous.

Dangerous enough for NASA to worry about it now.

And for me to think that NASA was able to send astronauts to the moon with not one single case of serious radiation problems is too coincidentally lucky. Borderline improbable but mostly impossible.

And every time I refute their points they throw up yet slightly changed reasons why I am wrong, and that is yet another logical fallacy, the ad hoc hyothesis.

You guys got schooled. Hard.

That is why 6 or 7 or 8 of you come out of the woodwork to attack me.
If my arguments were that irrelevant then you would ignore me.

The behavior of the many debunking trolls on this board belies their true intentions.

Admit it. You got your logic twisted and I set you straight.

You guys are the ones claiming that something happened.
This apparent "moon landing".

All I am saying is that we don't know because the evidence is contradictory.
From what I can see it is impossible for man to go to the moon.

I never said that it was for sure a government hoax.

I said it looked like one. It probably was a hoax, but I never said 100% for sure, because that requires evidence.

But what I did do was poke holes in the official storyline like i sieve.

The burden of proof is on you.

Not me.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I think you spotted the problem. The rules for this argument are that there are no rules, no logic, reason nor facts. Just the argument and this has no room for resolve.

I gave up when I read things like this.


You cannot use information gathered from the Apollo missions to prove that they existed.
That is circular reasoning.

There is no sincerity in this debate and I was wrong to originally think there was, I won't make that mistake again.

[edit on 5/4/2010 by Devino]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The Aussie in question "Mr White" is far from a genius.

I fully believe that the Americans never landed on the moon and support his and anyone who has theories regarding this matter.

Even people within the government here in the UK have their doubts about this topic and try to stay clear of the matter.

My point is this. Mr white and his silly experiments are doing nothing to enhance the fact that Americans did not land on the moon. His primitive experiments have as many hole sin them as the official moon landing story does.

Its easy to get carried away when someone comes along and agrees with your opinion however please do not make the mistake of siding with a person who neither has the scientific background to make these statements.

For example: The little experiment he does in his room jumping around to simulate the flag moving or not moving is the silliest thing I have ever seen and proves nothing beside his stupidity. In order to perform a fully working and legitimate experiment that you can draw accurate data from you must recreate the actual event as near to it as possible. Jumping around in your room in order to simulate the surface of the moon does nothing to simulate the lack of gravity and the fact your metric weight changes (which in turn affect the result) and the fact that when there is no gravity or little gravity or the fact like the density of the moon is completely different and how it responds to a human jumping upon it is so vastly different from jumping around on your bedroom floor. Newtons theory that Every action has an opposite reaction changes, as this fact was proved based on the earths gravity. So all this changes when you move to a place where gravity and force differs so greatly. The laws of Physics must be compensated accurately to gain accurate data and prove the theory. Mr White did no such thing let alone prove anything.

This is just an example of the many experiments that Mr White performed that are quite frankly silly. This does ore harm than good for people who believe the Moon landing was a hoax as anyone with half a brain will pick him apart with ease leading to the same old saying "just another crackpot idiot".

Not trying to offend anyone but please, we must use facts and derive our statements from proper experiments with proper data conducted by people who at least have some neutral view concerning the matter.

At the end of the day if we call people like him a Genius it degrades the word and the value of such a statement.

We can and should do better than to listen to a person who has a history of making small but relevant mistakes.

All I have to say is BUSTED!



[edit on 3-5-2010 by C11H17N2NaO2S]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by C11H17N2NaO2S]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Phage
 


Who cares if they knew that the neutron radiation might exist?

The point is where and how much.

See you 'til next time fan club.

Ciao.


I know wikipedia is a useless source, but look at the foot notes for this one.



Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

And every time I refute their points they throw up yet slightly changed reasons why I am wrong, and that is yet another logical fallacy, the ad hoc hyothesis.

You guys got schooled. Hard.

That is why 6 or 7 or 8 of you come out of the woodwork to attack me.
If my arguments were that irrelevant then you would ignore me.

The behavior of the many debunking trolls on this board belies their true intentions.

Admit it. You got your logic twisted and I set you straight.


This is why I replied to you. You are putting words in my mouth.


If the radiation were constant, as Phage and others have said, then the ENTIRE planet could have momentary spikes of intense high neutron radiation that could kill instantly. EVERYONE on the entire planet. (Hence the whole AVERAGE thing)

I did not say the radiation was constant.



And every time I refute their points they throw up yet slightly changed reasons why I am wrong, and that is yet another logical fallacy, the ad hoc hyothesis.

You have refuted nothing. You just keep repeating the same nonsense; there might be pockets of radiation on the Moon that they didn't know about and so the astronauts would have died. Somehow you call that evidence of the landings being a hoax. My Mom might have never met my Dad and I wouldn't have been born. So what? Am I really here?


All I am saying is that we don't know because the evidence is contradictory.
From what I can see it is impossible for man to go to the moon.

I never said that it was for sure a government hoax.

Talk about contradictory. You think it's impossible to go to the Moon but you say the landings were not a hoax. The evidence is not contradictory. If, as you claim, there is a lack of evidence, how can it be contradictory?


Never said it was for sure a hoax? Come on.

That is a big chance to take with our astronauts, and, consequentially, why Russia stated that they would never send anyone to the moon.

The radiation.

It would have fried the astronauts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
First of all, where did the Russians state they would never send anyone to the Moon ? But if the astronauts would have been fried as you so adamantly state, it must have been a hoax, right?


I clearly stated that space beyond low earth orbit is "awash with radiation".
That being said there is no passing through the belts.

It is all AWASH with intense radiation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
No passing through the belts. A voyage to the Moon would be impossible, right?

Sure sounds like you're saying it was a hoax to me. You are ignoring the fact that all of the evidence shows that the radiation exposure levels were acceptable. Your answer is to deny the validity of the evidence, with no reason but arm waving about "averages" on the surface of the Moon. And let's not forget your repeated and false red herring (a logical fallacy) claims that the "official story" was that there was only radiation in the Van Allen Belts. It was known that there would be radiation on the translunar segments. It was known that there would be radiation in lunar orbit. It was known there would be radiation (including neutron radiation) on the lunar surface. The risks were known and thought to be acceptable. The risks were taken, successfully.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Yes, neutron radiation can be deadly, so can gamma radiation, so can Beta radiation. But only when the levels are high enough and the exposure time long enough. You have not demonstrated that the levels are high enough over the short term the astronauts were exposed. All you do is assume that they probably are. An assumption based on selecting a few words from a PR piece about lunar radiation and disregarding evidence to the contrary.


[edit on 5/4/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
I like how everyone is missing the forest for the trees, and completely ignoring the indisputable fact that NASA is giving edited videos/photographs/audio to the public. Even the astronauts refuse to provide a reasonable explanation as to why they are involved in manipulating the public.

You don't even have to deal with the issue of a moon landing hoax. They are manipulating the evidence and not giving us the full story!

Just that in and of itself should be enough to cause enough of a public uproar to demand an answer. The skeptics themselves don't even seem to care!


Excellent point - and, while not trying to derail the thread, I will liken this analogy to another familiar conspiracy theory: JFK.

No matter which side you're on I think people focus on the wrong evidence. I could care less about grassy knolls, 3 or 5 shots fired, magic bullets or the expertise of Oswald. ALL I need to know are these 2 FACTS: First, the evidence was tampered with (it doesn't matter to what degree or how much you want to believe - that it happened AT ALL, is reason enough). And finally, they left the autopsy of, arguably, the biggest assassination in our country's history to the biggest incompetent!

Moreover, Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach wrote a revealing memo which stated "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

I believe there is middle ground here. That we HAVE been to the moon, but that a great portion of what was seen by the public was fabricated. But, I think we were late (Germans probably there since the 40s), and no one has a good reason as to why we haven't been back despite vast technological improvements and huge benefits of working on the lunar surface.

My $.02



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Ciao?

What's this?
The fifth or sixth time you've "left" the topic?

You don't really have an argument. You have nothing except slimy debate maneuvers. Your own link proved you wrong, and yet here you are.

You claim that Humans had no idea what the radiation (Yes, that includes your precious Neutron radiation) conditions were on the Moon. Then that means you also have no idea. Therefore you cannot say for certain that the conditions were lethal, since you don't know either.

You kept lying about no Lunar surface Neutron maps existing, but I've found and shown several.

You can't claim to know that the conditions were/are lethal.

You can't claim that we don't currently know Lunar surface Neutron radiation conditions.

You have no scientific proof of any of your claims.

So, what's the next wrong idea about Apollo/Neutron radiation/Lunar surface?

Gonna claim to know a Moon-man?
Like your "convenient" Russian Astrophysicist, who obviously doesn't exist?









posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Even if you exclude measurements made by Apollo missions, there was plenty of data gathered prior to Apollo 11 to give comfort that the lunar surface was safe for a manned landing.

The US used the Surveyor missions to measure radiation on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit. Including neutron levels.

The USSR used the Luna missions to measure radiation through the van Allen belts, in near-lunar orbit and on the moon's surface.

There was a level of data-sharing between the US and the USSR through COSPAR; this can be witnessed in the Surveyor program results document in 1969 which cites a 1966 paper on Luna 10.

Nothing those programs found suggested that there would be dangerous levels of radiation on the moon, nor on the way to the moon. The biggest danger was that there would be a solar event that would put the astronauts at risk. Thats it.

If you want to claim otherwise, show us the measurements which state there is a dangerous level of radiation on the moon. You cant, because that data doesnt exist. You have conjecture and nothing to back it up, in fact you dont have conjecture, you just scream "i dont know" and then ask for proof which you just ignore anyway.

Even the measurements taken since then show that short-term exposure to radiation on the moon's surface is not dangerous without a solar event. As stated here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The latest measurements suggest that the radiation levels might be 30% more than that, still safe for short-term missions. NASA is currently doing more research on LONG-TERM effects. This is very different. Same reason why people survived short-term radiation exposure on the roof of Chernobyl, even though radiation levels were thousands of times higher than safe levels.

So these are the facts. Both the US and USSR had data on radiation levels in Earth orbit, the van Allen belts, lunar orbit and the lunar surface prior to Apollo 11. Both the US and USSR were fully committed to landing a man on the moon after seeing that data. There has been no data since that even suggests that humans are at risk from radiation on the lunar surface, except in the case of solar ejections.

If you have an argument with what i have stated, then go for it. If you start arguing your logical fallacy and circular reasoning crap again then you are showing you dont have a leg to stand on.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by C11H17N2NaO2S
The Aussie in question "Mr White" is far from a genius.
...


Nice post, Mr Pentathol!


This may sound weird coming from an Apollo supporter, but it's a VERY welcome change to meet a denier that has some understanding of science, and how Jarrah White is misusing it terribly. I agree with your assessment of the "running past the flag" bit - that was quite the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a good while.



FTR, I'm finally about to take a look at that video posted by Ocker... Be back later with a long, boring (but accurate) review...



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Hey Folks,

In this next video series 'Tracking the Tracks' and the addendum, Jarrah White examines the tracks which were allegedly imaged by the LRO, along with pointing out some other anomalies.

The video 'Tracking the Tracks' is described below:




This is the third in an ongoing series of videos in which we shall re-examine the much-hyped about Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

THE FIRST THING I SHOULD REALLY POINT OUT is that this will be the last film I release in awhile. I have some pressing matters to attend to in my offline life, meaning I will be away from Sony Vegas during that time. Still, you can bet I will have a whole heap of new films rearing to go when I get back.


In this video we'll be taking a look at the alleged bootprint tracks seen in the Apollo 12 and 14 photos taken by LRO. We'll also be analyzing Surveyor 3 seen in the LRO image of Apollo 12's landing site.

www.youtube.com...



First Part here:




Here is what eventually happened to the surveyor 3 probe after the discrepancies regarding its orientation were noted and pointed out in the first batch of images released.... It just disappeared:



www.universetoday.com...





[edit on 4-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



I am stating that the neutron radiation can be extremely dangerous.
We know. No one has argued that it is not.


Dangerous enough for NASA to worry about it now.
Duh.


And for me to think that NASA was able to send astronauts to the moon with not one single case of serious radiation problems is too coincidentally lucky.
This is fallacious in a number of ways, particularly it is an appeal to ridicule, it is also fallacious in relation to the burden of proof. Not to mention it is also argumentum ad ingnorantiam.
You ridicule "Nasa" as being "co-incidentally lucky" in the absence of evidence that shows that.
You are suggesting a conclusion of "co-incidentaly lucky" yet you are arguing from ignorance in relation to the levels of radiation at the time of the landings that YOUR "co-lucky incidence" is reliant on.
You relegate Apollo mission as invalid as evidence by statement alone as you have been unable to present why it should not be accepted as evidence in relation to the levels of radiation on the Moon and the astronauts ability to survive them. IT IS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF as YOU CLAIM that the landing is a Hoax, and that the level of radiation you claim exist were far too dangerous for the moon landings at that time. You claim that Deadly radiation exists because there is no proof that they do not exist.
What have you supplied- Zip, nada, nothing but daft speculation.

You suggest that because Nasa is worried about the radiation and that this is evidence of Deadly levels exist. Again you have shown no evidence to show that the levels you say exist do actually exist, no evidence at all.
You continue to ask people to accept or critically think about proving a negative, that these "deadly killer neutrino pockets" don't exist. When they site the Apollo missions, you poison the well by claiming it cannot be used because of YOUR belief that it is a hoax. Another fallacy.
In fact, that is all you have presented.



I know you really love your logic "bomb" fallacy links.


Borderline improbable but mostly impossible.
I agree. That is how I would summerize your ability to present a logical argument based on evidence.


And every time I refute their points they throw up yet slightly changed reasons why I am wrong, and that is yet another logical fallacy, the ad hoc hyothesis.
The only one with an ad hoc hypothesis is you. In fact, I think that is all you have. I do like your style though. I think you are being an ass on purpose, but it may just be a natural habit.
You have created a scenario to explain away the actually moon landings.
You hypothesis is reliant on "deadly killer neutrino killer pockets of neutrino killer killerers" that you admit you have no actual evidence that supports that.
Ad Hoc


You guys got schooled. Hard.



That is why 6 or 7 or 8 of you come out of the woodwork to attack me.
If my arguments were that irrelevant then you would ignore me.
It could be that you are simply wrong, in fact that is what it is.


Admit it. You got your logic twisted and I set you straight.

Yeah, we can see how you use logic.


All I am saying is that we don't know because the evidence is contradictory.
What evidence is contradictory relating to radiation levels. You have none.


I said it looked like one. It probably was a hoax, but I never said 100% for sure, because that requires evidence.
You have none.


But what I did do was poke holes in the official storyline like i sieve.

Thanks for the laughs bro.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join