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: 284
377
<< 281  282  283    285  286  287 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



There are so few photos of them in alleged orbit. If these stages were to be discarded in low earth orbit as suggested, then it wouldn't matter it they were aerodynamic or not, as the 'astronauts' would have simply jumped out of the back of a plane in the capsule.


WHAT?! What, exactly are you saying? Are you implying the CSM never even made it into orbit?! You do realize that the whole stack was photographed and observed by thousands of ordinary people prior to and during the TLI burn. Here are those inconvenient photos again:






The apparent path of Apollo 12 was widely reported in the UK press. Taking advantage of rapid clearing after a rain, Jonathan Silverlight used a 75mm refracting telescope from a London suburb to make this sketch of the S-IVB and surrounding cloud (14 November 1969, 1920 UT; almost three hours after launch, which would make this sighting right around the end of the TLI burn). His notes show that it was a prominent naked-eye object.

Telescopic Tracking of Apollo Missions



edit on 27-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
JW has been busy.
Here are the latest videos.
I havent seen all of it yet.


Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly II. PART 1


A lot has happened since the release of my 23-part "MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly" series. A few months ago I asked the propagandists 32 questions regarding Apollo. It looks as though Astrobrant2 has dodged his way through them.

More recently, Phil Webb has produced a two part response to a brief passing mention in "Exhibit D" about how the Soviets warned Sir Bernard Lovell that they "could see no way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation".
In summery: Webb claims that the Soviets never went to the moon, not because of deadly radiation, but because they couldn't get the N-1 moon rocket to work. But by focusing only on the failed N-1, he ignores the Zond & Energia programs. Both of which were proven technology, the former of which was considered flight worthy and could have flown two cosmonauts around the moon as early as December 1968. If you build it, and test it, why not use it? The Soviets obviously had bigger programs to worry about than the N-1, like say, radiation.


MoonFaker: What Proof Is Required?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

MoonFaker: Why Not Go Back?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com... (less info)










edit on 27-12-2010 by FoosM because: formatting

edit on 27/12/10 by masqua because: Snipped YouTube external comment to three paragraphs and added ex tags



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Wonderful, so instead of responding to his antenna boo-boo or better still to the data released only a couple of weeks ago by the Bulgarians showing the radiation levels over the entire journey to the Moon, Foos continues his repeated spamming of some mentally deficient kid's school work gone wrong.
Never mind Jarrah's radiation fantasies Foos, please respond to the actual data gathered by non US sources:

RADIATION ENVIRONMENT IN EARTH-MOON SPACE:
RESULTS FROM RADOM EXPERIMENT ONBOARD CHANDRAYAAN-1


I can actually understand why you prefer to avoid it, what with it proving you wrong and everything, but please at least have the decency of entertaining us with your flustered made up reasons why it somehow is invalid.

And another quick question, but please don't let it distract you from conducting your in depth analysis of the radiation data, are you actually capable of independent thought or are you simply a shill for you're master Jarrah?
Seriously dude, you're embarrassing.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



They're not very aerodynamic are they? ... in fact .. if you look at this picture taken in alleged space they look particularly flimsy.


Well as I have explained to others in this thread, what you think has nothing to do with the design of the RCS on Apollo.

Sorry you don't understand mechanical engineering and astronautics. If you actually spent more time listening to others you possibly could learn something, but you'd rather fall back on that lime-light of what you see instead of what you know.


How could they have survived the launch and enormous aerodynamic pressures they would have been subjected to on launch. Ridiculous.


The only think ridiculous is your position. How can you surmise that your observation is correct while those that designed the RCS have PhD's and years of study in which you do not?

Right the PhD's are wrong I am sure you will say ppk55 and that is surely ridiculous to me.


I don't think they needed to worry about whether the RCS would survive the launch. There are so few photos of them in alleged orbit.


Your right they didn't need to worry, the science worked and they left the guess and gut feelings to individuals like yourself.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



JW has been busy.
Here are the latest videos.
I havent seen all of it yet.


Please let us know if any of these videos contain actual evidence. There's no point to viewing them if they consist of ad hom attacks on his detractors, or re-hashed 50 year old quotations from Van Allen and von Braun taken out of context.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



JW has been busy.
Here are the latest videos.
I havent seen all of it yet.


Please let us know if any of these videos contain actual evidence. There's no point to viewing them if they consist of ad hom attacks on his detractors, or re-hashed 50 year old quotations from Van Allen and von Braun taken out of context.


The videos absolutely destroy Apollo defender's claims that radiation was not a problem for
the Apollo missions.
Wow

I dont blame you guys for not watching.
It hurts...
Ow...

That the sting of the truth.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The videos absolutely destroy Apollo defender's claims that radiation was not a problem for
the Apollo missions.
Wow
I dont blame you guys for not watching.
It hurts...
Ow...
That the sting of the truth.


Okay, I'll take your word on that for the moment. Now, where's the video where he shows evidence that the Apollo craft remained in low Earth orbit? Just one well documented photograph could prove his case conclusively. By the way, just to keep the record straight, no-one has ever said that radiation was not a problem. All anyone has ever said was that the exposure risks were within acceptable levels. Does Jarrah actually do any math, as Nat and others have done on this thread? Or does he take the usual lectures about radiation hazards on trips to Mars out of context?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



JW has been busy.
Here are the latest videos.
I havent seen all of it yet.


Please let us know if any of these videos contain actual evidence. There's no point to viewing them if they consist of ad hom attacks on his detractors, or re-hashed 50 year old quotations from Van Allen and von Braun taken out of context.


The videos absolutely destroy Apollo defender's claims that radiation was not a problem for
the Apollo missions.
Wow

I dont blame you guys for not watching.
It hurts...
Ow...

That the sting of the truth.





Please tell us what point he is making, there are some of us who don't have access to youtube all the time or have fast enough speeds to download them.

So in your own words, what is the proof?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The videos absolutely destroy Apollo defender's claims that radiation was not a problem for
the Apollo missions.


Please Foosm summarize in one paragraph how these videos "destroy" the Apollo missions credibility.

I like how you always say it does, yet never say, what does.

What fallacious argument is that again? Just because it is a video about Apollo and radiation, does not make it fact nor logical based solely on that assumption.

Which again you assume without reasoning that the videos are correct and Apollo research not.


One paragraph shouldn't be that hard now Foosm, actually give a summary for once in 300 pages of this thread.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont blame you guys for not watching.
It hurts...


Yes, but not for the reason you seem to think. Never one to turn down a challenge, I dragged out my laptop and viewed "Radioactive Anomaly II Part 1." Surprise! As predicted it consisted of attacks upon Phil Webb and Plaitley. He accuses them of "quote mining" and then compares their individual answers to selected questions in an attempt to make it appear that they contradict themselves. As predicted, he pulled out a 1961 quote from Van Allen, and then demonstrated his verbal slight of hand by once again characterizing Dr. Blakeley's carefully worded statement that "particle fragmentation can increase the particle fluence and complicate the radiation environment" as "particle fragmentation can make the radiation worse. That's not merely "quote mining." that's misrepresentation. Dr. Blakely makes it clear that the daughter particles are of lower atomic weight, and we all know they would be of lesser energy. Complicated, not worse.He also asks if solar flares can be predicted, and uses the hemming and hawing to create the impression that there's some sort of contradiction. Here:


SPACE WEATHER
NOAA Forecasts



Updated at: 2010 Dec 27 2200 UTC

FLARE
0-24 hr 24-48 hr
CLASS M
01 % 01 %
CLASS X
01 % 01 %



Geomagnetic Storms:
Probabilities for significant disturbances in Earth's magnetic field are given for three activity levels: active, minor storm, severe storm

Updated at: 2010 Dec 27 2200 UTC

Mid-latitudes
0-24 hr 24-48 hr
ACTIVE
05 % 05 %
MINOR
01 % 01 %
SEVERE
01 % 01 %

High latitudes
0-24 hr 24-48 hr
ACTIVE
10 % 10 %
MINOR
01 % 01 %
SEVERE
01 % 01 %

Spaceweather.com

Forecasts at the time were less reliable, obviously. so what was Jarrah's point?

Oh yes... Jarrah seems to think that hits on YouTube are some sort of evidence that the poster has logic, reason and facts on his side. If that were the case, that cat that fell off the TV must be a genius. If the rest of these videos are as petty as the first, watching them all would indeed be a waste of time. At least the cat was funny.



edit on 27-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Wonderful, so instead of responding to his antenna boo-boo or better still to the data released only a couple of weeks ago by the Bulgarians showing the radiation levels over the entire journey to the Moon, Foos continues his repeated spamming of some mentally deficient kid's school work gone wrong.
Never mind Jarrah's radiation fantasies Foos, please respond to the actual data gathered by non US sources:

RADIATION ENVIRONMENT IN EARTH-MOON SPACE:
RESULTS FROM RADOM EXPERIMENT ONBOARD CHANDRAYAAN-1




I haven't been ignoring it.
Im just wondering what your problem with it is.
What does it confirm or contradict, AE-8 AP8?

You'll have to be a bit more specific what your issue is with the information you are providing.
And how that contradicts with what NASA has been saying all these years.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont blame you guys for not watching.
It hurts...


once again characterizing Dr. Blakeley's carefully worded statement that "particle fragmentation can increase the particle fluence and complicate the radiation environment" as "particle fragmentation can make the radiation worse. That's not merely "quote mining." that's misrepresentation. Dr. Blakely makes it clear that the daughter particles are of lower atomic weight, and we all know they would be of lesser energy.


So? Please elaborate on how that dismisses what JW has stated?




Complicated, not worse.He also asks if solar flares can be predicted, and uses the hemming and hawing to create the impression that there's some sort of contradiction. Here:


SPACE WEATHER
NOAA Forecasts


That is not proof that NASA or NOAA can predict when flares erupt.
Please provide concrete proof that prediction was(Apollo) and is possible.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 



The videos absolutely destroy Apollo defender's claims that radiation was not a problem for
the Apollo missions.


Please Foosm summarize in one paragraph how these videos "destroy" the Apollo missions credibility.



Please provide proof that they dont.
This is a JW thread.
I expect you to watch his videos and come up with specific points to his assertions.
Have you even watched the videos?
Dont bother answering

edit on 27-12-2010 by FoosM because: edit



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Please provide proof that they dont.
This is a JW thread.
I expect you to watch his videos and come up with specific points to his assertions.
Have you even watched the videos?
Dont bother answering


And here we have Foosm summary of his proof, more allegations with no assertions.

Amazing you have summed up your position in one post, Foosms has no evidence to summarize.

Thanks for sharing



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So? Please elaborate on how that dismisses what JW has stated?


Finding out that a co-worker is sexually attracted to you definitely makes things "complicated." Does that make things "worse?' Jarrah misrepresents Dr. Blakeley's statement.


That is not proof that NASA or NOAA can predict when flares erupt.
Please provide concrete proof that prediction was(Apollo) and is possible.


Despite 200 years of observation and experimentation, meteorologists (sorry, Oz) still cannot predict the weather with 100% accuracy. As one of the Phils correctly stated, the astronauts were taking a calculated risk when it comes to radiation. Why do you suppose Jarrah is so risk averse? Did he have a bad experience diving into a water filled quarry when he was a lad?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Please tell us what point he is making, there are some of us who don't have access to youtube all the time or have fast enough speeds to download them.

So in your own words, what is the proof?


His points and sources are numerous, you are missing out.
I advise you to get better access to the internets son.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So? Please elaborate on how that dismisses what JW has stated?


Finding out that a co-worker is sexually attracted to you definitely makes things "complicated." Does that make things "worse?' Jarrah misrepresents Dr. Blakeley's statement.


What does this have to do with... anything?




That is not proof that NASA or NOAA can predict when flares erupt.
Please provide concrete proof that prediction was(Apollo) and is possible.


Despite 200 years of observation and experimentation, meteorologists (sorry, Oz) still cannot predict the weather with 100% accuracy.

So you because JW says it, you cant agree with it, even though you actually agree with what JW says about it.
You strange.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Now, where's the video where he shows evidence that the Apollo craft remained in low Earth orbit? Just one well documented photograph could prove his case conclusively.


Actually in this new series he provides evidence that it was possible.
The Ruskies did it.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Please tell us what point he is making, there are some of us who don't have access to youtube all the time or have fast enough speeds to download them.

So in your own words, what is the proof?


His points and sources are numerous, you are missing out.
I advise you to get better access to the internets son.


I'm not your son, sparky.

(thank God)

I want you to prove you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about and not just posting videos.

Well, we know now, you have no clue about radiation and are just hoping someone else will make your arguments for you.




top topics



 
377
<< 281  282  283    285  286  287 >>

log in

join