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: 286
377
<< 283  284  285    287  288  289 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 


Your last post made the least sense of all posts in this thread.



Oh lord, more blind people.


Let me summarize it for you:

Measuring the space environment now can not be used as an indicator
for what the space environment was during Apollo.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?


Why? What has changed in the environment of space in the past 40 years?




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


What utter nonsense. And, signs of desperation. Your entire record of posts? Ineffective. They do nothing but display, for all to see, your ignorance of the topic. AND, utter lack of logical thinking:


To Weedwhacker, when you are watching A16 & A17 videos you are not watching source data you are watching data that has been "enhanced" by a 3rd party.


Apparently, (one) you don't bother to read when people who KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU chime in, and explain it for you. And, (two).....what does this possibly have to do with anything? Anything at all??
What does "enhancing" do to discredit the videos?? You keep making that claim, as if it were important to the discussion, and had relevance and meant something.....

....and, "just" A16 & A17??? DO you see any significant changes (other than, maybe, better picture quality....which is ALWAYS a fine goal) when you compare videos of OTHER missions?? How about today?? ISS video "footage" (I put "footage" in quotes.....we all know the old-style derivation of the term, and it is technically not apt, when there is no "film" to begin with! But, it is a useful phrase, anyway...). Space Shuttle "footage"?? How are those images processed?? What about the images from....oh, the Super Bowl? Or pick-your-other-favorite-live-event situation.....Hockey? Soccer? Visit by the Pope? Wedding of Prince (whichever one is next)??

It is supremely laughable, your "argument", on the video situation. A shame you can't realize WHY......I wonder what the object of such (blind) devotion, "Jarrah White", would say? Because, he has made such a fool of himself already, he hardly needs any more help form those who use equally foolish "arguments".....still, it is instructive, in its own way......






edit on 28 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I just re-read your strange religious ramblings again and noticed you're rather sly little attempt at miss-quoting me, do you people take some sort of training course for that? You seem good at it, shame the only way you Hoax believers can only get your 'point' across is using such dishonest tactics. Doesn't it occur to you if you have to lie to put your point across, perhaps you have no point? Don't tell me, God told you to do it


Just to clarify, Foos quoted me saying this:



I also posted data from a separate space probe some time ago showing radiation levels measured outside of the protective reach of the magnetosphere and as expected they too also showed radiation levels to be acceptable for short term exposure during even major SPEs. Of course, there were no significant SPEs during Apollo anyway, something you get confused about due to your lack of knowledge in the subject matter.
You're fighting a battle that was lost before it started Foos and you're dumb little statements that you "don't see the connection" between radiation levels in space and Apollo only serve to prove how dim you're arguments are.


Then started attacking the fact that RADOM occurred during solar minimum, trying to create the impression that this was the data I referenced in the paragraph he quoted. It was not, as the remainder of my post and my reference to 'data from a separate space probe' was about MARIE, an experiment which occurred in Mars orbit during Solar Maximum.

He had also carefully omitted the sentence prior where I was actually referencing RADOM where I said this:



If you're concerned about solar flares then there are a few minor ones during the experiment and if you took the time to read the paper you would see the effects were negligible.


I had already acknowledged that RADOM occurred during an inactive period in the sentence he carefully omitted and this was also evident to anyone reading the paper I linked to.
It was due to this that I also re-posted the MARIE data I originally posted several weeks ago which was collected during solar maximum, yet somehow he drafted his response to create the impression I was solely talking about RADOM and ignoring the fact it occurred during a period of low solar activity. That's pretty scummy actually Foos, I really don't know how people like you sleep at night.
To re-iterate:


Originally posted by AgentSmith
To refresh you're rather poor memory, this is the graph of MARIE data taken in orbit around Mars which has virtually no magnetosphere and therefore offers virtually no protection:



The largest peak will be the X3 class flare that occurred on the 20th July 2002:

www.spaceweather.com...

It reached 2866 mrad / day which equates to only 0.02866 Gy / Day. Hardly an issue when it's short term exposure.
You keep being told, hopefully it will sink in one day, the problem with radiation in space is long term exposure. Read it in your head, then repeat it out loud Foos: the problem with radiation in space is long term exposure. Keep doing this until it sinks in.


There you have it, the only way people like Foos can 'debate' is by misquoting and lying in order to create the impression they are correct and winning the argument. The necessity to do this alone says it all about their arguments, those who can't win.. lie.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So this is your Proof and one paragraph summary that I asked for:



Oh lord, more blind people. Let me summarize it for you:
Measuring the space environment now can not be used as an indicator
for what the space environment was during Apollo.
Is that easy enough for you to understand?


I'll say this for the record, Foosm once again has no evidence or proof.

Wow you couldn't even include a source! I have a few adjectives that come to mind.

Sad :shk:

Weak.


Pathetic.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 


Your last post made the least sense of all posts in this thread.



Oh lord, more blind people.


Let me summarize it for you:

Measuring the space environment now can not be used as an indicator
for what the space environment was during Apollo.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?


Hey preacher man.... according to your logic... ALL arguments which claim that the radiation levels were too high during the Apollo missions must be thrown out as well.

Idiot.

Matt: 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
"footage" (I put "footage" in quotes.....we all know the old-style derivation of the term, and it is technically not apt, when there is no "film" to begin with! But, it is a useful phrase, anyway...).


Actually the digital era still uses a lot of old phrases and words.

On sets I've been on we've had phrases like 'turn over' used, but that phrase isn't relevant when using a digital camera yet we still use it to indicate running tape. Even the term tape isn't relevant but we use that, too. The term 'XLR cable' is completely incorrect in the context we use it in, but it's there anyway. Some of our phrases never really made a lot of sense to begin with such as IRE (institute of radio engineering) which is a unit we use during coloring. Hell some colorists call blacks in a shot 'emulsions' because that's the part of the film it would be.

Anyway, point of this post is I think Sayanora is more interested in trolling you (weedwhacker) up than actually anything resembling truth at the moment.

Personally I find it a bit of an insult to the film industry the idea that the mystical CIA could just form a crack film/video company. There isn't really a course for 'forensic videography' contrary to hollywood films. Law enforcement organisations ask ordinary professionals for help. By ordinary I mean people with at least 10+ years experience.

Other than that it seems we're down to using the 'you weren't there' method of debate.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

MOD NOTE: ATTENTION!!! No more name calling!!!




Please discuss the topic and not other members.


That means no belittling, off topic posts, casting aspersions on another's character, talking down to other members, harassing or ridiculing others.

Further such remarks can and will result in warnings and/or post removals.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Posting Jokes, Ridiculing, Making Fun of Others in Threads...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Two pages later...

In a thread about JWs video productions calling out the Apollo missions a hoax.
None of the Apollo defenders have even attempted to debunk JW.
Or provide some valid alternate viewpoints to his information.

Incredible and telling.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



In a thread about JWs video productions calling out the Apollo missions a hoax.
None of the Apollo defenders have even attempted to debunk JW.
Or provide some valid alternate viewpoints to his information.


Really? What, as a random example, do you call this, then?


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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part of the problem is that JW never really says anything. He just asks rhetorical questions. He has yet to provide anything that can be reasonably described as evidence for a clearly articulated premise. When he does that, there might be something to analyze.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I've provided you with data showing the radiation levels in space, including during major SPEs (which did not occur while Apollo astronauts were off-planet anyway) and proven that in the short term they do not prove an issue. I think that pretty much blows JWs theories out of the water.
If you disagree with it, please provide your own calculations showing full workings and providing references to the data sets used to come to the relevant conflicting conclusion(s).
Please note, stating that it doesn't apply or that JW says 'whatever' are not valid responses. If you disagree you have to provide data showing it to be invalid, that's how this works in professional world.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Answer this question Foosm:

How is Jarrah White asking rhetorical questions evidence that Apollo was a Hoax?




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by FoosM
 


I just re-read your strange religious ramblings again and noticed you're rather sly little attempt at miss-quoting me, do you people take some sort of training course for that? You seem good at it, shame the only way you Hoax believers can only get your 'point' across is using such dishonest tactics. Doesn't it occur to you if you have to lie to put your point across, perhaps you have no point? Don't tell me, God told you to do it



Before you go accusing people of misquoting you, which I didn't, let me remind you of:



Edit to add:


If you are an honorable person, I expect that you would retract your accusations.
I might make colorful posts, but I dont go around intentionally lying or misquoting people.
I dont need to resort to those kind of tricks to point out the myth of the Apollo moonlandings.
Anybody who has been following this thread will know this.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont need to resort to those kind of tricks to point out the myth of the Apollo moonlandings.
Anybody who has been following this thread will know this.


Give me a break Foosm.
Your the profession at resorting to tricks within this thread. Anyone how has been following the thread will know this!

I have to had it to you you did make me at least laugh!

Now how about that summary about your evidence regarding Apollo Moon Hoax?


edit on 28-12-2010 by theability because: spelling



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



In a thread about JWs video productions calling out the Apollo missions a hoax.
None of the Apollo defenders have even attempted to debunk JW.
Or provide some valid alternate viewpoints to his information.


Really? What, as a random example, do you call this, then?


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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Nothing to work with.
You dont explain where JW is wrong.
You just repeat what the lady said and this somehow is a debunk?



Part of the problem is that JW never really says anything. He just asks rhetorical questions. He has yet to provide anything that can be reasonably described as evidence for a clearly articulated premise. When he does that, there might be something to analyze.


Part of the problem is you didnt watch the whole series. Thats the impression your giving.
You probably just watched the first one and passed judgement on the rest of the series.
So how can we engage in a serious debate?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


[snip]

Get with the Program, where is that summary of your evidence of Apollo being a Hoax?


edit on 28-12-2010 by theability because: spelling

edit on 28/12/10 by masqua because: Off topic content removed



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Nothing to work with.
You dont explain where JW is wrong.
You just repeat what the lady said and this somehow is a debunk?


Yes, because it proves that the statement she made does not support what Jarrah claims. To make things worse, she is clearly talking about high energy radiation, SPE's and GCR's, not the Van Allen belts. Again, misleading and not evidence. Oh, and radiation doses are lower on Russian craft than on thinner skinned US and International ones? So what? As you yourself would say: "what does that have to do with Apollo?" He does not make a single coherent argument. Statement of concern based on 1961 knowledge of the magnetosphere + statement of concern for long term exposure to SPE's and GCR's on a lengthy trip to Mars + radiation exposure varying with thickness of airframe =/= "Apollo was a hoax." It's preposterous to take Jarrah's "argument" seriously. There's really nothing to say but "yes, in 1961 they knew little of space medicine and yes, we know much more now and are taking the effects of long term exposure into account and yes, anything Russian has to be thick skinned." So what?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Part of the problem is you didnt watch the whole series. Thats the impression your giving.
You probably just watched the first one and passed judgement on the rest of the series.
So how can we engage in a serious debate?


As I point out above, there is nothing to debate, because Jarrah seems incapable of making a properly structured argument. Remember "meteorite + crashed spy satellite = Apollo was a hoax?" He simply juxtaposed a few random events and seemed to think it was an argument, and some people actually seem to think it was "evidence!" Of Jarrah's implicit assertion that Apollo 8 remained in Earth orbit for ten days were true, he could easily prove it with actual evidence. As I have pointed out, thousands of professional and amateur astronomers take photographs of the sky every single night; you would think at least one of them would have caught the malingering spacecraft on film. Why doesn't Jarrah produce this smoking gun photo? Could it be that it doesn't exist? Or has Jarrah not bothered to look for it? If Jarrah hasn't bothered to look for it, he in no way can be described as a "researcher." That photo should be his top research priority, rather than wasting time playing word games.

Let me ask you something: if someone ran up to you and gave you a big hug, but you caught them picking your pocket... would you want to hug them again? So you tell me now: how can we have a serious debate?

edit on 28-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


I suppose it depends on how you define 'worse'. I would say based on this email reply from Dr. Blakely I received further back in this thread, that indeed you could say the aluminium shielding Apollo used could make the radiation problem worse.

Here is the original post so you can understand the reference to ping pong balls.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


email from Dr. Eleanor Blakely

I am happy to comment on the points raised. Biological effects from particle damage are dependent on the "quality" of the radiation. It is confusing to individuals not in the field (who expect a linear increase in biological damage with increasing radiation ionization density) that biological effectiveness does increase with radiation quality but at about 150 keV per micrometer, biological effectiveness saturates. This means that particles with very high Linear Energy Transfer (LET) can be LESS effective than particles characterized by LOWER LET.

To use the comparison made in your message, this means that indeed depending on the particle energy and atomic number, ping pong balls could be more damaging than the bullet! The fragmentation event that produced the "ping pong balls" also can produce secondary radiations such as neutrons which we have not talked about in this conversation. The radiation environment in space is very complex, but so are biological organisms. This is not pure physics, this is biophysics. Please let me know if this message is clear. Best to you, ellie


I am going to have to study up on the secondary radiation effects she mentions, specifically neutron radiation.
It doesn't sound good though.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I am going to have to study up on the secondary radiation effects she mentions, specifically neutron radiation.
It doesn't sound good though.


Study up on radiation? Good luck on that one...

So at least answer this question here:

When were the astronauts exposed to fusion of fission reactions? Can you show me data that supports that stance that NEUTRON RADIATION was a constant threat?

I can't remember a time they encounter this type of radiation in large enough amounts that it jeopardize the mission.


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.
source

ppk55 I think your barking up the wrong tree. No matter what I'll take the PhD's explanation of events over your assessment any day.


edit on 28-12-2010 by theability because: add source url



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 283  284  285    287  288  289 >>

log in

join