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: 290
377
<< 287  288  289    291  292  293 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
But so little was known in 1969.


December 21, 1968. That is the exact cut off date. The launch date for Apollo 8.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Mod Request

There have been a number of Mod Requests in this thread to keep things:

- On topic

- Civil

- focussed on the post and not the posters


Enough already.

You're all apparently intelligent enough people to understand those very basic requests and expectations.

If you are unable to do so from this point on I suggest you find another thread, or alternatively another website.



Cheers



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No one was looking for them.
Or dont you know some of the basics principles of magic?
That said, how many photos do we have of Apollo craft circling the Earth prior to TLI?
Please post them. If we dont have them or only for a couple of missions, explain why.

By the way, did you watch JW's videos or not?


By the way, have you been reading this thread or not? I've already posted these:


Let's add this:

And there are more here.

Of course, no matter how many photos I post here, it won't be enough will it? Historical reality will always be one hair of "proof" shy for people who have already closed their minds. As I have pointed out earlier, the orbiting spacecraft would leave trails on astrophotographs:

It is possible to calculate the orbit of a satellite from such a photograph, there's an app for that now. You might want to do a bit of genuine research; here's your first clue. So why has no-one looked for this? You are correct: the first principle of magic is distraction, that's why you keep changing the subject whenever I bring this up: JARRAH NEVER LOOKED FOR THIS EVIDENCE! Think about it: if Jarrah really believed that the CSM stayed in Earth orbit, he would have combed through every sky photo of the era until he found the "smoking gun." He could have recruited the services of all of his loyal YouTube fans to help him. Why hasn't he bothered to do this? Could it be because he knows they don't exist?

As for backinblack's challenge: thank you. Courtesy of the internet, it is now possible to request that amateur astronomers submit their home photos of spacecraft in orbit to a central web page database. Exactly how many photographs would suffice for you?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   




This is impossible for this to be an object in orbit.
If you want me to believe that object in front is a house!
I call fake.





Thats a drawing. How is this evidence?


Let's add this:




Another drawing?
And the other small handful of examples are from observatories.
Most of them trying to identify the craft by noticing fuel or water dumps.


So basically you are disproving your own case. It would have been very difficult to capture objects in orbit back in 1969-1972 without knowing where to look in the first place. And then the question is, how do you know what you are seeing?

Again, I asked you, did you finish watch JW's new videos?
I didnt notice an answer.

Because I want to know how the USSR managed to launch 3 LK landers under everyone's noses?





The LK (Lunniy Korabl—"lunar craft") was a Soviet lunar lander and counterpart of the American Lunar Module (LM). The LK was to have landed a single Soviet citizen on the Moon before the Americans. It completed development and was test flown successfully in Earth orbit, but never reached the Moon because the N1 rocket required to take it to the Moon was never successful.


Where are the photos from amateur photographers or even observatories? Please explain how this was possible?


The LK was tested unmanned in Earth orbit three times, as Cosmos 379, Cosmos 398 and Cosmos 434. The first test was done on November 24, 1970, the second on February 26, 1971, and the third on August 12, 1971. All three LKs were launched with the Soyuz-L rocket. The first flight imitated the planned working cycle of the Block E rocket block. The second and third flights were intended to test the LK's behavior under several flight anomalies. All three flights went well, and the LK was considered ready to use.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



This is impossible for this to be an object in orbit.
If you want me to believe that object in front is a house!
I call fake.


Of course you call fake.


Where are the photos from amateur photographers or even observatories? Please explain how this was possible?


The fact that they were assigned a "Cosmos" designation means they were spotted in orbit. They may well have made trails on dozens of sky photos. What's your point? I don't doubt that those satellites were there. I do doubt that Apollo 8 stayed behind in orbit. Jarrah has made no attempt to find photographic evidence to support this claim. Your feeble attempt to excuse him carries no weight; NASA actually published ephemerids of the missions so amateurs could observe the craft in orbit. You have made an invaluable contribution to history, however, I intend to compile an on-line repository for amateur Apollo photographs. Of course you'll call fake.

If I didn't watch the first "Radiation Anomaly" video, how did I know what was on it? Pay attention, please. First, why does he call anything in the video an anomaly? Here's the definition of an anomaly:


1: the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2: deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3: something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Merriam-Webster

Nothing in the video about planetary aphelions. His petulant attitude towards his detractors was not a deviation from his regular behavior. He points out nothing unusual... where's the anomaly?

His first piece of the puzzle is a quote from the late Professor Van Allen, dating from 1961. As a scientist, Van Allen was concerned about the radiation belts he discovered. (Jarrah tries to one-up his detractors by pointing out that the original discoveries were made by sounding rocket. How petty. If he really had the chops he would have pointed out that I. Shklovsky had theorized that the Earth was surrounded by a hydrogen cloud back in the 1890's. That this cloud should be charged became apparent early in the 20th century as observers theorized about the aurorae. But now I'm being petty.) Naturally, Van Allen assumed that travelers would need to be shielded completely from the radiation. He asked himself how thick lead shielding would need to be to create a background radiation level of zero. Meanwhile, engineers had other concerns and asked different questions. After all, lead would be an inconvenient material in a bomber or submarine. They had weight concerns so they asked: what's the maximum safe exposure to radiation? They knew it didn't need to be zero because we're exposed to radiation all the time. Using data compiled from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by marching infantrymen into nuclear test sites and through the noble sacrifices of countless bunny rabbits and white mice they were able to determine the tolerance of living creatures to different types of radiation. (Each type of radiation holds particular hazards; as Dr. Blakely would say: "It's complicated.") One of the crucial things they discovered is that radiation hazards are cumulative, and that exposure is dependent on time. The less time you spend in a radiation environment, the less shielding you need. I don't see anything anomalous here, do you?

Next, if I recall correctly, he asks whether solar flares were predictable back in the 1960's, chiefly to make his detractors appear to contradict each other. They do not. Forecasting weather of any kind is not reliable, even space weather. Our capabilities have increased immensely over the past 50 years, with dedicated solar observatory satellites. They lacked that capacity during the Apollo era. So what? With the knowledge they had they could monitor the Sun and the craft's internal radiation environment and make judgement calls as necessary. Do you see any anomaly here?

In an effort to defend himself from charges that he takes things out of context and cherry picks, he once again takes Dr. Blakely's response to a question about radiation hazards on an extended mission to Mars out of context. She is not talking about the relatively "soft" radiation of the Van Allen belts as Jarrah sneakily seems to imply, but rather the liberation of sub-atomic particles from gamma radiation impacting on the craft's hull. This produces alpha and beta particles in the cabin that can be inhaled. Since radiation damage is cumulative, this can lead to concentrations of radioactive particles in the lungs which, over an extended period of time can lead to problems like cancer. As she said, it makes things more complicated not, as Jarrah mis-states "worse." Incidentally, one of the advantages to using water as shielding is that lower density materials are less prone to bremstrahlung. That is why aluminum is used to shield x-ray machines. In any event I see no anomaly here. As Dr. Blakely no doubt says in the earlier part of the lecture that Jarrah "neglected" to post, the short duration of the Apollo missions meant that none of this was a problem for them. No anomalies here.

Then he points out recent studies that show that radiation doses are lower in Russian spacecraft because they have thicker walls. That's not surprising, or an anomaly. What does that have to do with Apollo?

Clearly, I have watched the video, and yet remain puzzled. What does any of this have to do with Apollo? What exactly is his argument? Could you explain how any of this is evidence that a well documented historical event never happened?
edit on 30-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 30-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   


Where are the photos from amateur photographers or even observatories? Please explain how this was possible?


The Russians were not known for announcing ahead or even real time, any launches. Only after the fact would they inform the world. This allowed them to deny any failures.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Because I want to know how the USSR managed to launch 3 LK landers under everyone's noses?



I think this puts to rest how many people can keep a secret, or rather how compartmentalised operations can enable a secret to be kept.

It boggles the mind that people can't understand that each and every person involved in the Apollo program really did believe they were sending a man to the moon. From the guidance, to the rover, to the food selected, they all believed it was going to happen.

When they all witnessed the apparent landing on TV it only reinforced that it did actually happen.

The tragedy of this is that most of the technologies many people thought actually performed to spec didn't. Because it didn't happen.

That is why the space shuttle / ISS space walks are shorter in duration than in 1969.


Originally posted by ppk55
On the recent STS-130 US astronaut Behnken had to recharge his oxygen supply during a 6.5 hour space walk because he was exerting himself a little too much in low earth orbit.


While working on Tranquility, Behnken was told by Mission Control to slow his pace, apparently in response to his higher rate of consuming oxygen, leading to the unplanned recharge.www.collectspace.com...


So it seems in 2010 (nearly 2011) an astronaut can't even manage 6.5 hours of external oxygen without having to recharge when things get a little too strenuous.

HOWEVER, in 1972, during the alleged apollo 17 mission they managed 7.5 hours (without an oxygen recharge)



edit on 30-12-2010 by ppk55 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I think this puts to rest how many people can keep a secret, or rather how compartmentalised operations can enable a secret to be kept.

It boggles the mind that people can't understand that each and every person involved in the apollo program really did believe they were sending a man to the moon. From the guidance, to the rover, to the food selected, they all believed it was going to happen.

When they all witnessed the apparent landing on TV it only reinforced that it did actually happen.


Even the people who climbed into the rocket, traveled through space and landed on the Moon believed it happened. It was so compartmentalized that only Jarrah White knows it really didn't happen!

Edit to add: I believe we already covered the differences between the Apollo and ISS EVA suits in this thread. In short: different equipment,

edit on 30-12-2010 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I just wanted you guys to remember to find a finish in this duscussion before we live on the moon or world has exploded. I fear you will not find a conclusion in 2010 with about 5200 posts, right?


Happy new moon, erm ..Year Foosm, Agent Smith, DJW001, PPK55 and all others! You lovely fools!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The video above is about how the Russians were able to keep a secret as big as the apollo myth. It's not about Jarrah. Why don't you comment on the content rather than the author ?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Absolute Ignorance!!!!!

The longest EVA was 8 hours and 56 minutes, performed by Susan J. Helms and James S. Voss on March 11, 2001


Yayyy!! in 40 years we've managed +1 hour of extra space walk time. I think my above comments are validated.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Not achieving a longer eva = apollo fake
Longer eva = apollo fake
Nice!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by theability
Absolute Ignorance!!!!!

The longest EVA was 8 hours and 56 minutes, performed by Susan J. Helms and James S. Voss on March 11, 2001


Yayyy!! in 40 years we've managed +1 hour of extra space walk time. I think my above comments are validated.


So you still stand by this statement you made?????


That is why the space shuttle / ISS space walks are shorter in duration than in 1969.


Are you saying that is true?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I thought I'd take this little lull in the momentum to respond to a quite excellent question by backinblack that may have been drowned out in some sub-space interference and static noise....(Oh, wait! I usually reserve the term "noise" for the puerile subject of this thread, that so-called "genius"...well, his influence is less than "stellar"
and just continues to infect this region of space, with his bad mojo....)....

Anywoo......


Originally posted by theability
Next Let us talk about the shield they had on Apollo Missions it was called the Service Module.

As noted here:



How many more feet of shielding do you need. I'd imagine 40,000lbs of liquid gases would suffice in the absence of water now right?


And, backinblack's question:


Originally posted by backinblack

Without even arguing the radiation apspect..
What percentage of the trip had the ship at that attitude.??


I love the use of the term "attitude"!! Bravo! Accurate, precise and technical.

In answer: That was a scenario that was available as a contingency, should a major CME or other strong-enough eruption have occurred that was aimed in the Earth/Moon direction, during any of the Apollo missions. It never became a necessity, as has BEEN SHOWN (and ignored by a certain other member, repeatedly).

Just as a reminder....we have discussed at great lengths (I think it was this thread?) the RCS thrusters, and how they worked on Apollo, and even on the current Space Shuttle. The spacecraft themselves are free to be rotated in ANY direction, to position in ANY attitude desired, using the RCS.

For visual demonstration, in this clip starting from 1:20.

(After launching to rendezvous with the CSM, the crew in the LM Ascent Module stop ---"station keeping", and "parked" in orbit--- to watch as the CMP, still onboard the CSM, rotates the spacecraft for a visual inspection. The two Astronauts in the LM had a unique exterior view, available to them only at this time. The exterior visual inspection is a common theme in aviation, BTW. Every pilot conducts on of his aircraft, prior to every flight. This is a variation on that idea....):




For members here who shall remain nameless...and for that FOOL "Jarrah White" (noise) who I only wish would come here, so he could get schooled....REAL science, and the background behind it, and reasons behind it, is far more preferable and a richer learning experience than this crap of attempted "hoax" proving.

"Jarrah White" is a pathetic little man who is either TOO STUPID to learn, or......has another agenda entirely.

(All my bets are on the latter. Which makes him also a poor excuse for a Human being).
edit on 30 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[
And, backinblack's question:


Originally posted by backinblack

Without even arguing the radiation apspect..
What percentage of the trip had the ship at that attitude.??


I love the use of the term "attitude"!! Bravo! Accurate, precise and technical.

In answer: That was a scenario that was available as a contingency, should a major CMW or other strong-enough eruption have occurred that was aimed in the Earth/Moon direction, during any of the Apollo missions. It never became a necessity, as has BEEN SHOWN (and ignored by a certain other member, repeatedly).



To add a bit of clarification to an excellent post, the ship could have traveled most of the trip to and from the moon at any attitude. Other than times they needed to fire the engine, or for temperature regulation, once you put the ship in a certain position, it stays that way.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 287  288  289    291  292  293 >>

log in

join