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: 295
377
<< 292  293  294    296  297  298 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


If you watch that video, you'll see there are two little spots that flash well before the supposed "strings." The following animation shows the frame where those spots are visible. They are then highlighted in red. I then draw green lines from edges of the frame to these spots. The camera zooms in when the "strings" flash, so I take that frame and scale it down (to 86.95% of it's original size), to match the zoom level in the first frame, and reposition the frame with the "strings" so the terrain matches up with the frame with the flashes. Then I scale down the green lines to the same size (86.95%) and put those on top. You can clearly see the "strings" are in the exact same locations with respect to the edges of the frame, a very curious thing if they are attached to the astronauts who have moved with respect to the edges of the frame.



Well Im glad you are doing some analysis on this "wire" discussion.
This issue that we have here is that there are several scenes with these "wires".
Does your analysis work on the other scenes as well?



At :11 and :13 and :15 Wire rigging supports are clearly seen at different times right above the Apollo Astronaut leading on the right.

The Astronaut following moves over to the right side, and at :27 two wire supports above him are clearly seen. These two wire supports are definitely NOT image mistakes in the film, because if you watch at :27 closely, the two dark wires move in tandem right above the Astronaut as he is still moving.

The other reason why these two wires at :27 look so dark, could have been an early 1972 amateur photo-shop type attempt by someone at NASA, to cover up the two wires that were so clearly seen in the strong glinting reflected light.

Film video comes from NASA's Public Domain movie, 'Apollo 15: In The Mountains Of The Moon (1972)'. Available for download from:
www.archive.org...


&




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Don't be ridiculous Tom, Jarrah will never show his face publically here as he's a coward and every time he tries to get involved in a 2-way conversation with anyone that actually knows what they're talking about he gets the whipping of his life.
All that results is the showing of he's true colours of being ignorant, rude and so abusive he makes me look like Mr Pleasant. As pointed out, we just have to look at the various attempts in the past he has made to communicate to see what a nasty, stupid little boy he is.
Similarly to the Wizard of Oz, he just hides behind the curtain of YouTube while dishing out his brand of ignorance pretending to be some great man that he can only dream of being.
No we won't see Jarrah here, he's too cowardly and scared of getting his ass whipped like it has every time before. Besides, if he posted here, after he started to recieve the formentioned whipping then thanks to the ATS censoring system his posts would look like this:

# # # # # # # # # #



AgentSmith, its easy to call someone a coward when you hide behind a fake name and a fake picture.
Why dont you reveal to us your true name, where you live and post a picture of yourself?
Maybe then JW would be inclined to debate with you here on ATS.
Because I dont see why he should waste time and debate with anonymous persons.

Secondly he is busy making videos.
Are you busy making videos?
Do you know how much time and effort that actually takes?
Instead of spending a few minutes writing a post, why dont you debate JW
by spending a few hours putting together a rebuttal video?
And then be prepared to defend it.
Not like this forum where you have to contend with one or two posters a day, but
on youtube where you might be faced with tens to hundreds of replies.
Maybe then JW will take your viewpoints into consideration.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Jarrah clearly states:

"Given that the maximum doses of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 REM, that means the astronauts would receive 1333 REM or 2.6 times the lethal dose in the belts alone. Hopefully this puts the 30 degree inclination trajectory argument to rest."



Why is he telling his viewers the Astronauts will receive this dose?


Because they would.
Are you saying the numbers are incorrect?

What is your response to the numbers being millions of rem per hour in both belts?

But lets go with the numbers JW provided.
How much and what kind of shielding would be necessary to protect the astronauts?
And what type of shielding would you need to stop the secondary radiation?
Did the Apollo craft have shielding to stop the primary and secondary radiation?
If so, what were they?
Another thing, was the CM's shielding rated the same around the entire craft?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How much and what kind of shielding would be necessary to protect the astronauts?


According to Jarrah's source, ONE MILLIMETER!!!! Pay attention, FoosM, this is getting tedious.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
It's not in the same place with respect to the frame.
It doesn't however move left as much as the astronauts, but it DOES move..

Care to explain how you conclude it's not in the same place? My animation shows how it is.


I watched the video several times, and I looked at your animation.
I dont know what your animation is trying to prove.
But it doesn't disprove wires.



I made a post about this
Regarding the technology of using wires back in the 60's

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Foy works with NASA and the television industry to be able to provide simulated coverage of the Apollo moon landing should live coverage be impossible.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah, that guy makes excellent video rebuttals. How embarrassing for JW.

Love that tag line at the end too.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I watched the video several times, and I looked at your animation.
I dont know what your animation is trying to prove.


I'm pretty sure I explained myself well enough that it should be obvious what the animations show, but I'll state it again. We see some flashes, clearly unrelated to any "wires" because they don't even happen above the astronauts. Then the camera moves, and the astronauts move, and we see another flash, right in the exact same location with respect to the frame (not with respect to the astronauts or the background). The most likely conclusion is that these flashes, being in the exact same location at two different instances, have more to do with the camera than with image being captured.


Originally posted by FoosM
But it doesn't disprove wires.


Nor does such a video prove wires.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Because they would.
Are you saying the numbers are incorrect?


Yes, they're quite incorrect, unless you're aware of any naked astronauts sent without a spacecraft through the VABs. But then, I'd say radiation wouldn't be the first thing to worry about.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
What is your response to the numbers being millions of rem per hour in both belts?


What is your response to the actual content of the article you're referencing?

Limitations on Space Flight due to Cosmic Radiations


[O]ne can compute the biological dose under any desired condition. First, if one assumes a condition of no shielding it is possible to predict a dose of radiation of millions of rads per hour at the peak intensity of both radiation belts. (A rad represents a dose of radiation received when 100 ergs of energy per gram of matter has been absorbed.) It should be noted that a dose of 500 rads is probably fatal to man; 100 rads would cause serious later efects; and 10 rads would cause only minor effects. These figures mean that it would be impossible for man to exist in the radiation belts unshielded, even for very short periods of time.

The slight protection offered by a space suitwould cause some change in the situation, but the dose rates would stil be thousands of rads per hour. This means that if man is required to operate in space at an altitude of, say, 10,000 miles in the neighborhood of the equator, he would receive a fatal dose of radiation in a few moments. If he were in a space vehicle with shielding thick enough to provide a mass of 1.0 gram per square centimeter of surface area (a reasonable shell for a space ship), the situation would change considerably. The dose rate would be about 10 rads per hour in the inner zone and 50 rads per hour in the outer zone; thus a traverse, lasting some minutes, of one or both of these belts in such a ship would be admisible, but repeated exposures could not be tolerated.


So we're down from "millions of rads" to 50 rads/hr at peak intensity with just minimal (1 g/cm^2) shielding. As noted, the Apollo craft never traveled through the peak area, and spent a minimal time in any portion of the belts.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Because they would.


Only if they were naked and not in a ship.



Are you saying the numbers are incorrect?


Yes, they are incorrect if they are to be taken as the dose received by the Astronauts which is how Jarrah presents it.



What is your response to the numbers being millions of rem per hour in both belts?


We're talking specifically about the electron belt which is what Jarrah was debating in that section of his video. The largest figure in the chart he used is 2.8 * 10^5 which is 280,000 or two hundred and eighty thousand, there are no figures in 'millions'. Why exaggerate it for the readers?

For the what I think is the 3rd time now, here is the chart used by Jarrah in context.



Note the phrase these values apply when shielding is absent



But lets go with the numbers JW provided.
How much and what kind of shielding would be necessary to protect the astronauts?


A good question which has already been answered on numerous occasions, but more to the question why did Jarrah not pose this question or calculate it, instead of putting forward the idea that the actual dose received by the Astronauts was in fact the unshielded dose?

Going back to Jarrah's video screenshot and quote:

"Given that the maximum doses of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 REM, that means the astronauts would receive 1333 REM or 2.6 times the lethal dose in the belts alone. Hopefully this puts the 30 degree inclination trajectory argument to rest." - Jarrah White



He is specifically saying that the Astronauts would have received over the fatal dose, he hasn't mentioned they would have to be naked floating in space, in fact he has used this 'point' to 'win' his 'argument' regarding the trajectory. Why is he misleading his readers? Why are you, Foosm, trying to avoid this issue or cover it up?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Thanks for the links etc

i'll sit and watch some of them tonight



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
I'm pretty sure I explained myself well enough that it should be obvious what the animations show, but I'll state it again. We see some flashes, clearly unrelated to any "wires" because they don't even happen above the astronauts.


Oh you did, but that doesn't mean your conclusions are correct.
Yes there "dots" you pointed out are strange. But later we see "lines"
Those lines are wires. Its the most logical conclusion.


Originally posted by FoosM
But it doesn't disprove wires.


Nor does such a video prove wires.

Oh yes it does. Because we can see wires.
Not only in this video but others as I pointed out.
Also, the wires are above the astronauts and no where else.
Can you show us wires in other scenes?
If its a camera artifact it should show in other scenes not above the astronauts.
What you found, those strange dots, just adds another piece to the puzzle on how they faked the missions.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Those lines are wires. Its the most logical conclusion.


Wrong, the most logical conclusion is that they are artifacts caused by the imaging equipment.



Oh yes it does. Because we can see wires.


Repitition does not make it a fact.



Not only in this video but others as I pointed out.


I looked at your other video, several times. Can you please take freeze frames and highlight what you consider to be wires, as I can't see any.



Also, the wires are above the astronauts and no where else.


What wires?




Can you show us wires in other scenes?


Do you remember that thing I said about repitition not making it fact?

You can see these kinds of effects all the time, don't forget when viewing these the difference in optics, light sources and sensor.

Link to first Example







If its a camera artifact it should show in other scenes not above the astronauts.


Maybe it does, if you look.

In this Apollo 15 video you can see several point like artifacts that are stationary while the camera pans, though they change in brightness probably due to them being dust or damage to the optics.
At 30 seconds, even though there is no astronaut, you see a vertical flash. The 'wires' are simply vertical flaring probably due to imperfections or damage to the camera optics, it's quite obvious really.



Oh, I noticed you forgot to respond to Jarrah being caught out on lying. Now we've cleared up the confusion where you didn't see he had done so, perhaps you would care to comment on why he delibrately misled his fans?
edit on 3-1-2011 by AgentSmith because: Fix YT link



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh yes it does. Because we can see wires.


Wires, FoosM? Wires? What do wires have to do with the bogus calculations Jarrah did to deceive his followers. He did settle the radiation argument once and for all: based on data provided in his own source, data he intentionally suppressed: even with as little as 1mm of shielding, the Van Allen Belts would not be lethal to the astronauts. The "radiation argument" has no merit, and Jarrah has unintentionally proved it.

Why are you suddenly talking about wires? Because that is the modus operandi of the Hoax propagandists; rather than acknowledge that they've been caught in yet another lie, change the subject. As it turns out, you have inadvertently provided me with the perfect example of the fundamental cynicism of those propagating the Moon Hoax: the essential belief of the propagandists is that people are stupid and lazy. People are too stupid to solve the technical problems involved in sending people to the Moon, and even if they could, they are so lazy they'd rather fake it on a sound stage. It is this contempt for humanity that gave Jarrah the arrogance to do that little calculation of his. People are too stupid to question it and too lazy to investigate it. Jarrah and his fellow Moon hoax propagandists are achieving fame by peddling "Reality For Dummies."

Your sudden shift of attention is the perfect example. If Joe Average were to ask Joe Science Geek "why do the astronauts bounce around like that on the Moon?" Joe Science Geek would reply:

"It's a bit complicated, but in simple terms, the Moon's gravity is not as strong as Earth's. This means that the astronaut's legs can launch them a little bit higher, and things fall a little bit slower. What makes it complicated is that although the force of gravity is less, everything still contains the same amount of "stuff," that is, everything has the same "mass," which means that inertia and momentum remain the same. In other words, even though they "weigh" less, they are just as hard to move, and will be just as hard to stop. Throw in the fact that the reduced gravity means the astronauts have less traction, and it becomes necessary for them to hop from side to side to take advantage of the regolith, the way a cross country skier "pushes off" against the snow...."

All of this is basic physics, but it requires a certain amount of mental effort to fully come to grips with. On the other hand, if Joe Average were to ask Jarrah Moon Hoax Propagandist the same question, he would get a much simpler answer:

"Wire, my child. It's all done with wires."

Simple. No further thought required." Reality For Dummies."

There are problems with this, though, the first being that most people just aren't that lazy or stupid. The second is more subtle, but extremely relevant on a site dedicated to conspiracy theories. It demonstrates the difference between a sound methodology and an unsound one. Students of conspiracy theories point to what is called the "cascade effect." An unsound conspiracy theory tends to grow wider and wider as it attempts to explain the observed facts. Eventually, every single person on the planet needs to be "in on" the conspiracy but the actual theorist. (Sound conspiracy theories work in the opposite direction.... Who was behind the Watergate break-in and why? Alien overlords to protect their masonic secrets? No, try the Committee to Re-Elect the President in order to gain campaign intelligence. Sound, and true.)

For purposes of analogy, compare the heliocentric model of Copernicus with the older Ptolemaic model. Copernicus' model was much simpler, and had great predictive powers, especially when "tweaked" by Kepler's discovery of the elliptical nature of the planets' orbits. Ptolemy's system was purely descriptive. It seemed to work. The planets did seem to move around the Earth, describing circles within circles... but every time a more refined measurement was made, another circle or "epicycle" needed to be added to the increasingly complicated system. What had the appeal of being a "simple" solution to the effects observed gradually began to "cascade."

What does this have to do with the historicity of the Apollo program? Simple. Let us imagine a bright individual who has the misfortune to be raised in isolation, his only companions being a series of science and engineering textbooks. Sadly, he has no history books, so he has no knowledge of the history of the space program. Starting with the basic physics he learned from his textbooks, and proceeding onward through the books on astronomy, chemistry, engineering and so forth, he might speculate on how it would be possible to travel to the Moon. There are hundreds of possibilities, of course, but since the physical constraints are always the same whether he imagines building a space station first or varies the number of astronauts in the party from one to 100, at some point, he could stumble across the exact mission profile historically used by NASA (and planned but never implemented by the Soviets, as well.) A scientific approach can predict the details of the historical Apollo missions in advance, as well as explain all the details after they have taken place.

Let's look at Jarrah White's "Reality For Dummies" approach. It attempts to explain things a posteriori using the most superficial interpretations. Like the Ptolemaic system, it starts simple, gets more complicated as it attempts to explain things, cascades, and crashes. "Why did they build such a big rocket?" To fool you. "Where did the rocket go?" It stayed in orbit. "Why didn't people see it?" People are stupid. "How could astronomers take pictures of it on the way to the Moon if it was really in orbit?" They're in on it. "How come people could hear the radio transmissions?" They're liars.... Yes, simple. Simple epicycle upon simple epicycle, each turn revolving around the assumption either that people are stupid, or "in on it." Unlike the first approach I mentioned, it does not attempt to make predictions, it actually shuns them.

If the Soviets had actually landed on the Moon in secret, it would be possible to deduce the mission profile using the former methodology. The latter methodology would be useless. Out of sight, out of mind.

But to return to the Moon Hoax propagandists horror of predictions, let's look at some of the logical consequences of their cynical "theory": If the S-IVB remained in orbit rather than departing for the Moon, it would be a conspicuous object in the sky. It would, in fact, be exactly as bright as Skylab was, because Skylab was an S-IVB! I remember seeing Skylab with my naked eyes, yet no-one saw Apollo 8? The "theory" predicts that people should have seen it. Why not? Oh yes, people are stupid. But why isn't it still there then? Because they fired the S-IVB at the Moon but the CSM stayed behind? Why? If you're going to fire an S-IVB at the Moon, why not send the CSM with it? Radiation? Oh yeah, Jarrah blew that one out of the water, so if not radiation, why not? Hmmm... a few more epicycles tacked onto the other epicycles should explain that.

In summation, Jarrah White and his fellow hoax propagandists have built their entire argument on this bedrock: "people are stupid and lazy." Are you going to let him get away with that?
edit on 3-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Question for ANYONE in the thread:
Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly II. PART 1

Has anyone in this thread (posting or lurking) purchased the "Radiation Protection During Space Flight" by E. E. Kovalev source material cited by Jarrah White in his last video series?

If Jarrah White is going to cite the Kovalev research in his latest videos then I could easily imagine that he would have spent the $20-$35 dollars needed to acquire the Kovalev source material. After all, Jarrah has spent $300AU on a container of "NASA simulated regolith".
It would be out of character for Jarrah to cite a source material without having read the entire document. DJW001 has speculated that Jarrah White cherrypicked information out of this report in order to deceive people watching his videos... That is why I am asking the question. And I will ask it again.

Has anyone here in this thread purchased the complete report "Radiation Protection During Space Flight" by E. E. Kovalev????



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Has anyone in this thread (posting or lurking) purchased the "Radiation Protection During Space Flight" by E. E. Kovalev source material cited by Jarrah White in his last video series?


*Raises hand* I have, in fact I talked about it several pages ago here:

post by AgentSmith

As well as having an extract from it a few posts up from yours right here.

'Cherry Picked' has to be the understatement of the week, not only was he deceptive in the use of the table from it, but he also ignores the fact that the entire _/b] supports Apollo in the information it contains.

A brief racap,

The table used by Jarrah in his video, in context can be seen in the extract below:



Note the use of the phrase 'these values apply when the shielding is absent'.

While not directly related to the point he was using it for in the video, another table from the document that supports space travel outside of the Earths Magnetosphere.



The entire _/i] is consistant with the information provided by NASA and completely supports the Apollo program. Jarrah clearly took the gamble that a) No-one would find out where to get this slightly hard to get hold of document and b) That they would not want to pay for it should they find it.

Thanks for bringing it up again though, always happy to talk about it



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Thank you for that clarification AgentSmith. I'll even give you one star for that. Please tell us how much did you pay for access to the scientific report and please describe the methodology of EE Kovalev to obtain his results? Can you duplicate his research? Are you ready to peer review his methodology?
You see it is a bit different from the real science of 1968 - sending turtles into space and retrieving them with Zond-5
Has anyone peer reviewed Zond-5? Or is Zond-5 accepted as indisputable fact now? Much like the Apollo 8 radiation dosage is presented by NASA.... as indisputable fact.

The passive thermoluminescent radiation dosimeters for Apollo 8 moon orbital mission averaged .16 rads, exactly the same dose readings for Apollo 7 which never exceeded low earth orbit. Does EE Kovalev source material justify the exact same rad readings for A7 and A8?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Why does any of that matter when it had the jarrah white stamp of approval? Even if he happened to misrepresent it....
Please se my original post for prices and link



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
In addition..

If Jarrah had somehow not lied and the figures he gave accurate, would you find it acceptable if I or anyone else had responded with the same questions regarding the source material?
Why is the paper not questioned when it appears to support Jarrah's claims due to his manipulation and outright lies, but when it is discovered that it actually supports Apollo there are suddenly demands of peer reviews and questions regarding the validity of the information contained within it?

The source used by Jarrah White wholeheartedly supports Apollo and any short term space flight to the Moon, even though he lied in order to make it appear otherwise. Surely now that a source approved by Jarrah White supports Apollo in relation to the radiation 'problem', it no longer needs to be discussed?

Regarding Apollo 7/8, they were different mission lengths. Your argument regarding the measurement coincidentally being the same makes no sense unless the mission duration was not so vastly different.

I would love to hear some remarks from the Jarrah Supporters regarding the unsurprising revelation that Jarrah knowlingly lies and manipulates data in order to put his, by default, invalid point across. Perhaps he could work for the Government? Once this has been acknowledged we can move onto exposing the next Jarrah lie.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor
Nor does such a video prove wires.


Oh yes it does. Because we can see wires.

What kind of nonsense is that? We can see men walking on the moon, too.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 292  293  294    296  297  298 >>

log in

join