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: 297
377
<< 294  295  296    298  299  300 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

That's fake. Since the same side of the moon always faces the earth, and all the landings took place on the near side, roughly around the equator, the earth is always going to be high overhead.




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 

That's fake. Since the same side of the moon always faces the earth, and all the landings took place on the near side, roughly around the equator, the earth is always going to be high overhead.


Thanks for that..
So this one is fake also.??



Must be a fair few fake pics out there..



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Ummm... this has to do with JW videos


I'll take your word for that. It does not, however, in any way defend or excuse his deliberate and self conscious lies, which has been the unwavering topic of this new thread. Yes, the old thread died with the old year. Welcome to "Jarrah is a hoaxer, all day, all night.'
.

You spend more time on this thread then most people
and you haven't even seen all of his videos. Admit it.


No need to admit it. Obviously, if I had seen more of Jarrah's videos, I'd have even more evidence that he is a deliberate hoaxer. Think about it FoosM: do you really want me to investigate more of Jarrah's claims? Thanks to sayonarajupiter, Nat was able to prove that Jarrah's lies go back at least two years. Which would you prefer be exposed, the latest lies or the "classic" lies?



So who are you actually debating and about what?


I am not debating anyone. Wherever possible, I try to educate. Where I cannot do that, I try to remain silent. This is one reason you won't find me on the "Prophecies and Divination" forum much. Here, at least, people may be open to learning the proper ways of dealing with information... and propaganda, as practiced by Jarrah White.


Whats your agenda?


Have you been paying no attention at all? I've given five variations on the same lecture already, but since you ask:

I object to the substitution of inflammatory rhetoric and innuendo for reason and fact, whether on Fox News, National Public Radio, YouTube or, here, on ATS. Critical thinking is vital to the survival of an individual, and equally vital to the survival of a democracy. Jarrah White uses propagandistic techniques "borrowed" from the main stream media to perpetuate claims he himself knows are false. He is a hoaxer, and exploits the intrinsically good nature of humanity in order to feed his pathetic, misanthropic ego. I find this unacceptable.

Every discipline has evolved a series of techniques and rules that enable it to extend the shared pool of human knowledge. Science has a rigorous methodology which enables us to make definitive statements about the nature of our physical world. It is universally accepted because it works,. Any attempt to describe the physical world that does not follow this methodology, even if it uses "scientific" sounding words like "quantum," is pseudo-science, The fact that Jarrah White brandishes technical expressions like "rem" without understanding them, and most particularly, without applying them in the context of the accepted scientific methodology means that he is practicing pseudo-science . I find this not only unacceptable, but dangerous. Not content to limit his propaganda offensive to the "hard" sciences, he wreaks havoc upon the "soft" sciences, specifically history. As a discipline, history is two millenia old. It's rules are extremely simple: the interpretation of the evidence, whether physical (ruins, spacecraft, etc.), literary (in the sense of primary sources, memoirs and so forth) or indirect ("Where is the Persian Empire these days?") converge on a coherent picture. Anything that does not take all the evidence into account or that picks and chooses among the evidence is pseudo-history. Jarrah White has the nerve to use pseudo-science in support of pseudo-history. Doubly unacceptable.

Any further questions?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


No, that one is real (AS11-44-6642). Since it was taken in lunar orbit, the earth could appear at any altitude, depending on where they were in the orbit.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


No, that one is real (AS11-44-6642). Since it was taken in lunar orbit, the earth could appear at any altitude, depending on where they were in the orbit.


That pic is of the apollo 11 LM on it's way to landing..
It would have to travel a long way to fit with your comment.

the earth is always going to be high overhead

BTW, I agree with that comment but don't see how the Eagle travelled far enough over that horizon to fit that scenario,,



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Has Phil Plait @ BadAstronomy ever used the same EE Kovalev source materials as cited by Jarrah White?
Has Jay Windley @ Clavius dot org ever used the same EE Kavalev source materials as cited by Jarrah White?
If the EE Kovalev source material invalidates Jarrah White's space radiation arguments - what took the 'experts' so long to refute Jarrah with the Kovalev material?


Quite simple: Kovalev's data and conclusions are part of the accepted body of knowledge of the space radiation environment. Every time someone counters Jarrah's propaganda with the facts, Koralev's data is buried within it. Jarrah always dismisses any source of space data as "tainted" for one reason or another. By citing this specific paper and calling the conclusions he draws definitive, he is tacitly endorsing it as "untainted." As someone said, Jarrah gave it his "untainted" seal of approval. Now that we have a specific source that Jarrah himself considers legitimate, it can be entered as evidence. It shows that he is wrong, and he has no choice but to accept that or renounce his entire argument. [Color=Orange]And, since you yourself have testified that Jarrah would have read the entire thing, he knew that the paper disproved his claims, yet he used it anyway. He consciously lied. He is nothing more than a common hoaxer.
edit on 4-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.


My friend, what I wrote about Jarrah's study habits you have taken it as if I had personal knowledge of the situation. I am gladly here to admit that I do not have a personal knowledge of Jarrah's study habits.
I merely suggested that his source material and his piles of space research books were well read and studied by him. I merely suggested that it would be a big surprise to me if he had quote mined the EE Kovalev material only for the sections he could use to his advantage in the space radiation argument.

Just take a moment to read what I actually wrote:

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...


Fact is, NASA afficionadoes in this thread have known about this EE Kovalev chap 2 years ago when JW posted his first expose series on space radiation aptly titled MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 6
WhiteJarrah | November 02, 2008


Fact is, NASA defenders in this thread ignored the EE Kovalev source material until just very recently. Now this info comes to the defenders as some surprise to them. Now to actually read it and find information that is NEW to them.
Well, the FACT IS Jarrah White has taken these NASA monkeyboys to space radiation school via EE Kovalev...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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.
Excellent point. When you look at the radiation exposure as a function of time, Apollo 8's exposure was nearly twice as high as Apollo 7.


Here is the radiation exposure as a function of time: Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly II. PART 1

edit on 1/5/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: massive edit


jra

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
That pic is of the apollo 11 LM on it's way to landing..
It would have to travel a long way to fit with your comment.


Umm, due to the lack of a descent stage. I'd say it's doing the opposite.

But just so you know, the LM doesn't travel straight down when it begins its landing. The Apollo 11's descent orbit insertion (DOI) began when they were on the far side of the Moon. About an hour after that they performed their powered descent and 12 minutes after that, they had landed.

If you want some photos of Earth taken from the Moon. I know of some from Apollo 14. Look at photos AS14-64-9189 - AS14-64-9197.

There could be more. Spend some time going through this 70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog. It's a nice site for when you want to browse through the images quickly.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



But just so you know, the LM doesn't travel straight down when it begins its landing. The Apollo 11's descent orbit insertion (DOI) began when they were on the far side of the Moon. About an hour after that they performed their powered descent and 12 minutes after that, they had landed.


Thanks for that..
I tried searching eagle/lm decent with no luck..

I'll have a look at the pics..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



If you want some photos of Earth taken from the Moon. I know of some from Apollo 14. Look at photos AS14-64-9189 - AS14-64-9197.


Hope that's not the best they have..
The earth is tiny and you can't make out any detail..
Is there NO good pics of earth from the moon, other than ones taken while in orbit??
Bit odd...


jra

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Hope that's not the best they have..
The earth is tiny and you can't make out any detail..
Is there NO good pics of earth from the moon, other than ones taken while in orbit??
Bit odd...


There are also some from Apollo 17. AS17-134-20384 and AS17-134-20387. But yeah the Earth looks small in those photos. They mainly used 60mm lenses which is a slightly wide angle lens, but it tends to make things appear a bit smaller than what you'd see with your own eyes. The photos you see from Lunar orbit where the Earth looks larger were taken with a telephoto lens.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I've just been through heaps of mags from 11 & 14..
No decent earth pics..
I'll take a look at 17..

I did like the multiple shot panorama though..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Nobody has been able to find
data about the deep space EVAs yet?

What about the type of radiation in the belts?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Ummm... this has to do with JW videos


I'll take your word for that. It does not, however, in any way defend or excuse his deliberate and self conscious lies, which has been the unwavering topic of this new thread. Yes, the old thread died with the old year. Welcome to "Jarrah is a hoaxer, all day, all night.'
.


JW hasnt lied.
You are lying about that.
JW is not a hoaxer, because many people do not believe NASA landed men on the moon.
Thats not a hoax.

What type of radiation is found in the belts?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


Fact is, NASA defenders in this thread ignored the EE Kovalev source material until just very recently. Now this info comes to the defenders as some surprise to them. Now to actually read it and find information that is NEW to them.
Well, the FACT IS Jarrah White has taken these NASA monkeyboys to space radiation school via EE Kovalev...




1 year ago in the comments section:
hiorka:
"and the numbers you showed were listed as *WITHOUT SHIELDING*"

WhiteJarrah
"And Apollo was an unshielded spacecraft."


Now Apollo defenders.
Here is proof that JW is not lying or misleading the public.
He believes that the Apollo craft was unshielded.
How did JW come to that conclusion?

Thats why I have been asking:
What type of radiation does the belts consist of?

This is going to be the turning point.
Because everyone here has acknowledged and agreed to the numbers presented.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
1 year ago in the comments section:
hiorka:
"and the numbers you showed were listed as *WITHOUT SHIELDING*"

WhiteJarrah
"And Apollo was an unshielded spacecraft."


Now Apollo defenders.
Here is proof that JW is not lying or misleading the public.
He believes that the Apollo craft was unshielded.
How did JW come to that conclusion?
I can only assume he came to that conclusion out of sheer ignorance. *ANY* mass between the occupant and the source of the radiation constitutes shielding.

From Wikipedia:

The effectiveness of a material as a biological shield is related to its cross-section for scattering and absorption, and to a first approximation is proportional to the total mass of material per unit area interposed along the line of sight between the radiation source and the region to be protected. Hence, shielding strength or "thickness" is conventionally measured in units of g/cm^2


So unless he believes that the Apollo spacecraft were made of some magic, massless material, the astronauts *WERE* shielded.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
I can only assume he came to that conclusion out of sheer ignorance. *ANY* mass between the occupant and the source of the radiation constitutes shielding.

From Wikipedia:

The effectiveness of a material as a biological shield is related to its cross-section for scattering and absorption, and to a first approximation is proportional to the total mass of material per unit area interposed along the line of sight between the radiation source and the region to be protected. Hence, shielding strength or "thickness" is conventionally measured in units of g/cm^2


So unless he believes that the Apollo spacecraft were made of some magic, massless material, the astronauts *WERE* shielded.


So are you claiming that paper can shield against beta and gamma radiation?
How thick would it have to be?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Are you claiming that apollo was made from paper?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So are you claiming that paper can shield against beta and gamma radiation?
How thick would it have to be?

Yes, paper can shield radiation. Heck, even air can shield against radiation. *ANYTHING* with mass provides a shield. Now since the effectiveness of the shield is related to the density of the material, paper and air wouldn't make very good shields, but they would be shields none-the-less.

The paper referenced by you with your "millions of rads" quote says that 1 g/cm^2 is enough shielding to drop the dosage rates at the highest point in the VABs to just 50 rads/hr.

The density of typical printer paper is about 0.8 g/cm^3. So to get us to 1 g of paper with a surface area of 1 cm, we'd need a thickness of 1.25 cm.

Air at sea level is about 0.0012754 g/cm^3 in density, so you'd need about 784 cm of air to provide the same shielding.

Aluminum is 2.7 g/cm^3, so you only need a thickness of 0.37 cm.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by FoosM
 


Are you claiming that apollo was made from paper?


Are you adding anything to this conversation?
Why are you butting in with a one line post with a nonsense question?
Are you worried about something?
Something causing your neck hairs to stand at attention?
Apollo is made out of paper if the moon is made out of paper.
And if the moon is made from cheese, then they needed cheese shielding.
Does that answer your question. Can we move on now?

What kind of radiation does the VABs consist of?
And why does JW claim that Apollo was not shielded a YEAR ago!

Lets see who did their homework.
LOL.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 294  295  296    298  299  300 >>

log in

join