Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Derised Emanresu

 

So...

I get anywhere between 6 and 9 nine people now who seem adamant to attempt and prove my point wrong.

So what. The level of opposition to your posts is not evidence that you are correct or that you have a valid point.

It is fallacious in that you claim to have a point, but admit in earlier posts that you do not know if your point even exists, that being the "deadly killer neutrino pockets". You have used this claim to assert a belief that the landing are a hoax. Again this is unsupported by any evidence what so ever.
You maintain that certain evidence used to argue against your "imagined" pockets of deadly radiation is not to be used, but again you have failed to include ALL evidence supporting the Apollo missions. This is only to YOUR favor of your "imagined" possibility that you have pushed forward as a valid argument. This is not critical thinking, nor a logical process of investigation. It is simply a bias of ad hoc hypothesis in favor of supporting a conclusion you have already arrived at. That conclusion being a hoax landing which you support with your ad hoc hypothesis of "killer pockets of neutrino radiation", a hypothesis not supported by anything at all except your imagination.

And for some odd reason all of these same people have 5-8 stars beside all of the "Josephus is wrong" comments.

Who cares about stars. Are you suggesting that the opposition to your posts and the support they have gathered is directly linked to the factual nature of YOUR posts and not theirs?

You see... I am using inductive reasoning to intuit that the same people who seem intent on trashing me are all patting one another on the back and starring each other's comments, like the comments have some relevance.

You have no reasoning at all. You are poisoning the well, your ad hominem attack and appealing to ridicule highlite the fact that your posts have no substance or real strength in arguing your belief.
You need to change the fact that you have no argument into a discussion of the motives of others so as to use this to suggest that you are right.
This just pathetic dude.

And then you all act like you just killed a deer a brought it home for dinner. (Troglodytes used to do that)

This is irelevant. You argument has no substance. Just show the evidence that supports your claim.
Show that these pockets exist.
It is that simple.
Simply saying they "could exist" is not an argument.
This is injecting an explanation to support a conclusion and nothing else.

Inductive reasoning is the same type that I used to show that these supposed "moon landings" are most likely a HOAX.

Inductive reasoning takes SPECIFIC and KNOWN facts to form a general conclusion.

Please explain to me where your "deadly pockets of neutrino radiation" are specific to and known to the moon. More over, as the mission landed in SPECIFIC and KNOWN regions of the moon, please point out how you concluded that these regions where typical of "deadly pockets of radiation"
Just point it out dude.

Lets get inductive.

It only betrays the fact that you are all a bit freaked out that your official storyline might not make a lick of sense.

Peese.

I think the only one annoyed, is you. I think the only one who is freaked you, someone who dwells in fantasy to support a belief in order to ridicule others in the hope that somehow, you just might feel some sense of worth, value or relevance in the world.

How sad is that.
CIOA.

reply to post by CHRLZ

And, that *may* be possible...!

I found her number if your interested she is from the Hornsby area.

Ocker

Edit to add She has finished her degree in visual arts effects..

the poor thing she does not know what she is in for

Ocker

[edit on 5/5/2010 by ocker]

reply to post by ocker


Don't give that out on here Ocker.

She doesn't deserve to be harassed because of a video she made a few years ago.

Would you want CHRLZ and his mates calling your house?

Also, consider the people too stupid to account for time zones, they could cause alot of hassle even if they are nice.


*Send her email to any Serious researchers who request it. I trust you to determine who is a serious researcher - and who is not.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Don't worry EX Mums the word

Ocker

Originally posted by ocker

And, that *may* be possible...!

I found ...

Thanks, but no.. I would be happy to email her, but I guess what I would like to know first is whether she was aware of what her opinions were going to be used for, and how... and whether she actually wishes to support her claims, or would rather stay well out of it. The fact that she is not 'visible' on the web, suggests that she may not have any desire to be involved in a debate on her opinions.

I would repeat my point that visual art does involve a component on understanding perspective (vanishing points and that sort of stuff), but perspective is only a TINY part of photogrammetry!

Take a look at any "Teach Yourself Landscape Art' type book. You'll see what I mean. Does it talk about uneven terrain effects, light and shadow angles when viewed via a wide angle lens? How to spot multiple light sources?

And if you start talking serious forensic photogrammetry where images are properly analysed, it's just like most REAL science - the more you learn, the more you realise how little you know, and how much you have to be aware of. That's very very different to being able to teach someone to paint in a visual arts class...

Anyway, there are many flaws in what was said in that video, including some blindingly obvious contradictions.. But I'll wait a while before addressing them in detail to see if an email address (or the person herself) turns up.

(added)
PS - Ocker, she's your MUM??? That 'splains everything!

[edit on 5-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Began watching JW's Moon Hoax series last year.
Certainly there were some questionable/debatable sources of information used and explanations offered, but the impression that he leaves is incredibly simple. And that is, every aspect of Apollo can be challenged. Because every aspect of Apollo could be simulated on Earth.

they had simulated regolith & moondust
they had those huge vacuum chambers for the CM and LM.
they had "sets", huge models of the moon, with dollies and tracks, replicated landscapes of the moon on large areas of ground and used cranes to lift the LM.
they had connections to Hollywood & Disney
they had computer simulation programs
they had within their ranks NAZI war criminals who were experts at lying.
they had the power of TV and a trusting American public.
they had a scientific community strung out on subsidy dollars.

USSR
People keep saying, why didnt the Russians 'out' the US.
Well the Russians lied about their space program too- remember Laika?
And who says they didnt "out" America?
Issue is, does it matter? Would any of you believe the Reds back in the 70's and 80's if they said the US lied about the moon landing?
Secondly, would any of you know or hear about it?
The whole USSR issue is a silly argument to make when countries who are "enemies" make deals with each other when they have leverage.
Thats why JW mentions the USSR/US wheat deals.
And what about the the joint US & USSR space programs during the cold war?
What about Kennedy wanting to work with the USSR in Space during the cold war?


Another point, NASA has been outed as faking Apollo, the problem is, many people just dont want to believe it. So stop acting as if a whistleblower would make you change your mind, most of you would attack the messenger. And you know it. Many of you are just trying to hang on to the fantasy of space travel that you grew up with as a kid.
I truly believed we landed on the moon, but when I stepped back to look at all the evidence, I cant help but see it as another myth, lie, a piltdown man.


Radiation
Of course we cant get to the moon because of radiation.
Short stay on the moon's surface? What about the trip itself?
These guys supposedly went through an unmapped VA belt, during a period of high solar activity, and pranced around on a radiated moon. Even low doses of radiation can be deadly- as in cancer causing. And if it doesnt kill you, it can at least it can make you sick:
Radiation Nausea
Hair Loss
Fatigue / Malaise
Low Blood Count
You dont need high doses! When we speak of high doses we are speaking of dying within short period of time. In terms of protection, gold foil on the LM, well that was on the lower part of the LM, not the ascent stage where the Astros were staying. So I dont see how that helped. And please tell me what part of the boots or space suits protected the Astronots against radiation?

This is how much NASA knows about space Radiation:

Late last month, NASA announced the winners of 12 awards for studying the biological effects of radiation. Topping the list is a $1.75 million project to irradiate up to 18 squirrel monkeys in an effort to find out what space radiation does to the central nervous system...The experiment is designed to investigate the effects of solar flares and galactic cosmic rays: both will bombard astronauts with charged particles in greater numbers once they leave the protection of Earth's magnetosphere.

Yeah, yeah... we all know the cover story is because its about long space trips, but even short trips can expose Astronauts to GCRs. The key is: Past Earth's magnetosphere.
And trying to find facts and figures on space radiation tests are for some reason very difficult to find. As a matter of fact, what animals did they send to the moon to test radiation before Apollo flights?

reply to post by FoosM


Every aspect of World War II can be duplicated on a sound stage, therefore World War II didn't happen. Brilliant.

Originally posted by FoosM

Radiation
Of course we cant get to the moon because of radiation.
Short stay on the moon's surface? What about the trip itself?
These guys supposedly went through an unmapped VA belt, during a period of high solar activity, and pranced around on a radiated moon. Even low doses of radiation can be deadly- as in cancer causing. And if it doesnt kill you, it can at least it can make you sick:

This part alone shows how much you know about apollo. They went through a mild part of the belt. There was no high period of solar activity and even if there were they had procedures to minimize the exposure. Also the radiation in the moon wasn't dangerous for a 3 day stay.

[Edit to add] Btw, they started to map the belt in 1958

[edit on 5/5/2010 by PsykoOps]

Here is another 'radiation' issue:

Strong, unfiltered sunlight, with its large infrared component, heats one side of the spacecraft. Meanwhile, the great heatsink of deep space chills the other side as energy is radiated away at infrared wavelengths. The story is told in the excellent book, Apollo: The Race to the Moon, by Murray and Cox, of the difficulties the spacecraft designers were having with the heatshield material around the Command Module, trying to make it withstand extreme cold as well as heat. Joe Shea, a brilliant and intuitive engineer who was the NASA chief overseeing the CSM's difficult birth, asked how long it took for the heatshield to cool to the point where it began to crack and flake. The answer of thirteen hours prompted him to suggest that they simply keep changing the spacecraft's attitude by rotating it slowly in the sunlight. The maneuver which resulted was PTC or Passive Thermal Control, dubbed by many the 'barbecue' mode.
The integrity of the heatshield is not the only reason for PTC. The RCS quads, SPS propellant tanks and the structure, propellant and battery systems of the LM also needed to be evenly heated or cooled

I dont recall the LM being rotated on the moon for the three days it was sitting there baking in the Sun. Nor did I see Astronots pirouetting. So how did they keep cool on the surface of the moon, with its primary and secondary radiation sources?
And how does rotating a craft keep it cool, wouldn't the inside just cook the same?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM

Radiation
Of course we cant get to the moon because of radiation.
Short stay on the moon's surface? What about the trip itself?
These guys supposedly went through an unmapped VA belt, during a period of high solar activity, and pranced around on a radiated moon. Even low doses of radiation can be deadly- as in cancer causing. And if it doesnt kill you, it can at least it can make you sick:

This part alone shows how much you know about apollo. They went through a mild part of the belt. There was no high period of solar activity and even if there were they had procedures to minimize the exposure. Also the radiation in the moon wasn't dangerous for a 3 day stay.

[Edit to add] Btw, they started to map the belt in 1958

[edit on 5/5/2010 by PsykoOps]

Show me where NASA planned a trip through the mild part of the belt.
Where do they discuss this? How did they test this? Yes they were busy mapping the belt, but they didnt know much about it, just an general idea. We are still busy taking measurements and working on a new map of the belts because the old one is static and archaic.

And what procedures did they have to minimize exposure?
How would they even know they were about to be fried by massive solar event?

Let's begin at the beginning:

Originally posted by FoosM
Because every aspect of Apollo could be simulated on Earth.

they had simulated regolith & moondust

How could the unique properties of the lunar regolith be simulated here?

Remember, it wasn't just NASA that had samples of regolith, the soviets also returned two small samples. So they could be compared.

reply to post by FoosM


Firstly, the landings were conducted at what is best described as Lunar "morning", or just shortly afterr sunrise.

Several reasons, one was the shadows cast by the Sun, when low in the sky, aided in perspective and depth perception, for the landings.

Two, it was IN ORDER to avoid the heat of the Sun, even for the few hours the Astronauts were on the surface.

(Did I fail to mention that one "day" --and therefore, one 'night" -- on the Moon equals roughly 14 earth days?)

14 X 24 = 336 hours. Note, please the actual duration of the Lunar stays.

But, again....Sun was fairly low in the sky, when ON the Moon, so full infrared effects weren't a problem. Ya know, they DID think all of this through, before embarking on these missions.....

The LM didn't have an ablative heat shield like the CM so no problem. On the Moon, the astronauts stayed in their actively thermally controlled suits. By rotating the CSM, the energy absorbed on the sunlit side was re-radiated out into space rather than being fully absorbed into the interior, which, in any event, was also actively controlled.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by Tomblvd


How could the unique properties of the lunar regolith be simulated here?

You honestly cannot think of any ways to simulate lunar regolith for the cameras?

reply to post by FoosM


Here.

Start here: history.nasa.gov...

Knock yourself out, because you're in for a long haul.

You will NOT get simple, easy answers UNLESS you do some actual study and work.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Tomblvd


How could the unique properties of the lunar regolith be simulated here?

You honestly cannot think of any ways to simulate lunar regolith for the cameras?

I'm talking about both the cameras and the microscope.

reply to post by FoosM


The Sun's activitry was monitored closely during Apollo Lunar missions.

There ARE indications that show up, IF the Sun is about to erupt with a flare...

How would they even know they were about to be fried by massive solar event?

Go study some Solar astronomy topics, to educate yourself.

Worst case scenario, IF a flare had occured? Their only recourse would have been to orient the spacecraft so that as much bulk as possible was between them,a nd the Sun...the CSM heatshield would have helped, too (IF the flare had occured whilst in transit).

For the two, on the surface? Well, since it never happened, we can only speculate. Crouching behind a boulder comes to mind...rocks (even Lunar rocks) would have made good barriers.

In any case, the dose of radiation, even from a Solar flare, isn't like some sort of "ray gun", that instantly kills you disables you....

Radiation exposure of that sort is cumulative, and would have long-term health effects, well long after they (Astronauts) returned to Earth.





[edit on 5 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Every aspect of World War II can be duplicated on a sound stage, therefore World War II didn't happen. Brilliant.

thats a weak sauce comment and you know it.
I dont even know why you bothered to reply.

WW2 was not conducted and communicated through one source, ala a government agency. Apollo was.

However, if there was only once source to such information, I would question the validity of that information. Think 1984. Think of the news filtering of the Iraq and Afghanistan war where aspects of the war have been shown to be faked. Such as the toppling of Saddam's statue. Such as the killing of insurgents but later we find out they were innocent civilians. Think of false flag operations to keep the war going or get them started. So yes you can fake aspects of war. As a matter of fact, there are theories that no holocaust happened, or that the atomic bombs were never dropped during WW2, and that they (a-bombs) were hollywood productions.

The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity. Water lilies blackened by the blast had already begun to grow again, suggesting that whatever radioactivity there had been immediately following the blast had quickly dissipated.

U.S. military authorities touted these findings to an apprehensive world as proof that A-bombs really weren't so bad. A rumor widespread among Japanese civilians--evidently based on comments made by an American science writer in an interview published shortly after the bombings--held that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be uninhabitable for 70 or 75 years. To quell such talk, American military leaders held a press conference at which they suggested that the explosions had been massive but otherwise ordinary, denied any lingering danger, and predicted there would be no further deaths.

reply to post by FoosM


NOPE...

WW2 was not conducted and communicated through one source, ala a government agency. Apollo was.

NOPE.

Check your facts, do more research, and don't rely on the dunderheads who spout the nonsense about "Moon Hoax"....

reply to post by FoosM

I grew up being awed by the accomplishments of the space programs (US, Russia-Moon and other planets), I believe we went.

Starting from a few years ago I have read about the Moon HOAX theories, watched the videos and seen the documentaries. Honestly I could not make sense out of them as most of these claims are beyond reason. There are a few that seem possible and from these I understand why so many people question the Moon landings. However, there is a huge amount, I mean A HUGE AMOUNT, of information proving we went and only a few possible 'Claims' against.

Over the years because of my interest in astronomy and reading about these Moon HOAX claims and other anomalies I have come to the conclusion that there are unanswered questions pertaining to these missions (not just Apollo). There are things that we do not know and there are questions that go unanswered to this day. This, however, does not mean -therefore, we did not go. What it means is that there is a lot of things that we do not know.

From your quote, which has no link BTW.

Joe Shea... asked how long it took for the heatshield to cool to the point where it began to crack and flake. The answer of thirteen hours prompted him to suggest that they simply keep changing the spacecraft's attitude by rotating it slowly in the sunlight.

I dont recall the LM being rotated on the moon for the three days it was sitting there baking in the Sun.

Notice how the information in your quote pertains to the cooling effects after being heated that would, or dare I say could, cause cracking and flaking of the heat shielding. This seems to suggest that it could handle the heat and cold (high and low temps), it was the cooling down after these high temperatures that posed a threat (cooling to fast).

So by turning the heated side to the shade and allow it to cool for 13 hours cracking and flaking would (could) occur. The answer to that was to rotate the craft from sunlight to shade. I gather from this that the craft's heat shield could be cooled down after it was heated in direct sunlight but needed to be done slowly to prevent cracking. This was only a problem as the spacecraft's sunlit side was rotated into the shade and the question remains how often that happened.

Nor did I see Astronots pirouetting.

Are you comparing the astronauts suits to the LM?
I suppose, by this line of thinking, if they had the same heat shielding stuck to their suits then after extreme heating they would start to crack after 13 hours of cooling. I think you're trying too hard to find Hoaxer information.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Devino]