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: 313
377
<< 310  311  312    314  315  316 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I wanted to get back this.
Why do they call it radiation shielding if anything can shield against radiation?

If I had a shotgun, and fired it at a net.
Would you define the net as a shield?
Why do they call what radiation shielding? Why do they call a window shade a shade, when anything opaque can block sunlight?

I would say that, like air, a net would make a very poor shield against shotgun shot. That doesn't mean you can't make a stack of nets several meters thick that might be able to stop a shotgun blast.

Simple point is, everything provides some amount of shielding from radiation.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Can anyone point us to where a complete collection of all this photo and video material?
I would love to see what they took pictures of with 16,000 ASA/ISO
Looks like Apollo 8 Magazine G was the one with the 2458 film: www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
sorry if its been said lol didnt want too read 313 pages but was the moon landing faked?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What an UTTER LOAD OF CRAP REVISIONIST ATTEMPT at altering history!!!!!!


Wrong. The soviets were not in a race to the moon.
They were duped by NASA to look into landing men on the moon sooner than planned though.




FoosM.....STOP trying to deflect.

What do you say about the fact that your "hero" LIED and DISTORTED and INTENTIONALLY falsified facts in his videos???

One word....the ENTIRE nonsense hinged upon....both from YOU and from your "HERO"....one word, and one word only:

RADIATION

"Jarrah White" has been shown to be a liar and a fraud.

PERIOD.

His claims, therefore (like YOURS) of Apollo "hoax"???

FRAUD and unsupported ans UNSUBSTANTIATED.....just more crap nonsense, from the same crap ignorant sources....and ALL stemming from the very same CRAP idea as first suggested (on a dare and a bet, mind you) by WILLIAM KAYSING!!!!


edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Can anyone point us to where a complete collection of all this photo and video material?
I would love to see what they took pictures of with 16,000 ASA/ISO
Looks like Apollo 8 Magazine G was the one with the 2458 film: www.lpi.usra.edu...


Looks like...
I wouldn't know, cause LPI wont allow us to see the images in hi-res.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


(reply to thread-starter)

The radiation issue does it for me. Some cosmic rays are iron nuclei travelling with the energy of a tennis ball going 74 mph, but they're atomic nuclei. If even one of those hits the brain, it will damage it. They have this ridiculous cancer treatment here on Earth that uses a particle beam weapon that shoots protons at the tumor. Nevertheless, the energy of the protons has to be tightly controlled to avoid frying the patient.

edit on 14-1-2011 by grizzle2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Can anyone point us to where a complete collection of all this photo and video material?
I would love to see what they took pictures of with 16,000 ASA/ISO
Looks like Apollo 8 Magazine G was the one with the 2458 film: www.lpi.usra.edu...


Looks like...
I wouldn't know, cause LPI wont allow us to see the images in hi-res.
Here are some higher-res versions: history.nasa.gov...

Also, it looks like that film was actually ASA 6,000, pushed to 16,000.
edit on 14-1-2011 by nataylor because: fixed link



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Webb’s Giant



Unfortunately, Webb’s Giant suffered poorly in the annals of history. The N-1 blew up four times between early 1969 and November 1972. One of the legacies of this failure was that it removed pressure from American presidents and the Congress to maintain higher levels of NASA spending. By the late 1960s the Soviets were not rivaling the United States in space to the same extent they had at the beginning of the decade, so it was safe to cut NASA’s budget and to shut down the Saturn V production line. (Edit for flow--DJW001)


But today we know the truth. Webb knew, he tried to tell us, and many people never believed him.

Your own source.


edit on 14-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
FoosM: why is radiation shielding figured in grams per square centimeter? Think. (It's actually relevant to the most obvious error in Jarrah's video.)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Can anyone point us to where a complete collection of all this photo and video material?
I would love to see what they took pictures of with 16,000 ASA/ISO
Looks like Apollo 8 Magazine G was the one with the 2458 film: www.lpi.usra.edu...


Looks like...
I wouldn't know, cause LPI wont allow us to see the images in hi-res.
Here are some higher-res versions: history.nasa.gov...

Also, it looks like that film was actually ASA 6,000, pushed to 16,000.
edit on 14-1-2011 by nataylor because: fixed link


Hmmm... interesting.
Where do you get that idea that they went from 6.000 to 16.000?
All I could find was:


071:10:35 Lovell (onboard): Take those pictures [garble.]

[As they pass over the Moon's sunset terminator from darkness into light, Bill begins his stills photography using magazine G. Unfortunately, he has not realised that this magazine contains type 2485 film which is rated at a high sensitivity of 2000 ASA, about 6 stops higher than the 40 ASA he is likely assuming. The film was initially intended for taking images of astronomical phenomenon like the solar corona, which is to be imaged at about 85 hours GET. Bill will realise his mistake and inform the ground at 074:42:05. With prior knowledge of the problem, steps can be taken after the film is returned to Earth to compensate for the overexposure by altering the development process, eventually yielding good results.]


Why was NASA so obsessed to film the Solar Corona and the moon?
Not one shot in the series is of.... open space.
Not even a try.
I mean they had ASA 2000 or 16,000!?

What about Gemini?
Where can I find their photos?
They took photos of the cosmos didnt they?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Webb’s Giant


But today we know the truth. Webb knew, he tried to tell us, and many people never believed him.

Your own source.


Your point being?
Self fulfilling prophecy?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrix12
sorry if its been said lol didnt want too read 313 pages but was the moon landing faked?


No, probably not faked. Just "enhanced".
A LOT



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The question is: why do you think this would be important to include in a general interest article in Wikipedia?


Well DJW001, as I noted, the Wiki for Apollo 8 requested a [citation needed] for a very particular sentence. I thought that Frank Borman's remarks from the video would fit exactly. But when I went to re-check that video link I found that it was 404'd.

Here is the section from the Wiki entry for Apollo 8:

With the change in mission for Apollo 8, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton decided to swap the crews of the D and E missions. McDivitt, the commander of the D mission, has said he was never offered the circumlunar flight, but would probably have turned it down, as he wanted to fly the Lunar Module Borman, on the other hand, jumped at the chance
citation needed)
his original mission would have largely been a repeat of the previous flight, albeit in a higher orbit.


Here is that courtesy quote again:

Frank Borman “We were assigned to the third Apollo mission was supposed to have been a long duration, relatively long durations, exercising the lunar module and command module in Earth orbit out to eight thousand miles. And then in December while we were out at Downey, California going through the systems with the spacecraft I got a call from Deke Slayton, our boss, who said “Come back, we’ve had a change in plans” and he informed me that the CIA had informed NASA there would probably be a Soviet attempt to go around the moon before the end of the year, and they wanted to know if we could, this was in August, they wanted to know if we could change our mission, train and then be able to go. I immediately said “yes” because I knew that Bill and Jim were dying for the chance to do this.” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...


After I thought about it - I do not want to get involved with any Wikipedia editing drama. This thread has enough drama, doesn't it?


Not only did Frank Borman "immediately say 'yes'" to the mission update but "Bill and Jim were dying for the chance to do this." This seems to correlate with the Wiki sentence which reads "jumped at the chance:[citation needed]".

I guess we still need to find agreement on the exact date of this mission schedule change. You seem to think it was back in 1966. I think it was in the second half of 1968. What do you think, FoosM?

edit on 1/15/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add color!

edit on 1/15/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: why color not working?

edit on 1/15/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: ok i got the color to work


EDIT TO ADD:

Here is what also Frank Borman said about Apollo 8, from the video,

Frank Borman “The whole concept of changing our mission and getting ready in four months was done because we were in the “Can Do” program… “Beat the Soviets to the Moon”. NASA likes to talk about scientific exploration and our lunar expert here… Bill Anders… he can pick up all the rocks in the world… that’s just wonderful… the reason we went to the moon on Apollo 8 was to beat the Russians… I want to give you a clue!” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...


4 months prior to Apollo 8 launch date of December 21, 1968.... would be.... August 1968.
edit on 1/15/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add killer quotations



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
To everyone saying Jarrah lied about not mentioning that the figures he presented were based on no shielding, may I direct you to Part 8 of his Radioactive Anomaly II series.

Here he clearly states at 1.16 in ...

"According to Russia's E. E. Kovalev, WITH NO SHIELDING the radiation could be anywhere from 11,666 rad per hour to 312.5 rad per hour."

He states, NO SHIELDING and also shows the table of figures in question at the same time.

I think some apologies might be in order.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
I wanted to get back this.
Why do they call it radiation shielding if anything can shield against radiation?

If I had a shotgun, and fired it at a net.
Would you define the net as a shield?
Why do they call what radiation shielding? Why do they call a window shade a shade, when anything opaque can block sunlight?

I would say that, like air, a net would make a very poor shield against shotgun shot. That doesn't mean you can't make a stack of nets several meters thick that might be able to stop a shotgun blast.

Simple point is, everything provides some amount of shielding from radiation.


A net is not shield against a shotgun.
Because it doesnt absorb or deflect enough pellets as protection.
You wouldnt even call it "some amount of shielding"

You can play an active role to manipulate the net into shielding against a shotgun by, like you say,
making a mound of netting. But we are not talking about that.

As a matter of fact when it comes to radiation:


If the particle energy profile is greater than the shield rating, the damage would be as bad or worse than if no shielding were present.


In other words, you might think you are shielding yourself from harmful radiation.
But your shielding has caused the primary radiation to produce energy that is more damaging to you.

I dont call that shielding, I dont call that protection.

Thats like, if I would hide behind a crate or of nitroglycerine laced dynamite, while being shot at with an M60.
Am I protected? If I added more crates will I be more safe?

Long-Term Effects of Low-Dose Proton Radiation on Immunity in Mice: Shielded vs. Unshielded

Background: Outside the protection of the terrestrial environment, astronauts on any long-term missions will unavoidably be exposed to fields of charged particle radiation dominated by protons. These fields and their biological risks are modified in complex ways by the presence of protective shielding. Methods: To examine the long-term effects of space-like proton exposures on immune status, we treated female C57BL/6 mice with 3 or 4 Gy of 250 MeV monoenergetic protons or the complex space-like radiation field produced after 250 MeV protons are transported through 15 g · cm-2 aluminum shielding. The animals were euthanized 122 d post-irradiation and lymphocyte phenotypes, hematological parameters, and lymphocyte blastogenesis were characterized. Results: There were significant dose-dependent decreases in macrophage, CD3+/CD8+ T, NK, platelet, and red blood cell populations, as well as low hematocrit and hemoglobin levels. In contrast, dose-dependent increases in spontaneous, but not mitogen-induced, blastogenesis were noted. The differences in dose composition between pristine and shielded proton fields did not lead to significant effects in most measures, but did result in significant changes in monocyte and macrophage populations and spontaneous blastogenesis in the spleen. Conclusions: The data indicate that whole body exposure to proton radiation at doses of the order of large solar particle events or clinical treatment fractions may have long-term effects on immune system status.

www.asma.org...

Now if I comprehend the text correctly, even with the thick aluminum shielding, these mice were sickened by the radiation? Was this due to bremsstrahlung? If so, then it supports my point.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
To everyone saying Jarrah lied about not mentioning that the figures he presented were based on no shielding, may I direct you to Part 8 of his Radioactive Anomaly II series.

Here he clearly states at 1.16 in ...

"According to Russia's E. E. Kovalev, WITH NO SHIELDING the radiation could be anywhere from 11,666 rad per hour to 312.5 rad per hour."

He states, NO SHIELDING and also shows the table of figures in question at the same time.

I think some apologies might be in order.





Yep, thats what happens when you quote mine JW's videos.
If you haven't gone through the body of his work, you wont realize
what he as already covered in detail. Many of his new videos
are simply summaries of what he has already stated before.

This is why many of the posts made here defending Apollo are not from
analyzing his videos, they are merely attacking other posters who might
find that JW's videos, after watching them, raises very important questions to
the validity of NASA's narrative of Apollo.

Yes it hurts, we want to believe space travel and moon landings are possible
and have occurred. But the evidence is mounting against this possibility.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



To everyone saying Jarrah lied about not mentioning that the figures he presented were based on no shielding, may I direct you to Part 8 of his Radioactive Anomaly II series.


Yep, I heard him so "unshielded", no doubt about that..

I also note he takes a lot of time in his vids to correct his mistakes that have been pointed out to him by others..

Something many here have said he never does...

Makes you wonder who to believe..Either they lie or have not watched the vids they are talking about..



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
FoosM: why is radiation shielding figured in grams per square centimeter? Think. (It's actually relevant to the most obvious error in Jarrah's video.)


Here is what I think.
You saw JW's follow up video.
He explains why he believes the Apollo space craft was unshielded.
Now you are coming up with work-a-around to suggest it was protected and to cover
your earlier erroneous accusation that JW manipulated his viewers
by not stating that the radiation charts he cited was based on no shielding.

I have said this much earlier in this thread.
Apollo was designed as a heat resistant
craft not a radiation resistant craft.
Apollo was designed for LEO.
It was probably part of an extensive spy program.
And a testbed for permanent space stations.

NASA and the US made a valiant effort, but
the moon is a harsh unattainable mistress.
We can always be grateful for the computers tech, special FX,
and instant sugar drinks that was spawned from
Apollo. But we are far from conquering the Death Belts.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Here is what also Frank Borman said about Apollo 8, from the video,

Frank Borman “The whole concept of changing our mission and getting ready in four months was done because we were in the “Can Do” program… “Beat the Soviets to the Moon”. NASA likes to talk about scientific exploration and our lunar expert here… Bill Anders… he can pick up all the rocks in the world… that’s just wonderful… the reason we went to the moon on Apollo 8 was to beat the Russians… I want to give you a clue!” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...


4 months prior to Apollo 8 launch date of December 21, 1968.... would be.... August 1968.
edit on 1/15/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add killer quotations


Ouch...
So it took only 4 months to prepare Apollo 8 for a circumlunar adventure.
There is risk taking and there is recklessness.

Again, there was no indication that Russia was even close to sending men to the moon.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Here is what I think.
You saw JW's follow up video.
He explains why he believes the Apollo space craft was unshielded.
Now you are coming up with work-a-around to suggest it was protected and to cover
your earlier erroneous accusation that JW manipulated his viewers
by not stating that the radiation charts he cited was based on no shielding.


Here is what I think: if the video in question existed when I made my post, you would immediately have drawn everyone's attention to it so you could make accusations against me. It did not. Jarrah white added videos 8 and 9 to the series specifically to avoid having this thread moved to the [HOAX] forum. I don't have time to deal with this at the moment, but when I do, you'll be banned from yet another form Jarrah White.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 310  311  312    314  315  316 >>

log in

join