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: 314
377
<< 311  312  313    315  316  317 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Ummmmm......"JW"s Part "8"??? Did you NOT see the date it was uploaded to YouTube??

DECEMBER 26, 2010

Of COURSE he's going to put out a new (crap) video --- seeing as how he was CAUGHT OUT earlier.


Still......you lot are competely ignoring his other lies and distortions. He is just plain WRONG at every attempt to "prove" his ridiculous "hoax" claims. He throws so much crap at the wall (how many videos, by now???) that most of his nonsense is overlooked.....as it slumps to the floor.

What you guys are noticing is the other crap that continues to stick to the wall.......especially if it's new and shiny and just posted up....




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Hmmm... interesting.
Where do you get that idea that they went from 6.000 to 16.000?
From the Apollo 8 press kit:


1 magazine 2485 high-speed black and white (ASA 6,000, push to 16,000)



Originally posted by FoosM
Why was NASA so obsessed to film the Solar Corona and the moon?

Because you can't photograph the corona from earth except during an eclipse.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.

You're not reading it correctly. If you read the actual paper, you'll see they are talking about simulating long-term missions, as in a mission to mars:


This is particularly true for a mission to Mars. Approximately 8–12 mo will be spent in transit without the benefit of a protective terrestrial atmosphere and geomagnetic field. Beyond the Van Allen Belts, astro- nauts will likely be exposed to external radiation sources such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar particle events (SPEs). For the current Mars Reference Mission, exposures are estimated at approximately 0.7 Sv dose equivalent due to GCRs and quiescent solar activity. Large SPEs could add another 2 or more Gy of proton exposure to this GCR dose, depending on shielding conditions. Worst case scenarios are based on the maximum fluence and energy spectra of the three largest observed SPEs in 1956, 1972, and 1989.


So the 3 and 4 Gy exposures they are examining in this study exceed even the estimated amount for a mars mission.

Even then, in the very abstract you quote, they say:


The differences in dose composition between pristine and shielded proton fields did not lead to significant effects in most measures


In other words a straight 3 or 4 Gy dose produced by direct exposure to the proton beam was largely identical to a 3 or 4 Gy dose produced by the proton beam through 15 g/cm^2 shielding. Remember, they're comparing equivalent doses, they are not testing the effectiveness of the shielding in reducing dosage rates. They are just looking at two different kinds of exposure: pristine protons, and protons and other associated radiation produced through scattering inside the shielding.

Yes, there were some differences noted in the immune system from the different types of exposure. This may result in a reduced immune response, but that is uncertain. The mice were, otherwise, not "sickened."

Finally, the doses they are looking at were 263 and 350 times greater than the largest dose received by an Apollo crew.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.




quote]Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55
 



Ummmmm......"JW"s Part "8"??? Did you NOT see the date it was uploaded to YouTube??

DECEMBER 26, 2010


posted on 27-12-2010 @ 08:27 AM
www.abovetopsecret.com...
all nine videos.

a few days later you declare:



This thread ends with the new year.

:p thread continues to thrive...

then you...
posted on 31-12-2010 @ 05:24 PM
www.abovetopsecret.com...
your infamous


Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false.

post

May I?



Oh the irony... final shot came from PPK



You've been busted DJ.
I warned you beforehand to watch ALL the videos.
Now you have made wrongful accusations against JW,
and in embarrassment you accuse me of being JW

and are threatening me with banning

Sore lose much?

You should apologize and retract your statement.

By the way... you aren't Phil Plait are you?
Every time I look at your AVATAR...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


SO...."FoosM" IS "Jarrah White"???

We have seen (well....HEARD) in the many and prevalent "JW" videos that "Jarrah White" (a self-proclaimed 'voice actor' --- amongst his other "skills") will "read" text....an annoying habit, in and of itself, don't you think??....as he displays it in his videos. OFTEN affecting an accent.....again, annoying, to the ear.....OUCH!!!

Usually, with a snide "mimic" tone as well....either spoofing a "typical" American accent (as interpreted by an Aussie...and exaggerated) ....YET?

These shenanigans, and horseplay theatrics....THEY "play" to his crowd of 'supporters'?? Why is it that normally intelligent people fall victim to these deceptions, by "JW"??

Is it a concept of "belief" and "faith" so STRONG in the ridiculous (and thoroughly discredited) "Apollo hoax" that blinds them to rational thinking and comprehension??

I cannot think of any other explanation.........



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Maybe I'm just a little thick about these things, FoosM, but if the videos were uploaded on December 26th, why does WhiteJarrah's home page say they were uploaded only two weeks ago? After all, today is the fifteenth. If they were uploaded on the 26th, shouldn't the page say they were uploaded three weeks ago?



Larger version here. Or of course, you can go directly to his page, which will update weekly until it starts to count months. Why didn't you immediately link to the video in question? Normally, you jump at the chance to spam Jarrah's videos. Instead, you made vague verbal rationalizations. Suddenly, two weeks after his little trick was exposed, someone "discovers" the exonerating video. Very convenient, especially as you made sure that I only viewed the one video in question.

I'm sure everyone here has noticed that you always post the latest Jarrah White videos the moment they are up... or in this case, within 24 hours. You must be a huge fan. A terribly huge fan, as this is the only thread on ATS you have ever posted on as FoosM. Every week there is a new "Apollo Hoax" thread or two to weigh in on, but you never do. It's almost as if the only reason you post here is to keep this particular thread floating up to the top of the "Recent Posts" list. That's why you keep posting rubbish... it doesn't matter what you say, so long as another new ATS member can be diverted to Jarrah's YouTube account. What's even more curious is how Jarrah's videos always seem to echo discussions on this thread, almost as if he were using this forum to "sketch out" his latest production. Uncanny.

Of course, it's possible that Jarrah did quote correctly in a later video, but only after having deceived the viewer with the bogus calculation. In any event, Jarrah's source indicates that even a millimeter of aluminum shielding would protect the astronauts adequately. He knew that, but he continued to use the source anyway. I stand by my accusation: in that particular video, Jarrah White cherry picked his source and made a claim he knew to be false. He is a hoaxer. There is no need for me to apologize because that is a simple statement of fact. Anyone viewing that video would have gotten the impression that Kovalev's research supported Jarrahs statement, when the exact opposite has been proven to be true.
edit on 15-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.


Edit to add: Before anyone accuses me of being a liar, I just reviewed FoosM's posting history. He has posted twice on one other "Moon Hoax" thread and a few times more on a 9/11 thread. I guess when he realizes he is unable to steer the thread towards Jarrah White, he just loses interest.
edit on 15-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
www.newscientist.com/article/dn2956-space-station-radiation-shields-disappointing.html

Our Space Station is getting crazy amounts of radiation right now with the sun going crazy with massive solar flare activity. In 2002 one day on the Space Station was equivalent to the radiation you would be exposed to all year on Earth. They are being exposed to ALOT more radiation right now.

It appears the ISS really has NO radiation shielding. Even tho it is more shielded than the Apollo capsules that went to the moon. Everyone needs to watch what's going on in the ISS right now and the radiation they are being exposed to.

Pray they make it home alive.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Thanks for this great thread. As a fellow Aussie I'm feeling somewhat patriotic after watching Jarrah's vids. I have always felt intuitively that the US faked these missions as a way to get psychological brownie points over the Soviets. I'm sure if the Soviets had movie studios and producers just as good as those in Hollywood, they would have trumped the Yanks.

Watching these videos go a long way in supporting my inner skeptic on this issue.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
It appears the ISS really has NO radiation shielding.

No, it doesn't appear that way. An exposure of 1 mSv/day is much less than what would be experienced in the external environment.


Originally posted by Pervius
Pray they make it home alive.

That article was from 2002. They all made it home OK.


jra

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nimbinned
I'm sure if the Soviets had movie studios and producers just as good as those in Hollywood, they would have trumped the Yanks.


They did. Here's a link to a Russian movie called "Road to the Stars", which was made in 1954. They compare it to Stanley Kubricks "2001: A Space Odyssey". (Link)


The final section of the film portrays the launching of the first Soviet man into space, the first space station, and the first landing on the moon. In creating this footage Klushantsev created marvellous special effects, using techniques copied by Stanley Kubrick ten years later for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Indeed, some sequences in 2001 seems a shot-for-shot duplication of Road to the Stars…


I know the designs themselves look dated by our standards today, but the former USSR was more than capable of creating good films. There are even some clips on youtube if you want to see it in action. (Link)
edit on 16-1-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


The differences in dose composition between pristine and shielded proton fields did not lead to significant effects in most measures


In other words a straight 3 or 4 Gy dose produced by direct exposure to the proton beam was largely identical to a 3 or 4 Gy dose produced by the proton beam through 15 g/cm^2 shielding. Remember, they're comparing equivalent doses, they are not testing the effectiveness of the shielding in reducing dosage rates. They are just looking at two different kinds of exposure: pristine protons, and protons and other associated radiation produced through scattering inside the shielding.



So wait a minute,
3 or 4 Gy is the amount of radiation inside the ship.
So the question is, with 15 g/m of aluminum shielding, how much
radiation had to be outside of the ship for an exposure 3 to 4 Gy inside the ship?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by nimbinned
I'm sure if the Soviets had movie studios and producers just as good as those in Hollywood, they would have trumped the Yanks.


They did. Here's a link to a Russian movie called "Road to the Stars", which was made in 1954. They compare it to Stanley Kubricks "2001: A Space Odyssey". (Link)


wow nice find



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So wait a minute,
3 or 4 Gy is the amount of radiation inside the ship.
So the question is, with 15 g/m of aluminum shielding, how much
radiation had to be outside of the ship for an exposure 3 to 4 Gy inside the ship?


That's 15 g/cm^2. Grams per meter isn't a unit used for radiation shielding.

It doesn't say, since they were not testing the shielding. They were just interested in the effects of the same dose in two different forms:


As used in this paper, “shielded” will refer to the beam of modified composition produced by passage through aluminum but all exposure comparisons will be based on equal physical doses delivered to the animals. There were five groups of animals: 3 & 4 Gy unshielded, 3 & 4 Gy shielded, and sham-irradiated controls.


Another thing to keep in mind is that this simulated long-term dosage was delivered in under 5 minutes of actual exposure, as the dosage rate was about 80 cGy/min.
edit on 16-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Of course one of the more ironic aspects of the moon hoaxies insisting that the shielding wasn't good enough is that 36 of 39 apollo astronauts suffer from cataracts.

They must have used some very intense lighting on those sets!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Hmmm... interesting.
Where do you get that idea that they went from 6.000 to 16.000?
From the Apollo 8 press kit:


1 magazine 2485 high-speed black and white (ASA 6,000, push to 16,000)



Originally posted by FoosM
Why was NASA so obsessed to film the Solar Corona and the moon?

Because you can't photograph the corona from earth except during an eclipse.


Speaking of items of interest... here's an item of interest:

On page 47 of of the pdf Nasa News Release No: 68-208 dated Sunday, December 15, 1968
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Dim-light targets were items of interest on Apollo 8's mission.

Item of Interest -- Dim-light targets: Gegenscheig ( a
round or elongated spot of light in apace at a point 180
the sun) photos on one-mlnute exposure wlth spacecraft held
in inertial attltude on dark side on Moon and during translunar
and transearth coast; Zodiacal light along the plane of
the e c l i p t i c (path of Sun around celestial sphere), one-minute
exposures during dark side of lunar orbit; S t a r f i e l d s under
various lighting condttions to study effect of spacecraft
debris clouds and window contamination on ability to photograph
stars;
lunar surface In earthashine to gain photometric data
about lunar surface under low-level illumination.


Where are those pictures of S t a r f i e l d s?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by WWu777
 


I have a friend who was a worker on the Saturn 5 rocket project during his military stint. He worked in Texas and elsewhere. he has documents on his wall, certificates of participation int he late 60's.

I showed him "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon", he was pissed. He knew something wasn't right with there being no crater under the landing module and dismissed it out of hand, he now KNOWS we never went to the moon with the apollo missions.

Great job, S&F.


HAHAHAHAHAHA what a laugh!! You guys ar funny, keep going!!

He now KNOWS we never went to the moon LOL



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by nataylor
 


Of course one of the more ironic aspects of the moon hoaxies insisting that the shielding wasn't good enough is that 36 of 39 apollo astronauts suffer from cataracts.

They must have used some very intense lighting on those sets!


See below.


October 22, 2004: Gazing out of their space capsules, Apollo astronauts witnessed sights that humans had never before seen. They saw the breathtaking view of the Earth's bright blue disc against the inky black of space. They saw the far side of the Moon. They also saw strange flashes of light inside their eyeballs!

Needless to say, this is not good for your eyes. Years after returning to Earth, many of these astronauts developed cataracts--a clouding of the lens, which focuses light onto the retina.

At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space, according to a 2001 study by Francis Cucinotta of NASA's Johnson Space Center (see journal references below). Of those 39 astronauts, 36 had flown on high-radiation missions such as the Apollo Moon landings. Some cataracts appeared as soon as 4 or 5 years after the mission, but others took 10 or more years to manifest.
Scientists have long known of this link between radiation and cataracts, but they've never fully understood it. What exactly does radiation do to the lens of the eye to make it cloudy? Are astronauts' genes involved? Which ones? Source science.nasa.gov...



Cataracts develop for a variety of reasons, including long-term exposure to ultraviolet light, exposure to radiation, secondary effects of diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and advanced age, or trauma (possibly much earlier); they are usually a result of denaturation of lens protein. A study among Icelandair pilots showed commercial airline pilots are three times more likely to develop cataracts than people with non-flying jobs. This is thought to be caused by excessive exposure to radiation coming from outer space. ... And, Some drugs can induce cataract development, such as corticosteroids[26] and Seroquel. Source Wiki en.wikipedia.org...



Quetiapine (pronounced /kwɨˈtaɪ.əpiːn/ kwi-TYE-ə-peen), marketed by AstraZeneca as Seroquel and by Orion Pharma as Ketipinor, is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute episodes of bipolar disorder (manic, mixed or depressive), and as an augmentor for the maintenance treatment of depression and bipolar disorder. Source Wiki en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, I just made a connection between Apollo, radiation, cataracts and anti-psychotic drugs.

edit on 1/17/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix a tag



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by nataylor
 


Of course one of the more ironic aspects of the moon hoaxies insisting that the shielding wasn't good enough is that 36 of 39 apollo astronauts suffer from cataracts.

They must have used some very intense lighting on those sets!


Haven't read the thread?
I don't think anyone has said they didn't atleast go into earths orbit..



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


Yes, I just made a connection between Apollo, radiation, cataracts and anti-psychotic drugs.

edit on 1/17/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix a tag


Well if you think about it.
Anyone who had to lie for 40 years on a subject the scale of a moon landing probably
needed drugs to get by.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


Yes, I just made a connection between Apollo, radiation, cataracts and anti-psychotic drugs.

edit on 1/17/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix a tag


Well if you think about it.
Anyone who had to lie for 40 years on a subject the scale of a moon landing probably
needed drugs to get by.



The genius of a Jarrah White is that he has reconveyed so many classic Apollo Moon Hoax conspiracy theories into a very large body of provocative and convincing evidence. His video presentations are home made with sincere dedications made to notable personalities in the historical canon of Apollo Moon Hoax theories. Jarrah has done everyone a great service by summarizing the long standing conspiracy theories through an exhaustive review of primary source materials.

(I noted in one of Jarrah's videos he had in his possession not 1 but 2 different copies of Michael Collins' book, "Carrying the Fire", which is one of those Apollo-essential books full of interesting anecdotes that are used by both sides of the Apollo Moon Hoax conspiracy debate.)

Jarrah's video debate technique has continuously improved in the last two years. He is using the YouTube medium in the most efficient manner possible, he expertly combines video illustration with narration. Suffice to say that his body of work on Apollo and Nasa is perhaps his PhD dissertation in Modern Propagation of Conspiracy Theory in a Virtual Venue of Discourse.

Having earned his stature in the Apollo Moon Hoax conspiracy theory pantheon (e.g. Phil Plait, Phil Webb, Jay Windley, Penn & Teller, Richard Hoagland, John Lear, The Amazing Randi, Fox Television and MythBusters, Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing, and many, many more) Jarrah White is perhaps the perfect embodiement of that spirit within us all that seeks for the truth as we deny our own ignorance.

Nobody likes to be seen back peddling because they were prematurely, preemptively and preternaturally inclined or predisposed or programmed to believe in whatever other people had told them was factually the truth. The authorities, these so-called experts, they could all be wrong and they might not know anything more conclusively than your or I do. What exactly happened on Apollo 8? (Other than Frank Borman crapping his spacesuit?).

Well, we know that Apollo 8 went around in the moon in about 6 days and came back with a .16 rad reading. While Apollo 7 orbited in LEO for about 11 days and achieved the exact same .16 rad reading.

40 years after the fact there remain so many unanswered questions about the Apollo program and what NASA claimed to have achieved with Apollo and to the extent of CIA CIA involvement with NASA during Apollo amidst a politically explosive period of bloody American history.
Skepticism. Get Some

edit on 1/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 311  312  313    315  316  317 >>

log in

join