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: 361
377
<< 358  359  360    362  363  364 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


No I'm not a lawyer. However copyright law and practice is part of my profession. If you dont understand that second part let me make it clear:
1) You can copyright emails to someone just as much you can copyright your everyday speech. That means you cant. It's doesn't fullfill the necessary requirements for original and/or artistic expression.
2) Even if Jay would've put a little snippet of a poem in there that could be concieved as such JW still is well within his rights to publis those under fair use. Quoting someone is not copying. It's kind of a neccassary thing if you reply to someone. Also he clearly states the source for those quotes too.

You and Jay are both dead wrong in this.

edit on 19/2/2011 by PsykoOps because: added 'second part'




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
A bit offtopic, sorry....

Originally posted by PsykoOps
No I'm not a lawyer.

Right. The guy who wrote that article is - did you actually READ it? And I can supply others - eg try this one, and note the source:
www.unimelb.edu.au...
..from which I quote (fair use!):

Emails are subject to copyright, but there is no separate category in the Copyright Act for emails. Like webpages, copyright in an email is determined by its content. For example, the text in an email would be treated as a literary work, images as artistic works, sounds as sound recordings and animations as films etc.
....
The recipient of an email will not own any copyright in the email they have received.
...
Text in the email itself will be considered a literary work and the same rules for ownership apply as to any other kind of literary work


Perhaps it is different in Finland?


However copyright law and practice is part of my profession. If you dont understand that second part let me make it clear:
1) You can copyright emails to someone just as much you can copyright your everyday speech.

You don't 'copyright' stuff by putting a little c in a circle on it - there is no process or thing you have to do. Written text, images, all sorts of stuff is *immediately* copyright to you at the moment of creation. If you work with it, you should know that...


That means you cant. It's doesn't fullfill the necessary requirements for original and/or artistic expression.

That's up to a court to decide, and especially if the email is used in an inappropriate manner, and specifically against the owner's expressed wishes, then that is not going to go in the non-copyright owner's favour.


2) Even if Jay would've put a little snippet of a poem in there that could be concieved as such JW still is well within his rights to publis those under fair use.

Not correct. Read the two articles I have posted so far - they are quite specific on this.

And it's even more incorrect if the owner has given their express wishes to not have the content published.


Quoting someone is not copying.

Sigh. Why do you think, here at ATS, even PUBLICLY AVAILABLE webpage content is not allowed to be excessively quoted??? ( I hope I'm ok with what I quoted above...) Why do most ISP's explicitly ban any posting of private emails or private correspondence? What will happen to you if you post PM's here on this forum?

I mean, even at a moral level it is simply wrong. I have quoted emails to me (eg from NASA) before, BUT ONLY AFTER GETTING WRITTEN PERMISSION TO DO SO.


It's kind of a neccassary thing if you reply to someone.

Yes, IF you are replying to something publicly posted on a forum, or IF you are replying to the author of the email!
Do you not see the fundamental difference between that, and publicly posting a private email sent to you?

Anyway, if you can cite some contrary legal information about copyright not being implied/applicable to emails, then please post it..



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
You don't 'copyright' stuff by putting a little c in a circle on it - there is no process or thing you have to do. Written text, images, all sorts of stuff is *immediately* copyright to you at the moment of creation. If you work with it, you should know that...


I never said anything about any (c) stuff. Just because you write some words on what ever medium you choose doesn't automatically grant you copyright. Copyright only applies to what can be said to be creative work. For example just because I take a photograph doesn't automatically give it copyright if it is something anyone can dublicate or have done before me.



That's up to a court to decide, and especially if the email is used in an inappropriate manner, and specifically against the owner's expressed wishes, then that is not going to go in the non-copyright owner's favour.


Fair use specifically gives this kind of quoting an exception:


The expression "limitations and exceptions" refers to situations in which the exclusive rights granted to authors, or their assignees under copyright law do not apply or are limited for public interest reasons. They generally limit use of copyrighted material to certain cases that do not require permission from the rightsholders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship, archiving, access by the visually impaired etc.

Wiki


And it's even more incorrect if the owner has given their express wishes to not have the content published.


That doesn't matter if you dont need a permission in the first place.



Sigh. Why do you think, here at ATS, even PUBLICLY AVAILABLE webpage content is not allowed to be excessively quoted??? ( I hope I'm ok with what I quoted above...) Why do most ISP's explicitly ban any posting of private emails or private correspondence? What will happen to you if you post PM's here on this forum?


Excessively being the keyword. That applies if you just copy a webpage for example and dont use it for quoting or in fair use as defined.



I mean, even at a moral level it is simply wrong. I have quoted emails to me (eg from NASA) before, BUT ONLY AFTER GETTING WRITTEN PERMISSION TO DO SO.


Well if it's against your morals it must be wrong?


It's kind of a neccassary thing if you reply to someone.
Yes, IF you are replying to something publicly posted on a forum, or IF you are replying to the author of the email!
Do you not see the fundamental difference between that, and publicly posting a private email sent to you?


Fair use.


jra

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How is the light the same?
We dont wear gold visors on Earth.


You never wear Sun glasses on a bright sunny day? That's what the gold visor is essentially.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh really?
Provide some evidence.
And no, we dont want to peruse through a lengthy forum.
Quote the key issues where JW lost the debate on a moon landing subject
so we can debate it here.


He did provide some evidence. It is not necessary to peruse a lengthy forum; any single post reveals Jarrah's ignorance. Here is a random example:



| "...tilt the bulky part of the ship towards the incoming radiation"
| - which travels at the speed of light!

No, it doesn't. The x-ray component of a solar event travels at the
speed of light because x-rays are light. But the x-rays are not the
dangerous component. Solar events cause their damage through energetic
particles ejected from the sun. These particles do not travel at the
speed of light, or even at an appreciable fraction of it. They take
many hours -- and sometimes even days -- to reach Earth from the sun.
Since they have mass they *cannot* travel at the speed of light.

Yahoo Groups

I leave it to the reader to deduce which poster is Jarrah and which Jay Windley. By a remarkable coincidence, every point that Jarrah tries to make on the forums Facefirst links to has been raised here, and similarly exposed as being wrong. In other words, it has already been debated here, and, evidently, will continue to be debated in the future.

The most eye opening thing about Jarrah's posts on these forums is his tone:


I am a man of great integrity; I grew up with the greatest interest
in the Universe and even attended astronomy lectures at the age of
nine.


Vain, boastful and condescending.


Mr. Windley, I call you Mister because
I doubt you are even qualified to be a garbage truck driver


Insulting.


I saw you on a television documentary last year: "The [So-called] Truth Behind The Moon Landings" I recorded it (Just so I could laugh at your and Jim Oberg's ignorance


Envious. (How dare they do a Moon Hoax TV show without interviewing Jarrah?)


I have an understanding of physics and science, so something about your field research doesn't sit right with me, if I were a teacher and you were one of my students I'd instantly stamp your report with an F and tell you to go home and be more thorough.


Boastful, condescending and insulting, all at once. He does not, however, explain why he would give Windley an "F;" it was pure malice.


Sigh. I wish the pro-NASA morons could go off to their fantasy world and leave us intelligent people in peace. In the words of my late grandfather, you might as well believe in Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs. In the end its just scientific vandalism, pathetic really.

Yahoo Groups

This from someone who boasts of his IQ, his vast knowledge of physics and yet does not understand light and shadow, how cameras work, how irrelevant gravity is to the operation of the exposure ring on a camera and, most telling of all, does not understand the crucial difference between a controlled experiment and a simple demonstration! Jarrah White is an insecure, misanthropic, anti-social poseur.


edit on 19-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.

edit on 19-2-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How is the light the same?


It comes from the same source - see, this is what I meant that you do not actually stop and think about what you post - why do you think the light on the moon comes from a different source to the light on the moon?


We dont wear gold visors on Earth.


Ever heard of sunglasses? Or people wearing hats?

Once again you have not stopped and thought about what you posted - you really should try it, you may realise you are posting rubbish here!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
That guy is wopping whipping nasa? he jumps next to his bed and his sheet does not move, and compares that to a guy jumping next to a flag pole stuck in the soil on the moon?

He makes myth buster test look like a CERN experiement.
edit on 19-2-2011 by RemiLP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


????????????????????

(I'm going to hate myself after midnight for this....but I'm sure, I can feed him just little bit??)


How is the light the same?


What do you think is the light source, anyway, on the Moon? Now, how about on the Earth? Any guesses?
Is it the same source? By any chance??



We dont wear gold visors on Earth.


Well....if you could afford it, and wished to make a fashion statement (then you could compete with Lady Gaga, maybe....). But, what do you reckon these are?:



Look like something familiar? Anything you'd care to actually wear? (I think they're rather smart looking...).

Let's read about them then, shall we?:


......the polycarbonate lenses, mirrored with 24ct gold that promises optimal protection for the eyes.


Sounds neato, eh?? But wait....they're from Porsche...oh, that can't be a good sign....uh oh, a bit out of most people's price range, I'd think:

Price: 4,800 euros ($6,670). We wouldn’t even think of a lower price for this glittery eyewear product.


(I have placed them on my Christmas list, for any overly generous ATS members who are interested....but hurry, they are a limited edition numbering only nine hundred and eleven....U2U me!!)


www.pricy-spicy.com...

I'm looking forward to havng this reaction when Santa arrives......:




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
How is the light the same?
We dont wear gold visors on Earth.


You never wear Sun glasses on a bright sunny day? That's what the gold visor is essentially.


No, I just squint till my eyes get used to the situation.
Not to say I have never worn sun-glasses, but its not a requirement- and they were never gold coated
to reduce the light by 90%.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
How is the light the same?


It comes from the same source - see, this is what I meant that you do not actually stop and think about what you post - why do you think the light on the moon comes from a different source to the light on the moon?


We dont wear gold visors on Earth.


Ever heard of sunglasses? Or people wearing hats?

Once again you have not stopped and thought about what you posted - you really should try it, you may realise you are posting rubbish here!


Yeah Ok, wearing a hat and off the counter sunglasses will protect you on the moon as
on Earth. You go with that.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh really?
Provide some evidence.
And no, we dont want to peruse through a lengthy forum.
Quote the key issues where JW lost the debate on a moon landing subject
so we can debate it here.


He did provide some evidence. It is not necessary to peruse a lengthy forum; any single post reveals Jarrah's ignorance. Here is a random example:



| "...tilt the bulky part of the ship towards the incoming radiation"
| - which travels at the speed of light!

No, it doesn't. The x-ray component of a solar event travels at the
speed of light because x-rays are light. But the x-rays are not the
dangerous component. Solar events cause their damage through energetic
particles ejected from the sun. These particles do not travel at the
speed of light, or even at an appreciable fraction of it. They take
many hours -- and sometimes even days -- to reach Earth from the sun.
Since they have mass they *cannot* travel at the speed of light.

Yahoo Groups



So.... where is the evidence?



These particles do not travel at the
speed of light, or even at an appreciable fraction of it.


WRONG!


On January 20th, 2005, a giant sunspot named "NOAA 720" exploded. The blast sparked an X-class solar flare, the most powerful kind, and hurled a billion-ton cloud of electrified gas (a "coronal mass ejection") into space. Solar protons accelerated to nearly light speed by the explosion reached the Earth-Moon system minutes after the flare--the beginning of a days-long "proton storm."

science.nasa.gov...



But the x-rays are not the
dangerous component.


WRONG!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Where did you just pull THIS incorrect reference from??:


..... gold coated ....to reduce the light by 90%.


Is it, now, your claim that the Apollo EVA suit visors reduced the light by 90%?!? Are you being disingenuous, again, and trying to lump all the filtering the visors did into one "big round number"??

Instead of realizing and recognizing that they attenuated different frequencies in the spectrum....(like, a lot of the UV and infrared, but only, by comparison, a little of the visible) did you try to use that number as yet another distortion and lie?? Do you also conveniently neglect to mention that the visor was retractable?

AND, that the same basic design and configuration is STILL USED TODAY, on EVAs when in LEO!?

Tell us....what is the primary (and brightest) light source for the ISS or Space Shuttle, when in low earth orbit??? How is that primary light source different here, near earth in low orbit, compared to on the Moon? Do you really think you are "closer" to that light source, in any appreciable way, when on the Moon, to make a bug's butt of difference???

When are you going to realize that Apollo was completely real.....there is no "hoax", no "fake" this, or "fake" that....the only FAKES are the idiot "Jarrah White", and the rest of his sort.....



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


????????????????????

(I'm going to hate myself after midnight for this....but I'm sure, I can feed him just little bit??)


How is the light the same?


What do you think is the light source, anyway, on the Moon? Now, how about on the Earth? Any guesses?
Is it the same source? By any chance??




Who cares about the source?
Just because the main source is the SUN doesnt mean we experience the light the same.
During the same period on Earth the light looks different, the temperature is different at different locations on our planet. I can be wearing sunglasses in the tropics and have no need for them in Northern Europe.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Poor LunarCognita,

Now here is a person who without doubt believes we landed on the moon:


For the record, I have no doubt that Cernan, Schmitt and Evans did journey to the Moon, and I also do not doubt that Cernan and Schmitt landed on the lunar surface and walked around up there either.


Because it fulfills his (assuming he is a he) world view, or out-of-this-worldview that the Apollo missions discovered life on the moon. Be it intelligent or otherwise. I mean, if they didnt go, then you dont have that evidence for such claims right? But unfortunately for LunarCognita, his penchant for discovering anomalies to support the alien cover-up actually also supports the view that we never went to the moon. I'm not saying there are no alien cities or life forms on the moon, we wont know for sure till we actually go and look around, I'm just saying there was no close encounters of the third kind on our part cause we didnt land on the moon to see it for ourselves.

We already know about LunarCognita's infamous Apollo 12 SEVA finding. Now lets see what happens when the gloves get taken off.


The Hand Job


LC (LunarCognita) sets up the background:


During the Apollo missions (specifically during the lunar surface operations), one of the primary complaints the moonwalking astronauts raised involved the abuse that their hands and fingers took because of their spacesuit gloves. This was a well-known astronaut complaint during Apollo, and essentially, the reason for this issue was because the design of the spacesuit gloves meant that whenever the astronaut had to grip something, they were forced to squeeze against the 5psi internal atmospheric pressure that was keeping the spacesuit inflated. This constant hand workout resulted in forearm fatigue and pain in the hands and fingers, as well as significant physical damage to the hands. During the last three Apollo missions (the "J"-series flights), the CDR and LMP were conducting three long-duration moonwalks over three days, and that constant abuse to their hands evidently took it's toll.


He further provides us evidence of this important issue:


Apollo 17 Post-Mission Debriefing Comments
LMP Harrison "Jack" Schmitt:
But, ultimately, all my nails were lifted off the quick and I can remember seeing blood under Gene's fingernails.
There was some pain under your nails because they had lifted off the quick

Apollo 17 CDR Gene Cernan
my hands were nothing but blisters. The skin on my knuckles was gone.
It took three months for lunar dust to grow out from under my nails. It infiltrates."
the blisters we had on our knuckles and it felt like our fingernails were driven back into the joints?"



LC offers further proof:


Here are some more assorted transcript discussions/comments related specifically to the condition of their hands and fingers that took place between Cernan and Schmitt while they were on the Moon.




DURING DEEP CORE DRILLING
119:51:54 Cernan: Oh, boy! The old fingers really suffer on these.
119:52:00 Schmitt: Take it easy.
[Cernan - "I remember that, at the end of the day, my fingers and forearms were very tired. You were always moving your fingers against the pressure in the gloves."]

DURING POST EVA-1 ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE LM
124:14:23 Cernan: Okay. Give me a chance to turn around and look. Okay. White dots are out; all the white dots. Okay, they're all out here. Boy, does this feel good to get soft suits. Oh, my hands.
[Cernan - "Your hands just get so tired and sore, both from the work of squeezing your gloves around things all day and from the constant chafing. I wound up with blisters all over my hands, particularly between the thumb and the forefinger."

124:16:24 Cernan: Ohh! You don't have a tub of hot water I can soak my hands in, do you? (Pause)


He throws us more evidence via media:


APOLLO 17 - GCTA-TV Lunar Surface Video/Audio Quotes About Hand and Finger Conditions



www.hq.nasa.gov... - EVA2 - at exactly the 2 min mark of this clip (147:35:50), Schmitt says Schmitt: "Man, I got the sorest hands in the world, right now."
www.hq.nasa.gov... - EVA2 - first 10 seconds, Schmitt talks about how tired his hands are.
www.hq.nasa.gov... - EVA2 - at the 22 second mark, Schmitt complains about his hands.
www.hq.nasa.gov... - EVA3 - about 20 seconds in, Schmitt talks about how his hands "have had it".

APOLLO 17 - AUDIO Quotes related to hand and finger conditions
www.hq.nasa.gov... - EVA2 - at 4mins 15secs into this clip, Schmitt talks of need to "rest his old hands".
www.hq.nasa.gov... - EVA2 - climbing the ladder during EVA closeout, at the 3mins 05 second mark, the crew talks of difficulty with their hands.


From Autobiographies:


“Stripping off my gloves was a painful process, and I wasn’t surprised to discover the knuckles and backs of my hands were blistered with a fiery red rawness. My fingers felt almost broken and I had to flex them to see if they still worked. The gloves were thick, with multiple layers, and when pressurized after we suited up, had become as rigid as the cast on a broken arm. Every time we grabbed something, we fought their stiffness, scraping our knuckles and skin against the unyielding inside layer.”
Gene Cernan, from his autobiography The Last Man On The Moon

“At the end of the second day, our arms were heavy as lead, our hands were chipped, raw and BLEEDING, and all we had was a little hand lotion to sooth them.”
Gene Cernan, from his autobiography The Last Man On The Moon



And finally, he tops it off with visual evidence!



When the Apollo 17 crew splashed down after their mission, they and their capsule were immediately taken aboard the recovery carrier "USS Ticonderoga". While aboard the Ticonderoga, there were of course photographs taken by the NASA PAO of the astronauts, and more than one of these images shows moonwalkers Cernan and Schmitt with their hands/fingers/fingernails clearly visible in frame. Firstly, here below is the NASA frame that the ALSJ archive links to as supporting evidence (frame # S72-56081), showing the Apollo 17 crew inside the Ticonderoga attending a "splashdown party" that was being thrown in their honor on the night of their recovery. Here, we can see LMP Jack Schmitt's fingernails on his right hand, and they appear to show the nails to be blackened from blood due to the trauma endured during the EVAs (just as Schmitt and Cernan extensively admitted to).



S72-56081 - Post-Flight crew image aboard the USS Ticonderoga, showing Schmitt's blackened fingernails.

img26.imageshack.us...



Now, I know what your thinking, cause I was thinking the same thing.
What's the problem here? Clearly LC has shown us how difficult it is to operate
in a space environment with those gloves. Will he suggest certain aspects of the mission
could not be performed? No, thats not quite it.



So, case closed, right? I mean, the ALSJ even points us directly to an image taken just after the mission ended aboard the recovery ship apparently showing Schmitt suffering significant fingernail damage, just as he and Cernan claimed, so we should just probably move along, because there is obviously nothing more to see here, right?

Wrong.

A couple hours prior to that "splashdown party" photo I show above, the NASA PAO also shot several other frames showing Cernan and Schmitt aboard Ticonderoga. This shot below for example was taken immediately upon their arrival aboard the recovery carrier, just as Cernan, Schmitt and Evans were exiting the recovery helicopter on the carrier flight deck after being plucked from the CSM. Where are Schmitt's blackened-with-blood fingernails here? His fingernails look perfectly fine, with no blackening at all visible like we see in the photo above that was taken just a few hours later.




AP17-72-HC-907 - Jack Schmitt exiting the recovery helicopter right after splashdown aboard the recovery ship USS Ticonderoga

Closeup of Schmitt's hands from frame AP17-72-HC-907
img72.imageshack.us...


Just a few minutes after the above photograph was snapped, another shot was taken showing CDR Cernan as he was speaking at a microphone on the flight deck of Ticonderoga, and his hands are visible here as well. Do you see any evidence of brutalized hands with thick dust under the nails that took "three months to grow out", or red blisters and raw knuckles, or blood-blackened fingernails lifted off the quick? No, me neither!




AP17-72-H-1561 - Cernan at the microphone on the deck of Ticonderoga
img402.imageshack.us...

AP17-72-H-1561 - Cernan's hands, cropped enlargement
img638.imageshack.us...


Just seconds after the Apollo 17 capsule splashed down in the Pacific, the recovery teams moved in via helicopter and air-dropped a three-man Navy para-rescue unit to attach a flotation collar around the capsule and extract the astronauts so they could be hoisted aboard the recovery helicopter and flown to the carrier. One of these para-rescue men actually carried a camera with him during the Apollo 17 capsule/crew recovery, and he happened to snap this close photo of CDR Gene Cernan emerging from the capsule and shaking the hand of one of the Navy divers. Cernan's fingernails do not appear to suffer from any discernible blackening, and his fingers look totally undamaged here - certainly nothing like Cernan's official historical record comments he expressed about the condition of his hands after the mission.




AP17-72-H-1570 - taken just after splashdown during capsule recovery and astronaut extraction
img197.imageshack.us...

AP17-72-H-1570 - Cropped enlargement of Cernan's left hand
img248.imageshack.us...



LC summarizes his findings:


So, we can see in these first post-flight images of Cernan and Schmitt that were taken shortly after splashdown that there appears to be a direct contradiction between the photographic evidence and the claims the CDR and LMP made about the extensive and visible damage that their hands and fingers/fingernails suffered during their lunar surface EVA ops. The post-flight imagery, with the exception of the first frame I showed during the cake-cutting ceremony (S72-56081), does not appear to support the claims about hand damage. Frankly, I think the supposed blackened fingernail "evidence" we see on Schmitt's hand in frame S72-56081 (shown below again) was possibly painted in on the raw negative after the fact in order to appear to offer supporting evidence for the claims Cernan and Schmitt made about their hands. Remember that the NASA ALSJ archives specifically points to frame S72-56081 in an attempt to offer the image as supposed evidence of the fingernail damage. Of course, they did not point out the fact that the fingernail blackening is not visible in the other post-flight frames I referenced above, because after all, they only want to highlight the evidence apparently supporting the official historical record, and the ALSJ is not going to go out of it's way to point out the discrepancies.


But wait, he doesnt stop there!


Now, what about any imagery that was shot after the astronauts left the Moon but before they returned to Earth? Is there any 70mm Hasselblad still imagery for example that was taken inside the CSM during the trans-Earth coast phase that happens to show Cernan or Schmitt's exposed hands and fingernails - showing them after the damage caused during the EVA surface ops had been inflicted? No, unfortunately, an examination of the Apollo 17 70mm Hasselblad archives reveals that no such internal imagery exists from that camera system where we can see Cernan or Schmitt's hands and/or fingers. Luckily for us however, the 70mm Hasselblad was not the only still camera inside the CSM during Apollo 17!

Where is the deep, penetrating dust beneath the fingernails that took three months to grow out? Where are the blood-blackened fingernails that were lifted off the quick that were so blatantly visible in the NASA PAO shot of Schmitt cutting the cake aboard the Ticonderoga after the mission?




AS17-163-24115 - 35mm during TEC - showing clear view of Schmitt's right thumb
img254.imageshack.us...


AS17-163-24117 - 35mm during TEC - showing Cernan's right thumb
img163.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24122 - 35mm during TEC - showing Cernan's left pinkie finger and right knuckles
img821.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24155 - 35mm during TEC - showing Cernan's left and right hands (partial). Remember, to quote Cernan directly - "I wound up with blisters all over my hands, particularly between the thumb and the forefinger."
img522.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24156 - 35mm during TEC - showing all four fingers and knuckles on Cernan's left hand
img526.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24156 - Close crop enlargement showing fingers and knuckles on Cernan's left hand
img441.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24173 - 35mm during TEC - Schmitt shaving with right thumb visible
img190.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24178 - 35mm during TEC - Schmitt behind CMP Ron Evans with digits of his left hand visible (poor focus)
img18.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24129 - 35mm during TEC - Cernan's right hand with thumb clearly visible
img89.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24130 - 35mm during TEC - Schmitt's right fingers
img138.imageshack.us...

AS17-163-24131 - 35mm during TEC - Schmitt's right fingers
img218.imageshack.us...


Look at all those images above, and now try to reconcile what you see (or "do not see") in those frames with the graphic descriptions Cernan and Schmitt gave after the mission about the apparent damaged state of their hands.




Jack Schmitt:"...ultimately, all my nails were lifted off the quick and I can remember seeing blood under Gene's fingernails."

Gene Cernan:"...my hands were nothing but blisters. The skin on my knuckles was gone. Inside the glove, all the knuckle points were constantly scrapping...I wound up with blisters all over my hands, particularly between the thumb and the forefinger...I wasn’t surprised to discover the knuckles and backs of my hands were blistered with a fiery red rawness...our hands were chipped, raw and BLEEDING...[the dust] didn't just get on the outside parts of our nails and get them dirty but, literally, it got down between the skin and the nail. It took three months for lunar dust to grow out from under my nails. It infiltrates."


So, why the discrepancies between what we were told and what we see?



Yeah, what gives?
Or didnt give, LOL.



What happened to the blisters and bloody dirt-encrusted fingernails and knuckles rubbed raw? Why has the public been lied to about this?



Indeed, why?
But thanks for bringing this to our attention LC



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst

I enclosed a link where Jarrah tells Windley that he's barely qualified to drive a garbage truck.... that's funny, Windley builds satellites for a living...... what are Jarrah's qualifications and experience with space? NONE.


Just because one builds satellites for a living, doesn't qualify them for driving and operating a garbage truck.




Both times Jarrah tried to debate Windley, Jarrah got his head handed back to him.
That's why he won't do any debating outside of youtube anymore. What a loser.


Oh really?
Provide some evidence.
And no, we dont want to peruse through a lengthy forum.
Quote the key issues where JW lost the debate on a moon landing subject
so we can debate it here.




Your first reply was PRICELESS! You made me laugh. For that, I thank you.

Your second reply?
I did provide evidence in the links I enclosed. If you don't want to click on them and read the content, then that's your embrace of ignorance.

If Jarrah is so convinced of his "work," then why doesn't he have his finds reviewed by Aerospace engineers?
He won't. Because he will be laughed out of existence.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
OFFTOPIC - my last comments on this...


Originally posted by PsykoOps
Just because you write some words on what ever medium you choose doesn't automatically grant you copyright. Copyright only applies to what can be said to be creative work.

No, again that is not correct. Read the links - it merely requires something that is original and has 'substance' - are you now suggesting that Jay's emails had no substance and were not his original works?

Despite this being an area of relatively untested law, there are already significant precedents, eg this one:
www.5rb.com...


Held
...
(2) The letter was an original literary work written by employees of D. Copyright subsisted in it and belonged to D. ARS’s copying of the letter amounted to infringement. ARS did not copy the letter to criticise it, so there was no fair dealing defence.
(3) The information in the letter was confidential: it was clearly intended to remain in D’s group of companies and went further than what had been published before. It was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence: ARS’s source knew it was a confidential letter. Disclosure of the letter was not justified: the letter was prejudicial and taken out of context. It led to litigation, rather than helping to avoid it.

A business letter? Yes, a highly 'creative' piece of work...


Let *me* repeat, an email, business letter or any form of written correspondence merely has to be substantively original to be afforded copyright protection. In the case of the Jay Windley stuff, that is not in question.

As the case above states (which was before the High Court in the UK), the way in which the situation unfolds may attract some defense for fair dealing, but the point I am disputing here is that you made the claim that emails are not afforded protection by copyright. They ARE.

Here's what you said:

... copyright emails? As in as a creative work. That's just pure hogwash.
...
You can copyright emails to someone just as much you can copyright your everyday speech. That means you cant.

That's simply wrong.


Excessively being the keyword.

NO, it isn't. IF the content is substantively original, and AGAIN I point out that the Jay Windley stuff WAS, copyright applies and you will be open to litigation.

You are now shifting the goalposts - in the quotes above you originally said copyright simply doesn't apply, but now are talking about 'excessive' use... Obviously if all you quote was "Yes", then you are unlikely to have a case, but if you post original content from a private email, then copyright applies.


Well if it's against your morals it must be wrong?

It isn't against yours? I shall be sure not to contact you privately, as I don't want the pain of a court case..





It's kind of a neccassary thing if you reply to someone.

Yes, IF you are replying to something publicly posted on a forum, or IF you are replying to the author of the email!
Do you not see the fundamental difference between that, and publicly posting a private email sent to you?

Fair use.

I'll take that as No, you don't see the difference. I hope you are not giving out this understanding of copyright to clients...
edit on 19-2-2011 by CHRLZ because: dang quotes...



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 





These particles do not travel at the
speed of light, or even at an appreciable fraction of it.



WRONG!


Brilliantly argued.




On January 20th, 2005, a giant sunspot named "NOAA 720" exploded. The blast sparked an X-class solar flare, the most powerful kind, and hurled a billion-ton cloud of electrified gas (a "coronal mass ejection") into space. Solar protons accelerated to nearly light speed by the explosion reached the Earth-Moon system minutes after the flare--the beginning of a days-long "proton storm."


science.nasa.gov...


Of course, the SPE you are referring to here was newsworthy precisely because it was atypical. To quote your own source:


The Jan. 20th proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy.

Your own source.

Why so energetic? Because they were accelerated to 0.3 c. Yes, that is much, much closer to the speed of light than particles are usually accelerated during a flare; that's what made it so spectacular. There was also the usual spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including X-rays, but the X-rays were transient and had a low Q. The frightening part was the CME, with its much more hazardous proton flux.


On January 20th, 2005, a giant sunspot named "NOAA 720" exploded. The blast sparked an X-class solar flare, the most powerful kind, and hurled a billion-ton cloud of electrified gas (a "coronal mass ejection") into space. Solar protons accelerated to nearly light speed by the explosion reached the Earth-Moon system minutes after the flare--the beginning of a days-long "proton storm."

Here on Earth, no one suffered. Our planet's thick atmosphere and magnetic field protects us from protons and other forms of solar radiation. In fact, the storm was good. When the plodding coronal mass ejection arrived 36 hours later and hit Earth's magnetic field, sky watchers in Europe saw the brightest and prettiest auroras in years:

Your own source again.

Even despite the violence of the initial flare, it took a day and a half for the worst part of the particle flux to hit Earth; plenty of time to put the stern into the wind.



But the x-rays are not the
dangerous component.



WRONG!


Brilliantly researched. Perhaps you need to do some catching up on current research:


"Scientists have been assuming that protons damage cells in a way similar to x-rays, but our results indicate that these assumptions have been wrong. The new data show that protons produce more potentially lethal double-strand breaks, a type of severe DNA damage, than other kinds of DNA damages," said Brookhaven biologist Betsy Sutherland, the study's lead researcher. "This means that scientists don't really know how human DNA is affected by the most numerous particles in space and, as a result, do not know how to design the proper protection for astronauts."

Of the various radiation types, protons, like x-rays and gamma rays, are classified as low linear energy transfer (LET), meaning they do not lose much energy as they pass through matter. Therefore, scientists have assumed that protons would damage biological systems in the same way as other forms of low LET radiation. But Sutherland and Megumi Hada found that the protons produced a spectrum of damages that is very similar to that of high-energy iron ions and other heavy charged particles.

Brookhaven National Laboratory News.

In other words, your two "WRONGs" didn't make a "right."



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Of course, the SPE you are referring to here was newsworthy precisely because it was atypical. To quote your own source:


So? You can spin it all kinds of ways DJ (ahhh now I know why your handle is DJ
), but Windley was still wrong.





But the x-rays are not the
dangerous component.


WRONG!


Brilliantly researched. Perhaps you need to do some catching up on current research:


"Scientists have been assuming that protons damage cells in a way similar to x-rays, but our results indicate that these assumptions have been wrong. The new data show that protons produce more potentially lethal double-strand breaks, a type of severe DNA damage, than other kinds of DNA damages," said Brookhaven biologist Betsy Sutherland, the study's lead researcher. "This means that scientists don't really know how human DNA is affected by the most numerous particles in space and, as a result, do not know how to design the proper protection for astronauts."



LOL, I thought you were trying to prove that Astronauts went to the moon.





...Therefore, scientists have assumed that protons would damage biological systems in the same way as other forms of low LET radiation. But Sutherland and Megumi Hada found that the protons produced a spectrum of damages that is very similar to that of high-energy iron ions and other heavy charged particles.

Brookhaven National Laboratory News.

In other words, your two "WRONGs" didn't make a "right."


You mean, in other words just because proton radiation is misunderstood, doesn't make X-rays any less dangerous.

edit on 19-2-2011 by FoosM because: quote fix



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


There is no way you are this obtuse in real life....I can only presume you are "playing dumb". That sort of activity is also known as "trolling" around these parts.

SO...either you are abjectly ignorant of even basic reason (and, everything you've posted that displays that standard of ignorance will never go away....will be on the Ethernet forever and ever....don't you even care that people will view you that way???)...or, you are trolling. One, is forgivable (and so, so sad)...the other is not.



Just because the main source is the SUN doesnt mean we experience the light the same.
During the same period on Earth the light looks different, the temperature is different at different locations on our planet. I can be wearing sunglasses in the tropics and have no need for them in Northern Europe.


I don't think that needs any further elaboration....the rest of us can just sit and gaze in awe at the stupendous nature of its inanity.......as it applies to discussing the Lunar landings, and their LATITUDES ---and, thus, the relative Sun position and brightness, when compared to similar locations on Earth.....



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I don't think that needs any further elaboration....the rest of us can just sit and gaze in awe at the stupendous nature of its inanity.......as it applies to discussing the Lunar landings, and their LATITUDES ---and, thus, the relative Sun position and brightness, when compared to similar locations on Earth.....


Are you saying, given the sun is in the same relative position, the light on the Moon will be identical to light on Earth?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 358  359  360    362  363  364 >>

log in

join