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: 431
377
<< 428  429  430    432  433  434 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Indeed, particles of alpha radiation can be breathed in.


Yes, if it somehow miraculously manages to work it's way through 3mm of aluminum.
Here we go again.


Thats not the point, its an example NASA and others tend to downplay the dangers of radiation.
We are currently seeing this with the Japanese nuclear disaster, and previous nuclear meltdowns.

The radiation coming from that Japanese plant is entirely different from the stuff you find in the Van Allen belt, IIRC.

Also, the Japanese gov't has been pretty open about what struggles they're facing.

Also also, a modern-day nuclear crisis has no bearing on whether NASA downplayed the radiation concerns four decades ago.

Also also also, NASA's published papers from before the landings actually overestimated the amount of radiation the astronauts would face, which was still within tolerable levels. I'm pretty sure you can find them in a good deal of University libraries. These papers were posted in this thread some time ago. Anyone got a link?


With that in mind, the CM, LM, and Apollo suits were not robust enough to counter all the radiation found in space.
Evidence please. The thickness of the suits, the material they were made of, the amount of radiation they had to counter, and the thickness of the material they were made of that would be required to protect them.

I strongly doubt you will produce any, but I'm sure everyone will be willing to discuss it if you do.




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Phil Plait is an astronomer who does not know the exact hours, minutes and seconds that any of the Apollo astronauts were exposed to the Van Allen Belt radiation. He is so far on the record as saying "a few minutes" but this does not make him a falsifier of fact. It does't make him the L-word.


Well he actually clearly states 90 minutes on his website..

Figure that one into your thoughts..


So that would 90 minutes for every mission, exactly 1 hour, 30 minutes and 0 seconds?
Lesee here; Composition Fallacy.

The point I'm getting at is that Plait is a professional. Where are his figures? He needs to show the math... and for every mission
Moving the Goalposts.


"a few minutes" or "90 minutes" on his website doesn't cut it.
This guy is an astronomer and his flagrant disregard for accuracy is impeaching on his credibility!

edit on 4/21/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit myself
Substituting "witticisms" for substance.

That last one's not a fallacy. It just really bugs me.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



My point being, when Jarrah is unquestionably wrong about something that he purportedly researched in depth, it's ignored, or brushed off as a mistake. When Phil, speaking ex tempore, makes an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in multiple fashions, you brand him a liar.


If JW lies, call him out as you do..
If Phil Plait lies, do the same...
I never said JW was a liar. I said he was either a liar or incompetent. I would like to elaborate that he would have to be massively the latter, to make such a critical mistake. Both options have a highly damaging effect on his credibility. I like Hanlon's Razor, which says to prefer an explanation of stupidity over malice.


Or maybe the third option is that he was correct.
Which has been eliminated.

He quoted the number, and when someone pointed it out to him, he claimed the crafts were unshielded. This is technically true, but irrelevant to the question of whether the astronauts would've been exposed to a fatal dose. It means he was calculating how much radiation was hitting the craft itself, not the astronauts inside, as any mass at all between them and space would've reduced the dosage to below "unshielded" levels.

The only way his calculations would be relevant would be if the astronauts were literally floating in space naked. Amusing as the image may be, it would be inimical to their continued survival.


His point, and my point, has been that the shielding of the CM, LM, and astronauts were worthless against the radiation of the belts, solar wind, solar flares, CME's, and God knows what else swirling out there.
And has been bought up time and time again, any shielding at all would've reduced the radiation getting through. Such as clothing, or the hull of the spaceship they were in.

I note that in this post I'm quoting, you claimed that the shielding would've been worthless. Now you claim that your point is that NASA downplays radiation danger. I look forward to new and exciting moved goalposts in the future.


An example, we always are told that Alpha radiation is not something to be worried about because it cannot penetrate skin, not even paper. But guess what, it can kill, do you know how?
Pop quiz; what's the lethal dosage of Alpha Particles?
edit on 21-4-2011 by 000063 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Prior to Apollo 8, NASA would have to have done all the research on the radiation dangers of the VABs, outer space, and the moon.

Now over 40 years all this information should be public knowledge.
So with all that information, somebody here should be able to conclusively put together an argument conclusively proving that radiation would not be the reason for not sending and landing men on the moon in the '60s & '70s.

Find NASA documents prior to Apollo 8 for the following:
Identify the types and intensity of VAB belts radiation that would be encountered.
Identity the types and intensity of radiation encountered in interstellar space.
Identity the types and intensity of radiation encountered on the Moon.

What type of shielding would be necessary to block each radiation type?
The minimum thickness needed to be used to protect the inhabitants and machinery in the cabin of the ship in Space and on the Moon, an EVA on the moon, and during a deep space EVA.

The maximum time needed to travel through the belts without any damage to the spacefarers.
The flight path of the craft through the belts and the time that it would take.

Strong Case:
Compare that to information to the results provided by the Apollo program and see if Apollo met those requirements. This should be easy to find in all those NASA documents.

Great Case:
If you can include third party support for NASA's research findings.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Find NASA documents prior to Apollo 8 for the following:
Identify the types and intensity of VAB belts radiation that would be encountered.
Identity the types and intensity of radiation encountered in interstellar space.
Identity the types and intensity of radiation encountered on the Moon.

What type of shielding would be necessary to block each radiation type?
The minimum thickness needed to be used to protect the inhabitants and machinery in the cabin of the ship in Space and on the Moon, an EVA on the moon, and during a deep space EVA.

The maximum time needed to travel through the belts without any damage to the spacefarers.
The flight path of the craft through the belts and the time that it would take.

Strong Case:
Compare that to information to the results provided by the Apollo program and see if Apollo met those requirements. This should be easy to find in all those NASA documents.

Do I get a prize? More here.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Find NASA documents prior to Apollo 8 for the following:
Identify the types and intensity of VAB belts radiation that would be encountered.
Identity the types and intensity of radiation encountered in interstellar space.
Identity the types and intensity of radiation encountered on the Moon.

What type of shielding would be necessary to block each radiation type?
The minimum thickness needed to be used to protect the inhabitants and machinery in the cabin of the ship in Space and on the Moon, an EVA on the moon, and during a deep space EVA.

The maximum time needed to travel through the belts without any damage to the spacefarers.
The flight path of the craft through the belts and the time that it would take.

Strong Case:
Compare that to information to the results provided by the Apollo program and see if Apollo met those requirements. This should be easy to find in all those NASA documents.

Do I get a prize? More here.


No DJ, you dont.



somebody here should be able to conclusively put together an argument conclusively proving that radiation would not be the reason for not sending and landing men on the moon in the '60s & '70s.


Using NASA documents prior to the first trip to the moon as sources.



edit on 21-4-2011 by FoosM because: a little color



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

>sigh<
Didn't you just write, above, that Plait wrote on his site "90 minutes"???

Just the simple fact your hero Plait has no problems deceiving his audience to prove his point..

SO...you have just proven my point, from above. This ridiculous fixation on a turn of phrase, in a heated off-the-cuff (not scripted) discussion, when on the hot seat? Plait was not intending to "deceive"...NOT when he knows how utterly INSIGNIFICANT the issue is!!
But, isn't it obvious here? This is the ONLY "toe in the door" possible, in order to desperately attempt to skew the ever-increasingly weak "hoax" claims....it is pathetic; and in a way, also enlightening----
----Shows there is no foundation to stand on, for "hoax" arguers.

Yes he said 90 on his website..
Do you think many that listened to his radio statement of "a few minutes" actually had been to his website?
I'd say very very few..

Only the same petty nonsense and noise to distract....

What I find "petty" is your inability to accept the reality that Plait, like JW, is not above distorting the truth to suit his agenda..



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Also, the Japanese gov't has been pretty open about what struggles they're facing.


Hardly, they couldn't possibly downplay the dangers anymore than they have..
Actually now they are trying to have information removed from the web..
Even some at ATS are concerned..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 21-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Using NASA documents prior to the first trip to the moon as sources.


All of the documents I linked to are prior to 1969. I'm sorry I got called away before finishing. I'll be back later to compare Kovalev's research to the specifications of the Apollo spacecraft. That would be a Grand Slam, wouldn't it?



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



So that would 90 minutes for every mission, exactly 1 hour, 30 minutes and 0 seconds?
The point I'm getting at is that Plait is a professional. Where are his figures? He needs to show the math... and for every mission

"a few minutes" or "90 minutes" on his website doesn't cut it. This guy is an astronomer and his flagrant disregard for accuracy is impeaching on his credibility


There are only three small problems with this. First, the ERBs are a field with a continuously varying flux; in other words, it's hard to say where they "begin" and "end." Second, this field expands and contracts depending on the pressure from the solar wind, so even if we could agree on where the field "begins" and "ends," it would be different for each mission. Finally, we don't have the data that would allow us to make this determination. "Ninety minutes" is a good rough estimate. Why this obsession with precision all of a sudden?


We've heard you apologize for NASA and now you apologize for Phil Plait, too.

If I now take Phil Plait's rough estimate on this question what other estimates is he going to shove in my face? He's the fancy pants astronomer, a PhD, and I'm the laymen here. So indeed DJ you are correct when you say "we don't have the data that would allow us to make this determination." Apollogize away dear fellow....... and keep on apollogizing........ 430+ pages of it, in fact.
edit on 4/22/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



If I now take Phil Plait's rough estimate on this question what other estimates is he going to shove in my face? He's the fancy pants astronomer, a PhD, and I'm the laymen here. So indeed DJ you are correct when you say "we don't have the data that would allow us to make this determination." Apollogize away dear fellow....... and keep on apollogizing........ 430+ pages of it, in fact.


There is absolutely nothing to apologize for; I was simply stating a obvious fact. Depending on traffic, it can take me between twenty minutes and forty five minutes to drive to work. If I told you it takes me half an hour, would I be lying? No, I would be giving you an estimate. Given sufficient information about road repairs, sporting events, etc, I might be able to give you a more accurate estimate of the drive time on a given day. No-one is shoving anything in your face; you can either accept what is presented to you or not as you wish. What I find curious is that in the past 400+ pages, no-one has ever apologized for Jarrah's rude behavior or palpable lies and distortions.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
please forgive my laziness, does the young man address the lunar laser range finder experiments going on at the mcdonald observatory ?

and why did the russians never say anything about the moon rock samples we gave them ? I'd guess they would have enjoyed embarrasing us on the fake rock thing

and we went 6 times. how so you keep 100,000 people quiet on a hoax this large ?

we have tangible evidence that we left something behind (the mirrors) and brought something back. add that to the sheer number of people that would have had to be invloved in the cover-up that never said a word in 40 + years, I gotta say we went



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Depending on traffic, it can take me between twenty minutes and forty five minutes to drive to work. If I told you it takes me half an hour, would I be lying?


Give it up DJ, you're just sounding stupid now..
That's not even a logical comparison..

Firstly you are estimating a trip time...
Phil Plait was discussing a PAST event where the time was known..

Secondly, your estimate is reasonable given you may face traffic or other similar stoppages..
Tell me what may have altered the Apollo timeline..
I'm pretty sure they didn't encounter rush hour traffic or get a flat..

Your defending of Plait rather than admitting the guys out to make money, just like JW, and is not beyond stretching the truth, just like JW, is getting a little obvious and pathetic..



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001 What I find curious is that in the past 400+ pages, no-one has ever apologized for Jarrah's rude behavior or palpable lies and distortions.


Interesting choice of words there DJ


pal·pa·ble/ˈpalpəbəl/Adjective
1. Able to be touched or felt.
2. (esp. of a feeling or atmosphere) So intense as to be almost touched or felt

In the words of Edgar Mitchell:

“The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes. . . . The knowledge came to me directly.”


Once a person has been convinced / convicted / holds the conviction with an idea it is impossible to reason with them. The Apollo defenders hold the conviction that the Apollo moon landings were real. They adhere to dogma. They will not listen to reason. The Apollo defenders (so called because they are defending a faith in NASA) have a sort of desperation about them that is almost palpable.

And it was a desperate time in 1969 when Nixon rose from the ashes like a phoenix and taking every propaganda advantage at the time... visit to China also on TV, Apollo on TV, at the height of civil unrest in the USA and escalating bloody foreign interventions... all portrayed nightly on TV news... amidst all this turmoil and upheaval who in 1969 is going to seriously question the fuzzy pictures coming from space?

Nixon knew the power of TV because Kennedy handed him a huge can of whoop ass on TV back in 1960. This was part of Nixon's revenge strategy... using TV to manipulate reality. Nixon says "Hey Look! I'm Really Talking To Buzz on the Moon! Look at the TV!"




edit on 4/23/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: not a crook



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
please forgive my laziness,


No.

2nd.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



What I find curious is that in the past 400+ pages, no-one has ever apologized for Jarrah's rude behavior or palpable lies and distortions.


I missed this comment...

No one's asking you to apologize for Plait's lies..
Why would anyone apologize for what someone else said??

We're just wondering why you don't recognize that he DID lie and instead come up with ridiculous excuses..



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Firstly you are estimating a trip time...
Phil Plait was discussing a PAST event where the time was known..

Secondly, your estimate is reasonable given you may face traffic or other similar stoppages..
Tell me what may have altered the Apollo timeline..
I'm pretty sure they didn't encounter rush hour traffic or get a flat..


In order to answer your question, we need to know two things: the velocity of the spacecraft and the exact dimensions and configuration of the field they passed through. We know the velocity of the spacecraft, but we don't know the exact size of the field on the given days. It is possible that the internal radiation monitor data is on record somewhere; if this were really an issue for you, you would be looking for it instead of trying to prolong this pointless digression. If you don't post the data here, I'm not going to answer any of your further posts on this subject.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblackYour defending of Plait rather than admitting the guys out to make money, just like JW, and is not beyond stretching the truth, just like JW, is getting a little obvious and pathetic..


The very humorous & entertaining Dr. Phil Plait......


The Saucer Fleet (Apogee Books Space Series, Vol. 2) (v. 2) [Hardcover]
Jack Hagerty (Author), Jon Rogers (Author), Dr. Phil Plait (Foreword)


Review

With a foreword by DISCOVER’s very own Bad Astronomer Phil Plait, The Saucer Fleet dissects in great detail flying saucers from classic productions such as This Island Earth, Forbidden Planet and The Invaders, and looks at their impact on the audiences of the day.


Why would an astronomer like Phil Plait be interested in the impact that media makes upon audiences... unless he could be involved... with some kind of ongoing propaganda operation? Perhaps when Phil says he wants to get "filthy rich" we should believe him? Because he's an astronomer!!??
Or a media whore


And for those of you who enjoy a good case of connect the dots:

Phil Plait connected to astrology connected to science at the movies connected to James Cameron and connected to the movie Avatar.

This is an audio interview from about 3 days ago where PhD Phil Plait says he is "I'm lazy and don't really work very hard and avoiding work by writing on a web site..."

Shall we quote Phil Plait as mercilessly as the Apollo defenders quote Jarrah? Black, I think that's your job in this thread!
Check it out startalkradio.net...
edit on 4/23/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit for media whoredom



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Once a person has been convinced / convicted / holds the conviction with an idea it is impossible to reason with them. The Apollo defenders hold the conviction that the Apollo moon landings were real. They adhere to dogma. They will not listen to reason. The Apollo defenders (so called because they are defending a faith in NASA) have a sort of desperation about them that is almost palpable.


Well said, except that this applies doubly to the Jarrah defenders. No matter how many times Jarrah has been shown to be wrong, they continue to believe everything he says. I am completely open to any actual evidence you or anyone else can present; right now, you all seem to think the only evidence you have is that Phil Plait, who had nothing to do with the historical events, was lying on a late night radio talk show. Is that all you have?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



In order to answer your question, we need to know two things: the velocity of the spacecraft and the exact dimensions and configuration of the field they passed through. We know the velocity of the spacecraft, but we don't know the exact size of the field on the given days. It is possible that the internal radiation monitor data is on record somewhere; if this were really an issue for you, you would be looking for it instead of trying to prolong this pointless digression. If you don't post the data here, I'm not going to answer any of your further posts on this subject.


You're becoming a joke..
Facts are already known...He's quoted them often but chose to lie on the radio..
I was going to quote from his website but it appears Badastronomy.com is down..
Maybe he's hiding..

edit on 23-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 428  429  430    432  433  434 >>

log in

join