Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes its baffling how so much scientific evidence is missing and tainted.

What scientific evidence is missing and/or tainted?

Originally posted by ruserious8D
Okay, I skipped just a couple (hundred) pages, because at the place I was, no proper argument implying that the Apollo mission was a hoax was being made.

Thats you'r personal opinion, its not fact.
You do understand that right?

It was amusing at first, but then it grew frustrating as evidence was blatantly being ignored and issues were being nitpicked. (The last hoax believers whose posts I read were those of ppk55, Exuberant1, FoosM, and etc.--those who have been here a while are obviously aware of these people.) Anyway, I did not know this issue existed still, and to be perfectly honest, I can't quite recall how I made it here, but I must ask:

I find that hard to believe after the hoopla over the Fox Special & Myth Buster's special. Not to mention the countless times the moon hoax conspiracy is being mentioned in movies and other media. And I have no idea how you made it here either? Did you black out and woke up on this forum? Do you think you are a Ufo abuctee and dropped here?

Was any substantial evidence disproving the Apollo mission ever set forth that wasn't thoroughly disputed?

Yes, several times.
The rest of your post has no information proving that men landed on the moon. Nor have you debunked any of JW's videos. So you are not helping your cause any.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes its baffling how so much scientific evidence is missing and tainted.

What scientific evidence is missing and/or tainted?

Photos. As I have demonstrated on this thread.
Telemetry data is missing
Original blue prints and videos are missing.
Capabilities of the rockets are in question, not to mention the PLSSs.
Astronaut testimonies contradicting NASA reports and claims.
etc.

I mean something as simple as how the astronauts managed to sleep/eat/work in their LM
hasn't been cleared up.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ruserious8D
What I don't understand is: why is JW such a trusted source in and of himself? It's obvious to see his experiments defy the fundamentals of experiments and he has been discredited on multiple counts without retracting his statements. So in other words, he is not only incompetent, but he is purposely deceptive; it's ironic that such a man would be an icon to some on a site about "[denying] ignorance" when he clearly embraces it and spreads it like a virus.

Even if this was originally for a school project or even if it still IS, JW should realize how many people are being misguided by his assumed "air of expertise" and the supposed "experts" on the videos he has. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the capacity to take a man who imitates James Bond and backs his findings with faulty science seriously. Is this the man that some HBs take as so credible?

Also, was it ever accepted that Jenny Heller, the supposed expert on perspectives, is in fact a fine arts teacher? I found a small reference (I'm serious about small, essentially a footnote) to her which seems to support the email that HBs proclaimed as a possible fraud.

JW is a historian on Apollo. He has read and studied more about Apollo than the average person. That makes him an expert.

You can't be serious. Wow. JW has been shown to not actually understand what he's talking about.

Over and over again.

ad nauseum

Jay Windley made Jarrah's lack of education quite apparent when your super genius Jarrah couldn't answer basic science questions. He couldn't answer Windley's questions on solar radiation because he didn't know what he was talking about and was made to look like the snarky fool he is in the process.

What did Jarrah do when Windley showed him to be educationally deficient? He mad personal insults and attacks.

Here's a collection of quotes from trained & accredited scientists on Jarrah White:
www.youtube.com...

Okay, FoosM, it is easy to lie. You happen to think that NASA lied about the Apollo mission despite all the documents--do you realize the work it would take to do such a thing? Yet, when JW introduces a woman on a video on youtube, DESPITE the fact that she herself stated she wasn't an expert, you accept it simply saying that JW says who she is. And yes, she is relevant, because: 1) If he cannot even acquire a proper analyst, he cannot acquire a proper analysis and 2) If it is proven that she is not what JW introduced her to be, that further discredits him and nothing he says can be trusted without independent research. Have you ever researched his claims?

It doesn't matter what JW says when HIS integrity is the subject in question, just how you cannot take anything that NASA says to heart because you believe that it is an untrustworthy source. I could tell you that the moon landings did in fact happen because NASA says so. I told you that I want an outside source and yet you still direct me to the video as I stated that you NOT DO. If you are incapable of finding a third-party source backing JW's claim, it is essentially invalid. I don't care what the video says, because I am saying that there are sources that contradict what JW claims. I want evidence OUTSIDE of that video which proves of her "expertise."

So JW read books and Aron Ranen made a documentary and that makes you believe that because they say it was a hoax it must have been. You are simply clinging to the meager evidence you have while denying the evidence against your claim, which, despite what you believe, holds more weight and less speculation. Why do you not take into account the majority of other actual scientists, engineers, newspapers--or better yet, the entire world of that time--who tracked it as it happened? What of the others earlier in this thread who, despite their expertise in photography, had their analysis completely discredited by you without proper analysis of your own or any strong foundation?

I want you to present irrefutable (or as close as you can get to it) proof that debunks the "official story." The majority of evidence you've presented has been either speculation or information so vague that it could only be left for loose interpretation. I can accept that evidence, but only as a last resort. However, if that is the only evidence presentable for your case, then it's obvious there is no case.

You can not simply claim that you "poked holes" and expect it to be true. All your theories were met with strong evidence to discredit it, yet instead of accepting it or even considering it, you fabricate some other "inconsistency" to have disputed by the believers.

Again, it is YOUR job to present evidence--by simply saying you have it does not make you any more credible. I would like to see the damning evidence you have debunking the Apollo mission.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes its baffling how so much scientific evidence is missing and tainted.

What scientific evidence is missing and/or tainted?

Photos. As I have demonstrated on this thread.
Telemetry data is missing
Original blue prints and videos are missing.
Capabilities of the rockets are in question, not to mention the PLSSs.
Astronaut testimonies contradicting NASA reports and claims.
etc.

I mean something as simple as how the astronauts managed to sleep/eat/work in their LM
hasn't been cleared up.

You know, I believe the most ironic nature of the hoax theory debate is that it seems the ABSENCE of evidence is a significant factor for the HBs. However, the HBs have an even LARGER absence of evidence.

How are the capabilities of rockets in question? Where is the expert testimony stating that? I do not mean an "Apollo expert" such as JW, but perhaps from someone who constructed them. Where are the contradictions? And may I see the evidence of missing photos again?

And again, if you are simply going to argue with the "absence of evidence" approach, despite the presence of all the other evidence, then you yourself must account for the absence of evidence in the conspiracy theories (and just so you know, when comparing NASA's story to that of conspiracy theories, the theories have many more contradictions).

SAA

SAA is just an extension of the Van Allen Radiation belt.
A finger tip of a whole body.

And its not even the hottest part of the zone.
I had demonstrated that earlier in this thread when we discussed this subject.
But as a reminder, and as an example:
A spacecraft at 225 km alt. will experience a 100 fold increase in radiation flux, this increases by a 1000 fold at 440 km. So, the higher you go, the more the radiation flux increases.

But what happens when a space craft crosses that small area called the SAA:

The SAA region is relatively stable and gives rise to significant proton fluxes for low altitude spacecraft. The protons are very penetrating and give rise to relatively high doses inside the spacecraft. They also contribute indirectly to single-event effects through proton-induced nuclear reactions (PINRs).

www.ph.surrey.ac.uk...

"very penetrating"

Now prior to Apollo, NASA had GEMINI.
And during Gemini they did run a few tests on the SAA.
Here is what they found:

The Gemini 6 passive dosimetry results were shown to be consistent with the Gemini 4 passive dosimetry results. Total dose agreement between the passive dosimeters and the active dosimeter integrated dose is excellent for this mission.

In conclusion, both active and passive dosimetry data collected in this experiment showed that no radiation hazard was associated with the manned space operations within the Gemini spacecraft...

So far so good... except:

no radiation hazard was associated with the manned space operations within the Gemini spacecraft altitudes as great as 310 kilometers in the SAA region.

As high as 310 kilometers. Well, as you can see, when it comes to the SAA, that height may not be of concern. If NASA used this information to claim that the SAA and the VA BELTS were safe for traveling through, then they were setting themselves up for failure. Gemini missions typically stayed well below 300 km. And so did all Apollo missions prior to Apollo 8 (when suddenly NASA made the leap from 300 km's to traveling to 400,000 km's!)

So... what made NASA think they could send men through the VAB's safely?
Did they know about "proton-induced nuclear reactions"

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight By Michael Barratt, Sam L. Pool

Originally posted by FoosM
So... what made NASA think they could send men through the VAB's safely?
Did they know about "proton-induced nuclear reactions"

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight By Michael Barratt, Sam L. Pool

Okay, I'm going to need some clarification, because I don't understand your claim. Please refrain from asking open-ended or rhetorical questions. You are the one making the argument, so you provide evidence of:

1) Whether they were aware of the risks.
2) Whether they knew about the "proton-induced nuclear reactions."
3) Whether their knowledge or lack thereof made it impossible to cross or was even relevant (which wouldn't be the case if their equipment was still on-par even with their ignorance of the subject).

I now challenge you to provide actual evidence that supports your claim instead of simply implying, "Hey, this could have been an issue that may have stopped them from doing it."

Originally posted by ruserious8D

Again, it is YOUR job to present evidence--by simply saying you have it does not make you any more credible. I would like to see the damning evidence you have debunking the Apollo mission.

Its not my job to prove NASA didnt go to the moon.
Going to the moon safely with modern technology is impossible.
It NASA'S job to provide irrefutable proof they landed men on the moon back in the late 60's.
So far they haven't done so.

My belief that men did not go to the moon does not hang on JW, btw. I didnt believe it before I saw his videos.
JW provided information that filled in some blanks I had about the whole affair. His series on radiation is what made me understand WHY they couldn't do it. And more importantly, WHY we cant do it today!

As you can see I just made a post regarding the SAA and studies NASA made on them.
You cant take a few steps into a minefield and claim that its safe to walk the whole mile.
Thats what they did with their SAA research.

And that is typical with Apollo.
When it came to knowing if the LM could actually land safely on the moon did they test the LM. No.
When it came to knowing if the VABs could be safely transited, did they test animals? No (not that we know about at least).

So you see, its not only the evidence of the landing that is suspect, its their research prior to their claims of landing men on the moon that is suspect as well. And alot of this information JW hasn't even discussed in his videos. We are finding holes in the story like every week

For you to claim that these are not red flags is being intellectually dishonest on your part. Seriously.

You are not doing us (people) any favors for getting a true space program off the ground by being an apologist. We all want manned space travel to distance stars to be possible. But it wont be until scientists and politicians stop lying about what is and what is not possible. And to get politicians to stop lying is like asking piranha to stop eating. And to get scientists to stop lying we need to get the politicians to be truthful first... you see our problem here.

Originally posted by ruserious8D

Originally posted by FoosM
So... what made NASA think they could send men through the VAB's safely?
Did they know about "proton-induced nuclear reactions"

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight By Michael Barratt, Sam L. Pool

Okay, I'm going to need some clarification, because I don't understand your claim. Please refrain from asking open-ended or rhetorical questions. You are the one making the argument, so you provide evidence of:

1) Whether they were aware of the risks.
2) Whether they knew about the "proton-induced nuclear reactions."
3) Whether their knowledge or lack thereof made it impossible to cross or was even relevant (which wouldn't be the case if their equipment was still on-par even with their ignorance of the subject).

I now challenge you to provide actual evidence that supports your claim instead of simply implying, "Hey, this could have been an issue that may have stopped them from doing it."

"Here is your smoking gun"
"I dont understand your claim"
"Im claiming that this gun was just fired to kill that man"
"I need some clarification"

You see, this can go on and on. You have to put two and two together yourself.
NASA has NOT sent any biology (that we are aware of) through the VABs to see
how deadly the radiation in the belts are.
Without doing so how could they know the dangers of the VABs?

NASA did not do a real world (or real moon) test landing a complicated, yet fragile, ship like the LM on the moon. Without doing so how could they know it would perform as planned?

If you dont see this as red flags in terms of SCIENCE then you cant possibly scrutinize the evidence given to you by the government afterwards.

"We killed Bin Laden this weekend"
"YAY, but where is the body?"
"Buried out in the sea"
"Yay?"

Originally posted by ruserious8D


And again, if you are simply going to argue with the "absence of evidence" approach, despite the presence of all the other evidence, then you yourself must account for the absence of evidence in the conspiracy theories (and just so you know, when comparing NASA's story to that of conspiracy theories, the theories have many more contradictions).

Ummm, you are claiming that NASA has evidence to support their claims.
If such evidence is missing how can you or NASA make your claims?
And if you have other evidence, provide it. Should be easy.

Originally posted by FoosM
Its not my job to prove NASA didnt go to the moon.
Going to the moon safely with modern technology is impossible.
It NASA'S job to provide irrefutable proof they landed men on the moon back in the late 60's.
So far they haven't done so.

Yes they have. The world has. Again, as you told me when I claimed there was not proper proof that it was a hoax, "it is your opinion, not fact."

1) You have been provided with photos, yet you have failed to prove they've been tampered with.
2) You have been informed of the experiments on the moon, yet you have not proven they could have been recreated on earth in the 60s.
3) You have been provided with video accompanied with audio, in which third-party sources have confirmed to be received from the moon, and upon being shown transcripts proving that it is impossible for the transactions to have been scripted, you have not yet explained how it was all faked.
4) Experts have been cited for you, admitting that, yes, while radiation is dangerous, the astronauts would not have been in imminent danger for the time they were exposed to it.

My belief that men did not go to the moon does not hang on JW, btw. I didnt believe it before I saw his videos.
JW provided information that filled in some blanks I had about the whole affair. His series on radiation is what made me understand WHY they couldn't do it. And more importantly, WHY we cant do it today!

I only refer to JW because he is the topic of the thread, though I never realized JW had expertise with radiation--my apologies. I simply assumed that because of his lack of knowledge with other basic scientific properties, there could be some small chance that he does not know much about science, including radiation. Also, where are your sources that state radiation was why we do not perform those manned missions today? I do not want your speculation or assumption, I want hard evidence. You have been provided with much in this thread, and, despite your decision to not address it, it was given to you, so now it is time for you to present your evidence.

As you can see I just made a post regarding the SAA and studies NASA made on them.
You cant take a few steps into a minefield and claim that its safe to walk the whole mile.
Thats what they did with their SAA research.

Wow, what an inappropriate analogy. That is like comparing the experience of a drowning victim to one being showered with bullets. In a minefield, you step on a mine and then you blow up--end of story. You become exposed to radiation, you can survive depending on the intensity, and even up to certain conditions it still becomes survivable with proper equipment and avoiding long exposure.

And that is typical with Apollo.
When it came to knowing if the LM could actually land safely on the moon did they test the LM. No.
When it came to knowing if the VABs could be safely transited, did they test animals? No (not that we know about at least).

So you see, its not only the evidence of the landing that is suspect, its their research prior to their claims of landing men on the moon that is suspect as well. And alot of this information JW hasn't even discussed in his videos. We are finding holes in the story like every week

That is a weak argument. You are not showing me how the equipment used would be inadequate for such a mission. You are simply saying, in your opinion, because they did not have all the answers and you cannot figure out how their technology could have gotten them to the moon, they couldn't have done it.

Then address these issues for me:

1) Where are the alleged missing photos you keep referring to?
2) Explain, in detail, how every aspect of the Apollo missions could have been faked. (Again, this does not only involve the filming, but the deception of all those outside the USA who were tracking the feat.)

Unless you can do this, then based on your own reasoning, the Apollo mission could not have been a hoax.

For you to claim that these are not red flags is being intellectually dishonest on your part. Seriously.

And for you to base the belief of a worldwide conspiracy on "red flags" is insufficient.

You are not doing us (people) any favors for getting a true space program off the ground by being an apologist. We all want manned space travel to distance stars to be possible. But it wont be until scientists and politicians stop lying about what is and what is not possible. And to get politicians to stop lying is like asking piranha to stop eating. And to get scientists to stop lying we need to get the politicians to be truthful first... you see our problem here.

Why does it matter? With what you've said, it would be impossible anyway. We are stuck on this planet because even attempting to leave its atmosphere will expose us to deadly radiation that is fatal upon exposure, so why not fake the moon landing and leave people with the belief that at least at one point in time Man did surpass these barriers?

Stop with the generalizations and prove that a majority of their claims are either false, misleading, or misguided. I don't care how cynical you are--stop with the subjectivity and prove how this is relevant. Where has the science presented lied? Where are the discrepancies in the science? If you cannot prove the science wrong, find someone who can. I am tired of your vague arguments which lack any scientific backing--bring forth the "IT DIDN'T HAPPEN" and stop preaching the "THIS IS WHY I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD OR IMPROBABLE FOR IT TO HAVE HAPPENED."

Originally posted by FoosM
Photos. As I have demonstrated on this thread.

Some sites have photos that have been edited, generally for aesthetic reasons. However the originals can always be found. So I don't see why the photos are an issue.

Telemetry data is missing

Only for Apollo 11 as I understand it.

Original blue prints and videos are missing.

The blueprints are not missing. They still exist on microfilm. Not that they'd be of much use for anything.

And only the original slow-scan tapes for Apollo 11 are gone, however they exist in other formats.

Capabilities of the rockets are in question, not to mention the PLSSs.

I guess I missed this part. I don't recall seeing anything about the rockets capabilities being questioned.

Astronaut testimonies contradicting NASA reports and claims. etc.

I'm not sure which which specific claims are contradicting, but are you sure it's not simply a misunderstanding on your part?

I mean something as simple as how the astronauts managed to sleep/eat/work in their LM
hasn't been cleared up.

I don't see what the problem would be. Sure it would be tight and cramped, but do-able. I haven't seen evidence to suggest otherwise.

With all that said. None of what you mentioned here is what I'd call "scientific evidence", which you claimed it was.

NASA has NOT sent any biology (that we are aware of) through the VABs to see
how deadly the radiation in the belts are.

Sending biology would not give you any useful data. Sending probes with instruments and sensors do.

NASA did not do a real world (or real moon) test landing a complicated, yet fragile, ship like the LM on the moon. Without doing so how could they know it would perform as planned?

Umm... what about the Surveyor program? And in what way is the LM "fragile"?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ruserious8D


And again, if you are simply going to argue with the "absence of evidence" approach, despite the presence of all the other evidence, then you yourself must account for the absence of evidence in the conspiracy theories (and just so you know, when comparing NASA's story to that of conspiracy theories, the theories have many more contradictions).

Ummm, you are claiming that NASA has evidence to support their claims.
If such evidence is missing how can you or NASA make your claims?
And if you have other evidence, provide it. Should be easy.

So you're claiming that, in this entire thread, you have not been provided with anything I mentioned in my previous post?

Stop asking for "missing evidence" and start discrediting the evidence provided to you first.

Originally posted by FoosM
"Here is your smoking gun"
"I dont understand your claim"
"Im claiming that this gun was just fired to kill that man"
"I need some clarification"

You see, this can go on and on. You have to put two and two together yourself.
NASA has NOT sent any biology (that we are aware of) through the VABs to see
how deadly the radiation in the belts are.
Without doing so how could they know the dangers of the VABs?

NASA did not do a real world (or real moon) test landing a complicated, yet fragile, ship like the LM on the moon. Without doing so how could they know it would perform as planned?

If you dont see this as red flags in terms of SCIENCE then you cant possibly scrutinize the evidence given to you by the government afterwards.

"We killed Bin Laden this weekend"
"YAY, but where is the body?"
"Buried out in the sea"
"Yay?"

You understand the word "scrutinize," no? If NASA previously lied to us in terms of the science (which you have yet to prove) that is even more reason to subject it to harsh scrutiny. However, several of JW's "science experiments" have been debunked, so that means that you must question all of his work thereafter. In fact, I have yet to read of a HB who has not had at least one theory thoroughly debunked (though true experts have no trouble debunking all their theories from what I've actually observed). So, NASA, by your standards of at some point in time providing false information, is unreliable. Fine, but there are still the Japanese and Indian satellites having located the site and again the matter of the "impossible-to-prerecord" transmissions from the moon received around the world.

Now, you present to me a HB who has not been discredited at one point in time, and I'll accept him as a reliable source whose theories I'll attempt to dispute as you attempt to dispute the sources I just mentioned.

Also, since you want to amuse me with your irrelevant analogies, I'll present you with what I feel I'm confronted with.

"What about the radiation belts?"
"They performed tests."
"Well, they couldn't have known EVERYTHING about radiation, so why did they still go?"
"They were willing to run the risk."
"Preposterous. Progress isn't ever worth the possible loss of human life, so they couldn't have gone."

From what I assume, you're claiming that just because they didn't know everything, they couldn't have accomplished it. Ignorance isn't always death with some luck and precaution. Also, Apollo wouldn't have been necessary if NASA already knew everything.

Again, I don't care about why you THINK they couldn't have accomplished it--I want to see how you KNOW they couldn't accomplish it. Stop trying to make the believers bear the sole burden of proof and provide some of your own.

Originally posted by ruserious8D

You understand the word "scrutinize," no? If NASA previously lied to us in terms of the science (which you have yet to prove) that is even more reason to subject it to harsh scrutiny.

if NASA has lied, how would you know?
Who tell you the truth? NASA?

I can see it now. Sorry folks, but we lied to you.
When have you ever heard a government agency admitting to lying?


Come on, its up to us to keep these people from lying.
But if you want to attack the messenger, you want to believe in your government go right a head.
They are the bastions of truth after all, right

They would never lie to their citizens!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ruserious8D

You understand the word "scrutinize," no? If NASA previously lied to us in terms of the science (which you have yet to prove) that is even more reason to subject it to harsh scrutiny.

if NASA has lied, how would you know?
Who tell you the truth? NASA?

I can see it now. Sorry folks, but we lied to you.
When have you ever heard a government agency admitting to lying?

Come on, its up to us to keep these people from lying.
But if you want to attack the messenger, you want to believe in your government go right a head.
They are the bastions of truth after all, right

They would never lie to their citizens!

Oh dear me...Scrutinize means to examine something closely and carefully, so yes, if I were to discover that my government had ever lied to me, I'd scrutinize anything that they presented to me to be taken as truth for a VERY long time to assure myself of a total absence of any discrepancies.

So, now that we've dealt with that little irrelevancy, please properly address the real issue at hand, for I must retire soon because of class tomorrow.

Originally posted by ruserious8D


You understand the word "scrutinize," no? If NASA previously lied to us in terms of the science (which you have yet to prove) that is even more reason to subject it to harsh scrutiny.

You said you like debates.
Ok, lets debate. Lets talk about Apollo 12.

Did NASA lie regarding an Apollo 12 SEVA?
Yes or No?

You can read this for background:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ruserious8D

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ruserious8D

You understand the word "scrutinize," no? If NASA previously lied to us in terms of the science (which you have yet to prove) that is even more reason to subject it to harsh scrutiny.

if NASA has lied, how would you know?
Who tell you the truth? NASA?

I can see it now. Sorry folks, but we lied to you.
When have you ever heard a government agency admitting to lying?

Come on, its up to us to keep these people from lying.
But if you want to attack the messenger, you want to believe in your government go right a head.
They are the bastions of truth after all, right

They would never lie to their citizens!

Oh dear me...Scrutinize means to examine something closely and carefully, so yes, if I were to discover that my government had ever lied to me, I'd scrutinize anything that they presented to me to be taken as truth for a VERY long time to assure myself of a total absence of any discrepancies.

So your claim is that your government has never lied to you?
And please tell me which government that is so I can immigrate.

Originally posted by FoosM
So your claim is that your government has never lied to you?
And please tell me which government that is so I can immigrate.

Again, irrelevant, but I'll explain this VERY carefully so that you do not misinterpret it yet again.

You stated that because NASA has lied before, we shouldn't "scrutinize" any evidence they provide. I merely pointed out that BECAUSE of that alleged lie, that gives us reason to "examine [the evidence] closely and carefully," which is the definition of scrutiny. In other words, I am actually AGREEING that once a lie has been revealed, everything else cannot simply be taken at face-value. However, where you and I differ is that when an astounding amount of outside evidence supporting said "liar's" position (be it an individual or an organization) is taken into account, I'm inclined to finally believe it, despite the previous deceit.

As for now, I must sleep. I have class, but I will address your question tomorrow. (Now if you would actually address some of mine, or else you will in no way be entitled to an answer from me.)