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: 464
377
<< 461  462  463    465  466  467 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So lets leave DJ out of this because he blew his story when he made the claims.
And blew his credibility when he continued to make such claims after it was shown to him that he was incorrect.


Where was I shown to be incorrect? Isn't that the question you have been trying to avoid?




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Why does (someone) have so much trouble comprehending this simple fact??



If the recording machine is at the same location as the responder, there will be no delay between a question and the response.



What would be the easiest way to show them (him)? IF there were some way to get recordings that were made, simultaneously, of the same radio conversations, it would be perfect.

A recording from the Astronauts' location (and, from their end), at distance (when on the Moon, or even while on orbit above the Moon).

And, the same communications recorded from perspective of Mission Control here on Earth.

Played together and overlapping, if t were possible to mix them in audio software, that way.....with time references annotated....

To an experienced, rational listener, the examples of the time delay are very obvious. So, is it worth the time and effort to educate just one person, here on ATS? I don't know.






edit on Tue 24 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
We have it over the delay between earth and the moon.
The transmissions didnt always go directly to the USA (mission control), correct?
What was the delay between continents?
Spain to the US, and Australia to the US.
How much of a delay was added?
Well, by undersea cable, Houston to Australia (14,000 km) would take about 0.05 seconds. Houston to Spain (8,000 km) would take about 0.03 seconds. Anywhere via geosynchronous satellite (74,000 km) would take about 0.25 seconds.

But it doesn't matter where the signal went, if it was ultimately being recorded at mission control. If the recording machine is at the same location as the responder, there will be no delay between a question and the response.


You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?


On telephone calls between continents that are routed via a geosynchronous satellite, the time between when one person stops speaking and then hears the other person reply is half a second. This can cause immense confusion if the other person starts speaking before the first has finished. It can take several sentences before the confusion is finally sorted out. Two-way digital communication between machines at high data rates suffers from this problem even more acutely, and protocols must be established which prevent conflicts arising


Many examples of astronauts talking to mission control and not saying "over" or "roger" or some word or communication phraseology indicating that they were finished talking. That makes no sense not to use such indicators over such long distances.


www.spaceacademy.net.au...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So lets leave DJ out of this because he blew his story when he made the claims.
And blew his credibility when he continued to make such claims after it was shown to him that he was incorrect.


Where was I shown to be incorrect? Isn't that the question you have been trying to avoid?


Back when you made your post.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Whatever recording machine. It doesn't matter.

Where the recording machine is placed will affect where the delay shows up in the conversation.

If a guy in Houston hears an astronaut ask "Is it night time there?" He can answer immediately. If the recording machine is sitting next to the guy in Houston, it obviously doesn't record any delay between the astronaut's question and the answer from Houston. If the recording machine is on the spacecraft, it will record a delay because it takes 1.28 seconds for the astronaut's question to get to Earth and 1.28 seconds for the response to come back.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So lets leave DJ out of this because he blew his story when he made the claims.
And blew his credibility when he continued to make such claims after it was shown to him that he was incorrect.


Where was I shown to be incorrect? Isn't that the question you have been trying to avoid?


Back when you made your post.


Perhaps you'd care to boost your own credibility a tad by linking to the post where it's proven that I was incorrect? If it's the post I think you're thinking about, I'm sure newcomers to this thread will find it both entertaining and enlightening.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So lets leave DJ out of this because he blew his story when he made the claims.
And blew his credibility when he continued to make such claims after it was shown to him that he was incorrect.


Where was I shown to be incorrect? Isn't that the question you have been trying to avoid?


Back when you made your post.


Perhaps you'd care to boost your own credibility a tad by linking to the post where it's proven that I was incorrect? If it's the post I think you're thinking about, I'm sure newcomers to this thread will find it both entertaining and enlightening.


You have a knack of finding posts very fast.
So Im sure you can find the rebuttals as well.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063


So lets take this in small chunks to find out.

What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?
No. You're moving the goalposts. You're trying to make me prove JW is wrong all over again, instead of acknowledging the proven fact he said something incorrect, or my point about the shielding earlier. Whether it was deliberate or accidental I do not claim to know, but it happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah flashed a source on screen. DJ looked it up, and found that the numbers Jarrah was quoting were the unshielded dose of radiation.


Found out? JW stated it. Nothing to find out.
Jarrah said that was the dose the astronauts would've received.


Timestamp 5:57

Given that the maximun dose of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 rem, that means the astronauts would've received 1,333.34 rem, or 2.6 times the lethal dose, in the belts alone.


That is the amount the Kovalev claimed the astronauts would receive unshielded. In other words, floating naked in space.


So lets leave DJ out of this because he blew his story when he made the claims.
And blew his credibility when he continued to make such claims after it was shown to him that he was incorrect.
He wasn't. You're just in denial, trying to twist logic into a pretzel so that Jarrah wasn't wrong, because it means that you've been wrong for supporting him, and your ego can't take that idea.



End of story?
You quickly through around some words and conclude end of story?
You are not showing how you come to your conclusion.
I did. Your cognitive bias is preventing you from understanding it.


What dose did the astronauts receive, and what kind of shielding, and how thick would they need to block
that dose? Where do you get this information from?
No. Present information of your own to rebut me. Not Youtube videos. Actual facts. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

In fact, I challenge you to find the thickness of the skin of the crafts, if you don't think it was survivable.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Whatever recording machine. It doesn't matter.

Where the recording machine is placed will affect where the delay shows up in the conversation.

If a guy in Houston hears an astronaut ask "Is it night time there?" He can answer immediately. If the recording machine is sitting next to the guy in Houston, it obviously doesn't record any delay between the astronaut's question and the answer from Houston. If the recording machine is on the spacecraft, it will record a delay because it takes 1.28 seconds for the astronaut's question to get to Earth and 1.28 seconds for the response to come back.


Yes so, the example I gave the audio was coming from the spacecraft.
Yet we didnt hear a delay when Houston answered.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Question everything, present nothing, admit nothing. That's the FoosM way.


Originally posted by FoosM
You have a knack of finding posts very fast.
So Im sure you can find the rebuttals as well.
So you can't actually prove the post exists. Quelle surprise.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063


So lets take this in small chunks to find out.

What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?
No. You're moving the goalposts. You're trying to make me prove JW is wrong all over again, instead of acknowledging the proven fact he said something incorrect, or my point about the shielding earlier. Whether it was deliberate or accidental I do not claim to know, but it happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah flashed a source on screen. DJ looked it up, and found that the numbers Jarrah was quoting were the unshielded dose of radiation.


Found out? JW stated it. Nothing to find out.
Jarrah said that was the dose the astronauts would've received.


Timestamp 5:57

Given that the maximun dose of radiation one can receive before dying is 500 rem, that means the astronauts would've received 1,333.34 rem, or 2.6 times the lethal dose, in the belts alone.


That is the amount the Kovalev claimed the astronauts would receive unshielded. In other words, floating naked in space.


So what exactly is the problem with what JW stated?

Now go further, you have the 1,333.34 rem.
What kind of radiation is it?
What material would stop it and how thick would it have to be?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Question everything, present nothing, admit nothing. That's the FoosM way.


Originally posted by FoosM
You have a knack of finding posts very fast.
So Im sure you can find the rebuttals as well.
So you can't actually prove the post exists. Quelle surprise.


Nice try in attempting to rewrite history.
I present more information, discussion points, analysis in one post than you have in all of yours.
Your mission is create distance and confusion from relevant posts by posting noise. You are not fooling anybody by doing so.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Question everything, present nothing, admit nothing. That's the FoosM way.


Originally posted by FoosM
You have a knack of finding posts very fast.
So Im sure you can find the rebuttals as well.
So you can't actually prove the post exists. Quelle surprise.


Nice try in attempting to rewrite history.
I present more information, discussion points, analysis in one post than you have in all of yours.
Your mission is create distance and confusion from relevant posts by posting noise. You are not fooling anybody by doing so.

Then find the link.

I think it's plenty relevant that you can't admit JW is wrong on even a single point. That indicates you would be incapable of admitting any of his claims about the moon landing were wrong. Your debating technique largely consists of asking for "proof", questioning every little detail, refusing to acknowledge the points against your position, making snide remarks, and presenting very little evidence yourself.
edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So what exactly is the problem with what JW stated?

Now go further, you have the 1,333.34 rem.
What kind of radiation is it?
What material would stop it and how thick would it have to be?
Wait a second, something's wrong...something's missing from your quote of my post.

No. Present information of your own to rebut me. Not Youtube videos. Actual facts. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

In fact, I challenge you to find the thickness of the skin of the crafts, if you don't think it was survivable.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Put up, DodgM. How thick was the skin of the Apollo 11 craft in the official story, and how much would it have reduced the radiation the astronauts got, if at all?

I'm not going into the type of radiation, as that was already covered several dozen pages ago, and can be found with a few seconds worth of Googling, if you cared to actually present evidence instead of moving goalposts constantly. As can the type and density of the material in question. Certain types of ionizing radiation can be blocked by a sheet of paper or plain ol' skin, for crying out loud.

And stop ignoring the fact that Jarrah posted the unshielded numbers and claimed that they would've been what the astronauts got in the OS. No wiggle room. He made a definitive statement. Since the report he quoted says that even a mm of shielding would've significantly reduced exposure, how much shielding does the official story say the astronauts had? How thick does the official story claim the skin of the command module was? How much would this thickness have reduced the radiation exposure?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
See, FoosM, I'm pretty sure I know what the problem is here. you can question others' numbers all day, but your ego doesn't let you question your own sources, which is why you are always so reluctant to go and look up things yourself, or admit Jarrah was wrong on even the slightest little thing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The charts DJ posted here are in a publicly accessible document.
w3.tue.nl...
Which references the same paper Jarrah does. You want fig 13 on the page numbered 19 in the lower-right corner.

Note the greatly reduced amount of exposure on the first table on the page, with a 1g.cm^2 shield.

How thick was the shield on Apollo 11?
edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/25 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Whatever recording machine. It doesn't matter.

Where the recording machine is placed will affect where the delay shows up in the conversation.

If a guy in Houston hears an astronaut ask "Is it night time there?" He can answer immediately. If the recording machine is sitting next to the guy in Houston, it obviously doesn't record any delay between the astronaut's question and the answer from Houston. If the recording machine is on the spacecraft, it will record a delay because it takes 1.28 seconds for the astronaut's question to get to Earth and 1.28 seconds for the response to come back.


Yes so, the example I gave the audio was coming from the spacecraft.
Yet we didnt hear a delay when Houston answered.
No, your example was from the transcripts, which were made from recordings made here on Earth. Hence, no delay between the end of the astronaut talking and Houston responding.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
You keep bringing up this recording machine.
What recording machine? And what does that have to do with communication between the
astronauts and mission control?
Whatever recording machine. It doesn't matter.

Where the recording machine is placed will affect where the delay shows up in the conversation.

If a guy in Houston hears an astronaut ask "Is it night time there?" He can answer immediately. If the recording machine is sitting next to the guy in Houston, it obviously doesn't record any delay between the astronaut's question and the answer from Houston. If the recording machine is on the spacecraft, it will record a delay because it takes 1.28 seconds for the astronaut's question to get to Earth and 1.28 seconds for the response to come back.


Yes so, the example I gave the audio was coming from the spacecraft.
Yet we didnt hear a delay when Houston answered.
No, your example was from the transcripts, which were made from recordings made here on Earth. Hence, no delay between the end of the astronaut talking and Houston responding.


No Nat, I gave two examples from actual videos.
One video you claimed that it could have been edited.
The other, you didnt say anything when I asked, if the sound we heard from the live transmission came from the spacecraft.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
So what exactly is the problem with what JW stated?

Now go further, you have the 1,333.34 rem.
What kind of radiation is it?
What material would stop it and how thick would it have to be?
Wait a second, something's wrong...something's missing from your quote of my post.

No. Present information of your own to rebut me. Not Youtube videos. Actual facts. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.


No? Thats a childlike response.
I dont have to rebut you, you have to rebut JW.
You stated that JW was wrong, but you haven't shown how.
You just link to other posters who themselves dont explain how JW is wrong.
You guys are going around in a circle...








In fact, I challenge you to find the thickness of the skin of the crafts, if you don't think it was survivable.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Put up, DodgM. How thick was the skin of the Apollo 11 craft in the official story, and how much would it have reduced the radiation the astronauts got, if at all?




You sure you want me to post thickness of the Apollo craft?
Which craft would you like me to use? The CM or the LM?





I'm not going into the type of radiation,



Why not? Did you post the forms of radiation that can be found in the belts or did somebody else?
Did you double check their findings to make sure you weren't just blindly agreeing with somebody just because they believed Apollo landed men on the moon?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No Nat, I gave two examples from actual videos.
One video you claimed that it could have been edited.
The other, you didnt say anything when I asked, if the sound we heard from the live transmission came from the spacecraft.


Sorry, I really don't get what you are saying, nor do I understand why you can't seem to grasp this concept.

All of the TV signals, and all of the audio (except the onboard voice recorders, which you rarely hear due to limited coverage and low quality), was recorded here on Earth.

"Live" TV video and the audio were recorded here on Earth. Recordings of mission control responding to the astronauts were recorded here on Earth. So none of that stuff is going to show a delay between when the astronauts ask something and when mission control can respond.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
No Nat, I gave two examples from actual videos.
One video you claimed that it could have been edited.
The other, you didnt say anything when I asked, if the sound we heard from the live transmission came from the spacecraft.


Sorry, I really don't get what you are saying, nor do I understand why you can't seem to grasp this concept.

All of the TV signals, and all of the audio (except the onboard voice recorders, which you rarely hear due to limited coverage and low quality), was recorded here on Earth.

"Live" TV video and the audio were recorded here on Earth. Recordings of mission control responding to the astronauts were recorded here on Earth. So none of that stuff is going to show a delay between when the astronauts ask something and when mission control can respond.



Nat do you realize you just took away any indication that what the public saw during the Apollo missions was live? You have just stated that everything was recorded on Earth. Even the proof of sound delay has now been taken away. I know what you mean by that, but ostensibly, there is no proof that they were actually on their way to the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 461  462  463    465  466  467 >>

log in

join