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: 465
377
<< 462  463  464    466  467  468 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


NO, he didn't.....


>sigh<

Please, DO try to keep up. There is a way to help you, but it just hasn't been found, yet.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


What? I can be watching a TV program live, but also be recording it with my DVR at the same time. I can be watching a Little League game live in person, and record it with my video camera. I can be talking on the phone with someone live, and record it with a tape recorder. Just because it's *also* being recorded at the time doesn't mean that some people aren't experiencing the event live.


jra

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


No he didn't. It was broadcast live to the world, while at the same time, a copy was being recorded. Which is what we use to re-watch the Apollo missions. Just like when you are watching something on TV and you are recording it with your VCR/PVR at the same time, so you can watch it again later.


Even the proof of sound delay has now been taken away.


No it hasn't. There is still a 1.28 sec delay between Apollo and MCC. We just don't hear the delay from MCC responding to Apollo since everything was recorded on the Earth side of the transmissions. This isn't rocket science.


there is no proof that they were actually on their way to the moon.


There is plenty of evidence. Just because you try to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


What? I can be watching a TV program live, but also be recording it with my DVR at the same time. I can be watching a Little League game live in person, and record it with my video camera. I can be talking on the phone with someone live, and record it with a tape recorder. Just because it's *also* being recorded at the time doesn't mean that some people aren't experiencing the event live.


Nat, thats not what you said.
First, your new explanation is making what you stated earlier fall apart.

Let say you are watching a live TV show halfway across the world.
You decide to call that TV show.

For posterity, you decide to record that TV show, what are you recording, the TV SHOW or
your voice calling the TV show? Because if you are recording that TV show, you will hear your voice being delayed on the show.

But what you have been saying is that actually, you are recording both your voice in your room, and also your voice being transmitted to the live TV show. But if thats true, you would be recording your voice as an echo. You will be getting feedback. Because your voice coming from through the Live TV show is heard after you say it in your room. How would it be possible to only record your voice in your room, and not record the voice being transmitted to the live TV show?

But lets get back what you just said in your last post.
You said the live transmissions that were shown to the public were actually recorded transmissions.
Recordings were shown to the public. That means its cant be proven to be live. The nature of it being recorded means it has to be transmitted after the event. That means it could have been recorded at anytime earlier.
A hour earlier, a day earlier, a month earlier.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


No he didn't. It was broadcast live to the world, while at the same time, a copy was being recorded. Which is what we use to re-watch the Apollo missions. Just like when you are watching something on TV and you are recording it with your VCR/PVR at the same time, so you can watch it again later.




So only NASA made recordings?
If we see the re-transmission from BBC it was not originally recorded by the BBC it comes edited from NASA?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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

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


Still waiting dutch boy Rob, err 000063, which spacecraft do you want me to use?
the CM or the LM?


To save weight, there were no seats in the LM. Engineers also minimized the thickness of the metal sheets covering the structure—paper-thin in some places.


edit on 25-5-2011 by FoosM because: www.museumofflight.org...



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

Originally posted by FoosM
Nat, thats not what you said.
First, your new explanation is making what you stated earlier fall apart.

Let say you are watching a live TV show halfway across the world.
You decide to call that TV show.

For posterity, you decide to record that TV show, what are you recording, the TV SHOW or
your voice calling the TV show? Because if you are recording that TV show, you will hear your voice being delayed on the show.

But what you have been saying is that actually, you are recording both your voice in your room, and also your voice being transmitted to the live TV show. But if thats true, you would be recording your voice as an echo. You will be getting feedback. Because your voice coming from through the Live TV show is heard after you say it in your room. How would it be possible to only record your voice in your room, and not record the voice being transmitted to the live TV show?


You're right about that. If you call the TV show and then the TV broadcasts your audio, you would record an echo. But that's not what happens on space missions. The recording, made at Mission Control, records what's spoken at Misson Control, as it's said at Mission Control. The audio is not broadcast to the spacecraft and then back to Mission Control to be recorded. The audio transmitted from the spacecraft is just the astronauts' side of the communication.






Originally posted by FoosM
But lets get back what you just said in your last post.
You said the live transmissions that were shown to the public were actually recorded transmissions.
Recordings were shown to the public. That means its cant be proven to be live. The nature of it being recorded means it has to be transmitted after the event. That means it could have been recorded at anytime earlier.
A hour earlier, a day earlier, a month earlier.
I didn't say recordings were shown to public. I said that the live TV and audio broadcasts from the spacecraft were recorded on Earth. Obviously they had to be recorded, as that's how we have them now listen to and look at. But they were also shown live. The signals received can be recorded and shown live at the same point.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



which spacecraft do you want me to use?
the CM or the LM?


use some common sense - if you have any

hint - which module did the astronauts travel through the van allen belts in

big hint - they used the same module on the out going an return trip

massive hint - they left the LM [ descent stage ] on the lunar surface , and the LM [ ascent stage ] in orbit

got it yet ?????????



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out if FoosM honestly doesn't understand where the delays are in interplanetary communications. Are you just trying to avoid linking to the post where I was allegedly proven to be incorrect? Not even you could intentionally appear that dim in order to duck having to apologize. Here, let me explain it for you you. I am talking to an astronaut one light second away. You are sitting next to me. I say: "Do you read me?" It takes one second to reach the astronaut. The moment he hears me, he instantly says: "Yes, I copy. Do you read me?" It took one second for my message to reach the astronaut, and another second for his reply to reach me. Total elapsed time, two seconds, right? Okay, now the moment I receive his reply, I say: "Roger, I copy." Let's do the math. Elapsed time between my first "Do you read me?" and the response: two seconds. My response to the reply? Instantaneous. Another second for that reply to travel out to the astronaut, another instantaneous reply, another second to return, elapsed time two seconds, but my response, witnessed by you, is instantaneous. Got it? Now, where did someone prove me to be incorrect when I pointed out that Kovalev's data actually agreed with NASA's?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 



which spacecraft do you want me to use?
the CM or the LM?


use some common sense - if you have any

hint - which module did the astronauts travel through the van allen belts in

big hint - they used the same module on the out going an return trip

massive hint - they left the LM [ descent stage ] on the lunar surface , and the LM [ ascent stage ] in orbit

got it yet ?????????



In the movie The Shining there is one scene where you see six cases of a popular brand of soft drink called 7up. Think about what you just said. Why hasn't everyone else come to the same conclusion as you have? Why did you only get a couple of stars? People's posts that usually attack me get more stars, lol.



Average Radiation Exposure
For Apollo Flight Crews
Apollo
Mission Skin dosage
(rads)

11 0.18
12 0.58
13 0.24
14 1.14
15 0.30
16 0.51
17 0.55

(Bailey, J. Vernon, "Radiation Protection and Instrumentation",
in Biomedical Results of Apollo, Johnson Space Center.)


You think you still deserve any stars?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


Originally posted by FoosM
But lets get back what you just said in your last post.
You said the live transmissions that were shown to the public were actually recorded transmissions.
Recordings were shown to the public. That means its cant be proven to be live. The nature of it being recorded means it has to be transmitted after the event. That means it could have been recorded at anytime earlier.
A hour earlier, a day earlier, a month earlier.
I didn't say recordings were shown to public. I said that the live TV and audio broadcasts from the spacecraft were recorded on Earth. Obviously they had to be recorded, as that's how we have them now listen to and look at. But they were also shown live. The signals received can be recorded and shown live at the same point.


Ok, so if it was shown live. Would the public hear the delays one would have communicating between Earth and the space craft?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


you now posting exposure does that are relativly benign - have you accepted that JW is wrong ?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


you now posting exposure does that are relativly benign - have you accepted that JW is wrong ?


I am dropping hints, giving you clues ignorant_ape.
I think you know the answer, but you dont want to lose face by admitting you are wrong.
And by admitting you are wrong, you as well as many others, including NASA, will have to find a way to explain those radiation exposures. Because they are lies.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey I don't know the answer. So can you stop "giving clues" and just post the "fact" that in your opinion proves that those exposures are a lie. Please dont spam with any more of the stuff that you have tried though since those were already answered to and debunked. Thx.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey I don't know the answer. So can you stop "giving clues" and just post the "fact" that in your opinion proves that those exposures are a lie. Please dont spam with any more of the stuff that you have tried though since those were already answered to and debunked. Thx.




use some common sense - if you have any

hint - which module did the astronauts travel through the van allen belts in

big hint - they used the same module on the out going an return trip

massive hint - they left the LM [ descent stage ] on the lunar surface , and the LM [ ascent stage ] in orbit

got it yet ?????????


Its right there.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   


The crew compartment was cylindrical in section in a welded and riveted construction, 92 inches in diameter and 42 inches deep, giving a habitable volume of 160 cubic feet, just sufficient for the two crewmembers to stand side by side. Due to the weight saving programs the compartment skin was reduced to a thickness of 0.012 inches, the equivalent of approximately three layers of kitchen foil. The crew were restrained in a standing position by spring loaded straps to the side of the compartment and its floor.






edit on 26-5-2011 by FoosM because: www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


are you really naturally that dense - or do you have training ????

no member of the crew was in the LM during the passage throught the van allen belts - or the transit to lunar orbit

further more - they wore thier space suits the entire time [ they were in the LM ]



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


are you really naturally that dense - or do you have training ????
no member of the crew was in the LM during the passage throught the van allen belts - or the transit to lunar orbit
further more - they wore thier space suits the entire time [ they were in the LM ]


I'm not sure if Foosm is dense but I know you are if you honestly believe this,

they wore thier space suits the entire time they were in the LM



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by ignorant_apefurther more - they wore thier space suits the entire time [ they were in the LM ]


I'm not sure if Foosm is dense but I know you are if you honestly believe this,

they wore thier space suits the entire time they were in the LM



read this

the intra vehicular suit is a complete pressure suit - that provides ALL the radiation protection for the astronaut

the EVA gloves and helmet offer more protection than the intravehicle units - and the EVA boots are simply protective over shoes to prevent mechanical damage to the pressure suit

i stand by my assertion



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No? Thats a childlike response.
This is rather hypocritical from the guy who likes to go "Prove it! Prove it! Prove it!" over and over.


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...
JW quoted a number and claimed that it was exposure the astronauts would've gotten. DJ went and found a paper that used the same source Jarrah would' claims he used. The numbers in the table, which Jarrah used, were the unshielded numbers. Shielding would've reduced the exposure.

If you're asserting Jarrah was right on that point, you have to know how much shielding or lack thereof the official story claims the astronauts had.


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?
Command module. The one they actually travelled in. The hull thickness, to remove as much ambiguity as possible. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the astronaut's clothes would've had a negligible effect on the "deadly space radiation".




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?
Yes, I did. I used the IRPA9 paper, which quotes the Kovalev paper, which is the same one Jarrah used, albeit incorrectly. If the evidence is good enough for him to use, it's good enough to use to rebut him.

Say, you have read the IRPA paper, right? This paper? Right here? Page with 19 in the lower left corner. That was published in the mid 90s, meaning Kovalev's work still holds up to modern scrutiny.
edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/26 by 000063 because: ++



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 462  463  464    466  467  468 >>

log in

join