Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


This Incredulity/Disingenuousness gambit is getting really old.

To answer your question: Other communists, and communist elements in the USA. If they could prove, in an international court of law, that the US faked the landings, that would be a staggering blow. In fact, they could use their own partisan press to do so, or the press in any country that was capitalist but not necessarily a US ally, such as Switzerland. And remember, there were several independent countries who provided confirmation, such as Germany and Spain. And that's just for 11.

Quoting only the last point is a change, but I wonder if you would do that if I hadn't pointed out your usual tactics. You're going to show us all a contemporary Russian source that presented evidence the landings were fake, right? Because since you asked me if I spoke Russian, I'm going to assume you actually have such a source, right? Not just empty rhetoric?

EDIT: What if I do speak Russian?

Originally posted by hateeternal

Originally posted by curiouswa

Originally posted by -PLB-
It all looked a bit too much like myth busters, including the "busted" stamp and totally flawed experiments.

I just love it when people make remarks like this without backing up their claim to debunk. Do your own research and present your findings. Don't leave remarks that you can't back up.

Quoting something from the 1st page tells me a lot about your "research" aswell.

Still waiting for that timeline....

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM

 

This Incredulity/Disingenuousness gambit is getting really old.

To answer your question: Other communists, and communist elements in the USA. If they could prove, in an international court of law, that the US faked the landings, that would be a staggering blow. In fact, they could use their own partisan press to do so, or the press in any country that was capitalist but not necessarily a US ally, such as Switzerland. ]

What!?



I doubt you believe what you just wrote.
I mean really!
In what world would communists, during the cold war, right after McCarthy, out themselves in the US to bring to court the US to accuse them of faking the moonlanding?
I mean, are you serious? This is your defense, your rationale?
Where would these communists get their evidence?
Who would pay for their court case?

reply to post by FoosM


You're conflating US communists with the USSR. They would be the ones making the case. You asked who would "believe" the USSR, and I said US and worldwide communists. How you managed to get the idea at the US communists, and only the US communists, would be presenting the information is beyond me. I will attempt to eliminate any further potential ambiguity, so as to reduce the odds of these little misunderstandings.

In addition to using communist and neutral press to spread word of capitalist perfidy, the USSR could also simply send their research to every university with an appropriate dept. in the world. Even if the US somehow managed to arm-twist all the capitalist ones into claiming the USSR was wrong, it's going to look pretty suspicious when they say the USSR's proof is wrong, and everyone else says it's right.

Also, you're now calling me a liar, based on your misunderstanding of my post.

Are you going to present that Russian evidence now? Or are you just going to be incredulous without facts and use "" emotes? Also, what if I do, in fact, speak Russian? What relevance does that have? Are you actively incapable of refuting a post point-by-point?


Oh, and third and final time: what would you consider unquestionable proof that the landings happened?

reply to post by FoosM

When are yo going to admit that you made a mistake?

What mistake did I make? If you explain what you think it is, I'll admit to it if it's actually a mistake. Your continued silence can only mean you are embarrassed by your own mistakes... and, especially, faulty logic.

Solar Wind


According to NASA Solar Wind can damage space ships and astronauts.
Again.
According to NASA Solar Wind can damage space ships and astronauts.

We are not talking about CMEs, or FLARES, just the WIND.

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

The continuous stream of particles flowing outward from the Sun was first suggested by British astronomer Richard C. Carrington. In 1859, Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently made the first observation of what would later be called a solar flare. This is a sudden outburst of energy from the Sun's atmosphere. On the following day, a geomagnetic storm was observed, and Carrington suspected that there might be a connection. George Fitzgerald later suggested that matter was being regularly accelerated away from the Sun and was reaching the Earth after several days.

The solar wind is divided into two components, respectively termed the slow solar wind and the fast solar wind. The slow solar wind has a velocity of about 400 km/s, a temperature of 1.4–1.6×106 K and a composition that is a close match to the corona. By contrast, the fast solar wind has a typical velocity of 750 km/s, a temperature of 8×105 K and it nearly matches the composition of the Sun's photosphere.[20] The slow solar wind is twice as dense and more variable in intensity than the fast solar wind. The slow wind also has a more complex structure, with turbulent regions and large-scale structures.

The solar wind is responsible for the overall shape of Earth's magnetosphere, and fluctuations in its speed, density, direction, and entrained magnetic field strongly affect Earth's local space environment. For example, the levels of ionizing radiation and radio interference can vary by factors of hundreds to thousands; and the shape and location of the magnetopause and bow shock wave upstream of it can change by several Earth radii, exposing geosynchronous satellites to the direct solar wind. These phenomena are collectively called space weather.

www.astrosurf.com...

Mercury, the nearest planet to the Sun, bears the full brunt of the solar wind, and its atmosphere is vestigial and transient, its surface bathed in radiation.
Mercury has an intrinsic magnetic field, for normal solar wind conditions, the solar wind cannot penetrate the magnetosphere created around Mercury, but particles only reach the surface in the cusp regions. During coronal mass ejections however, the magnetopause may get pressed into the surface of the planet, and thus in these conditions, the solar wind may interact freely with the planetary surface.

Earth itself is largely protected from the solar wind by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles; however some of the charged particles are trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt. A smaller number of particles from the solar wind manage to travel, as though on an electromagnetic energy transmission line, to the Earth's upper atmosphere and ionosphere in the auroral zones. The only time the solar wind is observable on the Earth is when it is strong enough to produce phenomena such as the aurora and geomagnetic storms.

The Earth's Moon has no atmosphere or intrinsic magnetic field, and consequently its surface is bombarded with the full solar wind. The Project Apollo missions deployed passive aluminum collectors in an attempt to sample the solar wind, and lunar soil returned for study confirmed that the lunar regolith is enriched in atomic nuclei deposited from the solar wind. There has been speculation that these elements may prove to be useful resources for future lunar colonies.

Notice how the information on Wiki doesnt even discuss the fact that the moon surface should be as irradiated as Mercury.

And lets not forget what the Apollo astronauts missed:

Recently the studies of the solar wind – moon interaction became unexpectedly relevant to the fundamental question for the lunar research, namely, the presence of water on the Moon. Since the first sample return missions of the 1960s, lunar scientists firmly believed that the Moon is entirely dry. The data recently obtained by Chandrayaan-1 and the re-analyzed observations from Cassini and Deep Impact fly-by’s challenged that notion: infrared spectroscopic measurements have unambiguously detected absorptions near 3 μm on the lunar surface that are almost certainly due to hydroxyl and/or water. The absorption line strength increases toward the lunar poles and the spectral feature varies in strength with time, suggesting that the water is in a process of rapid and dynamic migration across the lunar surface. Two most important continuous sources of water include (1) reduction of lunar divalent iron in minerals to metallic iron by solar wind protons being implanted into the surface, producing water, and (2) liberation of water from the impact of interplanetary dust and small meteoroids. All these recent findings and discoveries clear indicate that our knowledge of the only Earth’s moon is surprisingly limited.

Debunk NASA.... or agree with them:

NASA's THEMIS mission has overturned a longstanding belief about the interaction between solar particles and Earth's magnetic field.

NASA says that Solar Wind feeds the Radiation Belts that can damage spacecraft and harm astronauts. And I doubt they mean naked floating people.

So in essence, doesnt the Van Allen radiation belt extend all the way to the moon due to the fact it is composed by the elements of the Solar Wind? In other words, just because you get past the VABs doesn't mean you get past high energetic solar particles being streamed by the Sun's Solar Wind.



en.wikipedia.org...
agenda.albanova.se...

FoosM? Spamming barely-related information in a long post in an effort to change the subject from uncomfortable questions and facts he refuses to acknowledge? Well, I never.

Well, that, along with responding to only parts of people's posts with nothing more than s and unsupported incredulity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And it shows us that Apollogists are ready to admit they dont know what is going on, but wont admit that Hoax believers could be correct. But that doesnt make sense, if you dont know what is going on, you cant come to the conclusion that someone is wrong. Unless there is a clear mistake with his argument.

You have changed from "we can't prove anything"(argument to ignorance) to "it was a hoax", over the last six pages or so, and that first one was after your repeated assertions throughout the thread that there was a hoax. You only changed it because DJ cornered you, but went right back to your actual stance the second the subject was changed. By your own logic, there's something wrong with your argument. In fact, I can only recall one instance in all the pages of the thread I've read where you've admitted you were wrong. Otherwise, you just lie low and try to razzle-dazzle everyone. I mean, did you ever admit that moon landing mockumentary was exactly that?

I admitted the HBs could be right, and explained what it would take for me to believe it, and you just responded with empty rhetoric, quote-mining again. Meanwhile, I've asked you what you would accept as proof the landings happened, and you never answered.

Here's the thing, FoosM; you claim to be a skeptic, yet you have never sat down and figured out your falsifiability conditions. Unless one knows how one could be wrong, one never knows how one could be right. You admit to having nothing more then questions and "anomalies", yet you act like these anomalies conclusively prove the landings were a hoax, and ignore the fact that thousands of independent scientists and facilities have confirmed the evidence. I ask you again: what would you consider proof of the landings?

Originally posted by FoosM

Notice how the information on Wiki doesnt even discuss the fact that the moon surface should be as irradiated as Mercury.

You can't be serious...your saying that the moon is has irradiated by the solar winds as Mercury is??

Mercury Minimum Distance from Sun: 46.0 million km - 28.6 million miles
Moon distance from the sun It averages out to about 93 million miles.

The moon's average distance from the sun is the same as the earth's average distance from the sun. When you think about it ... the moon orbits around the earth, so it's closer to the sun half the time, and farther from the sun half the time ... averaging out to the same distance from the sun as the earth is.

In any case, the moon averages 238,000 miles from the earth, which is less than 1/4 million, and that doesn't make much difference compared to the 93 million average between the earth and the sun ... less than 1/4 of 1 percent.

wiki.answers.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

So in essence, doesnt the Van Allen radiation belt extend all the way to the moon due to the fact it is composed by the elements of the Solar Wind? In other words, just because you get past the VABs doesn't mean you get past high energetic solar particles being streamed by the Sun's Solar Wind.

edit on 12-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

Suffice it to say: no. The VAB and Solar Wind are two different things. The VAB is in Earth's magnetosphere. Solar wind delivers many of the particles, but not all. The moon is not within the belt. Any impact the solar wind would have on the moon is separate from the VAB.

reply to post by FoosM

According to NASA Solar Wind can damage space ships and astronauts.

Correct, however there are interplanetary probes that have been functioning happily in deep space for over a decade. Salt water is highly corrosive and untrained humans can drown in it, yet the Queen Mary is doing fine and people can swim the English Channel. What is your point?

Notice how the information on Wiki doesnt even discuss the fact that the moon surface should be as irradiated as Mercury.

Because it isn't. I suggest you look up the "Inverse Square Law."

So in essence, doesnt the Van Allen radiation belt extend all the way to the moon due to the fact it is composed by the elements of the Solar Wind? In other words, just because you get past the VABs doesn't mean you get past high energetic solar particles being streamed by the Sun's Solar Wind.

No. The ERBs are particularly dangerous because they trap and concentrate the charged particles.

Now, would you be so kind as to point out the mistake I made? I am unaware of having made a mistake; that is why it is a mistake. Like any intelligent individual, I am always eager to learn from my mistakes. Please explain; you've clearly seen my earlier request.

reply to post by wmd_2008


NO .. and you should try and not be big brother to everyone on here.. the question was to DWJ .. but thx.. and yes.. the arrows to to point out to you that are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other, the shadows that he's trying to point your nose at because you and others keep saying..

where are they DERP DI-DERP.. ??

reply to post by Komodo

the question was to DWJ

Was this the question?

So, just to be clear on your statement, are saying that by trying it ourselves, lends creditability to our theories??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes! Exactly! It's called "empiricism" and it is the foundation of the scientific method. All I did was ask him to time how long it takes to turn and put something down, not blast himself out of an airlock in a vacuum. Yet he refused to do it? Why is that?

reply to post by hateeternal

You can't be serious...your saying that the moon is has irradiated by the solar winds as Mercury is??

I agree with most of your post as to the effects of distance etc but when you compare the Earth to the Moon you are leaving out the effects of atmosphere..

Earth has one, the Moon has precious little..
We all know what would happen to the Earth if we lost our atmosphere..

Originally posted by backinblack

I agree with most of your post as to the effects of distance etc but when you compare the Earth to the Moon you are leaving out the effects of atmosphere..

I'm not comparing the Earth to the moon, I'm comparing the moon to Jupiter.
He was sayng that the conditions on the surface and near mercury are the same as on the moon. which is wrong.

Originally posted by backinblack
Earth has one, the Moon has precious little..
We all know what would happen to the Earth if we lost our atmosphere..

Yes. but what we are discussing is, if it could destroy spacecrafts and kill astronauts during a trip to the moon.

reply to post by backinblack

I agree with most of your post as to the effects of distance etc but when you compare the Earth to the Moon you are leaving out the effects of atmosphere..

Earth has one, the Moon has precious little..
We all know what would happen to the Earth if we lost our atmosphere..

Yes, that is why planning for long term habitation of the Moon takes this into account (underground bases, etc.). It is all a matter of exposure, which is a function of time. One week is a few medical X-Rays; one year is potentially hazardous. FoosM is attempting to use a generalized "knee jerk" fear to support his position. It is not based on hard science. Have a star for being civil.

reply to post by hateeternal


Sorry, certainly looked to me like you were comparing the Earth to the Moon..

The moon's average distance from the sun is the same as the earth's average distance from the sun. When you think about it ... the moon orbits around the earth, so it's closer to the sun half the time, and farther from the sun half the time ... averaging out to the same distance from the sun as the earth is.

In any case, the moon averages 238,000 miles from the earth, which is less than 1/4 million, and that doesn't make much difference compared to the 93 million average between the earth and the sun ... less than 1/4 of 1 percent.

reply to post by DJW001


Actually I haven't read up on radiation etc on the Moon though I certainly know of base plans/concepts..
Lava tubes etc...
I'll read up a bit..

Originally posted by FoosM

According to NASA Solar Wind can damage space ships and astronauts.

even then they intend to send probes into the sun's atmosphere.

Solar Probe: First mission to sun scheduled for 2018:
www.smartplanet.com...

I recently talked with Kasper about the solar probe, why we want to get that close to the sun, and why the spacecraft won’t burst into flames. You’ve created Solar Probe, which will enter the atmosphere of our sun. This is the first time a spacecraft will go there? Oh yeah. One astronomical unit (AU) is the distance between sun and Earth. Nothing has ever gotten closer than the orbit of Mercury—that’s 0.31 to 0.46 AU from the sun. In the ‘70s a pair of spacecraft called Helios used an encounter with Mercury to change their orbit, and their closest approach was 0.29 AU.

Even at this range crafts can work.



and btw the thermal shield reminds me of the movie "Sunshine"

reply to post by hateeternal

Yes. but what we are discussing is, if it could destroy spacecrafts and kill astronauts during a trip to the moon.

Did Russia check surface radiation levels while on the Moon or do we just have NASA results?

reply to post by backinblack

I'll read up a bit..

Thank you. You are indeed impartial.