Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 5
377
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I am stuck in the "don't know" category as I do think there are some serious questions that need answering,

1 - Were the space suits really up to the task 40 years ago, inside a space craft is one thing, walking in the open on the moon is another, some people say they weren't up to the job.

2 - Why hasn't anyone else gone there? Most importantly why not Russia?

3 - As the USA and Russia were the most technologically advanced countries in space exploration at the time, do the Russians have undeniable proof to substantiate the USA's claims of landing Humans on the Moon?

It is feasible that if the USA were to hoax this, that items such as Rovers, mirrors etc could be placed on the moon and operated remotely, It is also feasible that the astronauts just orbited the earth for a couple of days, but if this were the case then surely there must be charts that would show this in orbit?

I don't know for sure, but would be inclined to believe we went there if there is evidence from Russia, from the time, to prove that we did. It seems that the Russians aren't shy on dishing out info since the fall of the Soviet Union.

I do hope we went there, otherwise this has to be the biggest con ever known to mankind, right up there with the George W Bush vote recount, the OJ trial, and the Michael Jackson disgrace!

Do we, as a violent, warring, predatory species really deserve a chance to colonize, overpopulate, mine, rape all natural resources and eventually kill other planets, the way we are doing it to this one?

I think the Universe is probably a lot safer if we stay put on Earth!

peace




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
So much scattergunning... The classic tinfoil approach.

Me, I prefer to look at individual claims, and then carefully examine them PROPERLY.


It's worth noting that Jarrah White began a debate on IMDB, and then ran away when he was defeated on every point by Jay Windley.

The issues raised in these videos have been completely debunked at many sites (not of course the sites that any true believer would ever visit..), and 'Jarrah' has shown a level of ignorance of basic science that is hard to match. I was GOBSMACKED by his efforts on the lighting of Apollo images - he amply portrayed his ignorance in the videos. Anyone care to take me on, on that topic, in DETAIL?

Anyway, I would like to challenge the OP - please offer up your TWO BEST 'proofs'.

Please be SPECIFIC, refer to the video and timings, and tell us WHY you think it is so convincing. More importantly, tell us what research you have done outside conspiracy sites, from credible sources. (I would STRONGLY suggest you do that before accepting the challenge...)



So, are you up to it, or are you just a fanboy without an opinion of his own? I mean, you claim his work is 'impeccable', yet your education is in... MARKETING and computers...??


I won't draw the very obvious conclusion...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This is a great one by a different guy showing how there are wires, and also showing how they were obviously pulled up by wires!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


One proof.

The surface of the moon is radioactive.

This article from NASA states, and let me quote....



Space beyond low earth orbit is AWASH with INTENSE radiation.


Not just the Van Allen Belts but all of...



Space beyond low earth orbit is AWASH with INTENSE radiation.


Regarding the neutron radiation on the surface of the moon, if you didn't read my first link then here it is again.

I will quote it for you...



The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.


This process was then near complete with the launch of the LCROSS recently.

How in the world did we manage to do that in safety?

We didn't kill a single astronaut with radiation, but NASA sure is FREAKED OUT about it today.

And they did it with 1968 technology...

First time every time....

No mistakes...

Mistakes like the Challenger or Columbia.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" and therefore is never to be questioned, and that doing and believing what you're told leads to reward, while the opposite leads to punishment. They are unable to free themselves of their programming and conditioning, so in that sense, they are not "freethinkers".


Bears repeating...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

The longest any man spent on the Moon was three days. In the future men will be on the Moon for months. Big difference.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by trank31337
This is a great one by a different guy showing how there are wires, and also showing how they were obviously pulled up by wires!


It's errant rubbish.

The flashes near the astronaut are of course the PLSS antenna - THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR where the wires would have to be to support the astronaut anyway! The first video shows vertical flare, while the second shows an unrelated bit of debris on the film frame.

You'll also notice that he only shows ONE *very short* sped up sequence and he has NOT sped it up enough - do you know why that is?

It's because if you speed up the footage elsewhere, you can see that hand and leg movements become impossibly fast. The footage is NOT slowed down.

And look at the sample footage he supplies showing a suspended actor - are you seriously suggesting that looks remotely real or is even relevant???

Lastly, where the astronaut gets up, look at where his hand is, pushing up, and remember, he weighs 1/6 his normal weight. It's not a difficult thing to push upwards that way, in fact it would be hard not to *over*do it.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 


Stanley is dead.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
One proof.
Space beyond low earth orbit is AWASH with INTENSE radiation.


The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

...
We didn't kill a single astronaut with radiation, but NASA sure is FREAKED OUT about it today.
...


You are not the OP, but anyway, to ensure you know the topic before we proceed, would you be so kind as to QUANTIFY the danger, rather than merely handwave?

How long would it take for the astronauts to be affected, and in what way?

What type of damage occurs, and is it reversible?

What steps did Apollo engineers take?

What radiation levels were actually measured and recorded during the missions?

I'll give you a couple of days to find the information that your post is currently lacking - you made the claim, so the onus is on you - and credible sites, please.

After that, if you haven't come back with some actual numbers and a decent risk assessment, you will have to explain why you couldn't find the information and why you thought you were qualified to make the claim..



In other words, I get a bit sick of answering people who don't do their homework...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
A little more from the de-hoaxing department


YouTube Link

I remember seeing a french made television documentary a few years ago on the moon hoax, they figured out that it was actually more expensive for NASA to pull of a moon landing hoax than it actually was to send men to the moon.

Edited to fix the Youtube link

[edit on 30/4/2010 by amonza]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ahhhh Phage I was hoping to hear from you....

So then why does the article that I linked state that the neutron radiation can be high or low, with high neutron radiation being much more harmful?

Here is a link to the effects of neutron radiation.

Here is the quote from the article.



The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies


Could you please source a link.

And it should be discussing neutron radiation on the surface of the moon.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


You obviously did not read the articles that I linked.


[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I read the articles you linked to.

Phage adressed your concerns perfectly well.

I don't understand the further question that you are asking.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by amonza
 


Could you please provide a link.

I have provided a link that states that the surface of the moon is radioactive. It also stated that the radioactivity is neutron radiation and that the moon's surface has both high and low varieties of neutron radiation.

The same link stated that we did not begin mapping the radiation until 1998-99.

I then provided you with a link that clearly shows the deadly effects of high neutron radiation.

I provided another link that stated that space ships would be best made out of concrete.

The same link said that...



Space beyond low earth orbit is awash with intense radiation.


The "official conspiracy theory" does not state those things.
It states that the astronauts were only exposed to radiation in the Van Allen Belts.

Yet I have been provided with words and no links.

I am waiting.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I wish people would stop using the "mirrors" argument as evidence that NASA must have gone to the moon. Some of teh articles brought up in the thread have highlighted that reflective surfaces have been placed on the moon prior to, and after, the moonlandings. Ie this means that humans are not necessary for mirror placement. Its a weak argument to use when there are much more compelling points that can be made.

I have no doubt that man has walked on the moon. For me, the only question could be whether NASA made it on that first go in 1969. There was the pressure of JFK's promise to make it to the moon by the end of the decade, as well as the pressure of beating the Soviets to the moon (who were pretty close as well).

This could have either focused everyone intensely to achieve the goal even though it was extremely difficult, or created a huge incentive to 'fake' the first landing and get the "win" over the Soviets out of the way without needing to risk the lives of astronauts if it was deemed to still be too dangerous to actually send the lander to the surface manned.

However, NASA had already orbited with previous Apollo missions, and Apollo 10 had already sent the lander on a dry run so i dont see any compelling reason that Apollo 11 could not have been a full manned mission. Every component of the mission had already been tested. So as far as i can see there was no technical reason it could not have been done with Apollo 11, and absolutely no reason it needed to be faked unless the mission actually failed (kinda hard to do, since the same astronauts that left Earth returned).

In my younger days i certainly believed the landings were faked. My mind was changed by reading ATS; the lack of evidence or any convincing arguments meant to me it was certain that the landings had to have taken place. A great example of denying my own ignorance on the subject, and why i find ATS to be a wonderful community (even if most members are trying to prove the opposite of what they actually convinced me of!).



[edit on 30-4-2010 by zvezdar]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zvezdar
 


I was in the "I am in the middle camp", until I got on this idea of radiation, but true radiation.

This is never discussed, because the Van Allen Belts are contained in the OS.

I have posted to all the NASA hoax boards, but I have never got a good answer about the radiation.
Just more repetition of the same tired memes.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
This is a great example of someone not in any way disproving what I said, but stating interesting facts, presenting themselves as an authority, and then expecting the readers to accept the answers blindly without saying anything to actually address the argument.


I have not presented myself as an authority, that would require me to say something like "i'm an astrophysicist", i addressed the argument directly quote by quote. This is a nice attack against me instead of my argument.



Originally posted by Josephus23

Rather small when compared to what exactly?


I said the moons gravity was small compared to the Earths, how is that difficult to understand? It is correct.


Originally posted by Josephus23
I am glad that you know the velocities needed, but you did not address the question of fuel and how much and where was it kept and if it was adequate.


The fuel in modern rockets is enough to get to low earth orbit. Beyond that the fuel requirments are rather small because the gravity is a great deal less. If you want exact figures i can research them but maybe you should do it yourself as you are the one proclaiming them to be wrong. I must admit spending 3 hours researching formula doesn't sound fun. So that's my challenge to you, ind the figures from low earth orbit to the moon





Originally posted by Josephus23

I was actually referencing control of the craft.

If the earth pulls crafts toward it then why do they need their rockets, or thrusters or what have you upon re-entry?

To CONTROL the aircraft against the effect of gravity.



Firstly you quote mined me, cutting out one small sentence without context. Putting that aside i will say that past a certain point the craft is being pulled by the Moon and Earth simultaneosly. The gravity becomes rather negligible and so Newtons laws come into effect. That being any object set in motion will continue on it's path until an outide force acts upon it. In the case of the Apollo missions they slowed down a little before hitting the Moon due to gravity.

Direct control of the craft was performed via thrusters. Very little is required to make massive adjustments if you know early enough.



Originally posted by Josephus23
I am discussing sending a man into space to the moon.

I am discussing the relevant technology.

I cannot think of ANY single aspect to life where technology has advanced in one country, but yet stayed so flaccid in other countries.


The question was why no one had sent someone to the Moon since, i said that there was no need, this was a political comment and i'm confused why you would not understand that. A moon launch costs a lot, if a country cannot see a clear reason then why would they launch a mission? You can discuss the tech all you like but such a mission requires political will.


Originally posted by Josephus23
Please good sir, if you are going to summarize and debate my point, then please accurately summarize my point.

I clearly stated that space beyond low earth orbit is "awash with radiation".
That being said there is no passing through the belts.

It is all AWASH with intense radiation.

And I got that word for word from this article from NASA.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]


I responded to your argument clearly. I used low earth orbit because it is a zone we have craft in constantly. In a year satellites deal with 1500 rem and i said astronauts pass through this quickly and are therefore exposed to far less radiation. If however you want to go beyond this range then lets deal with it, and your quoted article.

Your article deals with a constant base, the problem with a person spending a year on the moon is that they would receive a lethal dose of radiation. The astronauts spent a short time on the moon and so their exposure was reduced.

For example if they spent a year in the belt they may recieve 2500 rem a year and they would die. However they spent less than a year in space, lets say they spent 10 days (because i'm exaggerating the time spent) then they would recieve 68 rem. This is not lethal.


Of course this idea of 68 rem doesn't take into account shielding they had.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 





For example if they spent a year in the belt they may recieve 2500 rem a year and they would die. However they spent less than a year in space, lets say they spent 10 days (because i'm exaggerating the time spent) then they would recieve 68 rem. This is not lethal.


I am not talking about the Van Allen Belts, I am talking about the surface of the moon, and the amount of neutron radiation, the type of neutron radiation, and our knowledge of neutron radiation, on the surface of the moon, and the area known as...



Space beyond low earth orbit (which) is awash with radiation.


Links, links, links.... Please.

I can only provide links for my argument.

If you cannot provide any links, then this is a waste of my time.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Owned just on the crater theory anybody that try's to debunk it is truly on here to derail and spin.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Thanks for the information...
Mr. Jay Windley.





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join