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: 538
377
<< 535  536  537    539  540  541 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

moonfaker.com...


The pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying. You name it, they’ll do it! Jarrah White, “Grandson of the Apollo Moon Hoax Theory”, has made it his mission to debunk the Apollo debunkers and propagandists alike. His ongoing MoonFaker series is considered by many to be the most comprehensive documentary series discussing the moon landing hoax conspiracy.

edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   


Q: What are Jarrah’s credentials? A: Jarrah White holds Certificate III & IV with distinctions in Screen (a Film & TV course) at Sydney Institute of TAFE and is currently doing his BSc in Astrophysics.


so if JW becomes a scientists with degrees, will you all take him seriously ?




Q: How was the hoax pulled off? A: There are two scenarios that we have to consider. On one hand we have missions in which the Apollo astronauts stayed in low earth orbit (Apollo 10 for example), and on the other hand we have missions in which the crews stayed on the ground the entire time (such as Apollo 15). In the former case, the Apollo 10 astronauts were launched with the Saturn V and simply orbited the earth for the duration of their mission.

In the event that any independent party made an attempt to listen in, Apollo telecommunications were relayed to an unmanned cislunar craft, which then repeated or reflected the signals towards the earth. To account for the time that the CSM went behind the earth, three geostationary relay satellites would be required to maintain a continuous connection with the unmanned moon craft. In the Apollo 15 scenario, the astronauts went up the gantry elevator and boarded their capsule. Then prior to launch they got out and went back down the elevator or, quite possibly, down the emergency chute to the blast shelter under the launch site. They were then picked up by NASA and went into hiding at a military base for the duration of the mission.

Meanwhile the Saturn V was launched unmanned and jettisoned into the South Atlantic. All the voices and videos came from scripted pre-recorded tapes that the NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) relayed over the landlines to Houston. An unmanned cislunar probe was used to broadcast identical signals for any independent party who tried to listen in. Evidence that the Apollo 15 crew stayed on the ground can be found in the fact that the in-flight television transmissions from that flight show no evidence that the crews are in space. It only shows the astronauts standing around in the LM with their backs to the camera. Unlike the videos from Apollo 10 and 11, on Apollo 15 the only hints of zero gravity are few and far between and only last thirty seconds or less. These scenes were clearly pulled off by loading a CSM/LM mock-up into a KC-135 ‘Vomit Comet’, which was used to train astronauts for zero gravity by performing 30 second parabolic dives.

When it was time to return, the astronauts were loaded into a command module which was then air dropped over the splashdown site by a C5A transport plane [Fig-1]. During Bill Kaysing’s interview on KOME radio, an airline pilot called in to say that he saw the Apollo 15 command capsule dumped out the back of a C5A above the Pacific1.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

What is the most compelling evidence that the moon missions were faked? A: Jarrah can nail it down to three pieces of evidence. First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV. Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation.

Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.



moonfaker.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

"Many people had discussed the use of the LM as lifeboat, but we found out in this sim," that exactly how to do it couldn't be worked out in real time, Legler says. At the time, the simulation was rejected as unrealistic, and it was soon forgotten by most. NASA "didn't consider that an authentic failure case," because it involved the simultaneous failure of so many systems, explains Hannigan.


I can see NASA now plugging their ears and walking away yelling

"La La La La...I am not listening to you Jeffrey, failure is not an option... this didn't happen!"


But the simulation nagged at the lunar module controllers. They had been caught unprepared and a crew had died, albeit only virtually. "You lose a crew, even in a simulation, and it's doom," says Hannigan. He tasked his deputy, Donald Puddy, to form a team to come up with a set of lifeboat procedures that would work, even with a crippled command module in the mix.


NASA: "OMG.... maybe we need to fake this program after all. LOL. Better call RAND and initiate 'Plan 9'"


Really ? Plugging their ears and calling RAND ? Hmmm... What do the next paragraphs after the one above (from your surce) say ...

But the simulation nagged at the lunar module controllers. They had been caught unprepared and a crew had died, albeit only virtually. "You lose a crew, even in a simulation, and it's doom," says Hannigan. He tasked his deputy, Donald Puddy, to form a team to come up with a set of lifeboat procedures that would work, even with a crippled command module in the mix.

"Bob Legler was one of the key guys," on that team, recalls Hannigan. As part of his work, Legler "figured out how to reverse the power flow, so it could go from the LM back to CSM," through the umbilicals, says Hannigan. "That had never been done. Nothing had been designed to do that." Reversing the power flow was a trick that would ultimately be critical to the final stages of Apollo 13's return to Earth.

For the next few months after the Apollo 10 simulation, even as Apollo 11 made the first lunar landing and Apollo 12 returned to the moon, Puddy's team worked on the procedures, looking at many different failure scenarios and coming up with solutions. Although the results hadn't yet been formally certified and incorporated into NASA's official procedures, the lunar module controllers quickly pulled them off the shelf after the Apollo 13 explosion. The crew had a copy of the official emergency lunar module activation checklist on board, but the controllers needed to cut the 30-minute procedure to the bare minimum.

It reads to me that NASA neither ignored the results of the sim nor "called RAND" but rather worked the problem to solution, a successful one at that. Are you claiming the article is in error ? That Puddy's team did not work on various failure scenarios and solutions for them ?


Originally posted by FoosM
Hey... this got me to thinking, ... [snip] But I think it was actually planned:

While we await the inevitable train wreck, perhaps you can explain how a planned failure would have aided the cause of the Apollo hoax. After all in January of 1970 the axe had fallen on Apollo 20 (to fund Skylab) and no doubt NASA was aware of the political storm brewing regarding the rest of the missions (more cancelled in Sept). So how would a very public failure at that moment aid in any way keeping the "gravy train" running ? Because it seems to me that such a failure would only arm the Apollo detractors with more political ammo at just the wrong (for Apollo) time.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Fig-2: Van Allen electron dose rate (Picture credit: Kovalev, 1983)


moonfaker.com...




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



: Jarrah can nail it down to three pieces of evidence. First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts


Why does a statement made in 1957 trump fifty years of additional research?


Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts:


Wrong; there are many satellites operating in Medium Earth Orbit. The entire US GPS constellation orbits in the "heart" of the Van Allen belts. Oh wait... are they a hoax too?


The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield.


Pay no attention to that whopping great Service Module in back or that big ugly bug in front....


NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.


Jarrah has been forced to start a web-page so he can repeat this rubbish without anyone leaving a comment that challenges him. He would never be fool enough to say this in an open forum like this.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Fig-2: Van Allen electron dose rate (Picture credit: Kovalev, 1983)


moonfaker.com...



Just in case there are those who didn't see your earlier post re: this ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by DJW001
... But what's this?

No shield?! I didn't hear Jarrah say anything about the dose the astronauts would get if they weren't shielded, did you? In order to prove his "radiation argument," Jarrah had to calculate the dose they would have received if they were floating in the radiation belts stark raving naked! If they were floating up there naked, they would have much more pressing concerns than radiation. Hm, perhaps this was an honest mistake... after all the table Jarrah showed us didn't mention that the readings were for an unshielded craft. The problem is, this paper by Frantiszek Spurny contains a second table, identical in format to the first:



This table shows the dosage received inside a spacecraft with "shields," ie, "walls" one millimeter thick! It is obvious that both tables come from Kovalev's original paper. If Jarrah had the original paper in his possession and has actually read it as he would have us believe, he consciously chose to suppress the table showing the dosages in a spacecraft with much thinner walls than the Apollo. Why? Let's repeat Jarrah's calculations using this data:

390 rem/day = 16.25 rem/ hour

Using Professor Van Allen's estimate of two hours out and two hours back gives us a total dosage of 65 rem, well below the dreaded LD50 of 450 rem. Now bear in mind that, contrary to Jarrah's repeated insinuations, the CSM had walls much thicker than 1mm. More like 1.25 centimeters, ten times the thickness of the shielding in the table, reducing the dosage by a factor of ten, yielding a total exposure of 6.5 rem. This is very close to the 1% guesstimate that Professor Van Allen made in the e-mail Jarrah cites. The actual exposure would have been much less because we assumed that the maximum value extended throughout the radiation belts.

Think about all this for a moment. Using a Czech intermediary, I have tracked down Jarrah White's original Russian data and used it to confirm a statement that Jarrah was trying to discredit. He has been caught in the act of perpetrating a lie.


What did JW say ???

The pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying.

Who again is lying ???

Hmmmm ... no wait, need one more.

There, that's enough.







Naaaah, it wasn't enough. Now I'm done.







[alright call me a liar]



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

... But what's this?

No shield?! I didn't hear Jarrah say anything about the dose the astronauts would get if they weren't shielded, did you? In order to prove his "radiation argument," Jarrah had to calculate the dose they would have received if they were floating in the radiation belts stark raving naked! If they were floating up there naked, they would have much more pressing concerns than radiation. Hm, perhaps this was an honest mistake... after all the table Jarrah showed us didn't mention that the readings were for an unshielded craft. The problem is, this paper by Frantiszek Spurny contains a second table, identical in format to the first:



Correct me if I am wrong, but those charts are in Sieverts (Sv), right?

1 Sv = 100 rads or 100 rem.

So... if we look at 30 deg inclination

930 Sv = 93,000 rem or rads (thats like 3,875 rem an hour... and 65 rem a minute)

and

160 Sv = 16,000 rem or rads (thats like 666 rem an hour... and 11 rem a minute)

So how much shielding would be required to cut that down to safe levels?
Just less than 10 minutes at the first height would be fatal.











edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife


This table shows the dosage received inside a spacecraft with "shields," ie, "walls" one millimeter thick! It is obvious that both tables come from Kovalev's original paper. If Jarrah had the original paper in his possession and has actually read it as he would have us believe, he consciously chose to suppress the table showing the dosages in a spacecraft with much thinner walls than the Apollo. Why? Let's repeat Jarrah's calculations using this data:

390 rem/day = 16.25 rem/ hour

Using Professor Van Allen's estimate of two hours out and two hours back gives us a total dosage of 65 rem, well below the dreaded LD50 of 450 rem. Now bear in mind that, contrary to Jarrah's repeated insinuations, the CSM had walls much thicker than 1mm. More like 1.25 centimeters, ten times the thickness of the shielding in the table, reducing the dosage by a factor of ten, yielding a total exposure of 6.5 rem. This is very close to the 1% guesstimate that Professor Van Allen made in the e-mail Jarrah cites. The actual exposure would have been much less because we assumed that the maximum value extended throughout the radiation belts.



First off, lets be clear this is from the second belt, the proton belt. The first was from the electron belt.
So when the calculation is made of 2 hours back and forth, do those numbers include the first belt or only the second? Because the first belt would have already been damaging to the astronauts.

Secondly, how were the windows shielded?

Third, the hull of Apollo was honeycombed. It wasnt a thick block of aluminum or steel.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   






Just want to include this into the conversation.


From T+002:59 height = 1432 mi (2,304)
To T+004:40 height = 19134.4 mi (30,793)

Is about 40 minutes

Lets say for arguments sake it took 15 minutes to go from 3000 km to 22000 km.
If we average the two numbers 930 & 160 we get 545 Sv
545 Sv = 54,500 rem or rads.
Per minute that would turn out to be 908 rads per minute.

What kind of shielding would be necessary to reduce that to safe numbers?



Edit to clarify, this would be the outer belt, I said earlier it was the inner belt.







edit on 11-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM


You silly goose.
Define what you mean by "real".
It speaks for itself, I think.


Well then you have doubt, and therefore it would be normal for you would ask for clarification.
But I guess you are used to accepting information as its presented without any critical analysis.
Asking pointless, irrelevant questions about every little thing your opposition--and only your opposition--brings up is not "critical analysis", nor is carefully editing posts you respond to to remove any direct challenges or questions you can't answer, or throwing up large blocks of videos, photos, and/or text whenever you start to feel cornered.

If you have doubts as to what's "real" or not, then I strongly suggest you engage a psychotherapist before continuing discussion of this heavily reality-based matter.
edit on 2011/8/11 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/8/11 by 000063 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Secondly, how were the windows shielded?
And your evidence the windows themselves would not have provided shielding is...what, exactly?

Incidentally, Jarrah once essentially asserted that the astronauts would've received the full dosage. Not the shielded dosage, or the angled dosage, but the same dosage they'd get floating naked in space.

For reasons currently being discussed, this is incorrect. I don't think you ever acknowledged it, FoosM, and I doubt you ever will.
edit on 2011/8/11 by 000063 because: +



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I've wondered about why JW would go to all this trouble to make all these vids. It's no small amount of time invested. So looking at the FAQ at his site I see this ...


Q: I would like to donate money to fund Jarrah's research, experiments and productions. Where can I send a donation?
A: Paypal donations should be sent to MoonFakerDonations@gmail.com For other methods of payment, please contact Jarrah on Jarrahw@gmail.com

Donate more than $20, and we'll send you a free DVD containing one JW Studios movie of your choice. If there are any specific research materials you want to donate money for, please specify.


Aaaaahhhh now I understand.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Aaaaahhhh now I understand.



What do you understand? You seem to be saying words for effect.

Do you have a problem with adults making money? Do you think people should not be compensated for their time and effort?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
First off, lets be clear this is from the second belt, the proton belt. The first was from the electron belt.
So when the calculation is made of 2 hours back and forth, do those numbers include the first belt or only the second? Because the first belt would have already been damaging to the astronauts.

Secondly, how were the windows shielded?

Third, the hull of Apollo was honeycombed. It wasnt a thick block of aluminum or steel.


Correct, the numbers on the second table are for the proton belt, the one you pointed out back on page 298 would be harder to shield against.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FoosM
The article that I referenced stated
10 grams per centimeter to protect from the outer belt
and more is required for the inner belt.

So using those numbers from the "harder to shield against" belt, but for a shielded spacecraft (though not as shielded as Apollo actually was, see nataylor's post on the same page), and doing the same poor math (using max rate for whole time* in VABs) that JW did, DJW calcuated a much smaller dose than JW put forth. JW must have seen the same table and should have understood shielding reduces the exposure but decided to put out the numbers he did. I doubt he's as incompetent as it would take to miss the conclusion re: shielding. Regardless of whatever the true dosage number is, we know JW's number is hopelessly too high. So we're left believing he lied to better suit his agenda. He needs the VABs to be some impassible barrier even when he must know they're not.

So to address the shielding required (if only in a minor way) ... go back to the old source you cited (and misquoted above) on page 298, this one ...
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
What did your source have to say ?

The projected shielding of 10 grams per cm would protect a man from virtually all the effects of the outer belts lighter particles.
What was Apollo rated at ? IIRC even JW has quoted the average 8 gm/cm2 number. Does 10 vs 8 seem enough of a difference to you to make Apollo go from being safe to being a death trap ? So just the CM (not including any shielding due to the LM and SM) would almost have met the criteria you put up to "protect a man from virtually all the effects". Nobody has claimed the astronauts did not receive any radiation, just that the VABs are not the impassible, deadly barrier HB'ers have claimed.

As far as windows go, I believe nataylor's post on that same page had them rated at 1.8 gm/cm2. So what percentage of the particle flux would be coming in a direction to come through the windows ? Recall that the trapped protons and electrons will follow the magnetic field lines and be bouncing from north to south poles.

*If you want to see how a more realistic dose would be calculated, go to Braeunigs previously mentioned page and see how he uses the dose rate vs altitude to roughly approximate the total dose (for an unshielded spacecraft). Know that the flight path did not take the spacecraft though the region of highest radiation for the whole time it can be said to have been in the VABs. Use the highest dose rate number only for that time that the spacecraft can be thought to be in the highest radiation region.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Aaaaahhhh now I understand.

What do you understand? You seem to be saying words for effect.
Do you have a problem with adults making money? Do you think people should not be compensated for their time and effort?


I am saying words to have an effect. I don't have a problem with people making money. I do have a problem with people not telling the truth to make that money. As I just pointed out, and as DJW previously pointed out, JW has put forth some hopelessly high estimated dose numbers for the Apollo passage through the VABs. While everyone is entitled to their opinions and are free to state them (IMO), and everyone will make an honest mistake from time to time, I don't see how the numbers JW put forth can be put into the honest mistake category. Now that I see he's trying to make money from his endevors (something I hadn't seen before) I have to wonder how that is influencing his ability to stick to the truth and/or correct his mistakes. It appears to me that he has now joined the ranks of the professional hucksters, trying to make a buck off the uninformed. That's not something I would have said prior to reading what I posted from his site.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 



Aaaaahhhh now I understand.

He probably makes more from Youtube's Partnership Program.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


His opponents no doubt help him make money.

It is like a gypsy curse for you. Doomed to fund and publicize the man you hate, increasing his profits with every thread bump....



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



His opponents no doubt help him make money.

It is like a gypsy curse for you. Doomed to fund and publicize the man you hate, increasing his profits with every thread bump....


Actually, it's the other way around. Every time some credulous fool bumps this thread, more newbies get to see Jarrah's pathetic lies exposed!



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Every time someone watches one of his videos it contributes to his earnings, right?

So you are giving him publicity and increasing his view counts. That is what matters.

You don't like him but your actions make him money by giving him publicity.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 535  536  537    539  540  541 >>

log in

join