Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 7
377
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

The anticipated levels were acceptable. The actual levels were less than anticipated.

I received about 4,000 rads in the space of about 6 weeks 28 years ago. That is a hell of a lot more the astronauts were expected to receive or did receive. Radiation was not a problem on a 1 week mission. It will be on long term missions. No doubt about it.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


4000 rad is basically 4000 rem (exact figures require maths which i can't be bothered with as it's so close). Either way the accepted safe dose is 0.5 rem a year (excluding background radiation) for an adult. Obviously yours was required for treatment and yet here you are, alive and hopefully well my friend.

The astronauts had nothing like the dose you received.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


NO ONE knows the numbers.

That is my point, as was acknowledged by Phage.

It is incredible what the mind will create out of nothing.

You have been given the largest anomaly found within this information, coming straight from NASA's mouth, but yet you dismiss it for information that does not have any applicable science to back it up.
But to the contrary, the known science refutes it.

NO ONE KNOWS what where the high and low neutron radiation on the moon is...

This reminds me of the phenomenon called the persistence of motion and I will depart with a quote from Dave McGowan...



It is also important to remember that, unlike the initial blast-off from Earth, which involved the collective efforts of thousands of people and the use of all types of peripheral equipment, the astronauts taking off from the Moon had only themselves and a strange vessel that looked like it had been salvaged from the set of Lost in Space.
What would you be thinking, by the way, if you suddenly found yourself on the surface of the Moon with what looked like a cheap movie prop as your only way home?
Would you feel comfortable hanging around for a few days doing experiments, confident that, when the time came, the untested contraption behind you would actually get you back home from the Moon?
Or would the words “bad career choice” be running through your head?

But as it turns out, America kicked *** back then and those lunar modules performed like champions every single time!

They didn’t even need any modifications!
Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first time and every time thereafter!

On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit. But on the Moon? We nailed that **** the very first time!


Link to quote



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


No one knows, but as lunar orbit is less than 1 rem in 4 days it is quite simply impossible that the level will raise to a lethal dose when reachinjg the surface. At lunar orbit you are receiving almost the same dose as the surface. I have provided figures which exaggerate this figure 10 times and you don't accept it, Phage has mentioned he recieved a dose 4000 times the lunar orbit dose and you still don't accept it won't cause harm.

Basically you wil never accept any figure and even when NASA release the survey data you will no doubt call it a lie.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I am only asking to see what I have asked for.

I suppose that you can see into the future if you know how I would react to the information, or you could be pulling out the argument ad hominem.

I have asked a question that leaves open a very big possibility that we did not go to the moon.

I expected this.
I get the same poorly expressed arguments with no substance or backing each time I post this argument in every thread so far, but yet I can provide several links from the very organization that I am attempting to de-bunk that makes the OS seem very improbable.

Or maybe we got awfully lucky,

But I mean hey...

We are America, right?


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I'm sorry but no, you have asked for a figure and that's fine, someone then presented a lunar orbit figure. You then stated this wasn't good enough because it's orbit and not surface. Again this is fair enough.

However i then showed that a 10 fold increase of the lunar orbit radiation would not be enough to kill someone if they are exposed for four days. This increase is just not possible. Indeed the astronauts on the space station absorb 20-40 rem and don't go around dying. Phage was exposed to 4000 rem and he's alive so many years later. This is 4000 times the radiation expoeriecned by a crew orbiting the Moon and it is not something that can be provided by the sun at Lunar distances. So why are you so against these figures as proof?

How much more proof do you need?

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Ok, I am keeping an open mind with healthy skepticism...but something does not compute.

I am watching MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 10.



At about 5:43 they discuss the helmet visors worn by the astronauts and its protective qualities concerning solar/space radiation. Yet, there is footage showing astronauts on the moon with their visors UP. It continues on to part 11 with a damning (imo) suggestion from NASA to the astronaut to put his helmet visor down.

Moon Faker 11- Radiation

I don't pretend to be an expert when in comes to space, but it stands to argue that if ultra-violet rays can penetrate Earths' atmosphere and blister skin, what must solar radiation do to ones unprotected pupils on the Moon, which lacks a protective atmosphere? in a Vacuum no less? This dude Schmidt is clearly walking around with eyes and face exposed.

This does not make sense to me. is this footage hoaxed? Were they on the dark side. Not according to the footage. if not...

How can a person walk around on the moon with eyes and face exposed, if this footage is to be believed?

Anyone?…Anyone?…Bueller?

ETA; looks like videos are no longer available. Hmm.


[edit on 5/1/10 by IconoclasticTalamasca]

[edit on 5/1/10 by IconoclasticTalamasca]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I'm sorry but no, you have asked for a figure and that's fine, someone then presented a lunar orbit figure. You then stated this wasn't good enough because it's orbit and not surface. Again this is fair enough.

However i then showed that a 10 fold increase of the lunar orbit radiation would not be enough to kill someone if they are exposed for four days. This increase is just not possible. Indeed the astronauts on the space station absorb 20-40 rem and don't go around dying.

How much more proof do you need?

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


You are assuming all of this based upon information that would have been gathered if we actually went to the moon.

All of this was supposedly gathered on these "moon landings" that you keep talking about...
But the only types of numbers that I have asked for, that can be substantiated by a third party, besides these fantasy landings that you speak of, are Unknown...

As I said before, we got really lucky on the surface of the moon.

And it matters not if you multiply it by 10. The original information is suspect, but we don't know what the surface of the moon is regarding high neutron radiation.
We can only guess.

And guess well we obviously did.

U-S-A...
U-S-A...
U-S-A



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca
 


Try looking at the sun directly on Earth, your eyes will burn pretty damn quickly. The astonaut in question may not be looking at it directly. Further the astronaut seems to be facing away or side on to the sun which would reduce exposure. Third if this NASA footage was indeed fake then surely they would just go for a retake instead of letting him get it wrong!

Most importantly of all, the youtube user is referring to science fictions films for reference, seriously now, sci-fi for scientific debate.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
NO ONE knows the numbers.

You can't have it both ways, dearie.

And it is a rather obvious point against you that WE showed YOU the numbers that actually do exist. You HAD NO IDEA.

NASA did have a very good idea, if not exact. As it turned out, their estimations were high.


It is incredible what the mind will create out of nothing.


Well, if you claim that we/NASA had nothing, then clearly you had LESS than nothing.


You have been given the largest anomaly found within this information

Whoa, missed that. Please quote and cite the 'largest anomaly' (and be careful, INCLUDE context)


but yet you dismiss it for information that does not have any applicable science to back it up.

So you still haven't found the post mission reports on what radiation was actually measured?

Sigh.


I will depart with a quote from Dave McGowan...

How apt. You ARE aware that McGowan is most likely a practical joker?May I quote some of the absolute GARBAGE posted by McGowan? Here ya go:
"NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it."
Lie.

"For at least two decades now, since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have been promised dazzling images of the lunar modules sitting on the surface of the Moon."
Lie.

"Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency?"
Completely uninformed - that's just embarrassing.

"I would think that it should be fairly easy to send some guys to at least orbit the Moon … right? I mean, all they have to do is add a couple seats to the spacecraft design that they already have and they should be ready to go."
Ooohhhkaaayyyy...

"the only known source for ‘authenticated’ Moon rocks is NASA"
Completely uninformed.

And that's just the start... Yes, it's good to know you support McGowan. I'll send you a sale document for a bridge I have, that I'm sure you will want to buy.


a strange vessel that looked like it had been salvaged from the set of Lost in Space.

REAL engineers understand that the design for a craft that will never encounter an atmosphere and is designed to work in 1/6 gravity, will look very different to one for earthly conditions. But you want fins, streamlining and pointy bits? Yeah, that will really work well.


What would you be thinking, by the way, if you suddenly found yourself on the surface of the Moon with what looked like a cheap movie prop as your only way home?

Interestingly enough, the LM was hailed as one of the crowning achievements of the Apollo program, as it performed essentially flawlessly in every mission. It was an absolute tribute to Grumman's engineering abilities.


the untested contraption

Untested, eh? - let me ask right now..

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT CLAIM?

Just a little hint - apart from what was done on the ground here on earth, what came before Apollo 11?

Come on, walk the walk, Josephus (now that you are trying to change the subject away from radiation..) and be ready for what comes next... (Yes, it's a trap!)


They didn’t even need any modifications!

If you look carefully at the LM's, you will see there were minor mod's, but the basic design - brilliant. Why change it substantially, when it worked so well?


But on the Moon? We nailed that **** the very first time!

Mercury, Gemini, the Apollo missions prior to 11... Wow, you really have researched this at *least* as well as McGowan did...



[edit on 1-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Actualy no i stated a figure from the space station which would receive a ton of radiation as it is completely unprotected. Astronauts aboard the space station recieve 20-40 rems per visit. This is esily comparable to the lunar surface as it is also unprotected. However the astronauts above the station are there for months and the ones on the moon were there for days so the dose would obviously be reduced due to length of exposure. But lets say it was 100 times the space station, they would still not be dead as the exposure was so short.

Are you now saying that the space station results are also false?

Oh and why are you chanting USA in your post?

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca
 

The visor assembly consisted of a thermal cover, 2 visors and 3 eyeshades. The inner visor was made of polycarbonate which filtered ultraviolet light. The outer visor (the gold colored one) was made of polysulfone and filtered visible as well as ultraviolet light.

While raising the outer visor was frowned upon, unless the astronaut were looking directly at the Sun the only ultraviolet radiation his eyes would receive would have been reflected from the surface of the Moon, some but not so much. The outer visor was up for a short period of time and the inner visor afforded sufficient protection.

The kid didn't do much research, did he?
www.myspacemuseum.com...




[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I honestly believe this kid was using satire as the flag waving bit was so easy to debunk it's laughable. Even his tone seems to suggest satire. Either that or he is abusing the moon conspiracy people to garner views and amke some youtube money.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Your Attention Please...

Let's stay On Topic and leave other Members alone...

Thank you

Semper



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Just amazing. This kid manages to troll ATS without even being a member.



[edit on 5/1/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
IconoclasticTalamasca, your initial link is broken.

The gold visors provided a reduction in light levels and some added protection from UV, which is a bit more intense on the Moon (rather like that found on earth on a high mountain - not that terrifying).

Certainly the visual scene for the astronauts was challenging - a dark sky, a bright Sun, reflective suits, spacecraft and instruments. So mostly they had their visors down. But it was not essential to do so, and if they were working in shadow, they did lift them. No biggie.

Indeed, I can even tell you when they did:

Harrison Schmitt - raised his deliberately for a shot to show his face. I think it's the only one where it was done solely for that purpose.

Buzz Aldrin can be seen visor up in the video of the first EVA, in the shadow of the LM.

Neil Armstrong raised his visor when collecting the 'contingency sample' (only in 16mm footage).

Ed Mitchell and James Irwin descended the LM ladder with visors up (video).

Gene Cernan at one point cleaned a camera lens with visor up. (video)


Hope that helps.. Additions and corrections welcome.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
i believe they landed on the moon, there is no reason why they wouldnt or lie about it, you midaswell say the space station isnt real. or while your at it life isnt real.

There is a limit to what we should question and when we should listen, when you question absoutly everything, well relax





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join