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: 81
377
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by DJW001
 


I wont go into a long drawn out explanation for this. The reported UFO in the video was explained my NASA so ill just direct you to there page.
No ufo






yeah right!



it could not have been debris very close to the Apollo 16 since the UFO image seems to be well focused, whereas a nearby object, whether seen directly through a window or seen as a weak (dim) reflection in the window, would likely be out of focus since the camera was focused on infinity (the moon is well focused). This distance vs focus argument also rejects the question of whether or not it could be something attached to the spacecraft itself which was momentarily illuminated by the sun. Thus, for all of these reasons the object was not a piece of debris or a part of the command module.





NASA, Never A Straight Answer




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
...And again, the reason they couldn't just put some men on the moon, in the first place goes back to the number one reason...RADIATION. Even Van Allen himself documented the fact that manned space exploration within and beyond the radiation belts would require the developing proper shielding. This is pretty simple stuff for anyone with the capacity to understand the dangers of radiation. Perhaps you should consult some elderly Japanese people, residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or even patients who have developed cancer from measly low-dose radiation treatments, or medical scans.

Doh!


Doh?

Un4g1v3n1, I am actually rather pleased you have re-raised this issue.

First up, let me remind you and the other dear readers, that YOU DECLINED TO DEBATE THIS TOPIC PROPERLY, when I offered you that challenge (some might see it as an opportunity) a few pages back.

Yet here you are bringing it up again, in what is best described as "an unsupported fashion"... (Did anyone see any numbers, definitions of the type of radiation? (..Chernobyl???))

So, the debate begins. You can participate if you want, but you know the rules, and frankly, you're going to look pretty silly if you change your mind now, and even sillier if you post incorrect information. And believe me, if you DO, I'll be jumping on it with surgical precision.

So, here's what I propose to do - and REMEMBER folks, radiation is Un4g1v3n1's favorite, very best proof...

I'll be posting a series of statements, broken up over a number of posts, but in a logical sequence.. Some (obviously the first ones especially) will simply define the problem, others will break it down and analyse it, and towards the end, the statements will become conclusions. I'll be providing numbers, equations, and *multiple* sources where appropriate. At each stage I will be stopping and asking for agreement - if you strongly disagree with something, and have the sources to back it up, I will have to concede the point. Same rules for both sides. So I INVITE anyone, deniers and believers alike, to question me, correct me, add information I've missed, tell me I've done something wrong or forgotten something, or provide contrary information. If you disagree, then say so - BUT DON'T TRY IT IF YOU DON"T HAVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

Handwaving will simply be ignored. And I would invite other contributors to try to remember that - if someone simply gives an opinion, it counts for absolutely ZERO.

So are we ready to start?

I'll keep the first part simple. Let's define the claim.


Some Apollo deniers claim that the radiation encountered during the missions would have either seriously affected or killed the astronauts.


Over to you, folks - is that a fair representation of the basic claim? It's important that it be correctly defined, as I will be referring back to it frequently.

Please remember I'm trying to keep it as FOCUSED (that's an Apollo pun), simple and straightforward as possible. There are obviously other ancillary claims that hang on this one, but let's focus on the big issue.


[edit on 31-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by torch2k
Nice response, especially the part about:


Here is a study done by James DeMeo, PhD


Which includes:


My discussion below will surely raise controversy in the scientific interpretation of several interesting NASA photographs as taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission.


So Dr. Demeo states that these pictures were taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission. He has some claims to make about them, which I have no interest in discussing at this time. Nevertheless, let's refocus on:


as taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission



Its quite simple torch2k, if you believe that man landed on the moon with NASA know-how, then you are going to have to address those anomalies in respect to people being on the moon.

I dont see why this is so difficult to understand. If we go to other alien planets we should expect to encounter phenomena alien to us. From biology to physics. And so if NASA was truly curious about whats out there, as well as scientists studying NASA's research, then why are we not having open and honest discussions about these findings? Have you ever heard the explanation for the blue glowing astronauts? What do you think it is? Are you not curious considering you believe we went to the moon?

Think about it. When hoaxers say the shadows and the light looks strange in the photos. How many people actually say, 'well NASA discovered that on the moon shadows and light behave differently for some reason.'?

Or why hasnt NASA explained why Astronauts do not jump six feet due to the 1/6th gravity? Ive read people try to explain this by saying the moon's gravity is actually stronger than we thought, and the moon is hollow?? I mean, come on, NASA should be providing straight answers for these things. They went six times with people supposedly.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


BTW, you never bothered to answer how they could manage to prerecord an entire mission prior to launch. How, exactly did it work?


When were the audio and transcripts released to the public?
Differentiate between press material and ALL material if you can.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by FoosM
 


The answer to your questions are easy did you ever look at the design of the command module vs sky lab. Do some research and all your questions will be answered. ill give you a clue if you like look at the accident it damaged the outer coating of skylab. Had this not happened there would have not been any heating issues .


Ps Skylab and the command module were designed to not retain thermal heat ill let you find out how.


[edit on 5/30/10 by dragonridr]


So your saying if they electricity failed in Skylab then it would have also got cold inside?

Also, was the LM designed the same as the CM ?


[edit on 31-5-2010 by FoosM]

[edit on 31-5-2010 by FoosM]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you ever heard the explanation for the blue glowing astronauts?

This effect, caused by lens flare and a dusty lens/reseau plate, has been discussed many times elsewhere. From the journal:


AS12-46-6813 ...Note the foggy blue patch around Al. Examination of successive frames indicate that this feature is related to the camera lens, very likely a dust smudge. Kipp Teague notes "The lens aberration begins at as12-46-6813. It's a blue glow around the astronaut in 6818, again in 6826, a discoloration in other frames, affecting clarity in most, and it's not gone again until 6853 (back in the LM). Whatever the phenomenon is, it has a varying impact on color based on the brightness of the central object in the image. On bright subjects, the aberration adds a blue cast, and on darker subjects, the aberration adds a reddish cast." I note that it also seems to vary with sun angle...

AS12-46-6820...The blue 'fog' is do to a dust smudge which first shows up on 6813...

AS12-46-6821...Note the blue-tinged area at center due to the dust smudge.

AS12-46-6826...The blue glow around Al is due to a dust smudge on the center of the lens, which first appears in 6813.

All that has been sitting there for years. Anyone with a bit of camera experience will know what it is likely to be. Huff on your lens when you're outside on a cold but sunny day, and then angle yourself to get a lens flare.. Dark background will help. Because that is an unusual set of circumstances, it's not much wonder you don't often see it.

BTW, that 'example' you posted has been deliberately over-saturated to emphasise the effect. Again, you are posting deliberately altered images. Tut-tut.


When hoaxers say the shadows and the light looks strange in the photos. How many people actually say, 'well NASA discovered that on the moon shadows and light behave differently for some reason.'?

I'm sorry, can you translate? But allow me to address what I think is your next in a series of never ending changes of subject.
1. It's a VACUUM.
2. There is no HAZE (largely because of 1.)
3. The SUN is up, yet there is no blue sky.
4. The regolith has a strong heiligenschein effect.

Got all that? So YES, things are going to look a little unusual. Some might say.. "different".


Or why hasnt NASA explained why Astronauts do not jump six feet due to the 1/6th gravity?

SIGH. Speaking of stuff debunked about a thousand times elsewhere...

That, FoosM, is because only an *idiot* would push their luck by trying such a stupid feat on the Moon, where if they landed awkwardly (with their FULL MASS + INERTIA, if not weight), there's a good chance of a ripped suit, damaged PLSS/whatever... And how the hell are they going to flex their knees enough to jump far anyway, in those bulky suits?


FoosM, your scattergun posts are just descending into ridicule, now.

Why doncha join in the radiation debate?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Or why hasnt NASA explained why Astronauts do not jump six feet due to the 1/6th gravity? Ive read people try to explain this by saying the moon's gravity is actually stronger than we thought, and the moon is hollow?? I mean, come on, NASA should be providing straight answers for these things. They went six times with people supposedly.


Because they were wearing a 180lb suit? Does NASA even need to explain that, i mean it should be common sense.

How high can you jump on Earth carrying 180lbs? Not very high i'll bet. Possibly 1/6th of the height of the jumps the astronaust were doing on the moon.

Alternatively, how high can you jump on Earth carrying 30lbs? A similar height to those jumps on the moon perhaps?

So, would you care to explain again why we should expect an astronaut wearing a 180lb suit to jump 6 feet on the moon?

Christ almighty...



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


BTW, you never bothered to answer how they could manage to prerecord an entire mission prior to launch. How, exactly did it work?


When were the audio and transcripts released to the public?
Differentiate between press material and ALL material if you can.




Once again foos tries to change the subject.

I asked a question. You, and others, have alleged that the mission was faked by prerecording the entire mission. How would that have worked? Transcripts have nothing to do with it.

Now please, answer the question.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
well.. i still have to see what everyone thinks about this little vid..


'Snow blindness (Niphablepsia) is a painful condition, typically a keratitis, caused by exposure of unprotected eyes to the ultraviolet (UV) rays in bright sunlight reflected from snow or ice. This is especially a problem in polar regions and at high altitudes, as with every thousand feet (approximately 305 meters) increase in elevation, the intensity of UV rays goes up five percent.
- wikipedia




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
well.. i still have to see what everyone thinks about this little vid..




Please use your own words and tell us what the problem is that is brought up in the video. This thread is nothing more than a scam to get more views for some peoples youtube videos. If you don't understand a topic enough to put it into your own words, you won't understand the explanation.

Now please show us that you know what you are talking about...



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
*yawn*
Yes, "crazy horse" Schmitt opened his visor for a brief period of time, just for #s and giggles.
It wasn't a dare to look into the sun for as long as possible.
Yes, prolonged exposure could have caused some problems.
Thats why he closed it again.
And Houston told him to pretty please do so.

Your point?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
How funny! When kids are growing up they start off with picture books before moving onto the 'grown up' books with words. Looks like the modern generation hasn't been able to move past this phase and only can get as far as video. They don't even have their own opinion or level of understanding, they have to 'talk' by playing other people's videos! Maybe I could make a fortune inventing a little gadget you wear on your wrist and to 'talk' to people - you just select YouTube video's on it to play. Never use your mouth, read or write again! Communication via YouTube!

I had a quick glance at this vid, but I don't have nearly 10 minutes to waste on what can probably be said in a few words.. So let me guess, is it about the astronauts having their gold visors up? Oh dear
You've done it again

And this embarrassing moment could have been avoided by doing a bit of research or even just reading this thread! The clear element of the helmet's visor which is made from Lexan is opaque to UV and blocks it just fine thanks
The glare shield did offer additional UV protection but it was mainly just that - a glare shield.
And the video uses 'Deep Impact', a movie as an example of what should happen?
nice



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Well, it's no YouTube video, but if you can read, you might find this interesting:

www.medscape.com...

Edit to add non-subscription link:

www.spaceref.com...

[edit on 31-5-2010 by DJW001]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
well.. i still have to see what everyone thinks about this little vid..

'Snow blindness (Niphablepsia) is a painful condition, typically a keratitis, caused by exposure of unprotected eyes to the ultraviolet (UV) rays in bright sunlight reflected from snow or ice.....
- wikipedia


So, komodo, is that your contribution to the radiation question - another youtube video? No assumptions, no attempt to identify the factors and make sensible, measured comparisons (I've bolded an important point above..). You'll be pleased to know that I will cover this later on as I dissect the radiation issues - and it's actually quite interesting. Some astronauts have suffered from visual effects related to this topic.

So, you might be onto something... or not..
- are you up for it? Why not join in right at the start? Do you agree with my summary of the radiation claim?


And why not prove your understanding up front - in regard to the keratitis issue, what factors do you think are important? After all, I've already given you a big clue...

ADDED:
Komodo, I note that you have posted this before, and largely ignored the correct information given to you. That makes this look very much like spamming...

[edit on 31-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
That, FoosM, is because only an *idiot* would push their luck by trying such a stupid feat on the Moon, where if they landed awkwardly (with their FULL MASS + INERTIA, if not weight), there's a good chance of a ripped suit, damaged PLSS/whatever... And how the hell are they going to flex their knees enough to jump far anyway, in those bulky suits?


Are you calling them idiots ?

(I think this maybe why CHRLZ doesn't want anyone to post youtube videos)





Also, CHRLZ when will you be getting around to the following that you posted in this thread ????

>>>>>

I'll be giving examples later that show quite the reverse

I will be back later to discuss Exuberant's Frank Byrne 'quote'..

I'll look at that video when I get a chance, but it may not be for a day or two. I gotta work...

Be back later with a long, boring (but accurate) review...

So I'll hold back on my review for a while, but I'm afraid it's not going to be very positive

But I'll wait a while before addressing them in detail

But just remember, I WILL be posting a summary of all your claims and refusals to debate later. Looking forward to that.

I'll be doing a summary of your contributions to this thread later. Are you looking forward to that? I certainly am.

I'll get back to that later when I summarise his work on this thread.

Anyway, before I go through that one in GREAT detail with links, independent references and proof at every step.

I will, however, return a little later to summarise the lies, misinfirmation and unanswered questions

I urge you to see my next post, folks...

I will be making that point VERY LOUDLY when I come back later...

Now, about masterp... be back shortly...

I may go look for it tomorrow

I'll be posting a series of statements, broken up over a number of posts

I will cover this later on as I dissect the radiation issues



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


Are you calling them idiots ?




The video makes clear that he has a point. They called landing on your nose "not such a good idea" so the video exactly proves that they were very careful about how they moved. They pushed a bit more in the video you posted and they immediatly realized that it wasn't that good of an idea.

Suppose you were up there... Wouldn't you be mindful of the fact that the structural integrity of the suit is the only thing standing between you and certain death?

Seems to me the vid. you posted proves his point.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Are you calling them idiots ?

No. The only idiot would be the one saying that at the time of the falls, they were attempting to jump 6 feet. Is that what you are saying? Did you miss the original post? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, as amply (superbly) demonstrated below...


Also, CHRLZ when will you be getting around to the following that you posted in this thread ????

I'll take a look at those, but may I warn you of something? If I find that you have misquoted me, and that the topics WERE covered, then you are goign to have a lot of 'splainin to do, Lucy. Do you wish to revise your list? Because I WILL go through it in detail. Let's just start with the very first one, shall we? I know you figured I wouldn't check, but.. TOO BAD FOR YOU.

Here's the very first one you quote:
"I'll be giving examples later that show quite the reverse".

That comment was in my reply to WWu777's opening post. Here's the actual exchange:

(WWu777)
Everything he [Jarrah White] says is sourced and documented.


(CHRLZ)
I'll be giving examples later that show quite the reverse, but you tell us which are the best, in your scholarly opinion.

Here's that post so anyone can verify it (even YOU, ppk55 - perhaps you should have done that FIRST...):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, a few pages later, I posted this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Edited - for some reason the normal ats link didn't work..)

where I go through his video point by point - umm that would be - "giving the examples later". EXACTLY AS I SAID I WOULD. During that post, I refer to at least three sections of the video that involve unsourced, undocumented claims.



So, ppk55, you appear to be BUSTED. ON THE VERY FIRST ITEM?????!!!! That's just PRICELESS!

It's even MORE ironic that I also challenged him in the bit you edited out, just like I've challenged you, to put up the best proof. He, just like you, ran from that.

Yes, NICE PICK for your first example - like I said, care to revise your list before I do the rest? Ironically, I'm not doing all of them now, because it's late here - that's why I often say I'll be coming back later - it's a timezone thing, you see.... I have to sleep and work..

And yes, I might forget the odd one, but all you have to do is remind me.


But, ppk55, if you LIE about it, like you just did on the very first one, then don't expect much sympathy for further 'proclamations'.

I'd suggest you add a little honesty into future posts. And at least try to make the first item on a list of 'examples', a valid example... But it's your choice of course.


[edit on 31-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you ever heard the explanation for the blue glowing astronauts?

This effect, caused by lens flare and a dusty lens/reseau plate, has been discussed many times elsewhere.

So you agree with the explanations given?
Have you looked into it personally?
Whatever NASA says you buy it?


Originally posted by CHRLZ
AS12-46-6820...The blue 'fog' is do to a dust smudge which first shows up on 6813...

AS12-46-6821...Note the blue-tinged area at center due to the dust smudge.

AS12-46-6826...The blue glow around Al is due to a dust smudge on the center of the lens, which first appears in 6813

All that has been sitting there for years. Anyone with a bit of camera experience will know what it is likely to be. Huff on your lens when you're outside on a cold but sunny day, and then angle yourself to get a lens flare.. Dark background will help. Because that is an unusual set of circumstances, it's not much wonder you don't often see it.


So who huffed on the hasselblad?


Anyway, did you even read what was linked?
This was his response to the "dust smudge"



Firstly, any dust smudge sufficient to diffract reflected Sunlight from the space-suits into its rainbow colors would not yield only a blue glow. It would produce some blue glow and red glow. A "rainbow" effect would be anticipated from a dust-smudge, much as what is seen above in the photo where solar glare and prismatic flaring created a distinct rainbow effect off the camera lens. There is no reason to anticipate postulated prismatic effects from a dust-smudge would produce only bluish tones.

Secondly, a dust smudge on the lens should obscure, distort and blur the images. There is some evidence of blurring on a few of the photos later in the camera sequence, as I show below. But in those cases, there is no evidence of bluish glows. And where there is blue glowing on photos claimed to be the consequence of dust-smudges, there is no evidence of blurring. The most pronounced blue-glows in these photographs show no signs of blurriness at all. If the theory of dust-smudges was correct, we should anticipate to see direct evidence of a dust smudge, as with obvious blurring of the image, at the same time the blue glows were appearing. Predominantly this is not the case.

Thirdly, while one of the Apollo 12 blue-astronaut photos has a rounded quality, the other one shows a quite different and distinct outward-flaring effect. The "flaring-blue" photo looks more like a kind of "Kirlian" electrophoto, as one gets on the Earth surface when a high-frequency field is used to excite the living bio-system, whereupon it glows sufficiently to create plasmatic flares radiating outward, which can then be recorded on a film plate. I will have more to say about this idea below. For now, however, I will merely point out the obvious flare-like shape of the brighter and more pronounced of the two blue-glowing astronaut images, which is different from the other more roundish image. If both photos were caused by what is supposed to be the same dust smudge on the same camera lens, then it would have to be a completely different shape of "smudge" to create the two different "blue-glowing smudge patterns".

Fourthly, there are other images on that same Apollo 12 film reel of dead and inert equipment on the Lunar surface which are also of a brilliant white coloration, not to mention the bright light-gray color of the Lunar surface itself. Only one of those shows a clear bluish glow, though it is significantly less than what one sees with the astronauts.


Sorry, but this has not been debunked.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Please explain how this effect was produced in the controlled environment of a studio, and why the NASA censors would allow it to be released. If you cannot, then you have no point.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Sorry, but this has not been debunked.




Yes it has, more than adequately. Just because you don't understand photography and cameras doesn't mean the rest of us are likewise clueless. And you making an asinine comment that is hasn't been debunked and then saying nothing in support, doesn't help your case a bit.

Now, we are still awaiting you to answer a question that was asked of you and others a few days ago, and you continue to run away from.

You, and others, have alleged that the mission was faked by prerecording the entire mission. How would that have worked? Explain exactly how these recordings would have worked. What happened to the astronauts. What spacecraft actually went into space. Etc.

Now please, answer the question.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join