It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 88
377
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:33 PM
Well since several people here seem concerned about gravity. I figured id post a gravity experiment done on the moon. first the background , Maybe the most famous scientific experiment is Galileo Galilei's dropping objects from the leaning tower of Pisa in order to prove that all objects fall at the same rate, whatever their mass. Now Galileo couldnt actually conduct this experiment because of air effecting results but instead had to devise an incline plane and measure rolling objects.

Now the moon gave us the opportunity for the first time to test his theory without an atmosphere!!!

Apollo 15 astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather on the moon to demonstrate gravity.

Now heres my challenge how could they possibly have faked this in a studio id have to say this proves there on the moon period.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

whats the difference when referring to rem or sievert ?

Protection.

oops: edit to add "quality factor".

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Tomblvd]

no

The sievert (Sv) is the SI unit of equivalent dose. Although it has the same units as grays, J/kg, it measures something different. It is the dose of a given type of radiation in Gy that has the same biological effect on a human as 1 Gy of x-rays or gamma radiation.1 sievert= 100 rem...

The equivalent dose (HT) is a measure of the radiation dose to tissue where an attempt has been made to allow for the different relative biological effects of different types of ionizing radiation. Equivalent dose is therefore a less fundamental quantity than radiation absorbed dose, but is more biologically significant. Equivalent dose has units of sieverts. Another unit, Röntgen equivalent man (REM or rem),

In other words its not about the type its the damage to the body.
what you are probably thinking of is absorbed dose:

the absorbed dose is not a good indicator of the likely biological effect. 1 Gy of alpha radiation would be much more biologically damaging than 1 Gy of photon radiation for example. Appropriate weighting factors can be applied reflecting the different relative biological effects to find the equivalent dose.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by dragonridr
Now the moon gave us the opportunity for the first time to test his theory without an atmosphere!!!

Apollo 15 astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather on the moon to demonstrate gravity.

Now heres my challenge how could they possibly have faked this in a studio id have to say this proves there on the moon period.

why did the feather bounce?

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by dragonridr
Now the moon gave us the opportunity for the first time to test his theory without an atmosphere!!!

Apollo 15 astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather on the moon to demonstrate gravity.

Now heres my challenge how could they possibly have faked this in a studio id have to say this proves there on the moon period.

why did the feather bounce?

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
As ppk55 is now back on the motion of astronauts in 1/6 gravity topic, I think it is probably appropriate (and slightly ironic) to draw the forum's attention to this post of his:

Originally posted by ppk55
It's called slow motion... many of the videos appear to have been slowed.
You can even see in some places where they switch to it .. I'll try and find a few.
Here's that post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Strangely, I can find NONE of these promised videos. He says that you can see the effect is 'some places', and that he will find a few examples. Yet, he hasn't managed even one.

Is that perhaps because I mentioned the magic number, namely 2.46?

Genuine Apollo researchers will understand what that number means, and how it is derived, and knowing that, I suspect ppk55 is not wanting any serious analysis of any of his purported 'slow-motion' videos.

So, ppk55, which is it? Slow motion, or wires. Commitment, please.

Either way, it's time you put up or shut up. If it's slow motion, where are your videos to prove it? Original footage please.

its both

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dragonridr
Now the moon gave us the opportunity for the first time to test his theory without an atmosphere!!!

Apollo 15 astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather on the moon to demonstrate gravity.

Now heres my challenge how could they possibly have faked this in a studio id have to say this proves there on the moon period.

why did the feather bounce?

Do you really not know the answer to that or are you just being facetious? If you seriously dont know ill go into an explanation of Newtons laws. Or you can sit and think and with a little research you will figure out why an object hitting the moon might have that reaction. If you get stuck let me know.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

whats the difference when referring to rem or sievert ?

Protection.

oops: edit to add "quality factor".

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Tomblvd]

no

The sievert (Sv) is the SI unit of equivalent dose. Although it has the same units as grays, J/kg, it measures something different. It is the dose of a given type of radiation in Gy that has the same biological effect on a human as 1 Gy of x-rays or gamma radiation.1 sievert= 100 rem...

The equivalent dose (HT) is a measure of the radiation dose to tissue where an attempt has been made to allow for the different relative biological effects of different types of ionizing radiation. Equivalent dose is therefore a less fundamental quantity than radiation absorbed dose, but is more biologically significant. Equivalent dose has units of sieverts. Another unit, Röntgen equivalent man (REM or rem),

In other words its not about the type its the damage to the body.
what you are probably thinking of is absorbed dose:

the absorbed dose is not a good indicator of the likely biological effect. 1 Gy of alpha radiation would be much more biologically damaging than 1 Gy of photon radiation for example. Appropriate weighting factors can be applied reflecting the different relative biological effects to find the equivalent dose.

None of your cut-and-paste has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Which is radiation levels the astronauts were exposed to on the Apollo missions.

But to answer the post, it is inaccurate to compare radiation exposure from different sources:

Quality factor

The factor by which the absorbed dose (rad or gray) must be multiplied to obtain a quantity that expresses, on a common scale for all ionizing radiation, the biological damage (rem or sievert) to the exposed tissue. It is used because some types of radiation, such as alpha particles, are more biologically damaging to live tissue than other types of radiation when the absorbed dose from both is equal. The term, quality factor, has now been replaced by "radiation weighting factor" in the latest system of recommendations for radiation protection.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:16 PM
If there are any questions on gravity in vacuums, I suggest we go find Max2m. He's the expert:

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same

Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:

edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

that's it ? that's your explanation ?
no dust cloud? .....
in fact , there should be a dust cloud, the dust should not fall back, it should stay in the atmosphere !!
we're talking dust particles 6 times lighter than on earth , in fact the rover at that speed and with those wheels behaves exactly as it would on earth
also the dust that leaves behind is very well camouflaged by the background that has the same color, a vehicle that drives in the desert at the same speed would generate exactly the same amount
ok, i've heard the explanation that the dust is vulcanic and it's very heavy , but i find that explanation hilarious , in fact there are scenes where the astro-nuts actually jump higher than the dust cloud !!!!
okkkk , the dust is heavier than the suit and the astro-nut
and i'm not going to get into the way they jump , because that's just way beyond hilarious ,
c'mon people reality check !!!! i need serious scientifical explanation on sand analysis, why is the sand so heavy !!!
this thread reminds me of billy meier pictures that were so obvious made up and people would just not want to admit that !!
when you start to belive in something some people find it very hard to let go !

It has nothing to do with weight, unless you've discovered a new theory of gravity. In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

what ?? ??
you 're joking right ?
do you actually know what gravity means ???
or did you skip the physics class when you were in school ?
so let me get this straight , if i'm on the moon , and if i drop 10 tons and a gram of salt at the same time , they should fall at the same rate and hit the moon at the same time ?
"In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant."
that must be the dumbest thing i've heard this month

So we know you never took basic physics.

Yes, all things fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Remember Galileo?
Free Falling Objects

The acceleration of the object equals the gravitational acceleration. The mass, size, and shape of the object are not a factor in describing the motion of the object. So all objects, regardless of size or shape or weight, free fall with the same acceleration. In a vacuum, a beach ball falls at the same rate as an airliner. Knowing the acceleration, we can determine the velocity and location of any free falling object at any time.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:44 PM
OMG you are right: That is leet for unforgiven.

Anyway, In all fairness, the guy with the U is a lot more to blame for running around yelling "Radiation, radiation radiation" than Foos.
(Which is why I wanted him to tell me if water is deadly, without any additional information)

See, the problem with predicting what radiation does with a single person, lies in the way it hurts you: A atomic or subatomic particle rushes through you. It might hit something vital, it might not.
So to even have a rough estimate we need to know several factors:

What rushes through you
How fast
How many
Over what period of time

And even if we know these 4 things, you might just get lucky/unlucky and be in one or the other 50% of LD30/50.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:36 AM

Anyway, In all fairness, the guy with the U is a lot more to blame for running around yelling "Radiation, radiation radiation" than Foos

NO he's not.. the one you want to 'blame' as you put it .. is Jarrah White who has done his homework throughly IMO, and it's HIM you need to be 'blaming' for bringing all this evidence to light..

That is if you happened to even watch the video.. *sigh*

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:50 AM
Wow! It's like being in Groundhog day. I think everything here was covered (and in more detail) back in this old thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is Jar-rah Binx the new Sibrel?

Annoying [check]
Ignorant [check]
Wrong [check]

Everything that has been said will be said again.....

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:45 AM
On to the next stage of the radiation analysis... So far we have:

1. Some Apollo deniers claim that the radiation encountered during the missions would have either seriously affected or killed the astronauts.
2. What types and amounts of radiation would the astronauts have encountered, at what times during the mission/s?
and
3. What types and amounts of radiation of the types defined above, would cause serious harm or death to a human?

So, let's move on to summarise the information needed..

4. The information required includes:

- a breakdown of the mission/s, to identify locations/trajectories and durations.

- identification of all the types and intensities of radiation that may have affected the astronauts at the various stages of the mission

- identification of all relevant contributing or ameliorating factors, (space-craft/suit shielding/construction, solar flare information, etc)

5. That information must be collated and analysed to provide a full picture over the duration of the missions, identifying the *actual* exposure of the astronauts to the various types of radiation in terms of type, amount/intensity and duration.

6. Finally, the effects of the calculated/measured radiation need to be quantified, ie nature of effect, serious/permanent/recoverable damage, genetic, etc. to provide a final picture of the radiation issue.

So, any comments? So far, the input by the experts on this thread, like unforgiven, FoosM, dragnet53, Komodo, etc has been *extremely* useful...
I do hope they keep it up.

By the way, this post and the next few, are where I would greatly appreciate input. I'm doing this off the cuff, so I'm bound to forget some important stuff - so please feel free to add/subtract or correct me..

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

whats the difference when referring to rem or sievert ?

Protection.

oops: edit to add "quality factor".

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Tomblvd]

no

The sievert (Sv) is the SI unit of equivalent dose. Although it has the same units as grays, J/kg, it measures something different. It is the dose of a given type of radiation in Gy that has the same biological effect on a human as 1 Gy of x-rays or gamma radiation.1 sievert= 100 rem...

The equivalent dose (HT) is a measure of the radiation dose to tissue where an attempt has been made to allow for the different relative biological effects of different types of ionizing radiation. Equivalent dose is therefore a less fundamental quantity than radiation absorbed dose, but is more biologically significant. Equivalent dose has units of sieverts. Another unit, Röntgen equivalent man (REM or rem),

In other words its not about the type its the damage to the body.
what you are probably thinking of is absorbed dose:

the absorbed dose is not a good indicator of the likely biological effect. 1 Gy of alpha radiation would be much more biologically damaging than 1 Gy of photon radiation for example. Appropriate weighting factors can be applied reflecting the different relative biological effects to find the equivalent dose.

None of your cut-and-paste has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Which is radiation levels the astronauts were exposed to on the Apollo missions.

But to answer the post, it is inaccurate to compare radiation exposure from different sources:

Quality factor

The factor by which the absorbed dose (rad or gray) must be multiplied to obtain a quantity that expresses, on a common scale for all ionizing radiation, the biological damage (rem or sievert) to the exposed tissue. It is used because some types of radiation, such as alpha particles, are more biologically damaging to live tissue than other types of radiation when the absorbed dose from both is equal. The term, quality factor, has now been replaced by "radiation weighting factor" in the latest system of recommendations for radiation protection.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dragonridr
Now the moon gave us the opportunity for the first time to test his theory without an atmosphere!!!

Apollo 15 astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather on the moon to demonstrate gravity.

Now heres my challenge how could they possibly have faked this in a studio id have to say this proves there on the moon period.

why did the feather bounce?

Do you really not know the answer to that or are you just being facetious? If you seriously dont know ill go into an explanation of Newtons laws. Or you can sit and think and with a little research you will figure out why an object hitting the moon might have that reaction. If you get stuck let me know.

So tell me, assuming they were on the moon, why did the feather bounce and the hammer did not? And why did the feather bend when he moved it with his hand. I thought there was no atmosphere on the moon?

Assuming they were not on the moon, do you know for a fact that was a real hammer and a real feather?

Assuming they were not on the moon, could the same experiment be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth?

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by FoosM
So tell me, assuming they were on the moon, why did the feather bounce and the hammer did not? And why did the feather bend when he moved it with his hand. I thought there was no atmosphere on the moon?

Assuming they were not on the moon, do you know for a fact that was a real hammer and a real feather?

Assuming they were not on the moon, could the same experiment be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth?

FoosM, why are you cluttering this thread with such ridiculous questions? Are you incapable - or afraid - of making a point?

Frankly, if you don't know the answers to these silly questions, you shouldn't be here.

(But we knew that, I guess.)

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:13 AM
By the way, I might just toss this in now, because I'm incredibly kind and want any truly well-informed hoax-believers ('HBers') to have plenty of time to research any argument they might wish to make that the information I present is false or inaccurate.

There are a couple of things where the best source of information will be NASA. Two examples spring to mind:

- the actual trajectories of the Apollo missions

- the materials used in the construction of the CM, LM and spacesuits.

Now I realise that will mean that such information might be challenged as it will be seen as coming from a biased source. I accept that, and will back the information up wherever possible from other sources.

For now I'm just trying to save time, and give advance time to HBers to gather contradictory sources - as there's not much point disputing something if they can't provide some contradictory information. So, get to it, HBers. Don't wait till the last minute and get caught out...

I'll even give you a link right now for some basic Apollo trajectory (TLI to be precise) information:

history.nasa.gov...

So, get to it, guys. If you don't like those figures, please give me an alternative source.

NOTE: If necessary, I will give you the trajectory CALCULATIONS, using standard, well-known, verifiable orbital mechanics equations. Trust me, you probably don't want that as it runs to a few pages... But I will if necessary. It's lengthy, but not that difficult to follow if you have a bit of maths background.

It's not rocket science... Oh, wait, yes it is.

The materials information may be a little more problematic. However, I can point right back to original design documentation showing why they chose particular materials (hint - like qfelt, Al, PE ...), so I would imagine that might be sufficient evidence that they actually used the materials they chose.. Other than that we might have to ask an Apollo museum for permission to hacksaw a few pieces off their exhibits and take them to a materials lab..

Anyway, now's your chance guys - tell us how you won't accept the information - but if you provide nothing to contradict it, then don't expect my sympathy.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:14 AM

It could also be a light hammer and a feather with a lead rod in the shaft.

Obviously the filmers would get the fall times just right before the take.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1

It could also be a light hammer and a feather with a lead rod in the shaft.

Obviously the filmers would get the fall times just right before the take.

It could also be filmed on the moon...

But to the Exuberants of this world, such things are beyond mankind.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:52 AM
JW did his homework?
Right, one of his videos was a school assignment, so i guess in that case he did do his homework.
But other than that?
Please help me, Komodo, and give me one place were the aussie genius gives us type, duration and intensity of a particular hazard (AND, not OR)
This is vital!

Now, Am I dead, or was it at the dentists?

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Exuberant1

It could also be a light hammer and a feather with a lead rod in the shaft.

Obviously the filmers would get the fall times just right before the take.

It could also be filmed on the moon...

But to the Exuberants of this world, such things are beyond mankind.

No, CHRLZ
You are supposed to say
"But that would be rather easy to reproduce, wouldnt it?"
And then Exuberant would show you a video with a "reproduction"
And then you would point out that the guy in the video is holding the feather upright, and then Exuberant would ignore that and declare victory.

new topics

top topics

377